The problem is this: this tactic by the Romney campaign, no matter how despicable, is working. What are Obama and the Democrats going to do? My guess is they'll do what they always do: get run over and pat themselves on the back for being right on the issues and dignity. Then the Republicans will erase the 20th century.

"Then the Republicans will erase the 20th century". DisgustedWithItAlll

What a great line.....and how scary, true it is.

Face it, Obama made a gaffe. Like any other politician, the Romney team will pounce and ignore the full context. Remember "I like firing people".

@Tom.... Unless you are saying that the reporting here is false, re-reading Pres. Obama's quote clearly shows that your claim "Face it, Obama made a gaffe" is itself FALSE. Pres. Obama's words were somewhat eloquent, and --more importantly-- honest as well as acclaiming both hard-working & smart American employees and successful business folk whose initiative spawned & led their companies, plus the importance of teachers, scientific research, governmental infrastructure support, our wonderfully "unbelievable American system" built up (from centuries of effort), and American teamwork. Such words are NOT a gaffe! No way!

RATHER, Pres. Obama's words wonderfully & thoroughly appreciate the efforts of so many different people in different jobs, with different incomes, over the centuries of our nation's history, private sector & public sector, great teachers, innovation & cooperation!

HERE YOU GO @Tom: I'll slice-&-dice & rearrange your own post (similar to what Mitt Romney endorsed Romney's 'marketing' staff doing:

@ Tom wrote [chopped & re-arranged]: "Face it, remember "I like firing people" like any other politician. Face it, the Romney team will pounce & ignore the full context -- a gaffe."

Obscene and anarchistic -- turning fact into lies (worse yet, lies pronounced in the actual voice of the person who spoke truthfully) threatens to corrupt, and perhaps even end, American democracy.

When truth is willfully adulturated, twisted, shredded, unconscionably re-arranged & re-assembled with the intent to deceive Americans, done by someone (& his staff) who might conceivably become President?!.... American democracy is in trouble. Obscene trouble.

When the policy-makers, the powerful and/or rich, willfully twist & shred the truth into deceitful lies, then the possibility of society frustrations, economic stress, near-absolute distrust of politicians as lying manipulators & opportunizers-- the possibility of boiling societal sentiments turning into violent protests or even revolution against the cozy, powerful, rich, insensitive, lying politicians, becomes much too close to reality.

ANYONE who personally --or as a front for other hidden powerful manipulators-- who makes 'truth' & 'fact' & 'honesty' into meaningless empty deceiving words-- is a menacing threat to our society, and to the world. How can anyone function (let alone thrive?) where no one knows what is fact and what is manipulation, what is worth teaching & what is poo, where law is a laughingstock when one never knows what it really means and whether it is being faithfully enforced.

I can only give that one 1 thumbs up Trollop , but I wanted to give it more , you really nailed it there

class warriors sounds pretty good , the freedom fighters

Romney has used this comment at least twice, both when referencing what observers saw to be dishonest attacks.

I also think it's pretty clear. "If they can take stuff out of context to win some points, then so can I"

Yes, since Romney has repeatedly used it to defend the use of blatantly dishonest attacks, I think the translation is "We're only lying to defend against their lies. Please ignore the fact that I'm lying about that, too."

Well. Romney' aproach seems to be working. While still early, the Obama attacks on Bain and outsourceing don't seem to be working. Have Obama defend his +8% unemployment without blaming Bush and Congress. He is an ineffective leader domestically. Foreign policy he's pretty effective because he doesn't have to get approval.

Yes Tom , romney is doing a wonderful job of convincing everyone wall st is for the working class , and keeping jobs in america , he has convinced you and the stooge party any way

Better to run the actual clip , then the edited version and ask :

Are these the type of dishonest people you want running the country?

Sad , Very Sad.

And for the half a dozen people willing to sit through a 5 minute political ad versus a 30-second one, that will work wonders, but for the millions who barely tolerate commercials as it is, a nice 30-second ad where Romney interviews are woven together so it sounds like he wants poor people to die from cancer, prefaced with a "What Romney said" graphic, followed by a still of Romney, followed with a shot of that crying woman being consoled and hugged by Obama, will do wonders.

Sad , Very Sad.

I couldn't agree more, as my screen name can attest.

You are probably right slappy . Short attention span theater.

Brawndo !It's got elecrolytes

Via The Simpsons

Including trollz on this site.

I believe Steve is saying he doesn't know what the "sauce for the goose" part of the equation was supposed to be.

If that were the case, I think he'd phrase it differently, indicating the opinion that the saying was being misapplied in this case.

You'll recall that when that clip first aired on the show, Rachel made fun of the word "sauce."

Try the decaf, John. Steve has written about this before, wondering what "sauce for..." has to do with what Romney did (and how Romney uses the phrase,) not wondering what "sauce for..." means.

The defense is just idiotic. Romney knowingly took words out of context, and changed the meaning of a sentence, for the sole purpose of misleading the public. “Sauce for the gander”? What is that even supposed to mean? If Obama had taken McCain’s comments out of context to deceive voters, this might be slightly less ridiculous. But the president didn’t do this, and that’s apparently not the point Romney is trying to make, anyway.

Rather, the Republican is effectively trying to say, “Obama criticized the McCain campaign, so we get to make stuff up about Obama.”

C'mon just-john? Only someone who has bad reading comprehension doesn't know exactly what Benen means here. Benen knows the phrase and he is simply implying that Romney's use of it is nonsensical.

I'm just taking him at his word.

Who?

By my observation, Republicans will not let anything pass without giving something to large corps and the wealthy as they believe an economy is better giving to those with the most to create jobs for those with the least, which is ONLY working, as designed and is evident, for those with the most without having to bother with those having the least, the evidence being continued rise in productivity without the historical commensurate increase in wages and more for the wealthy since 1973.

I'll bet those quotes would make a fine Obama commercial. After all, "if it's sauce for the gander" it's .... whatever.

People can read the same documents and come away with different points of view: This what the President said in part:
Taken from July 13, 2012 speech by President Obama

“I’ve got a different idea. I do believe we can cut -- we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. (Applause.) Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, government can’t solve every problem. If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them. Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them. (Applause.)

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)”

This appears to be the part of the speech you take exception to. Could he have said it more eloquently yes - but I got his meaning.

I take exception to the entire speech. If you don't understand that it's the American people that created this country, not the jagoffs in washington and their special interests, I can't help you.

"Footnote. The "guvmit" did't build the Golden Gate bridge either."

Following is the Finance excerpt from Wikipedia on building the Golden Gate Bridge:

The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, authorized by an act of the California Legislature, was incorporated in 1928 as the official entity to design, construct, and finance the Golden Gate Bridge.^[11] However, after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the District was unable to raise the construction funds, so it lobbied for a $30 million bond measure. The bonds were approved in November 1930,^[14] by votes in the counties affected by the bridge.^[24] The construction budget at the time of approval was $27 million. However, the District was unable to sell the bonds until 1932, when Amadeo Giannini, the founder of San Francisco–based Bank of America, agreed on behalf of his bank to buy the entire issue in order to help the local economy.^[7]

Government entities, specifically the County of Marin and the City of San Francisco, started the whole thing because private enterprise did not have the notion or money they were willing to let go. Private enterprise got the benefit of profit from guaranteed financing born from government. The government also donated by transfer of public lands.

socflww

"I take exception to the entire speech. If you don't understand that it's the American peoplethat created this country, not the jagoffs in washington and their special interests, I can't help you."

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE GOV , what about that don't YOU understand? Chalk up another gop voter who hates on the constitution and the fore fathers

Patango: Just to add: "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln, excerpted from the Gettysburg.

...Address.

And it's because we have the GOP in government, throwing wrenches in the gears, that government has the trouble working that it does. You cannot sabotage something, and then blame it for not working right; that's like me smashing your knee to flinders, and then claiming it's your fault you can't walk.

So, what matters more to you, @socflww - words taken out of context or actions? The business owners portrayed in Romney's ad who are looking so angry about what they think the president said are probably benefiting from his small business incentives and several tax credits right now. The GOP has voted against every single measure to help small businesses over the course of Obama's presidency, and Mitt Romney has profited handsomely from the outsourcing of small business jobs. Neither Romney, nor any conservative, has any shred of credibility when it comes to talking about support for small businesses, because congressional Republicans time and again vote against any bill that favors small businessowners.

I guess you missed out on that whole 2008 election stuff , nut house visit?

Not for nothing, TRFjr, last I looked, MSNBC is not running for president, and I, for one, think Romney should hold himself to a higher standard than being the host of a cable news program. Second, by your own words, you prove Pres. Obama's point - it wasn't just an individual business owner's taxes that funded roads and bridges, it was all of our taxes. Just ask Darrell Issa, who has used his position in Congress to help himself to taxpayer money to finance public works projects that are favorable to properties he owns (NYT: "A Businessman in Congress, Helping His District - and Himself").

then who should the credit for those roads and bridges getting built should it go to the tax payer whose money went to have it built or the government

All should go to the tax payer because if it wasn't for the tax payer their wouldn't be government programs to build the roads and bridges. Obama style of Government wants to take all the credit for roads and bridges getting built so they can say the tax payer owes him. but he want to leave out the most important part that tax money went into those roads and bridges and they are owned by the tax payer not the government

this goes to show the major differences between Conservatives and liberals capitalist and socialist republicans and democrats

Conservatives, capitalist. and Republicans believe the government works for us the American tax payer and the money that is given to the government is for the benefit of the tax payer and anything that government produces from that tax money is the property of the tax payer

Liberal. socialist and democrats believe the tax payer works for the behalf of government and all taxes paid to them is governments money to do what benefits government and anything that government produces is the property of government and we as tax payers should thank the government for being so generous for allowing us to use what they produce so we owe them

"then who should the credit for those roads and bridges getting built should it go to the tax payer whose money went to have it built or the government"

It's not mutually exclusive, it's a partnership between citizens and their government.

Shorter version of Democratic and Republican view of taxpayer dollars: Republicans: Love taking advantage of taxpayer dollars, but hate taxes.

Democrats: Tax dollars that provide goods and services to constituents, local, and national, are good. Taxpayer money that benefits a privileged few is bad.

And yes it is exclusive the tax payer the American citizen is the ones who take the credit for this great nation not government The first line of the Constitution confirm as much

"We The People" it not we the people and government it is just We the People its we the people who gave some power to government the government exist because we the people give that to them Its not or should be an equal partnership it is the government working for We the people

When government decides they are equal partners that leads to government thinking they are more important then We the People and that leads to Tyranny

Government is the employees of We the People its not an equal partnership

You did your duty and paid your taxes. Your elected officials use those taxes to provided needed services and goods (granted, this is a stripped-down example.) You both get credit for doing your part. For most people, that is not a scary prospect.

Government is and needs to remain subservient to the people

the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to make sure that is the case and should remain the case because they knew how it was to live under tyranny and they knew if you gave government to much power or credit it would happen again

this is why the have the right to bare arms in the bill of rights because they know if goverment gets out of hand when they assume more power then what was originally granted to them they have an armed civilian population to answer to but if you take their guns away what do they have to fear

I'm trying to stay with you here, but I truly don't get how paying taxes and then benefiting from them by way of improved roads and bridges - where it can be said that the credit goes equally to the taxpayer for doing their part, and the government for accomplishing what they have a responsibility to do -- adds up to the threat of tyranny.

see you are under the premise that government is an equal partner when they work with the private sector and that is wrong the government works FOR the private sector not WITH the private sector. You are giving to much power and credit to government when you refer to them as equal partners

When you hire a maid to clean your house does that then make that maid an equal partner in your house no that maid works for you to do a job you hired her or him to do if you make that maid an equal partner you give up sole ownership in the decisions in that house

TRFjr - here's what I originally said:

"It's not mutually exclusive, it's a partnership between citizens and their government."

That is a statement of the equation of Taxes + Government = Roads and bridges

When the funding isn't there, the projects don't get done. That has nothing to do with government being equal or not being equal to citizens. The partnership functions within the relationship of government to its citizens.

TRFjr - Horse@!$%#. The government does NOT work for the private sector, it is dominant over it. Otherwise, how would there be any authority to arrest, try, and punish private citizens? I don't see any standing private armies, either, or police forces. The means by which our government is subservient to the citizenry is by the fact that it's MADE of our citizens, and made to change to fit the expressed will of the citizenry through the voting process. To pretend that what you're saying is accurate is to indulge in the fever dream of a neoconservative loon who has no idea of the actual functioning or foundation of our country and its system. The founding fathers actually spoke AGAINST corporations having power; how can you believe they meant them to be dominant, except in ignorance of our history? Answer: you can't.

@ TRFjr, I'll agree some & disagree some. In "We the People", I suspect that the Nation's Founders did not mean to exclude those of this new self-governing society. Our U.S.A. government is part of us, part of "We the People". We don't say a person's hair is distinctive, so it's not really part of the person, or that his/her brain is distinctive, it's not really part of the person. Regardless of the Founder's attention to this, IMO it's healthy to regard our government as part of "We the People".

Yes, we are a "nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal", and (continuing this famous President's words) "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-- ... ... ... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

"Government ... by the people"-- the people constitute the government; the government is part of the people.

"Government ... for the people"-- the people are to be served by the government; the government is to work for the good of the people.

"Government ... of the people"-- the people accept being governed; the government is to govern.

Thinking deeper...

"Government ... by the people"-- as "we the people" constitute the government, we have great civic duty to contribute efforts & thoughtful opinions to our government; the government is part of the people, and all governmental agents should identify themselves, their hopes & their futures & difficulties, with the hopes & futures & difficulties of "we the people".

"Government ... for the people"-- "We the people" (all of us, not just certain individuals or sub-populations) are to be served by the government. "We the people" (all of us, and so government services to the nation should serve ALL) are to be served by the government. Reciprocally, the government is to work for the good of "we the people" (for the good of ALL the people, as "we the people" shall share common fate as a nation, as "we the people" are all held back if some sub-segment or our nation's population is not being served. Again, the government is to work for the good of "we the people" -- so the government is not intended to just exempt itself from the lives of the nation's citizens; rather the government is to take active efforts for the people.

"Government ... of the people"-- "We the people" accept being governed; we accept that the good of our nation, the general welfare of "we the people", is promoted by our acceptance of being governed (by some servant citizens from amongst us). "Government ... of the people"-- Our government is to govern; it is not meant to be inactive, passive.

@TRFjr also wrote:

Obama style of Government wants to take all the credit for roads and bridges getting built...

Conservatives, capitalist. and Republicans believe the government works for us the American tax payer and the money that is given to the government is for the benefit of the tax payer and anything that government produces from that tax money is the property of the tax payer

Liberal. socialist and democrats believe the tax payer works for the behalf of government and all taxes paid to them is governments money to do what benefits government and anything that government produces is the property of government and we as tax payers should thank the government for being so generous for allowing us to use what they produce so we owe them

@TRFjr: You can't be serious in these paragraphs, can you??? Your last paragraph is just nonsense! I can't think of anyone I've ever met that thinks that the U.S. taxpayer works for the government, and that whatever the government collects is not, in truth, the citizens' money. Maybe in some countries with dictators who build outrageously luxurious palaces, tombs, & monuments to themselves; maybe in some preached-to mega-congregation(s) with a "minister" who pockets millionS$$, and continues to bilk people --too commonly, people in poverty-- getting those with little to give even more of their money to him/her. That sure seems sinful to me; maybe in some corporations where the upper execs take home obscene bonuses while the blue color workers lose their jobs &/or their benefits, and consequently, too frequently, lose their home.

I think that virtually every adult American understands that the government is only the steward of the pooled taxpayer monies, and the utilization of such funds is always for the public interests. Some of the challenges to the successful utilization of funds are: polarizing adversarial relationships among too many members of our R & D parties; some problems span a long time-horizon that goes beyond the term lengths of Congress/President; lobbying $$$ are heavy, presumably with some compromising effects; many problems are extremely complex, and available data is very likely significantly imperfect (even if it were thorough, complete, & effectively reliable [e.g., what are the right things to measure in order to truly assess the quality of a school district's education efforts]), so best efforts at analysis leave uncertainty, debatable paths, and paths that generally require adjustments (such adjustments constituting recurring political obstacles); lack of politicians' willingness to dialogue with others of variant judgements, lack of willingness to put one's career on the line, AND lack of citizen participation in the processes, such participation illuminating the politicians' choices & decisions.

I trust then, that Gilchrist is not taking advantage of any of the many tax incentives and credits that Pres. Obama has signed off on for small businesses. And that Gilchrist absolutely loves it that while Romney was busy misrepresenting the president's policies on small businesses, he forgot to urge Republicans to NOT vote against the small business hiring bill that was up for a vote this afternoon, which Republicans killed? I guess Gilchrist is also mighty impressed that Romney hated what Obama said so much that just a few days later, he himself repeated the same exact points.

No, that just as TRMS aagain falsified the Romney speech tonight. TRMS edits the speech. Using only the preamble, the you got help along the way, then sites aids that assist the small business owner. That only to lead into the punchline that TRMS does not show. It's a false reaffirmation of what Warren and Obama said in thier speeches supposedly by Romney. Becuase the punchline is that he (Romney) does NOT agree with the final analysis. He finishes with a strong message excoriating Obama's statement. He finishes by saying the President does not appreciate but rather demonizes american exceptionalism. That on TRMS part is deceptive. That is taking something out of context to the extreme.

Here's a comparison. I condemn a Red Sox fan who says "I love to watch the Red Sox play the Yankees. Some love it when the Red Sox win." "We should hate the Yankees"

Before an audience I want to make the point that this Red Sox fan is wrong to say we should hate the Yankees. So I say, "I love to watch the REd Sox play the Yankees" "Some love it when the Red Sox win" "But to say we should all hate the Yankees, that is just wrong" "It's irresponsible and foolish" "Mr Red Sox fan stop demonizing the Yankees" "I for one am a huge Yankees fan and I don't hate them".

TRMS host says, they are saying the exact same thing and agreeing on it. Then creating false ads against what even they just said. Here's what the Yankees fan said it's the very same thing as the REd Sox fan said. Then she shows me saying "I love to watch the Red Sox playing the Yankees." "Some love it when the Red Sox win"She cuts off the tape there and says, There see, he's saying the same thing. Some love to see the Red Sox win and he hates the Yankees.

That my friend is what Maddow does to you every night. Call it what you want. It is deceitful and the regular practice on TRMS and this blog.

Poor analogy or not, it's the same thing. As for the Gilchrist ad, that was awesome. And it works. That ad strikes fear into the hearts of progressives and Obama supporters and that is why she falsified the story tonight. Romney was NOT supporting Obama or Ms Warren statements of speeches he was condemning them. Ms Maddow was not true to her audience. Which is to say she intentionally mislead you. But you can't fool everyone Ms Maddow. Some of us are onto You.

@ Irish Pat wrote:

Did somebody else take the loan out on my father's house to finance this factory. Paraphrased. Somebody else spend sleepless nights worrying how payroll was going to met. With their own hands, the Gilchrist's did build this!
.....
"You didn't build that." Yes sir, yes they did Mr Presidnet. Yes they did.

IMO, the above interpretations of Pres. Obama's speech are unfaithful -- reading the entire speech shows that the meaning here is that: America works best with cooperation, people doing their parts, building a nation (an unbelievably successful system: with stable economic structures; some laws protecting citizens from (IMO) immoral business practice, other laws protecting businesses as they engage each other in commerce; public services such as roads, police/fire/EMT/health protections; education opportunity as a path to new family futures), neighbors helping neighbors, employees & business owners both benefiting (properly: without either side benefiting disproportionately and insufficiently) from their partnered hours of dedicated efforts. Among many contributing to the centuries of vitality of the American economy are: innovators; entrepreneurs/businesspersons; dedicated workers; dedicated teachers; honest banks; hard-working farmers; ...

In various & widely different ways, we are all in this together. And when the nation works, the whole economic + legal justice system works, then ALL benefit.

President Obama's message emphasizes the essential fact that, in different ways & degrees, we all depend on others, on our legal system, our judicial system, our legislative system, on our support service systems (fire, health, retirement, infrastructure, ...). NO AMERICAN IS AN ISLAND, totally responsible for all her/his successes and/or struggles.

For the specific example of the Gilchrists... Yes, the Gilchrists DID it, but not entirely alone. OK, they took out a loan on their house... so the Gilchrist family business couldn't have succeeded without a sufficiently solid & ethical/regulated financial sector able to provide that loan. They needed customers-- so the Gilchrist family business couldn't have done it without their customers. Gilchrists slept less concerned for being able to pay their employees-- so the Gilchrist family business couldn't have succeeded without their employees (of whatever skills & educations). Economic successes never come in a vacuum, whether historical, economic, societal. Indeed, the Gilchrests' and all essentially ALL American successes were built upon the lives/deaths of thousands of Europeans who sailed the Atlantic to pursue life here (including the kindnesses of Native Americans who helped some settlers through tough times); built upon the lives/deaths of millions of Africans who sailed the Atlantic [a million (or 2!-- God it sounds so robotic/offhand/unfeeling as if "What's another million?") dying during the 'voyage'] over the span of about 350 years; built upon waves of other immigrants; built upon farmers across the continent; built upon soldiers who yielded their sacred lives (with greater Free Will than did the Africans so yield under a combination of Christian European & Non-Christian African steel hands); built upon those who invested (& sometimes entirely spent the last ounce of) their lives crossing the Appalachian mountain ranges, cutting roads, clearing hillsides, with other bold individuals & families later going further west.

The Gilchrist family business couldn't have succeeded without the American economy's lifeblood of agriculture & energy -- couldn't have succeeded without of the sacrifice of lives of many many coal miners (even to our present times), and many others' brow-sweat efforts. Throughout our history, some women gave up the option of marriage so as to remain a dedicated teacher or nurse. Today's economy & opportunities wouldn't be anywhere near where we are if it weren't for all the employes of, and all the individual efforts of humans such as Thomas Alva Edison (who worked tirelessly with few hours sleep, even spending nights in his 'laboratory'), Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and thousands of other innovators (together with millions of their employees), many of whom were somewhat recent immigrants. ...

Everyone in America here today (even those just arrived yesterday) benefits from those who have been here before us. On the flip side, everyone in America here today has not just responsibility to invest efforts into her/his own personal future, but also responsponsibility to invest his/her efforts into the common good.

No individual, no family can claim full credit for all that s/he/they have done. Yes, they rightly deserve to be proud of, & hear acclaim for, the successes that are fruits of their labors; along the way the responsibilities of success also included moral/ethical treatment of all so-called stakeholders around their company: employees, local citizens, customers, the environment, local schools, suppliers, financiers, competitors, and stockholders.

These above realities of both benefiting from and contributing to the common good and the infrastructures & history of our nation, do NOT make us a socialist nation. No person is an island. No company is an island. Today, no economy is an island, Today, no culture is an island.

Projection much? Because I see that in spades in conservative politics.

ChrisD4: Thanks for the full context. I liked it, though I would have mentioned that a lot of business is subsidized by the government, meaning the people.

Yes, ChrisD4, thanks for the full speech. Yes, the issue of "we're all in this together, each benefiting in some ways from efforts of other, in the present as well as in the future, was first stated in relation to successful business-folk who want to "give something back" to society, for the general public welfare. Never the less, this sub-quote here,

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own

still leaves room --regarding the rest of Pres. Obama's speech-- for the general claim that we are all in this together, that our futures are interbound.

The ideas of Pres. Obama's speech, speech here are nowhere near as emphatic & demanding of Americans as were the famous words from President John F. Kennedy's inauguration speech: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!" Of course, Pres. JFK was the one who propelled us to put Neil Armstrong, & others, on the moon-- and those massive scientific/engineering/technological efforts sent out many technological offshoots that have developed & grown into the world entering into the Electronic/Information/PC/Internet/iPhone/iEverything Age. Indeed, in this new e-Age, we are --more than ever before-- all in this together!