Obama: If you got a business, you didn't build that!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In a manner of speaking, yes. If there is something major missing that would greatly improve many businesses then the government should look into it. Just like it looked into supplying rural electricity.

There is no way a healthy population will hinder business so all this nonsense about ObamaCare ruining business is just that, nonsense. Every business is obliged to co-operate so every business is still on an equal footing. Every business is obliged to obey environmental laws. If a business can not operate without polluting then it is not a successful business.

And this is what Liberals have been saying for years, if a business or industry can't stand our burden, they don't need to be in business... and look where we are in terms of manufacturing? You've continued to pile things onto the people to pay for, and the people simply can't pay for it all. The math doesn't work here apple, and I don't know how to get you to comprehend that. The people who work and earn incomes, do not make enough money to pay for all of the things you want to provide for those who don't work and earn incomes.

The whole problem is your mindset illustrated above.... 'well, yeah if it's something that might help, government should look into it!' FUCK NO THEY SHOULDN'T! If the PEOPLE ask for government to look into something they think would help, THEN government should look into it. Government doesn't have the authority to do one goddamn thing that I don't tell it to do. I don't NEED government to decide what is best for me! I will not tolerate such a government.

 

[apple0154]

Who said anything about punishing you?

That's the problem here. Taxation does not equal punishment. All of your startup costs were paid for by the taxpayer via deductions.

That's what I can't figure out. Why do some folks think that helping others is punishment when they are not expected to help unless they are able (having earned the money). They compare taxes to a bill or fine that has to be paid whether they have the money or not. What kind of punishment would it be if a court fined a person but told them they didn't have to pay if they didn't have the money?

 

[Damocles]

No business starts by hiring anyone that they don't need. Typically, they start small, and grow in size as they become successful. Nobody ever demonized those who have succeeded by working hard, and building a business.

That is, unless you started/grew a predatory hedge fund business. Or a private equity company that takes govt. subsidies, and outsources labor to another country. There's a world of difference between a wealthy factory owner, and a wealthy Wall St. whore.

Utter nonsense. We have heard much about the 1% and how much they are "not in touch with America", how they do not do their "fair share". Guilt by association, man. It is a logical fallacy, but right now one side is playing that card.

I've never heard any idiots making that claim. Of course, Romney's attack ads make it seem as if Obama said that, but you'd have to be pretty ignorant to believe anything his selective editing offers.

Please, it's what the OWS was all about, and one campaign is trying very hard to play on envy.

Karma took care of the trash Breitbart. Romney's campaign staff ought to take heed.
Not quite accurate. Before the Bush tax cuts, Fed. grants were regularly doled out to states for such projects. Likewise, many who make the most pay a severely reduced tax rate through creative accounting. Most of the wealthiest pay 15% or less.
Depends how you earned it.
Nonsense.

When 49% of us do not pay any Federal Income tax pretending that their marginal rate makes it so that they pay a higher effective rate is just pretense. Those who are net tax receivers are not paying a "higher rate" than the "very rich"... it's silly to suggest that.

However, when we give 1 Trillion to one guy to spend on Stimulus and a portion of it is set aside for these Grants and we find out that only 20% of that money made it to US companies and the rest to foreign companies it is a problem, especially when the companies failed so often, nor does it change the accuracy of the fact that I did not get that. That the government regularly gave out grants notwithstanding, grant money earmarked for Green Energy went to 80% foreign companies under this President's stimulus...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's what I can't figure out. Why do some folks think that helping others is punishment when they are not expected to help unless they are able (having earned the money). They compare taxes to a bill or fine that has to be paid whether they have the money or not. What kind of punishment would it be if a court fined a person but told them they didn't have to pay if they didn't have the money?

No one thinks helping others is punishment. You are conjoining parts of two different comments on the same general topic, and applying your interpretations and meanings to assigned values in order to derive this. It's called the pinhead-triple-reverse back somersault, and rarely tried these days by pinheads in debate.

Taxes do punish success when you raise them on upper income earners, which is what you want to do.

It's not a 'punishment' to pay tax, it is a 'burden' to pay tax, and generally speaking, people wish to pay lower tax, if they have the choice.

Most people have no problem with a portion of their tax going to help people with special needs.
Most people have no problem with a portion going to fund things they'll never use, like education.
But a large and growing number are sick and tired of being taxed unfairly, and excessively, to pay for more government control over our lives.
When we see TRILLIONS wasted and squandered on political payoffs and kickbacks, plum deals for pet projects, and it's all stuff we didn't ask for or need.
I really do think you are in for something unexpected in November, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

My personal belief is, unless you are an invalid or homeless with no means of support, you should have to contribute something to the tax base. Even if it is a token sum of $1, you need to pay SOMETHING in. And the overall burden should be shared by the 48% who do earn income, but don't currently pay income tax. The "rich" should still pay their normal rate, but everyone else should be paying too. That is fair. As for what government spends it on, they need to focus FIRST on not spending money I ain't giving them in tax revenues... let's get that stopped FIRST, then we can talk about priorities.

 

[Althea]

No you couldn't because I am using phrases and terminology that does make sense, while you are saying stupid sounding shit. Or maybe I should correct myself, you CAN say it, and no doubt, you WILL say it, but that doesn't make it true, we already know this.

Well, as usual, your 'phrases and terminology' are lacking. The govt. didn't think the Erie canal was a bad idea. In fact, Congress was more than happy to pass bill for the funding. It was the anti Federalist Monroe who vetoed the bill. Ironic...isn't it? Romney would prob. argue the merits of Monroe's decision.

No one that I am aware of is arguing for "No government" ...did you think that was what Republicans or the right wanted? Seriously?

Not 'no' govt....govt. small enough to drown in a bathtub. Every other word from Romney's mouth has to do with 'bad' govt..

If Capitalists had no influence in politics, as you desire... and if we relied solely on The Government to decide for us... there would have NEVER BEEN an Erie Canal!

If there were no govt. funds, there would be no Erie canal.

I've not bolstered Obama's point or refuted Romney's. It's not a perfect system, there is no "perfect" system. But the concept of grass roots movements from people (and capitalists especially) to persuade state and local government to fund projects conducive to economic prosperity, is the foundation of free enterprise and a free market system. That is INDEED how it's supposed to work, not the other way around, dictated by Central Planning.

That's not Romney's position. At least, not in public. In private, he was more than happy to take public funding for his projects. Obama's the one who describes a perfect system where public/private entities work together. Unfortunately, it takes revenue. That's what Romney wants to do away with.

Opponents of the Erie Canal said the exact same thing. For decades! The Federal government REFUSED to participate!

Looks like that 'Bammy education is leading you astray again.

Nope, I didn't. Do you understand how the Erie Canal was paid for? The state put up the bonds for the project, which had to be paid back, with interest.

No govt., no funds. End of story.

First and foremost, because it required purchasing a 300+ mile strip of land across the state, and corporations can't use eminent domain to do that. Remember, at the time, this was the largest engineering project Americans had ever proposed. This was EARLY 1800's! There wasn't cranes and trucks, just men and muscle.

Pretty sure Obama was describing just that...Romney's propaganda notwithstanding.

Nope... it's not. Go read the history!

Says the guy who knows nothing about history.

Again.... No one is proposing we disband the Government, are they????

The entire teabag party proposes something pretty close.

 

[Vallista]

Obama speaks truth, however he got that speech from Elizabeth Warren. She said it first then Obama started to use it. Now Mitt is saying it now. Mitt can't seem to come up with his own ideas. its really sad.

 

[Althea]

Obama speaks truth, however he got that speech from Elizabeth Warren. She said it first then Obama started to use it. Now Mitt is saying it now. Mitt can't seem to come up with his own ideas. its really sad.

Yes...Warren said it first. However, she spent a lot of time in conference w/Obama. Remember how he was criticized for not nominating her to head the CFPB?

It seems that they had bigger plans for her.

 

[apple0154]

And this is what Liberals have been saying for years, if a business or industry can't stand our burden, they don't need to be in business... and look where we are in terms of manufacturing? You've continued to pile things onto the people to pay for, and the people simply can't pay for it all. The math doesn't work here apple, and I don't know how to get you to comprehend that. The people who work and earn incomes, do not make enough money to pay for all of the things you want to provide for those who don't work and earn incomes.

Yes, they do. That's what you don't understand. For example, the US produces enough food to export so there is enough food for everyone. Then consider the number of empty houses. As I noted before there is/was an entire subdivision in Nevada where houses were built and no one bought them or bought some and then just left as the mortgages were "under water". Vermin have moved in (the four legged kind) and started to destroy them so now new homes are being built elsewhere as no one wants to live in those houses. The point being with proper planning it could have been a retirement community for poor retirees. The houses are all being demolished. Thousands of them.

The whole problem is your mindset illustrated above.... 'well, yeah if it's something that might help, government should look into it!' FUCK NO THEY SHOULDN'T! If the PEOPLE ask for government to look into something they think would help, THEN government should look into it. Government doesn't have the authority to do one goddamn thing that I don't tell it to do. I don't NEED government to decide what is best for me! I will not tolerate such a government.

The people ARE asking! (I like CAPS and exclamation marks, too.) The people who have no place to live or can't afford their current place. How many empty factories could be divided into small apartments for the elderly? Concrete, structurally sound buildings left to deteriorate and then bulldozed when they could be made into basic apartments. Not $400/sq ft luxury apts but just basic housing. If the government has problems paying pensions they could offer the retirees the option of living in one of them and deduct it from their SS. A lot of those buildings are inner city placing seniors near services, shops, hospitals, etc. A win-win situation. Housing for the elderly and guaranteed payment of rent. Does it get any better?

 

[apple0154]

No one thinks helping others is punishment. You are conjoining parts of two different comments on the same general topic, and applying your interpretations and meanings to assigned values in order to derive this. It's called the pinhead-triple-reverse back somersault, and rarely tried these days by pinheads in debate.

Taxes do punish success when you raise them on upper income earners, which is what you want to do.

It's not a 'punishment' to pay tax, it is a 'burden' to pay tax, and generally speaking, people wish to pay lower tax, if they have the choice.

Most people have no problem with a portion of their tax going to help people with special needs.
Most people have no problem with a portion going to fund things they'll never use, like education.
But a large and growing number are sick and tired of being taxed unfairly, and excessively, to pay for more government control over our lives.
When we see TRILLIONS wasted and squandered on political payoffs and kickbacks, plum deals for pet projects, and it's all stuff we didn't ask for or need.
I really do think you are in for something unexpected in November, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

My personal belief is, unless you are an invalid or homeless with no means of support, you should have to contribute something to the tax base. Even if it is a token sum of $1, you need to pay SOMETHING in. And the overall burden should be shared by the 48% who do earn income, but don't currently pay income tax. The "rich" should still pay their normal rate, but everyone else should be paying too. That is fair. As for what government spends it on, they need to focus FIRST on not spending money I ain't giving them in tax revenues... let's get that stopped FIRST, then we can talk about priorities.

Then the answer is to demand government use the money for the needy. Look at the fight to extend UI. Obviously the unemployed need help. There's nothing questionable about that. Then there's medical care. The last place for government to cut is entitlement programs unless it can be shown the people receiving it do not need it. Whether it's interstate highways or national parks or monuments or the military or anything else the government pays for those things should be looked at first when it comes to cuts.

As for the surprise in November people still have time to hear about friends and family losing jobs. What are their friends and family going to do? What will they do if they lose their job? When the average middle aged person gets in the voting booth and remembers their job isn't all that secure and Romney wants to scrap Obamacare and recalls Romney's objections to Obama explaining that just because someone didn't "make it" it doesn't mean they're lazy or stupid.....well, we'll see.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Good point. Just like today people are homeless and hungry while others have more than they can possibly use.

So what? If you really care then do something about it. Why don't you use your own money? Why are you sitting around wringing your hands? Sow some initiative sweetie

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Then the answer is to demand government use the money for the needy. Look at the fight to extend UI. Obviously the unemployed need help. There's nothing questionable about that. Then there's medical care. The last place for government to cut is entitlement programs unless it can be shown the people receiving it do not need it. Whether it's interstate highways or national parks or monuments or the military or anything else the government pays for those things should be looked at first when it comes to cuts.

As for the surprise in November people still have time to hear about friends and family losing jobs. What are their friends and family going to do? What will they do if they lose their job? When the average middle aged person gets in the voting booth and remembers their job isn't all that secure and Romney wants to scrap Obamacare and recalls Romney's objections to Obama explaining that just because someone didn't "make it" it doesn't mean they're lazy or stupid.....well, we'll see.

If you can't make it in the USA you are either lazy or stupid.

Think about this. Everyone has the same access to the same roads, cops, firefighters and teachers that Oblahblah was opining about. So why doesn't everyone start their own business? If that is all it takes is roads

 

[apple0154]

So what? If you really care then do something about it. Why don't you use your own money? Why are you sitting around wringing your hands? Sow some initiative sweetie

Ahhh, the age old reply, "Why don't the people who complain give all their money?" Two reasons. First, if they gave all their money they wouldn't have any left to fight with. Nothing like having a poor opponent.

The second reason is they'd be ridiculed for giving away all their money. "If they hadn't given it all away they wouldn't be complaining about having none."

Nice try but I'm sure you can do better.

 

[apple0154]

If you can't make it in the USA you are either lazy or stupid.

Think about this. Everyone has the same access to the same roads, cops, firefighters and teachers that Oblahblah was opining about. So why doesn't everyone start their own business? If that is all it takes is roads

Maybe it takes more than roads. That's why more money is needed.

 

[ekg]

My roads are not paved, the government didn't provide my road, my water is not chlorinated, not everybody lives like you do.

did you go to school? college? use the mail?

That somebody died for my freedoms doesn't mean that they built my business or assumed my risk.

never said they did

The idea that somebody bought my product or gave me that loan doesn't change that it was my risk, my work, my success.

didn't say it wasn't

The idea that because I took the same infrastructure and made a success of it while another failed means that I should be punished for my success because you "helped" me is inane.

nope.. no one has said anything of the sort.

I paid the taxes that built that infrastructure, as much as anybody else. I was part of the "we" who "helped"... when I become a success it shouldn't mean that I should be punished for that success or demonized as part of an "evil" 1%.

wow... did you just like cross-reply or something? because I don't even know where that came from.

as to the concept you seem to want to ignore..? OK...

it's just as easy to move along to someone who gets that there were greater people than them that built this country and made it a place where we're all just a little bit higher up when we start out, than the rest of the world.

Happy Friday, Damo.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Ahhh, the age old reply, "Why don't the people who complain give all their money?" Two reasons. First, if they gave all their money they wouldn't have any left to fight with. Nothing like having a poor opponent.

The second reason is they'd be ridiculed for giving away all their money. "If they hadn't given it all away they wouldn't be complaining about having none."

Nice try but I'm sure you can do better.

Nobody said you had to give it all away. Just adopt one poor family. Surely you can afford it.

I wouldn't laugh at you for setting an example.

All you just did was justify your own greed. You are like every other full of shit liberal I have ever met. You talk the talk but won't walk the walk..when asked to live up to the standards you espouse you puss out.

 

[CanceledB]

Nobody said you had to give it all away. Just adopt one poor family. Surely you can afford it.

I wouldn't laugh at you for setting an example.

All you just did was justify your own greed. You are like every other full of shit liberal I have ever met. You talk the talk but won't walk the walk..when asked to live up to the standards you espouse you puss out.

Sez Mr. Dog-Eat-Dog.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, as usual, your 'phrases and terminology' are lacking. The govt. didn't think the Erie canal was a bad idea. In fact, Congress was more than happy to pass bill for the funding. It was the anti Federalist Monroe who vetoed the bill. Ironic...isn't it? Romney would prob. argue the merits of Monroe's decision.

In 1800, the idea was presented to then-president Jefferson, who said it was insane and refused to consider it. From that point, it was lobbied for in the state legislature, who eventually funded it. Even when the funding was passed, it was called "Clinton's Folly" and "Clinton's Ditch" by the public. This thing was WIDELY opposed.

Not 'no' govt....govt. small enough to drown in a bathtub. Every other word from Romney's mouth has to do with 'bad' govt..

Well but you can't make the argument "no govt, no erie" unless my argument is for "no govt." I've not argued that.

If there were no govt. funds, there would be no Erie canal.

There are NEVER government funds, the government doesn't produce funds. The government doesn't make a product and realize profits. And no one is arguing that we should not have government! You continue to mindlessly chortle "no got, no erie" but no one has asked for "no government!"

That's not Romney's position. At least, not in public. In private, he was more than happy to take public funding for his projects. Obama's the one who describes a perfect system where public/private entities work together. Unfortunately, it takes revenue. That's what Romney wants to do away with.

You don't know what Romney's position is and you don't fucking care.

Looks like that 'Bammy education is leading you astray again.

No, it looks like the education from whatever state you are too afraid to put in your profile (or too stupid) is failing YOU!

No govt., no funds. End of story.

It would be if my argument were for NO GOVERNMENT!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The govt. didn't think the Erie canal was a bad idea. In fact, Congress was more than happy to pass bill for the funding. It was the anti Federalist Monroe who vetoed the bill. Ironic...isn't it?

I did some research, because I knew that Jefferson had nixed the idea in 1800, and I thought from that point on, the idea was proposed to the state legislature. Turns out, in 1817, there was a vote by Congress to appropriate Federal funds to NY for the purpose of a canal, and PRESIDENT MADISON A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRAT (NOT MONROE ANTI-FEDERALIST) vetoed the bill. You will recall Madison, the man who WROTE the fucking Constitution?

"More than happy to" is not how you would describe their vote.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The lemonade stand is a very good example. How many lemonade stands are there in Somalia and Ethiopia? I'm sure a group of people could afford to buy a few lemons. Of course, how they would get them delivered is the question not to mention potable water.

They have roads and schools and cops in Somalia so where are the entrepreneurs dumbass

 

[gui1tars]

They have roads and schools and cops in Somalia so where are the entrepreneurs dumbass

They have them, thousands maybe millions of them. Have you ever been there? I wouldn't expect a chickenshit like you to even approach that country. An entrepreneur would snatch you up right quick and if he couldn't make a profit off of you in ransom he'd feed you to his goats.