We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned.
I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.
But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.
The President and his wife made $5.5 million last year. Is that enough money?
How about Al Gore, who is said to have earned up to $150 million promoting the 'global warming' scam (or is it called 'climate change' now, I forget?). A man who, at last count, had at least four luxury homes scattered throughout the world including his latest acquisition, an Italian-style mansion with ocean views and nine bathrooms, in Montecita, California. Is that enough money?
What should we make of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google? Little more than ten years ago, they were college students struggling in their dorm room to create a new way to search the web.
A decade later, Page and Brin were worth a combined $36 billion as the founders of Google.
What economic illiterates like Obama can't or won't understand is that wealth disparity is wonderful. It allowed Page and Brin to create and grow a company from whole cloth, employ thousands and produce hundreds of other millionaires. Those millionaires, in turn, often invest, fund their own startups, employ others and create new avenues for wealth creation.A question for President Obama: at what point during their journey to create and build Google had Brin and Page made 'enough money'? Should they have stopped at, say, $10 million apiece?
The current crop of Democrat leaders are among the dumbest folks ever to serve in positions of power. Think about it: Pelosi, Biden, Reid and Obama. They're all economic illiterates. Have any of them held a real job, ever?
Democrats believe in their hearts that economics is a zero-sum game: if Page and Brin made more money, it's because they stole the food out of others' mouths. A more idiotic fallacy you'd be hard-pressed to invent.
That's why you always need to remember this truism, which my Dad taught me many years ago and which has never failed me. "Son," he said, "liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid. Whatever they tell you, you can be sure they're either ignorant of the facts or lying. And usually it's both."
"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
ReplyDeleteBut the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater."--Ronald Reagan, 1964
Commander ZeroSum: "We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."
People don't have a "core responsibility" to grow anything. By seeking their own enlightened self-interest, fairly of course, they automatically help others. And are then in a position to personally assist others if they so wish.
Saul Alinsky was a glorified aggressive panhandler.