o'reilly column sig

State, national columnists

Pumping up the liberalism

By From page A8 | January 28, 2013

So now the president is a committed man of the left. No longer is he faking moderation or even trying to bring the nation “together.” Nope. As he made clear in his inauguration speech, Barack Obama is dedicating himself to achieving “social justice,” no matter what the cost.

And the cost is high. The annual federal deficit is more than $1 trillion, with the national debt approaching $17 trillion. Just last week, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office warned once again that federal spending is “unsustainable.” That means if government spending is not curtailed and quickly, the U.S. dollar could collapse.

But you would not know that by listening to the president’s address. He was decidedly upbeat when telling the nation that more needs to be done (code for spending) to ensure “equality.”

That’s the big left-wing word these days: “equality.”

But can we be real here for a moment? Does anyone, even those of you living in San Francisco, believe that an American who earns a Ph.D. in economics is going to be equal to the high school dropout in the marketplace? Anyone? Bueller?

So let’s drop the equality business at least in the capitalist arena. The strong and smart prosper; the weak and lazy fail.

But not in Obama world. Not there. The president sees his mandate as “providing” for those who can’t cut it. He is the biggest spender of all the presidents in the nation’s history by far.

Obama is proud of his belief that government knows best. When he told the world that individuals are not totally responsible for their personal success, that government has a major role in it, many Americans were taken aback. But Obama sincerely believes that.

Let me prove him wrong with a vivid comparison.

In 1979, a man named Rupert Murdoch started a company that today employs 48,000 workers worldwide. The employees of News Corporation, of which I am one, pay taxes and support families. The company gives us an opportunity to succeed on our own without any financial assistance from the government. In turn, we provide assets to the government. We don’t take from it.

Some of our tax dollars go to pay the salaries and benefits of government workers. Since he was elected, Obama has increased the federal payroll by more than 130,000. Most of those folks work hard, but again, they are paid by private sector workers.

So which scenario is better for America? The private sector situation, or the expanding government workforce?

If you don’t know the answer to that question, you don’t want to know.

Obama is a utopian at heart. He wants to improve the lives of the downtrodden, which is a good thing. But he doesn’t understand that damaging the free marketplace in pursuit of “social justice” will eventually harm those he wants to help.

The nation’s crushing debt is a tsunami brewing offshore. Let’s hope Obama wises up before we all get swept away.

Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News Show, “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Bill O'Reilly


Discussion | 12 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • rlw895January 27, 2013 - 9:07 pm

    Another spokesman for angry white men, and an employee of Rupert Murdoch, Bill is not a good translator for telling us what Obama believes or intends to do.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Tom ChalkJanuary 27, 2013 - 9:26 pm

    RLW: Bill has made some good points, and does not seem like an "angry white man" to me. Too bad your liberal biases and filters won't let you see the basic truth behind his words. By the way, being an "angry white man" is a heck of a lot better than being a shill for a president and an administration that is determined to drag this country down to the level of France, Greece, etc. This web site is infested with those shills. If you, too, are not an "angry white man," I have to wonder why not?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895January 28, 2013 - 12:15 am

    Tom: I didn't say Bill is an angry white man. I said he was a spokesman for angry white men. He makes a very good living doing that. He fuels the fires of anger with a little dose of fear and a large measure of puting motives of his own invention behind Obama's words. Notice that? I choose not to buy it. But let's dig in. What "good points" did he make or "basic truths" did he tell us?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Tom ChalkJanuary 28, 2013 - 8:50 am

    RLW: To save time, I will nominate paragraphs 1,2,3,6,7,8 and 15 of O'Reilly's column as being good points and/or basic truths.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • G-ManJanuary 28, 2013 - 1:02 pm

    Well.."Chalk" up 2 for Tom..that's Tom 2 RLW 0....with Patriot on deck for the conversion...btw RLW I didn't forget about the silencers and machine guns..it's different state to state but both are available in PA...go to www.guntrustlawyer.com. ...Pre 1986 machine guns are legal here

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895January 28, 2013 - 1:40 pm

    G-Man: I assume the 1986 date is because the we didn't want to confiscate automatic weapons that had been legal. See? We're not so bad! But the question was how much does one of those pre-1986 full auto long guns cost? A nice one, in operation.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • G-ManJanuary 29, 2013 - 1:29 am

    @RLW..go to www.guntrustlawyer.com. Thought I mentioned cost..this site say low 5 figures w/prohibitive ammo costs..std clip empties in a couple of seconds..large capacity,drums, belts etc 6-900rds a minute....THESE are "assault weapons"..and have no place in the home for self defense..unless you're a drug baron w/a scarface complex..keep em on the range please

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • G-ManJanuary 29, 2013 - 1:31 am

    Low 5 figures...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895January 29, 2013 - 1:42 am

    G-Man: Thanks. I said I would stand corrected that automatic long guns were effectively banned if the figure was less than $5,000. So, I do stand corrected in that they aren't banned, but they are effectively banned by being so expensive. They are essentially collectables. Not that it matters a whole bunch, but thanks again for closing the loop.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • G-ManJanuary 29, 2013 - 2:45 am

    It's all there on the Internet..it's not ALL porn ya know..but I'm eternally greatful for the 62% of it that is.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895January 28, 2013 - 1:36 pm

    Tom: Let's make it easier and start with one. Any one you like. And take the time to spell it out for me so I don't have to figure out what you mean.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PatriotJanuary 28, 2013 - 6:24 am

    Bill's comments are right on..This person we call "president" is truly going to go down in history or bringing this country to the brink of default..But all of the lazy followers will continue to believe all that he does is great for all... Not for the persons that actually pay taxes (48%). 52% are sucking this country dry..I see evidence of this everyday..

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.