I heard this clip on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday. I saw the clip on ABC News last night, but they didn't show Obama's answer to the plumber who asked the question--rather, they cut the clip off and the anchor said something like, "His answer didn't satisfy that questioner."
It didn't? Really? I wonder why. The man owns (or is about to own) a plumbing business and asked the senator about his plans to raise taxes, which would certainly hurt this man and his business. Obama's response?
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too." He went on to talk about "spread(ing) the wealth around".
Don't take my word for it. Go watch for yourself.
24 comments:
Are we really going to continue throwing the "socialist" lable around? Clearly, we all need a refresher course in exactly what socialism is - government controlling the means of production and/or producers controlling government - as compared to liberalism, progressive government, and keynesian economics. There are plenty of socialist governments, and to be honest, there are plenty of socialists in the world (and America). But using the term "socialist" as an epithet, especially at election time, truly diminishes the discussion that is necessary for an "educated electorate" to make rational decisions.
Have you ever noticed that when leftists start going on about spreading the wealth around or "fair" taxes, they never mention working?
Why is that, I wonder ...
OK, mazenko. He wants to "redistribute wealth". What would we call that?
Communism is where the state *owns* the means of production, and everyone works for the government. In socialism, individuals and corporations own the means of production, but the government has a heavy hand in *controlling* how companies are administered. Now we can argue over where the line is drawn between reasonable regulation and socialism, but let's be clear:
Sounds to *me* like Obama is a socialist.
Remind me which administration just redistributed $700 billion?
Republicans can claim no moral high ground for labeling others as socialist.
Today Comrade Bush just spent 250 billion to *socialize* the 9 largest banks.
Is this an education web site? Judging by your *labels* Lefties runs a close second to education. Socialism is up there too. Republicans, pretty low count. Don't have much to say about them.
Mazenko,
While I sincerely appreciate your effort to make distinctions between Keynesian Economics and Socialism, I am convinced the line is thin. After all, was not Keynes the British government's darling after WWII?
From Obama's website:
1. "Obama and Biden will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies."
2. "The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the MEP so its training centers can continue to bolster the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers."
3. "Obama and Biden will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure . . ."
Common thread? Government funding!
In fact, if you look at Obama's Economics page, almost every bullet point involves some government funded program. His implementation might be more Keynesian than Socialist, but his rhetoric is that of a socialist. Perhaps he's the one who's confused.
Darren,
His soundbite phrase "spread the wealth around" is not much different than a supply-sider talking about how tax cuts for the wealthy/producers will "lift all boats." What you are calling "socialism" is, quite simply, not, and you can infer this from a reasonable analysis of his economic plan. A progressive income tax is not socialism.
Now, we can debate supply-side versus demand-side economics, but it is clearly inaccurate and not remotely helpful to say Obama is a "socialist," He's a liberal, Darren. There is no doubt about that. But he is no more a socialist than Henry Paulson, and we know he's not.
What is it that leftists don't understand about "spreading the wealth?" It means literally taking money from one person and giving it to another. That's socialism. What's not to get?
Anonymous @ 3:29: this blog is about whatever *I* want to write about. If you don't find the topics to your liking, I encourage you to start your own blog.
And Obama is a socialist. No way around it.
“His soundbite phrase "spread the wealth around" is not much different than a supply-sider talking about how tax cuts for the wealthy/producers will "lift all boats." What you are calling "socialism" is, quite simply, not, and you can infer this from a reasonable analysis of his economic plan. A progressive income tax is not socialism.”
mazenko, I am reminded of the great quote from Dan Aykroyd…”Jane, you ignorant slut!”
“Spread the wealth around” is a catchphrase for taking other people’s money and redistributing to others who have not earned it. When Supply Siders talk about “a rising tide lifts all boats” they mean make the economy grow by relatively low taxes, less regulations from bureaucrats who are not competent to run a night shift at McDonald’s and something socialist, communist and Obamaites find abhorrent. Freedom. The increased economic growth will help all people to obtain employment, increase income, etc.
Hate to slap you in the face with reality but someone has to. You a college professor or some other type of intellectual neanderthal?
My your brush paints wide swaths.
If socialists redistribute wealth.
Do Anti-socialists concentrate wealth.
Are you then for concentrating wealth?
Darren, Anonymous, Mikeat
While we can argue about "soundbites" and "catchphrases," I still assert that people are using the term "socialist" where the term "liberal" is appropriate, and the only reason to do so is as an epithet designed to scare voters. I'm not opposed to the criticism - especially because I'm not supporting Obama - but I'd like the discussion to be realistic.
In terms of government investment, there is a long history of that from both liberals and conservatives. Though I would qualify none of it as socialist. The interstate highway system is a perfect example. That is a way the government uses tax funds to help business - and increased commerce through better transportation has, no doubt, helped the private sector.
The same can be true for investment in other industries - though there are plenty of failures as well, Amtrack being one of them. John McCain wants the economy to produce 45 nuclear power plants. At a cost of $10 billion apiece that's going to cost a half trillion dollars, and the private sector will not pony up for that. It never has invested in industry on that scale. Thus, there will be government support for that industry. I would, however, hardly call McCain or Gingrich, for that matter, a socialist.
Maybe Obama *isn't* a socialist. With his "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" philosophy, we can probably safely call him a Marxist.
*sigh.*
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but from where I sit (often putting in 14 hour days), "redistributing wealth" looks like "Let's punish the 'chumps' who decide to work hard."
Perhaps this isn't a good analogy, but this would be not unlike me telling my stats class: "Well, some of you worked hard and got 90% on the test. But some of you only got 50%. But I'm going to make it so the points are redistributed; everyone gets a 70%. Everyone should be happy now!"
How long do you think I'd have people working for those 90%? How do you think my evaluations would look at the end of the term?
I've heard rumors of people threatening to "do a John Galt" if Obama gets elected - quit their high paying jobs, take some kind of low-pay, low-stress job, and just coast. Because what's the point of putting in tremendous effort, earning money, and finding a big chunk of that is confiscated?
“While we can argue about "soundbites" and "catchphrases," I still assert that people are using the term "socialist" where the term "liberal" is appropriate, and the only reason to do so is as an epithet designed to scare voters. I'm not opposed to the criticism - especially because I'm not supporting Obama - but I'd like the discussion to be realistic.”
Pardon me, but when B Hussein Obama tells a plumber (hardly Gordon Gecko, Mr. “Greed is Good”) that he wants to take this man’s money (I must say that again…this man money….not B Hussein Obama’s money…not your money mazenko…not my money…not Darren’s money…not Anonymous’ money…this plumber’s money) he has a problem. A man who’s never had a real job (sorry…”community organizer” and running for office don’t qualify) doesn’t understand the economy cannot be “managed” to a great degree. I ask you a question. Did you have milk in the last day? If so, tell me, how many people were involved with getting you that milk? Let’s see…there is the farmer raising the moo cows…there are the guys the farmer employees to milk the cows….there are the people who pasteurize the milk…there are the people who load the milk on the big trucks…there are the guys who drive the big trucks…the guys who sell the diesel that moves that truck…the guys who runs the company that owns the trucks…
Do you have a clue mazenko…there is no way any man or group can organize that. It must run by individuals and groups of individuals working in their own self interest (i.e. make money) to satisfy the needs of the American people for goods and services. B Hussein Obama thinks he can “invest” (aka blows trillions of dollars on bureaucracies that will never work) and reinvent the economy with people like him “guiding” and controlling it. He of course can’t…but the fact he and his ilk believe it show they are socialist at heart. The simply lie about it.
May I quote B Hussein Obama in the New York rag, err Times (hardly the National Review) in a Democratic candidates debate Philadelphia, April 15th 2008 hosted by Charles Gibson.
“MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, ‘I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.’ It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it's going to change when I'm president of the United States. “
Fairness mazenko? How it is fair when he says wants to raise the tax level, decrease revenue then blow trillions on nationalize health care and federalized schools. You may have heard a great saying from the English Literature….”He who pays the piper calls the tune.” He wants to control health care which will lead to rationing and use federal money to control schools and indoctrinate our kids. That sounds like radical left, not “liberal”. I suggest a book for you…Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. He’s the 60’s radical who got off on bombing charges on technicalities…he’s the guy B Hussein Obama “knew in the neighborhood”…then he “was on a board with him…”…then we find out B Hussein Obama’s had his political coming out party at the house of …who was it…oh yea, Saul Alinsky…
And you wonder why we think B Hussein Obama is a socialist?
“In terms of government investment, there is a long history of that from both liberals and conservatives. Though I would qualify none of it as socialist. The interstate highway system is a perfect example. That is a way the government uses tax funds to help business - and increased commerce through better transportation has, no doubt, helped the private sector.”
No, it’s not socialist, but it’s typical Washington. The plan for the interstate highway would be funded by a tax on fuel…the people who use it most pay the most. Now once an interstate is built in a state, the state is responsible for its maintenance. The plan Ike put forward was we would build the system and then end the fuel tax….
Gee I don’t think the federal fuel tax will be ending soon although the Interstate Highway system is built. Tell me, you got any kind of problem driving from Colorado to Maine?
“The same can be true for investment in other industries - though there are plenty of failures as well, Amtrack being one of them. John McCain wants the economy to produce 45 nuclear power plants. At a cost of $10 billion apiece that's going to cost a half trillion dollars, and the private sector will not pony up for that. It never has invested in industry on that scale. Thus, there will be government support for that industry. I would, however, hardly call McCain or Gingrich, for that matter, a socialist.”
The private sector will gladly pay that…if they could make the money back. Any attempt to start a nuke plant is immediately met with hundreds of law suits which cost millions of dollars and years to litigate. Beautify example is Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant in East Shoreham, New York. It was conceived, approved, funded by the Long Island Lighting Company and built between 1973 and 1984. It never got a full license because Mario Cuomo‘s administration was opposed to nuclear power and had it closed down in 1989. Almost 30 years and six billion dollars wasted by politicians, judges, anti-nuke groups and yes, liberals/socialist in the Democratic party.
I doubt McCain or Gingrich are big on direct financial support for new reactors but we can do some things:
1. Pull the standings Earth First, et all have to sue on behalf of the American people. The Democratic congress of the early 70s gave them the standing and we need to pull it. They don’t represent anyone by the radical left in this country.
2. Tying into number 1, loser pays in lawsuits. How long will Earth First go on when it’s out millions for the worthless law suits it brings.
3. Shoot Dingy Harry Reed…he needs to be shot. Mazenko you may not know this but France gets over 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. Now one problem we have and they don’t have is nuclear waste disposal. France has all if it’s trash in one concentrated site and are currently looking for another…we’ve been trying to get that in Nevada for years…in the middle of nowhere, in a place it can be guarded and not threaten anyone. The radical left (i.e. Harry Reed, et all) have fought it took and nail…they don’t want nuclear power.
Is B Hussein Obama a socialist?
Let’s look at the definition from www.dictonary.com
“A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”
Another great quote from English literature. “It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
Mikeat,
Did you choose to minimalize Obama's first name down to an initial and then spell out his middle and last name in its entirety and then repeat it ad nauseum for any particular reason?
Mikeat,
You're obviously very passionate, or should I say very angry, about all these issues, and I feel bad for you that there is such rage in your discourse. You also reveal some angry cultural and racial biases by your emphasis on Obama's middle name, and I hope someday you can work through that.
There is a great deal of antipathy toward me, as well, resorting to name calling and insults. That's OK with me, as I signed up for it by reading and posting on this blog. However, I might recommend you take note of a discussion on health care from last week on this blog. Darren noted how impressive it was to have a reasoned intellectual debate between two people with opposing views. You're free, of course, to use whatever language you need to express yourself, though I'd recommend to you that the angry insults aren't necessary or helpful, nor very impressive.
I'm well aware of the complex intricacies of the American free market system that functions rather well, for I'm no socialist either. Clearly, no socialist government will take control of and attempt to manage the American economy the way the Soviets tried. We have far too many checks and balances for even a true socialist president to try. However, Obama is not even a true socialist. We can argue about what optimum tax rates are - clearly there is both a ceiling and a floor for effective government and free markets to proceed. With both McCain and Obama we're within the margin of error on that.
Shoot Harry Reid? Honestly, MIkeat. Let's have a rational discussion.
It's interesting that in the course of criticizing Obama and discussing nuclear energy, you would refer to France. France's second largest company, Electricité de France (EDF), is a state-owned utility involved in all phases of electricity: generation, transmission, and distribution. Thus, the socialists might be on to something here.
Additionally, while I could make it to Maine from Colorado on state highways, it's much easier and more efficient on the interstates. Few states have the economic power to fully fund their interstates. This is especially true in low-tax Colorado. Thus, we depend on federal highway funds to keep the highway in a condition conducive to interstate commerce.
Clearly, the federal government plays an effective role in funding and supporting those enterprises that the cities, states, and free market can't or won't do on their own.
This I think the real issue is the Obama's definition of what is "fair".
He thinks "the rules" are unfair and that they benefit a certain "team". Under this set of rules he thinks that some are always going to lose. But like any athletic contest there will be losers and winners. The question should not be will some lose and some gain, but rather are the rules fair. Obama has confused objective rules with winning and losing. In other words, just because some lose does not mean the rules are unfair.
To many, including people like myself (and might I dare say - the plumber) the rules do not seem unfair (and I am a married father of three whose family earns one income).
In short, Obama is going to change the rules and it won't make anyone a winner. I am suspect of Senator Obama's plans to change the rules until he can convince me that they are unfair and cause me to lose somehow.
Much of the wealth that Obama wants to "spread around" would wind up in the pockets of people much like Obama. An increase in the power of government means an increase in the financial value of politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists.
Even if he loses the election, Obama will be able to make more with a single 1-hour speech than the plumber will be able to make in a month.
I'm tired of hearing politicians praise themselves for "public service." Successful politicians do very well for themselves indeed financially--check out Al Gore's 100-foot houseboat--but, above and beyond money, they get very strong ego rewards from the accumulation of personal power.
As a college student who has only taken basic economics classes, please correct me if I'm wrong here...but one of the most important concepts I took away from my classes dealt with economic growth.
The problem with "spread(ing) the wealth around" is that it hinders growth. As much as we don't like it, we need financial inequality in order to have investment and more growth in our economy. During times like these, why would you want to hurt our economy, and ultimately all of the people, further?
Are these not basic concepts that everyone learns when taking economics or did I misunderstand the information?
Also, if we're so far in debt, where is the money coming from that will pay for all of Obama's programs?
Darren,
I think calling Obama a Marxist is an insult to all Marxists. I proudly say that I am a Marxist. I have been a Marxist ever since the day I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
What that elephant was doing in my pajamas I'll never know.
Anonymous, you understand just fine.
“You're obviously very passionate, or should I say very angry, about all these issues, and I feel bad for you that there is such rage in your discourse. You also reveal some angry cultural and racial biases by your emphasis on Obama's middle name, and I hope someday you can work through that.”
Passionate, yes. Freedom and liberty are things to get passionate about. In the words of Barry Goldwater, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
As far as his name, hell, it’s his name isn’t it? I’m showing him no less respect than the “objective” Dan “Forged Documents” Rather when he referred to our current president as “George Bush the younger”. Or more than a few times to “J Danforth Quayle” for the pervious Vice President. If B Hussein Obama is not scared about people using his name, why did he call himself by the nickname “Barry” for years? Did B Hussein Obama “reveal some angry cultural and racial biases” by hiding his name? And if I wanted to be insulting I could call him “Ears” or “Mickey Mouse” couldn’t I? He is kinda sensitive to that, as he told Maureen Dowd not to make fun of his ears.
Do I have things to work though, yes. Single malt scotch helps. :) But none of these issues was discussed on this blog.
“There is a great deal of antipathy toward me, as well, resorting to name calling and insults.”
I will ask for, like I do often, an example?
“That's OK with me, as I signed up for it by reading and posting on this blog.”
Then why mention it?
“However, I might recommend you take note of a discussion on health care from last week on this blog. Darren noted how impressive it was to have a reasoned
intellectual debate between two people with opposing views. “
If I got time I’ll go by….
“You're free, of course, to use whatever language you need to express yourself, though I'd recommend to you that the angry insults aren't necessary or helpful, nor very impressive.”
Gee, thanks for agreeing that I’m free to express myself. Again, an example of angry insults to you? Unlike your posting, I’ve given you more than a few examples of why anyone can look at B Hussein Obama and see a man intent on making this a socialist country in the mode of Europe 1960-70s.
“I'm well aware of the complex intricacies of the American free market system that functions rather well, for I'm no socialist either. Clearly, no socialist government will take control of and attempt to manage the American economy the way the Soviets tried. We have far too many checks and balances for even a true socialist president to try. However, Obama is not even a true socialist. We can argue about what optimum tax rates are - clearly there is both a ceiling and a floor for effective government and free markets to proceed. With both McCain and Obama we're within the margin of error on that.”
I’ll take you that you’re not a socialist, but you’re wrong if you believe B Hussein Obama is not arguably a socialist. BTY, the Soviets were Communists, where the government owned everything. England (Pre-Thatcher) has everything notionally owned by individuals but controlled by the government in a socialist system. At present we have checks and balances but others want to change that. Judicial activism anyone…finding “rights” in documents like the right to have a marriage. And as far as the margin of error on taxes, B Hussein Obama wants to raise taxes by allowing the Bush cuts to expire, he will increase the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes to increase, as my previous posting showed he wants to double the capital gains rate (which lowered the amount of funds received). McCain at least will not let the Bush tax cuts expire. He hasn’t ruled out increasing the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. But there is no question he will not target the productive members of society for punishment by higher taxes. Now McCain, as B Hussein Obama, wants to start a “Cap and Trade” system for carbon emissions. That scares the hell out of me. But all things considered, as my bumper sticker says, “McCain. He Sucks Less!”
“Shoot Harry Reid? Honestly, MIkeat. Let's have a rational discussion.”
Forgive…I must be in a discussion who cannot determine a satirical point. BTY, it's MikeAT, not MIkeat.
“It's interesting that in the course of criticizing Obama and discussing nuclear energy, you would refer to France. France's second largest company, Electricité de France (EDF), is a state-owned utility involved in all phases of electricity: generation, transmission, and distribution. Thus, the socialists might be on to something here.”
And they can plan a power plant without having 50 twenty member groups going to a court and getting some idiot judge to issue an injunctions and getting a multi-billion dollar project stopped for years. I’ll agree with you on that one…the Frogs do have a point!
“Additionally, while I could make it to Maine from Colorado on state highways, it's much easier and more efficient on the interstates.”
That’s one of the purposes of the interstates. An Army Major named Dwight Eisenhower had to get a convoy across the country in 1919 and it took him two weeks. Fast forward to 1945 and General Dwight Eisenhower saw the efficiently of the German Autobahns. Forward to 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower wants something similar and moves to build the Interstate Highway System. I’ll go over it again. There was supposed to be a fuel tax to establish a federal highway trust fund that would build the system. The states would maintain their portions of the systems. And when the system was completed, we would stop the tax. Tell me…has the tax been stopped? Nope. And is the highway trust fund being used only for the highway system? If you believe that I wanna know what you’re on…pass it down I need something for my back!. It’s just like the “Social Security Trust” fund..it’s been raided by congresses of both parties.
“Few states have the economic power to fully fund their interstates.”
They were not supposed to fully fund the interstates. Construction was a 90% federal/10% state plane. But they were supposed to maintain them after the system was built. And they own the highways once they are complete. Can anyone tell me the system is not complete? Maintain it, absolutely. Expand the system, somewhat. There was a major expansion of the Katy Freeway (I-10 West from Houston) over the last few years that has been a God send! But I don’t think Congress should take federal fuel tax money a redistribute it to buy their votes.
“This is especially true in low-tax Colorado. Thus, we depend on federal highway funds to keep the highway in a condition conducive to interstate commerce.”
We do it in low tax Texas. What’s up?
“Clearly, the federal government plays an effective role in funding and supporting those enterprises that the cities, states, and free market can't or won't do on their own.”
Mazenko, no one questions the federal government has a roll. I could quote their roll from a document you may have heard of…its call the Constitution of the United States of America. But in summary, it can be said simply protect the country from threats (foreign and domestic), keep stable currency, promote the general welfare (not provide the general welfare) and “secures the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity” Otherwise, I’ll invoke the words of Justice Potter Stewart in Bartjns v Illinois. “ The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” In simpler language, leave us alone.
Senator B Hussein Obama to say the least wants to use “unreasonable governmental intrusion” to interfere with the lives of the American people. And I will resist that, period.
PS: In the interest of an honest discussion, I must point out my previous post had a major error.
“That sounds like radical left, not “liberal”. I suggest a book for you…Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. He’s the 60’s radical who got off on bombing charges on technicalities…he’s the guy B Hussein Obama “knew in the neighborhood”…then he “was on a board with him…”…then we find out B Hussein Obama’s had his political coming out party at the house of …who was it…oh yea, Saul Alinsky”
Saul Alinsky did write that book but he assumed room temperature in 1971. He deeply influenced the man who I should have mentioned as the man who B Hussein Obama “knew in the neighborhood”, then “on a board with” and “had his political coming out party in the house of “William Ayers. He deeply influenced the man who I should have mentioned as the man who B Hussein Obama “knew in the neighborhood”, then “on a board with” and “had his political coming out party in the house of “William Ayres. He’s the radical who got off bombing charges on technicalities, is a long time ally and friend of B Hussein Obama and on 9/11/01 was shown in a picture standing on the American flag and saying in the article “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough” My mistake.
Dang, blink and a whole conversation flits by.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too." He went on to talk about "spread(ing) the wealth around"."
The obvious conclusion I draw from this fascinating admission is that punishing success isn't an important enough consideration to prevent Obama doing so if he were to find himself in a position to decide whether to punish this man's success or not. He might not want to punish success but he'll absolutely do it given the chance.
That sure sounds like he's a socialist.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too."
They already have a chance for success, Obama. It just requires hard work, determination and sacrifice.
Post a Comment