Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

Henrin said:

Not at all, but I see why you would think that. In reality, I'm against this very idea of calling a service that takes money to exist anything more than a service that must be earned. I'm just pointing out that it takes money from other people to provide people with things they can't afford on their own with that series of posts to you.

Click to expand...

Good stuff. Too bad most of us realize that there is a net gain from having a well educated populace at the rather small expense of taxation. :shrug:

haymarket said:

I expect people to complete THEIR OWN THOUGHTS in THEIR OWN POSTS with THEIR OWN WORDS.

But okay - I will fill in the blank for you to complete the thought:

the money that is taxed is earned by people fortunate enough to live in the USA and enjoy the fruits and benefits of the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

We make a great team Henrin.

Click to expand...

Fortunate enough? So basically your justification for using people for others benefits and calling it something people are entitled to is because these people that are being used live in what you call the greatest nation on earth? Ok then.

Hatuey said:

Good stuff. Too bad most of us realize that there is a net gain from having a well educated populace at the rather small expense of taxation. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Well then it would appear to me that you guys have plenty of people to work with to reach your goals. I frankly think there is better ways to go about this goal than give it to the government.

AdamT said:

No, it isn't semantics at all. When people say it's semantics they mean that people are using different words to mean the same thing. That is not at all the case with "entitled" versus "earned". Entitled means that you have it coming to you whether or not you earned it.

Click to expand...

I agree that the words have different meanings. But it seemed meaningful that Mya didn't seem to think that there's a difference between the words.

Connery said:

I did not take that as Equal Opportunity I took it as every America has an opportunity to take advantage of what this country has to offer. "We believe in a country where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules."

Click to expand...

All we need to do is and in social justice and his thought is complete. His argument is that not everybody gets a fair shot. We are not all tall, dark and handsome or well-built, comely and attractive. We do not have the same IQ. We do not all make good decisions.

Everybody does their fair share? What does that mean? To the one term Marxist it means that some should pay the way for the rest.

Everybody is playing by the same rules...he is a liar, of course, what rules did his campaign contributors play by? He used the taxpayer to enrich his contribution bundlers at our expense.

We have the right to "pursue" happiness and success, but there is no guarantee or right for us to succeed. As an analogy, all students can participate in the national spelling bee, starting at the ground level. But nobody is entitled to win the final prize except the best speller. This is modeled on natural selection. The right to pursue implies there we can't fix various stages of the spelling bee so we get the winner we want via unnatural selection.

Evolution within a culture will not occur if we fix the deck leading to unnatural selection. Only natural can evolve. Unnatural works only in the short term, which is long enough for needs of politicians with self lives.

Why not entitle the National Spelling Bee in an artificial way? This would make many "feel" better. The long term health of the spelling bee would suffer since the alpha dogs would not bother to show up. If this were deer or animals, the species would regress.

Hatuey said:

Yes... people aren't entitled to any success. However, they are allowed to the opportunity to achieve it. It's been the axiom preached to every immigrant group coming to American for the last 150 years. You should pick up a history book on the matter.

”The German emigrant comes into a country free from the despotism, privileged orders and monopolies, intolerable taxes, and constraints in matters of belief and conscience. Everyone can travel and settle wherever he pleases. No passport is demanded, no police mingles in his affairs or hinders his movements....Fidelity and merit are the only sources of honor here. The rich stand on the same footing as the poor; the scholar is not a mug above the most humble mechanics; no German ought to be ashamed to pursue any occupation....[In America] wealth and possession of real estate confer not the least political right on its owner above what the poorest citizen has. Nor are there nobility, privileged orders, or standing armies to weaken the physical and moral power of the people, nor are there swarms of public functionaries to devour in idleness credit for. Above all, there are no princes and corrupt courts representing the so-called divine 'right of birth.' In such a country the talents, energy and perseverance of a person...have far greater opportunity to display than in monarchies."[SUP][5][/SUP]

US outlook: America remains land of opportunity - FT.com

No longer the land of opportunity - The Washington Post

U.S. Is 'Land Of Opportunity' No More? : NPR



It is really a shame that you have no clue what it is Obama is actually talking about.

Click to expand...

Its Obama's job to communicate what he is talking about.

Hatuey said:

Good stuff. Too bad most of us realize that there is a net gain from having a well educated populace at the rather small expense of taxation.

Click to expand...

He hasn't denied the benefit. His objection was that the govt has no right to do so. At least afaict that's what he has said.

He hasn't objected to the idea that an educated electorate is essential to a democracy in the modern world. ...at least afaict

Henrin said:

Well then it would appear to me that you guys have plenty of people to work with to reach your goals. I frankly think there is better ways to go about this goal than give it to the government.

Click to expand...

Hey - think of it this way. Your way has been tried: Small government, most of the money controlled by an elite minority, child labor, old people dying from diarrhea, no healthcare, etc. Today? Big government, most of the money still controlled by an elite minority, children have access to education, old people can afford to retire at 65, most have healthcare. I'll take my chances with the 21st century.

Henrin said:

Fortunate enough? So basically your justification for using people for others benefits and calling it something people are entitled to is because these people that are being used live in what you call the greatest nation on earth? Ok then.

Click to expand...

You know the drill. You have always known the drill. It is not new and there are no surprises. Anytime you don't like the deal - you can opt out. There is no wall keeping you here. I am sure you have heard the wisdom about the door and the Good Lord.

Hatuey said:

Hey - think of it this way. Your way has been tried: Small government, most of the money controlled by an elite minority, child labor, old people dying from diarrhea, no healthcare, etc. .

Click to expand...

Ahhhh.... the Libertarian Dream...... the Randroid Utopia ....... the Nirvana of Selfishness.

We could add to it
*** no worker rights
*** no labor unions
*** no government regulations on Big Business
*** no consumer protection legislation
*** no protection for minority rights
*** no public services

sharon said:

Its Obama's job to communicate what he is talking about.

Click to expand...

He did. You seem to have misunderstood it or not been knowledgeable enough about the world to know what he was talking about. Either one is irrelevant to me. :shrug:

haymarket said:

Ahhhh.... the Libertarian Dream...... the Randroid Utopia ....... the Nirvana of Selfishness.

We could add to it
*** no worker rights
*** no labor unions
*** no government regulations on Big Business
*** no consumer protection legislation
*** no protection for minority rights
*** no public services

Click to expand...

As long as I'm King I'm cool with that!:mrgreen:

Objective Voice said:

No. The Constitution does NOT protect our right and entitlement to freedom to succeed. It protects our right to pursue happiness as we see fit as long as we do so within the framework of established law. Nothing more.

So, you are free to work hard and try your hand at being a dairy farmer, a cattle ranger, the owner of a taxi cab service, an eCommerce mogul selling everything from candied apples to zuccini. But you are not entitled to success. You may pursue it, but you aren't entitled to it.

You achieve success by working hard, studying your craft, taking advantage of your skills and opportunities as they present themselves (or as you create them), by formulating a plan and executing same with sheer determination. Given enough time, the right formula for success, proper implementation and some luck you can be successful in this country. But success is NOT guaranteed, not by the Constitution or any other law of this land and you're certainly not entitled to it. To think otherwise is not only foolish, it places you in the exact same "entitlement mindset" Republican/Conservatives critisize the poor of believing.

Click to expand...

A growing number have the moronic sense of entitlement to success without even the pursuit. This is precisely a group Obama is strategically chasing and why Romney's 47% comment is accurate in my opinion. Of course, apply some logic and realize that you exclude those who are truly unable to work or are retired. Even Obama, as seen in the 2007 speech recently publicized, feeds the victim mentality to people (especially blacks) and paints being rich as evil. Instead, someone needs to whip the work ethic in this country into shape. My wife just quit her job at a high school after three lectures because about 25 of her 30 students were disrespectful and one even physically assaulted her. The 2nd day of class, a student tried to insist the classroom door be open during lecture and tried to physically push my wife when she blocked to student from the door. This is the kind of punk Obama wants "entitled" to college? Instead, teach your "culture" the respect and work ethic to earn scholarships. This generalizes to requiring people to earn any type of aid desired.

winston53660 said:

As long as I'm King I'm cool with that!:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem.

And you better have really good palace security.

haymarket said:

Ahhhh.... the Libertarian Dream...... the Randroid Utopia ....... the Nirvana of Selfishness.

We could add to it
*** no worker rights
*** no labor unions
*** no government regulations on Big Business
*** no consumer protection legislation
*** no protection for minority rights
*** no public services

Click to expand...

You ever notice that Libertarians/Conservatives seem to relate societal decline with every period where people have been given the protections of the law? Think of it. 1868, 1919, 1959, 1964, 1968, - all terrible years to Republicans and Libertarians. Anything from 1776 to 1848? Great times we should hope to relive. A time where the founders, a group comprised of everything from racists, to sexists, adulterers and religious zealots lived. Those are the people we should look up to, admire and hope to live like. Lolz.

haymarket said:

Ahhhh.... the Libertarian Dream...... the Randroid Utopia ....... the Nirvana of Selfishness.

We could add to it
*** no worker rights
*** no labor unions
*** no government regulations on Big Business
*** no consumer protection legislation
*** no protection for minority rights
*** no public services

Click to expand...

What do you mean by Randroid Utopia? For one, I have no idea what Randroid means and two, who said anything about a Utopia?

haymarket said:

And therein lies the problem.

And you better have really good palace security.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest buying corn oil futures.

I get the feeling my Kingdom will be using lots o' boiling oil to pour over the Castle's walls on the moochers trying to get in!:mrgreen:

Misterveritis said:

I agree with your formulation. I do not agree with Obama's formulation. You are entitled to your success. You earned it. He believes you didn't earn it. Someone else made that happen. And, therefore, the government can take the fruits of your success away from you, as you are not entitled to it.

Click to expand...

How would the government do this? Taxes?

Hatuey said:

You ever notice that Libertarians/Conservatives seem to relate societal decline with every period where people have been given the protections of the law? Think of it. 1868, 1919, 1959, 1964, 1968, - all terrible years to Republicans and Libertarians. Anything from 1776 to 1848? Great times we should hope to relive. A time where the founders, a group comprised of everything from racists, to sexists, adulterers and religious zealots lived. Those are the people we should look up to, admire and hope to live like. Lolz.

Click to expand...

A most excellent observation. They also seem to be wildly in love with the Gilded Age from 1877 when Reconstruction ended up to the start of the 20th century which they mark as the beginning of the end. I think even the most hardcore right libertarian knows they cannot bring back the age of the tri-cornered hat - no matter how they crave that particular fashion statement - but a return to the Gilded Age would please them to no end. Ah .... to live in the age of five year old boys going down into coal mines for a potato at the end of the day. To see little girls in sweat shops going crazy from trying to unravel large balls of thread as their mothers try not to get burned to death when the fire starts. Women treated like farm animals and workers told to take it or leave it. Freedom and liberty.

Henrin said:

Though he believes people are entitled to healthcare, an education, food, and much much more. That part of his comment was a filthy blatant lie.

Click to expand...

Wrong again.

Pres. Obama does NOT believe that people are entitled to healthcare, education, food, etc. What he believes is that when the economy is bad and people are sufferring from the loss of employment and they no longer have access to these things because their earnings have greatly diminished, government at all levels can help by providing minimum healthcare benefits, minimum educational opportunities and basics in food nutrition to those who are in need. IMHO, it is the states that foster the entitlement mentality moreso than the fed by NOT providing re-employment, re-education, re-training resources in partnership with federal programs so that people can get off entitlement programs where practical. Moreover, I've long be an advocate of placing limitations on how long or how much of an entitlement a person or household can receive. IMO, 2-4 years is long enough for most people below the age of 65 to find something worthwhile that can lead them to financial security where one can get back on his or her feet. Unfortunately, too often the states allow the revolving door to entitlement programs to remain open to those who would abuse it in some cases from craddle to grave. This is where my disclaimer comes in...

Not everyone who is on an entitlement program (i.e., food stamps, Medicaid) want to be on them. I meet people every day - folks who are small business owners - who swallow their pride and reluctantly apply for Medicaid. I also hear from people every day who call my office just to CANCEL their Medicaid because either the husband or the wife found a decent paying job AND WANT TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE whether it's through the All-Kids program or the private sector. But I also hear from people who honestly believe they are entitled to federal health care benefits, people who will call or storm into my office all but demanding "where's my Medicaid?". Of course, among these such people are those who have young children with serious health problems and the only way they can afford the child's medicine is to be on Medicaid.

My point here is people have varying reasons for applying for government programs, but most today are either economic in nature OR they really do have a serious healthcare needs (mostly their kids, not the adult applicant). IMHO, the system at the state-level doesn't do enough to wean most able-bodied applicants off federal entitlement programs. Instead, they keep that revolving door open for some people to walk right back in. Of course, there's also this thing called "personal empowerment" - wanting to do better than to live off a taxpaying system that provides mimimal benefits. But when the cost of those benefits is less than $5 (I'm speaking of Medicaid co-pays here, folks), can you blame most poor people from holding on to such entitlements?

We can do better, people. I do believe that government does have a role to play, but that mantra has been soarly over-hyped by people in power who would rather demean its meaning than to do more to streamline the entitlement systems currently in place at ALL levels and close that revolving door.

winston53660 said:

I'd suggest buying corn oil futures.

I get the feeling my Kingdom will be using lots o' boiling oil to pour over the Castle's walls on the moochers trying to get in!:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

You do realize that what you are talking about wouldn't be nearly as high priced, right?

Jonsa said:

Put it another way. What he is saying to everyone is:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Click to expand...

...unless you are a major campaign bundler for the one term Marxist. Then not only is there a free lunch, it will be catered and you have to give your dessert to the democratic party machine. But don't worry. When the dust settles you will be a liberal young money millionaire. And truly, in this case, somebody else really did make that happen.

winston53660 said:

I'd suggest buying corn oil futures.

I get the feeling my Kingdom will be using lots o' boiling oil to pour over the Castle's walls on the moochers trying to get in!:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

There is a line from GANGS OF NEW YORK when the riots start and some of the mansions on Fifth Avenue get attacked ... one of the rich swells says not to worry because they will simply hire half of the poor to kill the other half.

Misterveritis said:

All we need to do is and in social justice and his thought is complete. His argument is that not everybody gets a fair shot. We are not all tall, dark and handsome or well-built, comely and attractive. We do not have the same IQ. We do not all make good decisions.

Everybody does their fair share? What does that mean? To the one term Marxist it means that some should pay the way for the rest.

Everybody is playing by the same rules...he is a liar, of course, what rules did his campaign contributors play by? He used the taxpayer to enrich his contribution bundlers at our expense.

Click to expand...

We all have the same opportunities in relation to the US. I know I did and if there was anyone who would be least likely to succeed it is someone like me. Wrong side of the tracks etc etc. I was provided with opportunity and moved on it.