Right and that is exactly aligned with the libertarian/conservative position that actual "public goods" are a benefit to society. What needs to be done is to strictly define "public goods". The fact that Obama can play fast and loose with the language of public goods is a sign that political discourse is degraded. Problems begin when certain segments of the Left try to buy votes by spending tax dollars to enable current consumption levels to rise among the part of the public whose economic production levels do not justify those consumption levels. Society cannot endure someone whose productivity levels only support $20K of consumption consuming $30K worth of goods as a result of transfer payments. In layman's terms, you should only be able to consume an amount equal to what you produce.
Our society can and does "endure" that, and has for many decades. Entire states are net recipients of transfer payment monies. I posted a graphic and table with that information for the past twenty years (the first transfers bailed out some of the colonies!) elsewhere in the basement, but here's the link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
Third sentence after the "bad" one. "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." President Obama Some folks don't read that far.
Mitt Romney, or the super PACs that support him, should hit this issue hard. So far it is only being debated in the op/ed pages of the newspapers, which nobody reads anymore. This is an issue that if brought front and center, would wound Obama mortally. Republicans are known for their poor Presidential election campaigns, they are being handed a gift right now. Will they use it?
LOL. This is how the masses are kept dumb. One socialist is pitted against the other, as if there is a difference. Little do they know, there is but one party, the party of the communist socialists, from which Reagan is the grandmaster, and Obama a mere student.
And then guys like Rand Paul will tell you that it's a business owner's right if he chooses not to serve someone for reasons that may include bigotry. He's "disgusted" by it, of course, but it remains what he believes to be a right. So let'd hope you don't get on the bridge & road owner's bad side, eh?
Yes, but it's a two-step process. In order to be sustainable, the partisan hack job of a political speech must be followed by a distinct lack of reading comprehension by much of the remainder of that party's membership. And, sure enough, to this end, ET's political Right comes through once again.