If You Build It, They Will Come For It

“Why should they have it, if we don’t? Why should they stand above us? If we are to perish, let’s make sure that we all perish together.” ~ James Taggart, in support of Directive 10-289, Atlas Shrugged

Somebody else

#youdidntbuildthat,somebody else did

It’s their field of dreams, now

, , , ,

Go Here Too!

Also Follow Me on:

18 Comments on “If You Build It, They Will Come For It”

  1. John Boddie Says:

    Amazing – you seem hell-bent on taking a phrase out of context and twisting it into something it never was.

    Even Mr. Romney concurs that the infrastructure that supports business and makes business success possible had to be put in place by government, which fulfills its function of doing for all of us what none of us can do individually.

    Can you name a single instance of a successful business which did not rely in some degree on schools, roads, intellectual property laws or other public resources as it grew?


    • Sara for America Says:


      How does government get the money (theoretically, besides printing it out of thin air) to pay for the infrastructure in the first place?

      From work ethic of the individual. Somebody worked to pay taxes to give to the government to hire teachers, etc. You can call it a chicken and egg question if you want, but the government does not exist unless someone works to pay for it.

      To want to lay claim to the property rights of individuals is nothing short of sick, and certainly not what has made America the great nation that it at least was, once.


      • John Boddie Says:

        Government is a cooperative effort. When we live together in a society, whether it’s the United States or an aboriginal tribe, we give up some of our unfettered individual freedom so we can accomplish things as a group. This includes giving up some of the fruits of our labor.

        The point you make about “Somebody worked to pay taxes to give to the government to hire teachers, etc.” is exactly the point that the president was making. If you are a success in business, “somebody else” helped make that success possible.

        What did you have in mind when you mentioned “To want to lay claim to the property rights of individuals is nothing short of sick.”? Are you talking about taxes, or something else?

        You might consider the following: If it wasn’t for government, you wouldn’t have any property rights at all beyond what you could individually enforce. There are some good examples of this condition. Somalia is one.


        • Sara for America Says:

          It is no longer a collaborative, cooperative society when the least productive want to force the more productive to share the fruits of labor using the Government as a bully stick. And that is what is being done today. Success is being blasted as greed, the “rich” are being scorned as somehow getting where they got by taking advantage of others.

          Nobody forces someone to become an office clerk, nobody forces a trucker to drive a truck…. those are choices. Obama is the mouthpiece for people who do not want to live with those choices, who want to earn the income of someone who has gone to school to become a neurosurgeon, and because they don’t, they want to penalize the neurosurgeon. That’s why Obama’s remarks about “it’s probably because I’m so smart” struck a chord, because, sure, everyone thinks they are as smart as the next guy, and it’s only dumb luck that some other guy got rich.

          So if Obama can make people feel that they are just on the bad side of luck, or on the bad side of some guy who took advantage of them, that’s a perverse societal class warfare that Marxists thrive on. And yes, that’s SICK it doesn’t belong here, in America.


          • John Boddie Says:

            So all the people who played by the rules and who saw their jobs and retirement funds go under were really just striving for the freeloader’s life?

            That clears things up.

            Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

          • Sara for America Says:

            We were that group. You have no idea.

            But I don’t see myself in the hateful greed of Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi. They aren’t fighting for me. They are fighting for something else entirely…. a completely “new” system where government ensures we are somehow “equal”. Of course, in order for that to happen, there must be a government that grants itself a lot more power over the individual. And lucky them – they happen to be in that political class!

            What you want is to recoup losses, understandable… but not everything in life works out the way we plan. Wish it did. Wish it did.

  2. John Boddie Says:

    Re: ” They aren’t fighting for me.”

    And Romney is fighting for 7 figure bonuses for hedge fund managers and the hope that somehow “trickle down” economics will actually work this time. Does that sound like he’s fighting for you?

    I saw about forty percent of my retirement disappear in 2007/8 and the value of the farm that was going to be the biggest part of my retirement drop by over a million dollars. And after all this, I’m doing better than a lot of people who believed that markets were still free..

    I sure as hell don’t want to see this nation go back to the policies that got us into this mess, and those policies are all that the conservatives are offering.


    • Sara for America Says:

      For someone who supposedly doesn’t like engaging in generalities, arguing that Romney is fighting for 7 figure bonuses for hedge fund managers seems odd. What a talking point! How many people would that be, those hedge fund managers making 7 figure bonuses, exactly? So do I really care? On the other hand, Obama fights for mandated insurance purchases that take away the personal choices of everyone. That I care about.


    • Sara for America Says:

      Also you seem awfully willing to put blinders on to the fact:

      It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (progressive liberals) who put in place the policies that caused your farm to lose value and your retirement fund to crash. It was their policies that forced banks to lend to the unqualified (um, getting back to people who want to force redistribution of wealth using the government as a vehicle).

      Yet you want to blame CONSERVATIVES???? That’s pretty funny.


      • John Boddie Says:

        OK, what is it in the policies that conservatives are supporting that’s different from the policies in place under President Bush?

        For what it’s worth, Romney also fought for mandated insurance purchases and it seems to be working out pretty well.


        • Sara for America Says:

          Question for ya. Can Obama supporters ever have a debate without having to resort to the fall back of “Well, Bush did [something]!!!”

          What really, does Bush have to do with this? I thought we were debating current liberal attempts to control the free market by redistributing the earned income of successful businesses? Yes that is what we are debating.

          Either you are for that, or not. Apparently you are for it. And thank God I don’t live in Massachusetts, I live in Texas where we aren’t taxed out the freakin’ wazoo. That’s the beauty of federalism and the 10th amendment. You can move where there aren’t mandates…. Obama and company wants to take that choice away.


  3. John Boddie Says:

    We are debating policies. Referring to the policies that were in place when President Bush left office is a descriptive reference to those policies, not to the former president.

    You know the policies – lower taxes, less regulation – all the stuff that flatlined middle-class income growth for ten years while increasing the deficit and the debt. The facts are out there, You could look them up.


    • Sara for America Says:

      It wasn’t the policies of lower taxes and less regulation that flatlined growth… because how can you say that with a straight face? How big was the tax code? How many pages? I agree, there is too much tax code and too many loopholes. Let’s simplify it, shall we? And of course, the entitlement spending, always the spending. It’s the SPENDING that is the problem, mostly entitlements, pensions, you know that, we’ve agreed on that. The war spending, for instance, fact, don’t need to look it up.


      • John Boddie Says:

        Well, we did lower taxes and we did reduce regulation and there was no growth.

        Which entitlement do you want to cut – Social Security? Medicare? The Veterans Administration?

        How much do we need to cut in order to generate a surplus?


        • Sara for America Says:

          There are numerous proposals that address these issues that have not been adopted…. Senator Paul proposed a plan that would bring SS to solvency by raising the retirement age. I’m for that. There have been proposals regarding elimination of redundant/unnecessary federal agencies and I needn’t list them all here – you know the litany. I support many of those cuts. I also support cuts in the military as it is just as bloated as any other agency, and geared to another era (bygone). Major pension reforms to federal employees that seem to feel that their public “service” (cough cough) is somehow sacrosanct. That’s BS. And while we’re at it…. why does Michelle Obama need so many staffers? She’s not elected. Why are we funding her PR efforts?


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: