Faulty claims from the 99% only enhance failures of the left to grow business

Hypocrisy is fun.

At least if you’re a liberal.

They proved it again recently by protesting a Koch Brothers function, mostly because it was a collection of ultra-rich people, to raise money for Mitt Romney, a man who they hope will serve their interest.

As the article from the Economist mention, President Obama has had fundraisers hosted by George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker in the last few months, not much different from the $50,000 a plate dinner the left’s biggest enemies just hosted.

There are obvious differences: it was in the Hamptons, there was a stream of dream cars and some rather unflattering comments were quoted.

Oh, and it was run by conservatives.

As I’ve argued so often, it’s only OK to be rich if you’re a liberal.

But perhaps there is a bigger difference.

I’ll appeal to a great skit by Chris Rock where he explains the difference between being rich and being wealthy.

Hollywood stars like George Clooney are rich.

David Koch, with a net worth in the billions, is wealthy.

Now, according to our president, neither of those men built their fortunes…someone else did.

But liberals have this false corollary where they think conservatives favor the rich because it serves their own interests. Furthermore, the corollary goes, business people like to give money to the GOP because Republicans will help the rich get richer.

Let me be more clear about what is truly going on.

We have a president who believes Steve Jobs doesn’t deserve credit for turning Apple into the most successful company in world history.

We also have a presidential candidate who made himself into a wealthy man by investing in the right companies.

Republicans understand business and what it takes to help them grow.

Democrats don’t.

Liberals will point to Bill Clinton as proof positive that my theory is false, but Clinton was the beneficiary of massive drops in crime for which he cannot take any credit.

Furthermore, the tech boom created prosperity based on innovation (that’s called business), not on government policies.

And lest we not forget, Clinton helped create the housing market bubble with some questionable policies surrounding mortgages and lending, all which created a short-term boom, but a long-term disaster.

This isn’t about the GOP doing favors for their business friends.

It’s the GOP doing what is best for business, because what is best for business is what’s best for all of us.

Let me take this one step further and be a tad boorish about it.

Mitt Romney doesn’t need the money that crony-capitalism brings. He doesn’t have a big entourage of people who he’d like to help make rich so he’d seem like a great guy (George W. Bush) or a group of people to whom he owes a plethora of favors (Barack Obama).

Romney is in this presidential campaign to save this country from slipping in the muck and mire of a socialistic state where success is shunned rather than celebrated.

He doesn’t need to do it for any other reason.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

2 thoughts on “Faulty claims from the 99% only enhance failures of the left to grow business

  1. Lee Weishar says:

    Although I agree that Romney would be better economically for the country, we need to remember that he doesn’t really support all business equally – he favors government intervention even if not on the same scale as Obama. You said that the government was not involved in the tech boom, but wasn’t it them working with the FED that created that bubble (which is why it crashed) just like the housing bubble?

    • youngright says:

      Lee, the dot-com bubble burst because the nature of the growth was inherently flawed. The idea that getting bigger was more important that turning a profit was just an unsustainable business strategy and as interest rates went up, the companies couldn’t keep up their spending habits amid meager or even no profits. Sure, the FED raised interest rates, but that wasn’t directly related, or at least solely related to the tech boom itself. That was hardly government intervention in the same way new EPA restrictions are for example. The housing bubble was importantly different because it was government incentives to lend which lead to precarious and reckless practices by banks. I’d say you’ve an apples and oranges comparison there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: