The Osawatomie Speech: A Defining Moment In History

Econophile's picture

This article originally appeared in the Daily Capitalist.


I am not a fan of Barack Obama, but I have not criticized him as harshly as many other writers do. I have a different view of him. I see him as a rather run of the mill Progressive/Liberal who firmly believes his ideology and acts somewhat consistently on those ideas. Rather than pillory him personally, my approach has been to criticize the philosophy of which he is a product. In my mind, it's all about ideas. I detest his ideas because I believe they are anti-intellectual and they don't work. 

There are many like Mr. Obama out there. His admirers perceive themselves as being the "downtrodden", envious of the accomplishments and wealth of those whose abilities they cannot match. I get that: if you can't achieve it, take it from those who can. Even those limousine liberals who have wealth and accomplishment perceive themselves as either being guilty of their wealth or come from backgrounds where these ideas are passed along. Mr. Obama is no different than any other politician: he seeks power and admiration and the ability to impose his ideas on America.

We here at the Daily Capitalist try everyday to combat those ideas by demonstrating their lack of efficacy and by presenting analyses of events in a free market framework which analyses have actually been quite accurate in forecasting economic outcomes. We try to be the antidote to the Progressive juggernaut. 

And then I heard President Obama's speech at Osawatomie, Kansas this week.

It perhaps wasn't surprising, but I was appalled. It was deceitful, inaccurate, revisionist, and demagogic. 

Mr. Obama uses every cliché in the Progressive handbook to make his point. His direct point was that the "rich" should pay more taxes. The underlying point and theme of his speech was that individual effort, individualism, free market capitalism, and success is a gift bestowed by "society" on the successful and that what "society" grants, it can take away because "society" needs it. It is the collective versus the individual.

His speech is a recreation, a fabrication if you will, of history, economics, and philosophy into a Pandoran construct of collectivist statism whereby society can demand the individual's obedience and obeisance. In short, folks, it's a crock.

If you think I am exaggerating, I urge you to read or hear his entire speech. You may find the full text and video of the speech here.

Here is just one typical statement from his speech:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.


Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

This is the stuff that demagogues spew to the guileless. And the problem is that he believes it with all his heart. The man is not stupid nor slow on his feet, despite what his harshest critics day. He's not a mere puppet of the union bosses. He's bright, articulate, and well educated. Yet he has learned nothing despite his years of education and now he's at the vanguard of the Progessive/socialist/welfare statist/national corporatist movement in America. If he has the force of personality he could be another Franklin Roosevelt, the president who did more harm to America than any other leader in our history. Fortunately, he may not have that strength of character.

While we may criticize the Republicans for being much of the same, there is still a difference. We are, as I have noted before, at a tipping point in America where:

Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.

No wonder the audience at Osawatomie loved him.

This is what has happened to much of Europe where welfare recipients voted themselves increasing benefits and economic stagnation and eventual bankruptcy. This is exactly where we are headed politically.

And this is why this election is critical. We must turn this ship around.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Econophile's picture

Thank you for all comments, good and bad, critical and supportive.

I wish to point out that this is not an endorsement of G. Bush, the Republicans, or any current Republican candidate except Ron Paul. I agree with the comments that equate Republicans and Democrats as crony capitalists, but it appears to me that the Democrats enjoy being Robin Hood while the Republicans enjoy Crony Capitalism. Ron Paul is the only candidate who could actually jam a wrench in the gears. Yeah, yeah, he's unelectable ... so what. I want to change things. In the end, though, when Romgrich runs I'll probably vote for him because I think he will try to undo Obamacare (the main threat) and try to slow down the federal machine. But other than that they all reek.

the grateful unemployed's picture

Outstanding Treasury debt surpassed $10 TN during Q3 after exceeding $5 TN for the first time in 2007.  In just 13 quarters, Treasury debt has increased $4.852 TN, or 92%, to $10.103 TN.  After doubling mortgage debt in just about six years during the spectacular Mortgage/Wall Street Finance Bubble, the fateful Government Finance Bubble now ensures our system will double federal debt in less than four years.

This was the strongest debt expansion since Q4 2010’S $1.788 TN – and up from Q2’s SAAR $1.144 TN and Q1’s SAAR $862bn.  It is also closer to the $2.0 TN (or so) annual growth that, as I have theorized, is required to reflate the (Credit Bubble) maladjusted U.S. financial and economic systems (including investment, jobs and incomes; home and asset prices; and business sector profits and household net worth).

No one should expect that an economy dominated to such an unprecedented degree by government finance to equate to positive economic performance or a sound economic structure.  And beware of extrapolating apparent favorable economic metrics such as GDP and corporate earnings and cash-flows.


Doug Noland Prudent Bear

we need 2T annual debt growth according to Noland, a number nearly verified by the actual statistics. and the problem from a practical point of view is how is that much Federal debt going to get to all the places it needs to go without some vision of how the economy works, (someone smart enough to recognize the structural problems, which doesn't sound like GingRomObama, but the GOP which is all of them in my estimation has no vision, and will throw the baby out with the fiscal bathwater. and Wall St has no interest in anything that does not have their bonus money attached.

bshirley1968's picture

Ron Paul would provide some of the best political entertainment this country has ever witnessed.  That in and of itself is enough reason to vote for him.  No so sure he is that unelectable.  Too bad he's not twenty years younger because after the next eight years on this road of insanity, just about anybody is going to be electable.

bshirley1968's picture

I find it hard to believe the back and forth that goes into the dialogue of this board.  So many of you are wrapped up in some microcosm that is truly meaningless to the whole picture.  You are demonstrating all that is wrong in the leadership of this country.  THE ONLY THING ANYONE IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS THEMSELVES!  What they like, have, want to keep, demand, feel is important, etc.  Then you try to elect leaders that are going to give you what you want.  Wake up people.  It is not about what you want but rather what you need.  My five year old might want cake and ice-cream 3 times a day, but we all know that is not what he needs.  Not saying we are all 5 but bigger boys just want bigger bowls filled with bigger things.  Wants have to be checked.  That is what makes us human and responsible adults.  All of you should ask yourself just what it is that you want.  Be honest.  What do you want?  I for one can unequivocally say that I want to be left alone.  I don't want your ideas forced on me and I won't force mine on you.  That is a basic characteristic of an American.  Problem is we have built a society on the need to force blanket rules over the entire population that have nothing to do with personal responsibility but rather someone's idea of what THEY WANT the world to be like.  We use to have a Constitution to avoid this happening but then we got a traitor in the White House named Lincoln and all that changed.  Now a handful of people can pass laws that blanket the whole of society.  Now it is only necessary to corrupt a few to affect all of us.  Now in essence, 625 people get to tell 350 million how to live their lives.  That was never the way it was intended to be.  We are not a democracy.  We are a republic ruled by law.  The basic problem is we have allowed the law to be ignored, and the people who enforce the law to enforce laws that the biggest or richest group tell them to enforce on the rest of us.

The way I see it there is no turning back and only two things that can be done about it.  1.)  We can sit around and discuss it while our freedoms are slowly taken from us until we have lost all leverage.  2.) We can developed a specific plan and take specific action (that involves personal risk to freedom and wealth).  We need leadership.  It is so ironic that we live in a day when we have the most open, easiest forms of communication and we can't come together and get anything accomplished.  I am not talking about violence.  We are not at that point....yet.  I am talking about decisions we can make together of our own free will that sends an undeniable and unavoidable message to those we have placed in charge that we want them to stay out of our lives and enforce the laws in a just and equitable manner.  We are so fragmented, so divided and that leaves us ineffective.

History has taught us that the biggest danger to any people is its own government.  Examples: Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, France, England, etc.  No one has slaughtered more of a people than that people's own government.  Ugly thought?  But true, factual, undeniable.  Why does this happen?  Because society can ALWAYS be divided into two main groups; those that will mind their own business and live their own lives, and then those that won't be responsible and seek to live off the responsibility of others.  To some degree group number 1 will put up with group number 2 for a reasonable amount of time.  Then one day group 1 tells group 2 they are no longer going to be responsible for taking care of them (or even can no longer take care of them because group 2 has grown too massive).  That is when we wake up and realize that group 2 has grown so large and has been voting in leadership that will protect their interest.  That leadership then forces group 1 to take care of group 2.  Group 1 can knuckle under and obey or they can refuse.  When they refuse, they will be dealt with severely.  Once a government begins taking from group 1 (or any group) to give to group 2, there is no turning back without some form of leverage that forces them to do so.  The writer of the above article is stating we are at that tipping point where group 1 is about to say enough, and group 2 is going to roll out "their" government and take what they want by force.  Where will you stand?  There will be no middle ground.  You will side one way or the other.  The one thing we can still do is vote.  We can still do this without fear of reprisal.  Yes, the Repubs are just people and subject to the lusts and corruptions of all people.  I cannot and will not side with the Dems for one minute as they have become nothing more than a communistic party that seeks to control the masses through social welfare.  We need to come together and quit being divided over secondary issues.  Secondary issues are those that just constitute smoke and mirrors like the payroll tax cut,….. decrease,…… increase,…….whatever.  It is meaningless in the bigger scheme of things.  We need to quit focusing on the symptoms and stay focused on the problem.  The symptom is the fever, the weakness, the delusional mind.   The problem is the infectious disease.  We have been duped into fighting over the symptoms and ignoring the disease.  The disease is the desire to control, to force one's will and desires on another.  To be king.  We threw off our king and were given the ability to rule ourselves under a common law, the Constitution.  Since, we have re-established a rule of the whims of man by allowing the law to be ignored and disregarded.  How do we get the privilege to rule ourselves back?  That IS the question.  The only answer that is left to us is the same answer that our forefathers faced.  The longer we delay the tougher it will be.  We need to start now taking the steps we can under the law with a united cause of American freedom.  In which group are you?

Just call me a member of group 1 desperately seeking .............American leadership.


spooz's picture

Well you get the bloviating award.  You are a simpleton, and your lack of education shows through your grammer and rhetoric.

Mostly you speak a lot of BS of the sort that will keep the 1% safely intact upon their perches while the rest of us go down the drain.  I would say that the two groups that society these days are divided up into are the BONDHOLDERS and EVERYBODY ELSE.  No losses to the bondholders, heaven forbid the banksters have to write off debt!  No, just more austerity for the 99%.  I am so tired of the use of supposedly conservative ideals to keep the 1% firmly in control.

"Because society can ALWAYS be divided into two main groups; those that will mind their own business and live their own lives, and then those that won't be responsible and seek to live off the responsibility of others. "

bshirley1968's picture

You bleeding heart liberal types always go to the holy grail of put downs.  That is the holy grail in your  Let this "simpleton" educate you about something.  Better to be simple and know what's right than educated and be so stupid you're in danger of drowning in a rain storm because the professor didn't tell you to quit walking around looking up with your mouth open.  You are a clear product of the marxist education system that has been in place for 60 years in this country.  You couldn't recognize good "grammer" and rhetoric if your life depended on it.  You have been eating shit your whole pathetic life and they have told you it was the best the world had to offer.  Now you come into contact with real food and think it is shit.  What have you offered by way of logic, reason or fact?  NOTHING!

I am for a balanced budget ammendment.  I am for term limits.  I am for hanging lobbyist on the courthouse lawn and chopping the heads off of crooked politicians that took their filthy money.  What are you for other than yourself?

You have proven my point.  You think you are in group 2 and group 1 owes you.  You really need to go back to your master and get better equipped to communicate with people that have the ability to think for themselves.  I am not a bond holder nor do I get food stamps.  Who are you?  What are you?  What do you stand for other than someone who is envious of others?  I am here about the rule of law.  You are here about the rule of those that agree with you.  

spooz's picture

To be sure, I believe that the educational standards in our country have deteriorated to a level that allows the sheeple to become herded more easily.  I'm for term limits, getting rid of lobbyists and crooked politicians too.  I don't think you'd find too many people who are not.  You, however, are obviously one of those who is easily swayed by propaganda, to the extent that you see the evil Marxists instead of the banksters who are picking your pocket.  If our educational system was stronger, people might be able to think beyond what the propaganda masters manipulate them into believing.  

Again, I am for BONDHOLDER HAIRCUTS as a way to get our economy back on its legs.  We can worry about the balanced budget after we stop supporting asset prices with money printing to save the bondholders.  You would rather dismantle the safety net.  If I'm a Marxist you are a future fascist thug.

bshirley1968's picture

The problem with the banks is they are being run by the marxist.  Look at the beloved communist China.  What have they done?  Embraced capitalism.  They like the money.  They have learned they can control way more with money than they ever could with a gun.

Easily swayed by propoganda?  What would that be?  I see Marx as the delusional evil punk he was and I see the banksters as the greedy, evil crooks they are.  So just whose propoganda am I following?  I believe in capitalism and free enterprise.  The problem is that you nor I have ever seen it.  The government has gotten in bed with the corportations and tilted all the rules in their favor.  That is not capitalism.  Capitalism would have let AIG and CountryWide go under.  In a capitalist market there would be no Fannie and Freddie screwing things up.  You bunch of communist believe in your godless evolution and survival of the fittest just not when it comes to yourself and those like you.  You want the government to intervene and punish those that oppose you or have a better "mousetrap".  You don't want to have to go build a better one you will just have a poitician outlaw your competitor's or put so many rules, regulations, and taxes on him that his business won't survive.  I too am for those who made bad loans taking the loss and that includes the gov and those that bought their debt.

Fascism is exactly what we have now.  Where the gov is in control of the corporate world.  The corporations work for the gov, and we in turn work for them thereby making us all gov employess.  We are all slaves of the state.  Fascism rules now in the US and I hate it.  Hitler go most of his poltical, social, and economic ideas from FDR.  This President has received more money from Wall Street than all those before him.  The banks have made more profits in the las 3 1/2 years than they did in Bush's entire 8 years in office. (Not a Bush fan so don't waste time on it.)  So where is that "change" thing we all heard about?  The marxist bankers have their marxist boy in office and are using fascist methods to control the masses.  The communist leaders are all for the "people" until they rise above the means of the people and then they are all about the rich corporations that funnel them the real money that you and I as individuals could never pay.  Study that for while and let me know who it is that has been filling my little head with thoughts.'s picture

The safety net is nothing more than a snare. You are prey just as is every other American citizen. It would behoove you to encourage those who want to end our common bondage.

spooz's picture

The safety net is there to pick up the pieces of what is left of the corpse after the banksters have picked it clean.  

BONDHOLDER HAIRCUTS before balanced budget.'s picture

I do not consider being overcharged for services which I have neither requested nor require to be beneficial to me in any way. If the safety net is so wonderful why must I be forced to participate in it rather than have the freedom to opt in or out voluntarily?

And if the government is really interested in protecting me from bankers then why do they give a monopoly on money creation and the freedom to manipulate the money supply to those same banks?

spooz's picture

Oh, and I don't get the bankers comment.  Who said the govenment is interested in protecting you from the bankers?  Far from it.'s picture

You said:

The safety net is there to pick up the pieces of what is left of the corpse after the banksters have picked it clean.

If you didn't mean that the government provides a safety net in order to save us from the depredations of the bankers then way did you say it? How could you have forgotten you said it? Why was I able to scroll up a few inches and read your exact words but you could not?

spooz's picture

And the government has no intention of protecting you from the banksters, which is why the looting continues.  I said the safety net is important to keep in place for that reason.'s picture

So government provides a safety net which incidentally protects us from bankers while the government simultaneously helps the bankers steal the money which we paid in taxes supposedly to keep the safety net in place...and you trust these people?

spooz's picture

I certainly don't trust them, which is why I say no more bank bailouts, lets see some bondholder haircuts.  But to throw out the safety net because of the bankers' misdeeds?  Thats insanity.'s picture

So you don't trust the government in general but you do trust the government to take the money which you would otherwise save for a rainy day or that you would give to a private charity so that they can watch over it like good stewards and use it to help you when you are at your most vulnerable?

spooz's picture

Not trusting the government is no reason to dismantle the social safety net.  It serves a purpose, even with all the corruption and graft.  Until we have a better system and figure out a way to make reforms that take the lobbyists out of the game, its all we have to hold things together.  With the growth of individualism that has been fostered in our economy, I don't expect much from private charity, especially with the needs becoming greater and the means becoming less.'s picture

People want safety and security. People do not have to be forced into paying for things they want. If the government would stop stealing half of every dollar folks earn then those folks would be free to make voluntary arrangements to provide for their safety and security.

Why do you believe that a government bread line can feed people but a commuinty soup kitchen can not?

spooz's picture

"People" can go live on an island by themselves then.  Because you still have not given me an example of a sustainable economy that does not provide for the common good. And the soup kitchens these days cannot keep up with those who are falling through the cracks.  Food stamps provide a floor. 

And the government certainly is not stealing half of every dollar earned by "folks" in the 1% or the corporate masters. Oh, you must be Jamie Dimon.  He says he pays 50%.  Would love to see his tax returns.  LOL.'s picture

You can't provide an example of a welfare-warfare state which is sustainable. The US National Debt is at $15 trillion which is 100% of GDP. New debt is being added at a rate of $1.5 trillion per year. Payments for Social Security, Medicare and VA benefits are off budget and not included in the debt --those payments alone will require $100 trillion to $200 trillion over the next three decades.

The only thing keeping the warfare-welfare state afloat is the fact that a diminishing number of people still work in the real economy producing marketable goods and services. The more money which government diverts from real, useful purposes the more precarious the entire system becomes.

spooz's picture

Sweden comes to mind.

I agree we have too much debt, which is why we need to quit propping up the banks and make bondholders take haircuts.  After that, we can reorganize our economy along more sustainable lines, all the while keeping the safety net in place. Figure out ways to encourage small businesses with subsides. We can make plenty of cuts in government, military spending, government guaranteed benefit pensions, eliminate multinational corporations' subsidies, raising taxes on the wealthy, perhaps a wealth tax on estates over a certain amounsubt ($5 million? something high, anyway).  Just spitballing here, but cutting out the safety net doesn't work, IMO.'s picture

Then move to Sweden. Have fun.

The Jante Law (Danish and Norwegian: Janteloven; Swedish: Jantelagen; Finnish: Janten laki; Faroese: Jantulógin) is a pattern of group behaviour towards individuals within Scandinavian communities, which negatively portrays and criticises individual success and achievement as unworthy and inappropriate.

spooz's picture

Somehow I don't think that would be a problem in our country.  Those kind of attitudes are part of the culture, not the political system.'s picture

Do you see no connection between a cultural proclivity to deny individual achievement and that culture's ability to tolerate the conditions inherent in a socialist system? You can't run a socialist state without exploiting fear and envy of individual achievement.

spooz's picture

I believe you are wrong.  I don't see the connections.  In fact, as work becomes more automated, I see just the opposite.  i see a few masters of the universe owning all the resources and a huge underclass living in squalor.  This is much more frightening to me than the fear of people being happy without placing so much value on being proud of individual achievments, or being the winner.  Maybe they can feel happy that they, as a society, have managed to come up with a sustainable economy.'s picture

There is a connection between having a slave mentality and being willing to live as a slave. Just keep pretending that your masters love you and that everything will be all right. Or you could grow up and act like a responsible adult who demands to be treated as a free individual.

spooz's picture

Its all about YOU.  See, YOU are part of an economy, sustainable or not.  If you can come up with an example of a sustainable economy that does not provide for the common good, let me know.  I don't think you can find one where austerity works without turning into fascism and revolution.

But as long as you've got your guns, ammo, provisions and bugout location, I suppose its all good, right?'s picture

Why do you believe that the pursuit of a common good must be predicated on the use of force? It's the government which relies on guns and ammo to force people to conform to the elitist agenda. You support them in that cause. Why do you try to tar me as being the one who promotes violence?

spooz's picture

Its the balanced budget nazis I take aim at.  Cut the social safety net to save the economy.  When has that ever worked? 

Pardon me for making the assumption that you are willing to suffer the consequences of austerity, but only with your barricade in place.  The "Group 1" vs "Group 2" discussion in the original post clearly pits the haves against the have nots.  Conservatives keep complaining about the poor sucking up so much of the gains of the not so poor, without realizing that leadership on both sides has no real interest in creating jobs to help the poor, or reforming the educational system to where they can compete, only in keeping the corporate money train and the loot of the 1% intact.  

I'm interested in a sustainable economy, and, again, austerity does not lead to that.  Still waiting for examples of where that method has worked.'s picture

Where did I mention austerity? I espouse voluntary exchange. Examples of it are all around you. Every product you buy and every service of which you avail yourself is provided by this system.

spooz's picture

And what of those who have been left out of this "new economy" you envision?  After the wealth has been extracted by the bankers.  The sheeple who work their Walmart jobs to pay off their college loans which led to no job with which to climb the ladder to the American dream?  What will they be exchanging, their body parts?'s picture

The bankers use the power of government to impoverish the masses. Without that power they would have to bargain in good faith just like everyone else.

Do you believe that folks would willingly use a depreciating fiat currency or bail out the banks in a free market? In a voluntary society bad banks couldn't grow so large as to be considered "Too Big Too Fail" and if by chance one did then the market would allow it to fail.

Government has created the very conditions which you claim to oppose. Government is the problem and nothing else.

spooz's picture

I certainly am for letting the TOO BIGS fail, but I don't see why that has to be tied in with dismantling the social safety net.  Why do you conservatives think its all or nothing?'s picture

Because no one has a right to force other people to do things against their will. Why do you believe that some people do have such a right over others?

spooz's picture

Because I believe good government is more sustainable than no government.  No man is an island.'s picture

Of course no man is an island. A voluntary society is not dependent on isolation. Quite the reverse.

Can any political system be good if it is not predicated on the will of the people? How can government, which is maintained solely through a monopoly on violence in order to force the populace to comply with its agenda claim to operate under the will of the people?

Wouldn't it be better if all the people who want to be ruled by masters with prisons and guns moved to an island and let those of us who can and do function as responsible adults live in peace?

spooz's picture

Sorry, but I am not willing to give up on the things that hold our society together because our government has become corrupted.  I can only hope that more people become so disgusted with the corruption that OWS-like demonstrations spread.  I hold out hope because in the information age, truth has a chance to turn the tide against those who are paving the road to serfdom. You seem to choose to let the poor and downtrodden suffer for the few.'s picture

So you're not willing to go live on an island simply because you are not happy with the political system but you did suggest that I should move to an island because I don't like the political system. Why do you believe that my life is less valuable than your life? Why do you feel that you have a right to tell me how to live when you yourself would not live that way?

Civilized society can only exist where people are willing to agree to disagree. I am willing to let you live under the threat of governmental violence if you so choose. But you continue to insist that I must be compelled to be a part of your welfare-warfare system (or move to an island). You are the one who is acting in an anti-social manner, not me.

spooz's picture

A "society" works together to create a sustainable economy.  Working apart creates anarchy.  I would rather get rid of the corruption that has become embedded in ours without dismantling the foundations of our system.  We are supposed to be a democracy, where everybody gets a vote.  Just because the process has been corrupted by lobbyists doesn't mean the majority rule idea is wrong. You deciding for yourself what is right and wrong without concern for other citizens/voters makes you the one that has to leave.'s picture

Yes, individuals in a society work together. But government operates exclusively by threat of violence and imprisonment. In a governmental system people don't work together, they slave together under the gun.

How do you propose to remove the corruption from a system predicated on violence?

Democracy assumes that people should give up control of their own lives in order to gain control over the lives of others. This is a bankrupt idea and has no purpose other than to justify the power of the elite class.


spooz's picture

Maybe in a fascist government, not in a democracy.  What "predicated on violence" are you speaking of?  The despicable Patriot Act?  It should be abolished.  And lobbyists should be banned from the political process.  Those two things would go a long way towards removing the threat you feel.

We are a democracy.  What system would you have take its place?  An oligarchy?  Anarchy?  Give me a clue.'s picture

The safety net you so adore is predicated on violence. If an individual would prefer to not to participate in Social Security, for example, he will be fined and imprisoned. If he resists being jailed he will be abducted at gun point. Didn't you know that?

spooz's picture

Its the law.  We are a nation of laws.  I don't feel that contributing to the social safety net, as a citizen of our country, is one you can choose to disobey.  If you don't like it, move to some third world country that doesn't think a safety net is important.

daxtonbrown's picture

Let's face it, Obama is a wannabe dictor/progressive no different than Hugo Chavez. The left has always prided itself on being radical revolutionaries and idolizes Che, that's what OWS is all about. They want a civil war over class envy and they are going to get it. In fact, the civil war has already started, it just looks different because of the Internet being a territory for occupation.

bshirley1968's picture

I just real the home page for the the site you listed and it makes me sick.  It can be summed up by the last line that says if we can hunker down and make it through we can "be prepared for the rainbow at the end of the storm".  Are you for real?  A rainbow?  Like the one they have in China, Russia, Korea, Cuba, Hungary, or all of Europe for that matter.  You act as though someone will turn the page and we will all be back to page one.  What kind of pipe dream are you living and what kind of denial trip are you on?

Who do you think will be running things when the "storm is over", George Washington?  More likely someone like Moa or Kim.  Stalin or Hitler.  Is that your idea of a "rainbow".  Sounds like to me you and your kind are just worried about saving your own ass.  Good thing the people who gave us this country didn't feel that way or you wouldn't even know what a "rainbow" was.  Good thing they didn't just hunker down in a cave somewhere and let everyone else fight for them so they could walk out one day and reap the rewards of others sacrifices.  You are nothing more than the people you put down.  Sure you will go work for your money unlike the welfare people you despise but you're damn sure not going to FIGHT for your freedom.  You'll be glad to let someone else do that for you so you can live your little cushy American dream.


spooz's picture

To be more specific, while I do agree that Obama is a swine, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the other side is no better.  And the whole "welfare state" meme needs to be revised.  It was the banksters that brought us to this place.  Here is a Realnews Network piece on how the austerity measures in Europe are all about keeping the banksters, who engineered the credit bubble, intact.  No losses for the bondholders.  Just austerity for the people and no support for the economy.

Eurocrisis Solutions for Whom?

the grateful unemployed's picture

thought about bullet pointing this mess, but why really. if Obama had delivered this speech to the OWS in NY it might have meant something, but increasingly Obama only makes campaign speeches to midwest Republicans. (my personal thought is he wants to run with them, not against them, if you get my drift) in other words when John Kerry said he could run the Iraq War better than George Bush, he really wanted to be the (Republican) President, and Obama wants the same deal. he can do it better, cut your SSN, give tax breaks to the 1%, bail out the big banks. who do you trust to dismantle the safety net, Gingrich or me?

That includes disingenuous speeches about the income disparity gap, the sort of speech maybe George Bush would have made just to highlight {their - Democrat party} talking points to a crowd of friendly working class Republicans. oh and by the way i want to be your education President too..

Obama switched parties a long time ago, he was put on this earth to keep George Bush and his cronies out of jail.

gigeze787's picture

Here's an op-ed from a rich guy ($10M/year income) who says you're full of crap:

This 2012 election is about deciding who gets gets welfare what type of welfare. The rich have been getting welfare since Reagan, and GW Bush doubled down.  

The GOP proletariat going for Newt in 2012 is a clear indication that all of their hype about "family values", etc. is pure hypocrisy. If they go for Romney it means they stands for nothing except self-serving expediency, just like their candidate.    This election is just about who gets a dwindling supply of American money, that's all. The GOP is looking out for the 1% and panders to the next 49%.  We'll see if destroying the middle class works for them this time.