House of Eratosthenes

But I’m always more and more impressed by him. Here’s the setup: Obama is going into a re-election campaign with absolutely nothing to sell us, except for some crispy dead terrorist carcasses He only managed to pull in by following the policies of His predecessor, you know, the Texas bumpkin who was supposed to have been screwing everything up and making a big mess for Him to fix. So Obama gives some speeches telling us that we have Pass His Plans Right Now!!1! because we need to tax those rich people, who are screwing things up even more by not paying enough. As the Government continues to spend far more than it ever has…ever.

Mike Rowe calls this what it is. He’s very thoughtful about it, skilled in his writing, draws all of the important distinctions. Doesn’t hate Obama, but disagrees with His policies; doesn’t think Obama is trying to hurt people, thinks He’s just trying to get re-elected. But he calls our man-god-king-Replacement-Jesus out and pulls no punches:

When you want to marginalize a group, or turn the general sentiment against a specific demographic, you don’t call people out by name – you call them out by something else. That something else is usually race or class. (The Jews, the Blacks, the Rich, the Poor, etc.) You define them by something other than their individuality and humanity. That’s why I take his “fair share” attacks personally. Even though I wasn’t named, I am in the group.

Wow, he went there! Almost called Obama Hitler or something! Eh…yeah he kind of veered off in that direction, but with class, grace, and most important of all, accuracy. He does come off as somewhat upset, but not excessively so, and after he states his case you really can’t blame him. Says what needs to be said, doesn’t say anything that would go over the line. It’s a masterful performance, and it’s actually a constructive exchange.

And out of whatever motives, someone comes along to misconstrue his comments anyway.

With all due respect, I still think you’re overreacting. If Obama was trying to make a point about the amount of money various groups of people contribute to the country compared to what they earn, how else could he say it without mentioning the rich or the poor? How can you talk about the economy without mentioning money?

This whole time, I’ve been under the impression that he was talking about large powerful corporations with political influence, but let’s assume his comments included individual business owners as well. In the spirit of things not being black or white, isn’t it possible that he didn’t mean ALL rich people are at fault. He must be aware that there are wealthy people out there who in fact pull their weight and more. Would he (or anyone) purposely badmouth well- meaning, hard-working Americans? That makes no sense to me.

Note the disconnect here. Mike is going off of what was actually said, speculating on absolutely nothing. This person who disagrees with him about his misinterpretation — maybe that’s all she’s doing and she’s being sincere, or maybe she’s one of the few unrepentant Obamafans left…it really doesn’t matter which. Point is, her argument is based on a lot of “When I hear one thing I’m going to presume another.”

“Perpetual Apprentice” Mike Rowe wouldn’t be able to think like that, with the job(s) he has. He could end up hurt or killed…or, at least, a lot of the people he interviews, are in that situation. Must respond to reality the way it actually exists, or end up dead, what-I-want-it-to-be just doesn’t enter into it too much.

Now, watch how skillfully he handles this.

With all due respect, I still think you’re overreacting.
Hi Agi –

How come? I have not taken to the streets to protest. I have not made signs or used bad language. I have not gotten myself arrested. I have not disrupted anyone’s business or personal life. I have simply shared my views in a virtual world. Overreacting? Hell, I’m not even acting.

If Obama was trying to make a point about the amount of money various groups of people contribute to the country compared to what they earn, how else could he say it without mentioning the rich or the poor?

Ok, I’ll give it a shot.

(cough cough)

“My fellow Americans. I know that many of you are suffering. And I know that many of you look around and see a country where not all things appear to be equal. Well, guess what? They aren’t. They never have been, and I can assure you, as long as liberty and freedom remain supreme, they never will be. Let’s be honest – looking for equality is a democracy is like looking for love in a wh0re house. You might see something that comes close, but in the end, that dog don’t hunt.

No, my fellow Americans, I believe our best hope for a true recovery will come not from a temptation to make all things more equal, but rather, to make all things more possible. To do that, we must rethink everything we currently hold dear in our modern economy, beginning with our obscene relationship with Debt and Spending. These are the true enemies of prosperity – not your neighbor. Our problems today were not caused by the success of others. They were caused by the mistaken belief that we could have some things we wanted – but in fact, could simply not afford.

I look now to the wealthiest among us. To the ones who have in the past, provided the jobs we need so desperately today. To the innovators and risk takers that truly drive our economy. We need your help. Even though just 1% of you pay nearly 30% of all the Federal Taxes we collect, I must now ask you to pay even more. It pains me to ask those of you who have already given so much because as any fool can plainly see – it simply isn’t fair. Alas, I believe that I must. Our country is suffering, and we need you.”

How can you talk about the economy without mentioning money?

You can’t. But if you need more money from people who already give a lot, there’s a polite way to ask.

This whole time, I’ve been under the impression that he was talking about large powerful corporations with political influence, but let’s assume his comments included individual business owners as well.

There’s no need to assume such a thing. He’s been crystal clear about individuals. How many time’s has he pointed to Buffet as “an example” for the wealthy?

In the spirit of things not being black or white, isn’t it possible that he didn’t mean ALL rich people are at fault?

No, it’s not possible. It’s definite. Of course, he is not talking to the rich people who agree with him. In fact, he is not talking to the rich people who disagree with him. And I doubt seriously that he really believes “rich people” had anything to do with our messed up economy. I think he’s talking to the “99%,” and attempting to say the thing that will result in the most possible votes. I think he’s running for office.

He must be aware that there are wealthy people out there who in fact pull their weight and more.

Of course he is. But this isn’t about them. It’s about votes.

Why would he (or anyone) purposely badmouth well- meaning, hard-working Americans? That makes no sense to me.

Isn’t it obvious? If you’re right – and I think you are – there is but one logical explanation. He wants people to see “the rich” as the problem – not him, not spending, not debt, and not some other failed policy. He wants the Rich to be the scapegoat.

What I find confusing about your reaction, is that you of all people live in relative proximity to the public eye. Anyone with a mediocre search engine can see that you aren’t hoarding your wealth, you’re using it to give back and move things forward.

I’m judged everyday by all sorts of people. I really don’t mind. But this is the president, Agi, suggesting that people in my group are not paying their fair share. I’m calling bull*****.

I don’t think anyone is blaming you.

If the President wants to be more specific about which of the 1% aren’t paying their fair share, that’s up to him. It’s not really for you or anyone else to tell me what he meant. His words are crystal clear. If he wants to take it back, he will. But he won’t.

If you were an oil tycoon from an oil tycoon family with immeasurable wealth and serious political ties, I would understand if you were taking it personally.

As we discussed with Clem, if an unemployed carpenter wanted to, he could probably feel pretty envious about the Longshoreman who works 4 hours a day for $125K a year. It’s relative, and it’s really not about the amount. It’s about the suggestion that some pull their weight and some do not.

Mike

You should really go read the whole thread. It covers a wide range of topics, it’s not about bashing His Holy Eminence over the class-warfare-rhetoric that isn’t supposed to be class-warfare-rhetoric…and the comments about unions are very well thought-out, in addition to educational. Good find.

Hat tip to Big Hollywood.

” ‘If Obama was trying to make a point about the amount of money various groups of people contribute to the country compared to what they earn, how else could he say it without mentioning the rich or the poor?’ ”

And then she goes on to talk about what powerful corporations and rich people contribute to the country compared to what they earn.

What about the 43% who pay no taxes (and the portion of them who get money back at tax time, even)? What about what they contribute compared to what they earn?

Who exactly are the contributors here?

The contributors are who we should be rewarding. If you want more of something, you reward it. If you reward sloth you get more sloth; if you reward contributions you get more contributions.

Duh.
- WPDavidD | 10/25/2011 @ 16:54
I just love those threads where some progressive, class-warfare-mongering idiot has to go around and around and around with the blogger:

1) Make fool of self spounting left-wing talking points.
2) Get smacked down by the blogger, who refutes each one with humility and wit.
3) Accuse blogger of lacking perspective
4) Get smacked down again.
5) Move goalposts, demand specifics all over again from blogger
6) Get smacked down a third time
7) See #1, repeat process

Some people (this “bluechild” poster in particular, as well as the one you quoted, Morgan) just seem to be a glutton for punishment. Some people don’t seem to recognize when they’ve lost the argument.

Reminds me of that quote from the Roman general at the opening scene in Gladiator: “A people should know when they are beaten.” And so should some liberal posters…
- cylarz | 10/25/2011 @ 20:59
[…] a Point to the Occupy Wall Street Protests! Noticing Something Wonderful The Power of Greed Mike Rowe Not Impressed by Obamanomics President Throws First Pitch “No More Years” Anonymous Defaces Police Website The Seam […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 10/30/2011 @ 10:22

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Mike Rowe Not Impressed by ObamanomicsTuesday, October 25th, 2011

Mike Rowe Not Impressed by Obamanomics
Tuesday, October 25th, 2011