What I find even more humorus is the fact that before becoming President, Obama was a millionaire as well. But since he's a democrat, I guess it's ok for him to make a lot of money being a "community organizer" in Chicago. (Side note: any records of what Obama accomplished while in that position? Anything to prove he earned his pay check and turned the deprived community into a better place? Oh, there isn't?)...Even further hyprocrisy is displayed by the Hollywood liberals: almost every single late night host (Leno, Letterman, and Conan just to name a few) have been making jokes about Romney's wealth as well. Isn't that ironic: multi millionaires attacking a rich person for his wealth. Is there something wrong with being succesful? The hypocrisy is laughable; I don't even see how Romney's money is a valid attacking point in any way...
Well I'll keep my comments to a minimum here, I dont want to belabor the point. However, I will share with you Neal Boortz's opinion on the matter, seeing as he can articulate it better than I ever will be able to:
"The
rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the
investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new
businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of
paychecks home each week to the un-rich.
Second,
the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things
are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil
rich.
Envy
is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that
surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns.
Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by
promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their
fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.” The truth is that the top
10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes
collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our
tax system were any more “fair.”
You
have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Interestingly enough, our government’s own numbers show that many of the poor
actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But
for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor .. there’s
an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make
them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them
poor."
In this post you did exactly what liberals do. You brought up arguments then shot them down with arguments of your own without backing them up with supporting evidence. Am I just supposed to believe you now? Also you talk about how the hollywood liberal comedians "attack" Romney about his wealth. Wouldn't you say that they make jokes because that is their job? By using this argument you are saying that they have never made a joke about Obama which is completely ridiculous. In the first sentence you even sound surprised that the liberals are looking for things to attack Romney on. The conservatives are doing the exact same thing to Obama. You even did it in this post attacking him about being a millionaire without backing up your claims with any hard evidence. How does Neil Boortz's opinion even pertain to Romney? He is simply talking about the supposed widening gap between the rich and the poor, he is not addressing the wealth of political candidates.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment Pete.
DeleteObviously smear tactics are used on both sides, I wasn't faulting democrats at all for looking for something to attack Romney with. And also, my point about the comedians was simply to show that there are plenty of rich liberals out there who democrats have no problem with, thus shining a light on some hyprocrisy.
And again, I wasn't attacking Obama for being a millionaire, rather I was just noting the fact that the democrats themselves picked a fairly wealthy candidate, so it using that logic it doesn't make sense that they should be hammering away at Romney's wealth.
As far as the Neal Boortz comments are concerned, I added them to present a conservative argument about how the rich are vital to America and the economy. It wasn't pertaining to Romney at all.