EPTIf you think we just need to employ 3.1% more of the adult population to get to 5% unemployment, you are delusional. And you also can't ignore the fact that anytime numbers become distasteful for those in office, they change how they are counted. Inflation too high? Stop counting everything. Unemployment too high? Stop counting them all. Government liabilities growing too large? Stop counting them all. If unemployment and inflation were counted the same way they were in the 1930's, we would be at over 15% and 10% a month respectively.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 513
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
September 16 2012 22:57 GMT
#10241
If you think we just need to employ 3.1% more of the adult population to get to 5% unemployment, you are delusional. And you also can't ignore the fact that anytime numbers become distasteful for those in office, they change how they are counted. Inflation too high? Stop counting everything. Unemployment too high? Stop counting them all. Government liabilities growing too large? Stop counting them all. If unemployment and inflation were counted the same way they were in the 1930's, we would be at over 15% and 10% a month respectively. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
September 16 2012 22:57 GMT
#10242
On September 17 2012 07:56 Kaitlin wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:53 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:45 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: [quote] How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: [quote] The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Who the hell is "claiming ownership" of your stand?! What kind of crazy strawman of the point Obama was making is this?! All he's saying is that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum, and that we should therefore recognize the importance of both individual initiative and the fact that we live in a society and do some things together. As long as you recognize that some of the things that allow you to sell lemonade were not built by you (for example the roads that bring potential customers to your stand and more generally the infrastructure that allow humans to live in its relative vicinity), it means you agree with him. Do you have difficulty in separating the need for roads and infrastructure, in general, from irresponsible government spending and control ? Nobody thinks we should live in a society without the basic infrastructure that promotes commerce among us. Then you agree with the point he was making in that speech. The end. You seem to have real trouble reading posts. Nobody disputes that we ... eh - forget it, just scroll up, I'm not typing it again ... You seem to have trouble reading speeches. He was making a simple point. You stated you agree with something. That something was the point he was making. The end. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
September 16 2012 22:58 GMT
#10243
On September 17 2012 07:53 Kaitlin wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:45 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: [quote] How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Who the hell is "claiming ownership" of your stand?! What kind of crazy strawman of the point Obama was making is this?! All he's saying is that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum, and that we should therefore recognize the importance of both individual initiative and the fact that we live in a society and do some things together. As long as you recognize that some of the things that allow you to sell lemonade were not built by you (for example the roads that bring potential customers to your stand and more generally the infrastructure that allow humans to live in its relative vicinity), it means you agree with him. Do you have difficulty in separating the need for roads and infrastructure, in general, from irresponsible government spending and control ? Nobody thinks we should live in a society without the basic infrastructure that promotes commerce among us. However, using that basic premise as a rallying cry for morons to support economic policies they don't understand because they get free Obamaphones, for example, is disgusting to me. Disgusting on one level that our President engages in that rhetoric, but so much moreso that it actually works on so many people. $16 trillion in debt and counting. The younger generation is so obsessed with "making history" they do and support some really stupid shit, with no thought of the consequences. Well, there will be consequences, for sure, and it will be that very generation that bears the brunt of it. Wait, what are you talking about? That's not what Obama was addressing. You can't just use the context you want. You have to actually use the context that Obama is discussing. And the republicans that are tea partiers are essentially anarchists, so yea... | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
September 16 2012 23:02 GMT
#10244
On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
September 16 2012 23:03 GMT
#10245
On September 17 2012 07:58 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:53 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:45 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Who the hell is "claiming ownership" of your stand?! What kind of crazy strawman of the point Obama was making is this?! All he's saying is that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum, and that we should therefore recognize the importance of both individual initiative and the fact that we live in a society and do some things together. As long as you recognize that some of the things that allow you to sell lemonade were not built by you (for example the roads that bring potential customers to your stand and more generally the infrastructure that allow humans to live in its relative vicinity), it means you agree with him. Do you have difficulty in separating the need for roads and infrastructure, in general, from irresponsible government spending and control ? Nobody thinks we should live in a society without the basic infrastructure that promotes commerce among us. However, using that basic premise as a rallying cry for morons to support economic policies they don't understand because they get free Obamaphones, for example, is disgusting to me. Disgusting on one level that our President engages in that rhetoric, but so much moreso that it actually works on so many people. $16 trillion in debt and counting. The younger generation is so obsessed with "making history" they do and support some really stupid shit, with no thought of the consequences. Well, there will be consequences, for sure, and it will be that very generation that bears the brunt of it. Wait, what are you talking about? That's not what Obama was addressing. You can't just use the context you want. You have to actually use the context that Obama is discussing. And the republicans that are tea partiers are essentially anarchists, so yea... If you think the Tea Party is essentially anarchists, you're... well, you're in a state of bliss, I suppose. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
September 16 2012 23:06 GMT
#10246
On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote: On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote: Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything? Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
September 16 2012 23:06 GMT
#10247
On September 17 2012 07:39 kwizach wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:35 kmillz wrote: On September 17 2012 07:23 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 06:55 kmillz wrote: On September 17 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote: On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote: On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote: On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote: On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote: [quote] Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Measures Of course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that. Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better. Ok, and here is what you wrote: "If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers." I understand your argument to be irrelevant and unrelated to what I stated because I failed to mention that I am strictly referring to adults. The 8.1% unemployment rate does not account for adults who dropped out of the work force. I am not comparing unemployment rates. I am not comparing ANYTHING in fact. I am only stating WHAT the ACTUAL unemployment rate is NOT. It is NOT 8.1%. So my argument about the fact that there are different definitions and types of measures of unemployment is unrelated to your claim about what the so-called "actual" unemployment rate is? Let me repeat: the most common measure of unemployment is U3. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. According to how unemployment is defined by the ILO, which is what the U3 measure is based on, the current unemployment rate is 8.1%. That's the "actual unemployment rate" as defined by the ILO and as calculated by most states. Now, you're free to disagree with that definition, and you're free to prefer using other measures of unemployment, for example U4, U5 or U6. But it's idiotic to declare that the "actual unemployment rate is not 8.1%", when it clearly is according to the commonly-accepted definition of unemployment and the measure of unemployment universally used. Unemployed adults in the United States is not 8.1%. It's idiotic to declare that adults who are not in the work force are NOT unemployed. According to the most commonly used definition of unemployment, and according to the most commonly used measure of unemployment, the rate of unemployment in the United States is 8.1%. So adults not in the work force are not unemployed, correct? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
September 16 2012 23:06 GMT
#10248
On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: [quote] How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: [quote] The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: ![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/293191_10150918893749205_189142814_n.jpg) At least the Democrats want to do something. | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
September 16 2012 23:08 GMT
#10249
On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: [quote] How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: [quote] The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Now you've moved on to a new argument. We were talking about the context of his 'didn't build that' line. Still, let's talk. Obama wants to raise revenue by taxing exceedingly wealthy people more than those who have trouble making ends meet. Romney wants to raise revenue by slashing budgets for highways, education, foreign aid, research, food safety, postal service, Pell grants, and essentially everything besides defense, medicare, and SS. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/romneys-budget-would-require-a-40-cut-to-everything-but-medicare-social-security-and-defense/ I would rather have people who make $300k+ annually experience a small tax increase than see every federal program's budget cut by 40%. Call me crazy. | ||
|
erin[go]bragh
United States815 Posts
September 16 2012 23:10 GMT
#10250
On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: [quote] How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: [quote] The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
September 16 2012 23:11 GMT
#10251
On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote: On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote: Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything? Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
September 16 2012 23:14 GMT
#10252
On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: [quote] It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. Lol, like that's an exhaustive list? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
September 16 2012 23:19 GMT
#10253
On September 17 2012 08:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: [quote] The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: [quote] Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. Lol, like that's an exhaustive list? If you want to actually make a dent into the deficit? Yea, it kinda is... Any ideas? | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
September 16 2012 23:20 GMT
#10254
On September 17 2012 08:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: [quote] The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: [quote] Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. Lol, like that's an exhaustive list? Military, SS, and Medicare are the biggest drivers of our debt. What other categories do you want that would ACTUALLY lower the deficit? Cutting PBS and NPR? | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
September 16 2012 23:25 GMT
#10255
On September 17 2012 08:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: [quote] The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote: [quote] Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. Lol, like that's an exhaustive list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget 62% of the budget goes on Medicare, Defense and Social Security. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
September 16 2012 23:41 GMT
#10256
On September 17 2012 08:19 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: [quote] It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote: [quote] If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. Lol, like that's an exhaustive list? If you want to actually make a dent into the deficit? Yea, it kinda is... Any ideas? Discretionary spending can be cut. Tax expenditures can be cut. Taxes on the 'not rich' can go up. Cuts to the military, SS and medicare can be things other than "Major"... ya know like you can have a minor cut to a program. All these things could be added to the list. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
September 16 2012 23:47 GMT
#10257
On September 17 2012 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:19 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote: [quote] There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. [quote] Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. Lol, like that's an exhaustive list? If you want to actually make a dent into the deficit? Yea, it kinda is... Any ideas? Discretionary spending can be cut. Tax expenditures can be cut. Taxes on the 'not rich' can go up. Cuts to the military, SS and medicare can be things other than "Major"... ya know like you can have a minor cut to a program. All these things could be added to the list. And you expect any of those to make a dent in the deficit? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
September 16 2012 23:48 GMT
#10258
On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote: On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote: Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything? Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
September 16 2012 23:52 GMT
#10259
On September 17 2012 08:47 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 08:19 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote: On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote: [quote] Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "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. 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. Lol, like that's an exhaustive list? If you want to actually make a dent into the deficit? Yea, it kinda is... Any ideas? Discretionary spending can be cut. Tax expenditures can be cut. Taxes on the 'not rich' can go up. Cuts to the military, SS and medicare can be things other than "Major"... ya know like you can have a minor cut to a program. All these things could be added to the list. And you expect any of those to make a dent in the deficit? Just as viable as any of the other options listed. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
September 16 2012 23:55 GMT
#10260
On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote: On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote: On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. | ||
| ||
