View Full Version : Obama shares his beliefs about business
Onkel Neal
07-20-12, 09:54 AM
This was his magic word gaffe: a statement that reveals not what a politician believes, but what you already feared, in your bone marrow, that a politician believes.
Brit Hume explained this first and best. "It is fair to say that we know more tonight than we ever have about the president's view of business and the economy," he said. His assertion over the weekend that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" explains nearly everything. He wasn't talking about God. He was talking about government.
Yowser! He better stick with the teleprompter.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/07/when_barack_obama_said_you_didn_t_build_that_conse rvative_partisans_quickly_turned_it_into_a_gaffe_f or_the_romney_campaign_to_use_against_the_presiden t_.html
Tchocky
07-20-12, 10:55 AM
Good post by Weigel, really gets into the way diferent people can react to the same input.
Taken in context, it's not nearly as damning. It's certainly a big gaffe however. .. not an Obama supporter myself, but people are really grasping at straws with this gaffe IMHO.
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 11:12 AM
There is no grasping IMO. He said exactly what has been interpreted.
Tribesman will think otherwise though. :O:
Ducimus
07-20-12, 11:18 AM
Ddin't read it. Looks like the usual political "rally the troops" BS. However, i counted the word gaffe six times, so i have to wonder if this applies. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds)
Tchocky
07-20-12, 11:18 AM
There is no grasping IMO. He said exactly what has been interpreted.
Interpreted by who, though?
On July 14, a conservative North Carolina activist named Erik Soderstrom (http://www.eriksoderstrom.com/) put up a 12-second clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8XhQfvpW8) that made it sound like Obama gave business owners no credit for building anything.
...versus...
In his 2008 nomination speech (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/28/barack-obama-democratic-c_n_122224.html), for example, then-candidate Obama talked endlessly about safety nets letting “someone with a good idea … take a risk and start a new business” without having to “choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child.” The Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll points out that (http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-lefts-confused-you-didnt-build-that-defense/article/2502589) Obama’s Roanoke speech merely “made a long-standing and fundamental liberal argument in an unappealing way.” The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent argues that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romney-okay-businesses-do-need-government-after-all/2012/07/18/gJQAezDHuW_blog.html) Mitt Romney, who does not plan to dismantle the Small Business Administration or the Department of Education, concedes some of the argument.
The quote means pretty much what you want it to mean.
Here's the full wording and transcript of what was said:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires..
I bolded more than the sentence being talked about, because I think you can't separate it out any further.
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 11:40 AM
Interpreted by who, though?
The right of course. I also think it was interpreted correctly. How else could it be interpreted?
Tribesman
07-20-12, 12:17 PM
Tribesman will think otherwise though. :O:
Of course, its so obvious I don't see how anyone could honestly say otherwise.
My business was built up initially with connections to some handy aquaintances, government contracts(plus government susidised training), very good accountants, damn good employees and a bloody horrible bank manager....the list could go on a hell of a lot longer than that
What Obama was saying, obviously, is that no one exists in a vacuum. We all owe our successes to other people to some degree.
He phrased it very very poorly however.
I'm still voting Nader. :03:
gimpy117
07-20-12, 12:27 PM
The right of course. I also think it was interpreted correctly. How else could it be interpreted?
read the above post?
I believe that whole speech, rather than the agenda filled cherry picked Blurb is an acknowledgement of the fact that nobody really "makes it on their own" there is this thing called society and public services that people use every day and don't even know it. Heck...what business can be made with no other input by anyone else? None. Who educated you? Who educated your work force? Who built the roads your people drive upon? Obama correctly makes this point; the point that you cannot really just "make it" in this modern world without somebody else footing the bill somewhere.
but really this is just another sad attempt at boiling down speeches and taking them out of context for partisan purposes.
He phrased it very very poorly however.
I'd call it a Freudian Slip :yep:
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 12:50 PM
Of course, its so obvious I don't see how anyone could honestly say otherwise.
My business was built up initially with connections to some handy aquaintances, government contracts(plus government susidised training), very good accountants, damn good employees and a bloody horrible bank manager....the list could go on a hell of a lot longer than that
Awesome! :D
Um. Big Fat NO!! on that one.
People mis-use "Freudian slip" all the time.
A Freudian slip is when you MEAN to say "I'd like to <boink> your mom" but you ACTUALLY say, "I'd like to <boink> MY mom."
Given the context of what he was saying, his meaning is clear: We all owe at least SOME of our successes to other people. That is 100% True.
-not an Obama supporter at all. Ralph Nader for President!!!
Tchocky
07-20-12, 12:55 PM
The biggest problem with the wording is that it left a nice little gap open for the kind of stuff quoted in the article, and allowing the Romney campaign to push ads implying the President thinks business owners didn't do squat to make a living, it was all the Big Government handing out welfare*.
I don't think it the wording reveals anything or hints at anything we haven't already heard from the President
Taking the president's own summation is enough I think - "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
Now you can disagree about what role government has and whatnot, but there isn't much room for serious discussion of the meaning of the sentence.
*= To anyone who thinks this is what This All Means - In this pair of sentences, to what does the "that" refer?
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.
Answers on a postcard care of Tchocky-should-cut-the-grass-and-get-off the-computer.
:arrgh!:
mookiemookie
07-20-12, 12:58 PM
This is a manufactured controversy. All you have to do is back up a few words and see that the pronoun "that" is referring to "roads and bridges." Ducimus is right:
That's where the gaffe stories come in. See, in this game, your "team" scores a point each time the other team says something stupid. It lets all of the supporters of your team mock and humiliate the supporters of the opposing team, on Internet message boards and around water coolers and in coffee shops nationwide. "Haha! The supposed 'genius' Obama thinks there are 57 states in the U.S.!" "Oh, yeah? Well, your last president said he was going to help terrorists plan their next attack!"
And it never ends, because if your "team" gives up a gaffe, then you need to dig one up on the other side to even the score. So, last month the Romney campaign was embarrassed when an adviser came off like he was comparing his own candidate to an Etch A Sketch toy. Thus, this month the Romney campaign had to jump on an Obama adviser's gaffe that came off like she was saying that stay-at-home moms don't do work. And on and on it goes.
Obama phrased it clumsily, but the idea is correct. We're a society and we're a lot more dependent upon each other than some would like to admit. No man is an island.
Um. Big Fat NO!! on that one.
People mis-use "Freudian slip" all the time.
A Freudian slip is when you MEAN to say "I'd like to <boink> your mom" but you ACTUALLY say, "I'd like to <boink> MY mom."
Given the context of what he was saying, his meaning is clear: We all owe at least SOME of our successes to other people. That is 100% True.
-not an Obama supporter at all. Ralph Nader for President!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed"), subdued wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis. Slips of the tongue and the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces such phenomena as misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.
Given what we know about Obamas distate of the private sector it seems (to me at least) to be a valid comparison.
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 12:59 PM
read the above post?
I believe that whole speech, rather than the agenda filled cherry picked Blurb is an acknowledgement of the fact that nobody really "makes it on their own" there is this thing called society and public services that people use every day and don't even know it. Heck...what business can be made with no other input by anyone else? None. Who educated you? Who educated your work force? Who built the roads your people drive upon? Obama correctly makes this point; the point that you cannot really just "make it" in this modern world without somebody else footing the bill somewhere.
but really this is just another sad attempt at boiling down speeches and taking them out of context for partisan purposes.
And these are the folks who build a business and employ people who are tax payers. The business owner should pay more taxes because he uses infrustructure? The business owner did not pay into the system(infrastructure) already created? He did not do his part "footing the bill"? I think Obama's take is extremely over simplified at best.
This is a manufactured controversy. All you have to do is back up a few words and see that the pronoun "that" is referring to "roads and bridges." Ducimus is right:
Obama phrased it clumsily, but the idea is correct. We're a society and we're a lot more dependent upon each other than some would like to admit. No man is an island.
So what? It was used as a justification to further soak people who already pay 71 percent of all federal income taxes although they only earned 43 percent of all income.
It's like saying Mookie should vote republican because the sky is blue. While the sky is indeed blue it doesn't mean it's a valid reason for voting a particular way.
And these are the folks who build a business and employ people who are tax payers. The business owner should pay more taxes because he uses infrustructure? The business owner did not pay into the system(infrastructure) already created? He did not do his part "footing the bill"? I think Obama's take is extremely over simplified at best.
This ^ :yep:
August, your post pointing out the meaning of Freudian Slip proves you used it incorrectly. Obama wasn't accidentally speaking some secret subconscious thought. He merely phrased his point poorly.
I'm not an Obama supporter (I refuse to support ANY politician who endorses the Patriot Act or Citizen's United), but you anti-Obama people are increasingly ridiculous in your attacks on him. There's plenty of legitimate reasons and angles to attack, why go for obvious gaffes like this. It's overwhelmingly clear what he was saying: No one exists in a vacuum. If you've built a business, you didn't do it all by yourself. Also the point about what exactly the word "that" is referring to. Could very well be referring to the previous sentence.
Attack Obama? fine. Just do it logically. Kay? :rotfl2:
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 01:47 PM
If you've built a business, you didn't do it all by yourself.
Business owners never claimed that notion with maybe a few exceptions. The idea that infrastructure was an integral part of building the business should allow more tax on the business person is silly. We should tax people more who used the roads to move west for jobs and life. After all, without the roads built by that guy funded by the gov't these folks who had the capability to move out west would not be successful.
Also the point about what exactly the word "that" is referring to.
What is "is"? Bill Clinton :hmmm:
Ducimus
07-20-12, 02:43 PM
American politics: abandon all rational thought, ye who enter.
mookiemookie
07-20-12, 02:49 PM
And these are the folks who build a business and employ people who are tax payers. The business owner should pay more taxes because he uses infrustructure? The business owner did not pay into the system(infrastructure) already created? He did not do his part "footing the bill"? I think Obama's take is extremely over simplified at best.
If someone has made greater use of the nation's infrastructure, laws, financial systems, regulations, and property rights (i.e. a business owner vs. a lower wage employee) shouldn't they bear more of the costs for maintaining it?
August, your post pointing out the meaning of Freudian Slip proves you used it incorrectly. Obama wasn't accidentally speaking some secret subconscious thought. He merely phrased his point poorly.
No, I think he really does believe that business owners owe their success to government rather than the other way around.
I'm not an Obama supporterI never said that you were.
(I refuse to support ANY politician who endorses the Patriot Act or Citizen's United), but you anti-Obama people are increasingly ridiculous in your attacks on him.So you don't want to be lumped into a group but you're happy to lump others into a group?
There's plenty of legitimate reasons and angles to attack, why go for obvious gaffes like this.See my first response above. I'm no Romney supporter but it I have to choose between them, and it looks like I will, then Obama is probably not going to get my vote.
It's overwhelmingly clear what he was saying: No one exists in a vacuum. If you've built a business, you didn't do it all by yourself.
If that's his point then he is wrong. Businesses are indeed built by their owners. Don't forget, their owners also pay taxes that pay for those roads. It's like claiming that you didn't cook dinner because government built the road you took to get to the market to buy the ingredients.
At best it's "poorly phrased". I happen to think it's a lot more significant of his character than just that. It's certainly no less inaccurate than Bush and "Mission Accomplished".
If someone has made greater use of the nation's infrastructure, laws, financial systems, regulations, and property rights (i.e. a business owner vs. a lower wage employee) shouldn't they bear more of the costs for maintaining it?
So the owner that lives down the street from his business uses the roads more than the worker who drives 2 hours each way? That's just silly.
And BTW they do bear more of the costs of maintaining government both in total and percentage of income but apparently that isn't enough. One wonders if there is indeed an amount that would be considered enough by these folks.
As for the rest it doesn't even make sense. Laws and regulations restrict and otherwise negatively affect business owners far more than their workers about whom they are mostly in place to protect. I don't know how you can claim it's an advantage to owners thereby justifying increasing taxes even more.
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 03:20 PM
If someone has made greater use of the nation's infrastructure, laws, financial systems, regulations, and property rights (i.e. a business owner vs. a lower wage employee) shouldn't they bear more of the costs for maintaining it?
No, the individual is being penalized. As far as the "lower wage employee" this person can start their own business. The lower wage employee does not have the responsibilities the business owner does. Who is up at night worrying about the business, health/liability insurances and complying with the government? Certainly not the low wage employee.
You use a particular road each day to go to work. You make money everyday because of this road. You did not do this yourself. It as someone else who made the road. You capitalized the road in your own way and as best you could. Some other guy capitalizes the road better than you should pay more for the road? Why you have the freedom to capitalize on this road and pay the same as the other guy.
This whole notion that the business owner should pay more is about as useful as a pair of panties on a prostitute. Wait, she should pay more for the curb because she is using the curb on 4th and main. :88)
Tchocky
07-20-12, 03:31 PM
It's certainly no less inaccurate than Bush and "Mission Accomplished".
I think I know what you're getting at, August, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone can get that impression from what was actually said.
Aside from being a thinly-plausible implicit confirmation of previously-held suspicion, which is where Drudge, Fox, Breitbart et al have set up shop
I'm just going to repost my question from earlier.
In this pair of sentences, to what does the "that" refer?
Quote:
"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you***8217;ve got a business -- you didn***8217;t build that. Somebody else made that happen. "
EDIT - Random bloggy-browsing has turned up an interesting comparison from Obi Ron Kenobi. Reagan (PBUH) is often quoted as saying "government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.".
Full sentence - "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."
It's all in what you want to see, folks.
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 03:36 PM
"THAT" refers to the business. It can also refer to the roads and bridges. But what does it matter? Simply put, the business owner is being told it was all handed to him because of what other have done so he should pay more. The business owner risks his neck on a business venture should pay more. The beer drinker on the assembly line does not want to risk his neck, just drink beer. He should pay less even though the business owner has employed him and pays him. How does this equate to "should pay more"?
Again, what is "is"? Same nonsense Clinton used.
Tchocky
07-20-12, 03:38 PM
"THAT" refers to the business. It can also refer to the roads and bridges. But what does it matter? Simply put, the business owner is being told it was all handed to him because of what other have done so he should pay more.
Next paragraph, the summative one, begins - "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together"
Again, what is "is"? Same nonsense Clinton used.
No, this is just me being picky :)
mookiemookie
07-20-12, 03:38 PM
Laws and regulations restrict and otherwise negatively affect business owners far more than their workers about whom they are mostly in place to protect. I don't know how you can claim it's an advantage to owners thereby justifying increasing taxes even more.
Contract law? Patent law? Antitrust law? Hellooooo?
You use a particular road each day to go to work. You make money everyday because of this road. You did not do this yourself. It as someone else who made the road. You capitalized the road in your own way and as best you could. Some other guy capitalizes the road better than you should pay more for the road? Why you have the freedom to capitalize on this road and pay the same as the other guy.
If you guys want to stick to the oversimplified road example, fine. Assembly line worker Joe uses I-95 every day to get to work and go home. Company owner Frank uses it to go to work and come home too, but in addition to that, Company owner Frank's suppliers use it also to bring the raw materials to Frank's place of business so he can produce widgets that get shipped out to his customers all up and down I-95.
Who, in this example, bears more of the cost of maintaining I-95? Who derives more economic benefit from its existence?
Contract law? Patent law? Antitrust law? Hellooooo?
So you're claiming that these sets of laws only affect or apply to business owners? Helloooo?
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 03:46 PM
Contract law? Patent law? Antitrust law? Hellooooo?
The fact remains the low wage earner has risked nothing, is not as responsible for the business, does not get the call in the middle of the night for problems to be resolved or worries about much of anything other than getting a check at the end of the week. Why should the business person who provides a work environment free of issue courtesy of government regulations pay more taxes? Did the government pay for all required to make the work place safe and free of hazard for the low wage earner?
The notion that the businessperson should pay more because something was built he uses that helped with the business is ill conceived.
The notion that the businessperson should pay more because something was built he uses that helped with the business is ill conceived.
Especially when he's already paid into it like everybody else did and a lot MORE than most did already.
mookiemookie
07-20-12, 04:02 PM
So you're claiming that these sets of laws only affect or apply to business owners? Helloooo?
No, I was rebutting your ridiculous claim that laws and regulations only serve to negatively affect business owners.
The fact remains the low wage earner has risked nothing, is not as responsible for the business, does not get the call in the middle of the night for problems to be resolved or worries about much of anything other than getting a check at the end of the week. Why should the business person who provides a work environment free of issue courtesy of government regulations pay more taxes? Did the government pay for all required to make the work place safe and free of hazard for the low wage earner?
If a business owner with so much at risk has so much more to lose than a low wage earner, shouldn't they have a greater interest in keeping it safe and protected? Something that the government does through laws and defense?
Especially when he's already paid into it like everybody else did and a lot MORE than most did already.
At the lowest level in decades. How come when lower than expected revenues throw the budget out of whack, raising taxes on those most able to pay is seen as eeeeeeeevil socialism? And not even raising taxes, if you want to get technical about it. It's actually allowing tax cuts to expire. If everything was so hunky dory under Reagan, or in some idealized version of 1950s America, why is it wrong to go back to the tax levels we had then?
@august: when I re-read my post just now, I myself cringed at my use of "you anti-obama people".
sorry mate. don't mean to do lumping there. however, it's pretty clear from what you're saying that you are indeed anti-obama.
MY point in saying "I am not an Obama supporter" was merely to make clear that I'm not defending the guy. not to anti-lump myself.
If you REALLY believe Obama is ... "that way" re: the out-of-context quote, then I'm really at a loss for what further to say. wow. what led you to that opinion, i can't help but wonder.
If you plan on voting Romney merely because you don't want to support Obama ... I'll try not to be offensive here ... YOU are part of the problem. :shucks:
This whole "two party illusion" needs to f**kin stop. end. die. both parites are now corporatist tools that say and do the same things in a a different manner.
As far as business not being built by one person. 100% true. At the VERY LEAST, every business depends on customers. No customers, no business. So yeah: If you've built a business, you did NOT do it "by yourself". Period. any further argument on that point inherently contains logical fallacies. Period.
@august: you appeared to say in one of your posts that government owes its success to business.
um.
that is insane.
i sure hope that's not what you meant to say.
Now the contentious part: In my opinion, especially in a capitalist society, businesses SHOULD bear the highest brunt of taxes. Part of the purpose of government is to protect its citizens. Anyone who debates that point .. well ... wow. I'd be at a loss. ... That includes protecting us from businesses. Especially corporations. As such, seeing how businesses and corporations do the most damage to society, they should bear the highest tax burden.
and if anyone cares to debate whether businesses and corporations do the most damage to society, perhaps we should start another thread. .. I'm down. :arrgh!:
EDITED to not single out a single person in my final sentence.
also, the business owner would NOT be providing a work environment as safe as what we have now were it not for government intervening and enacting laws to stop reprehensible behaviours.
Read "The Jungle" if you haven't.
Businesses have proved over and over and over that their only concern is profit, not humanity.
And, since they are profiting from humanity, they do indeed deserve to pay a higher tax rate.
No, I was rebutting your ridiculous claim that laws and regulations only serve to negatively affect business owners.
:roll: I gather you didn't pick up on my clever use of the phrase "far more than" because I made no such claim.
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 05:41 PM
If a business owner with so much at risk has so much more to lose than a low wage earner, shouldn't they have a greater interest in keeping it safe and protected? Something that the government does through laws and defense?
Yes. This is why he pays taxes. His tax does not stop when his business opens. He has to follow up on the rules and regulations established by the government for the workplace. This is done out of his own pocket. If he fails to post the "free" work place signage provided by the Labor Department/OSHA he is fined or shut down. These things do not happen on their own nor is it free. Machines need to be inspected for safety and all safety devices are in place. If not, he is fined or shut down. Joe, the low wage earner, he worries about Joe. End of story. The business man has to worry about all under the factory roof. Let's throw in he has to pay more tax as well. If I was the businessman I would throw in the towel, hand up my spurs and sell the business. Who needs the headache with the added dose of acid stomach from forking over yet more money because, well, he used a road to build his business. :shifty:
also, the business owner would NOT be providing a work environment as safe as what we have now were it not for government intervening and enacting laws to stop reprehensible behaviours.
Read "The Jungle" if you haven't.
Businesses have proved over and over and over that their only concern is profit, not humanity.
And, since they are profiting from humanity, they do indeed deserve to pay a higher tax rate.
It does not belay the fact the business owner has to abide by the rules established over decades. He has to provide a safe working environment or be fined/shutdown. I have read "The Jungle" and it has very little bearing on this subject. You naturally assume all business men find a means to an end to make the work environment unsafe for profit. You can not assume. Humanity is profiting from the business. Goods are manufactured. You benefit. Perhaps you should pay more working with your logic. No one deserves to pay more. Sorry Joe the beer drinker did not aspire to greater aspirations in life and is satisfied with drinking beer, belching and having no other responsibility other then showing up to work. I think he should pay nothing in taxes for is lack of doing "nothing much". :88)
If you plan on voting Romney merely because you don't want to support Obama ... I'll try not to be offensive here ... YOU are part of the problem. :shucks:
I'm not anti-Obama. I'm pro "best man for the job". Based on the past three years of expensive boondoggles I don't see Obama being as good as Romney could be in that regard.
The important thing though is who gets control of Congress. I prefer having them and the Executive be of different parties. Gridlock being the best form of Government for the common man.
@august: you appeared to say in one of your posts that government owes its success to business.
um.
that is insane.
i sure hope that's not what you meant to say.
Of course government owes it's success to business! Who do you think colonized the west? The Government? Who pays the salaries that give the government it's income tax revenue?
Without commerce there is no government, only masters and slaves.
AVGWarhawk
07-20-12, 06:18 PM
It's a symbiotic relationship.
Sea Demon
07-22-12, 05:15 PM
I'd call it a Freudian Slip :yep:
Or could it simply be projection. It is pretty apparent that Obama never built anything, or run anything business wise his whole life. He has no idea what it takes to build a business or create a product the market wants. Somebody else "did it" for him.
And not even raising taxes, if you want to get technical about it. It's actually allowing tax cuts to expire. If everything was so hunky dory under Reagan, or in some idealized version of 1950s America, why is it wrong to go back to the tax levels we had then?
My goodness, why can't liberals ever see anything past DailyKos graphs and charts? The reason we can't go back to "those levels" of the 1950's is because the country and economy is not the same as back then. Back then we were paying down war debt, building industries en masse, innovating new technologies and products for the market place at rapid rates from scratch. Unemployment was relatively low, and the entitlement mentality was largely non-existent. The economic world of the 1950's just doesn't exist anymore. Government has never made it any harder to start a business or maintain one than it has now. California...Democrat heaven...is the worst place to do business and businesses are fleeing faster here than anywhere else. Actually the tax base is shrinking here and debt is exploding with what you want. Says alot.
Nowadays we take tax dollars and fund bridges to nowhere, high speed rail that nobody wants and nobody will use, bail out failed companies who produce failed products and subsidize even more failure (see GM and their electric junk cars). We now also subsidize welfare as a lifestyle rather than a temporary condition. Hell, Obama just re-wrote welfare reform of the 90's to take out the work provision making it even easier to make it a lifestyle.
Sorry, but using a word liberals love to use....we simply cannot sustain the high taxes of yesteryear because we don't produce like we used to. I can't fathom why liberals cannot see the difference between that economy, it's technological industrial output, and it's workforce and the one we have now.
The notion that the businessperson should pay more because something was built he uses that helped with the business is ill conceived.
Thank you. You're right, it's totally fallcious crap that Democrats are throwing around these days. Some of us pay for the roads, we all use them, but only Steve Jobs created and and directed Apple's growth from the ground up. Hate to tell Obama and Pelosi, but they had nothing to do with it.
Takeda Shingen
07-22-12, 05:25 PM
Nowadays we take tax dollars and fund bridges to nowhere, high speed rail that nobody wants and nobody will use, bail out failed companies who produce failed products and subsidize even more failure (see GM and their electric junk cars). We now also subsidize welfare as a lifestyle rather than a temporary condition. Hell, Obama just re-wrote welfare reform of the 90's to take out the work provision making it even easier to make it a lifestyle.
You know, half of those items were spearheaded by Republicans. Unless Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are now considered RINOs.
Sea Demon
07-22-12, 05:34 PM
You know, half of those items were spearheaded by Republicans. Unless Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are now considered RINOs.
Yes. Doing Democrat things as a Republican doesn't make them good. :up: Many of us howled when G.W. Bush did his version of "stimulus". But I don't remember Republicans ever making welfare as a lifestyle easier. No Republican in my state want the "high speed" rail project, nor do I see many actual Republicans promoting the GM debacle and the continued subsidy to the junk electric car that, last I read, costs US taxpayers more than $200K a car to make and nobody's buying them.
Believe me, I hate when Republicans act like Democrats and adopt those policies as their own as well. We like to get rid of these types. But yes, the party doesn't matter as much as the act.
Takeda Shingen
07-22-12, 05:46 PM
Okay, but the theme of your post is 'you damn liberals', when it clearly isn't just the liberals screwing things up. My point would be that everybody is responsible for this mess, as this thing didn't just happen out of the blue. This problem was 30+ years in the making, dating all the way back to the deficit spending of the Reagan administration. Every president since then, including the Gipper, and every Congress has had his or it's hand in this problem. This was a failure of governance in truly epic manner.
mookiemookie
07-22-12, 07:56 PM
He has no idea what it takes to build a business or create a product the market wants.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_unwdJJiVe7I/SP5PG7jRxfI/AAAAAAAACd8/kJtdUgjNCx0/s400/obama+book.jpg
obama books
Well you have to admit that his run for President created an artificial demand for those product. Without it neither of those books would have earned a penny. If that's his idea of business experience it's not exactly resume material...
Tribesman
07-23-12, 12:52 AM
Well you have to admit that his run for President created an artificial demand for those product. Without it neither of those books would have earned a penny. If that's his idea of business experience it's not exactly resume material...
Its the best resume material, creating an artificial demand and actually selling something people don't want or need.
Thats the perfect resume, if you can make a go with a pile of tripe then you should breeze through making a go with a decent product.
Or if you want to look at it from another angle.
Obamas business is selling himself, he knows how to run a succesful business as he managed to claim the very top spot in his market.
He was so succesful at running a business that millions of people bought it, even millions that didnt buy it still ended up paying for the product even though they didn't want to buy it.
Millions of people will try and buy the product again, millons of other people will try and buy the product again even though they didn't like the last time they bought it, there is even a chance that millions of people may end up buying it again even though they still don't want it.
Face it Obama could have taught Steve Jobs a few things about running a business...sad isn't it.
mookiemookie
07-23-12, 08:11 AM
Well you have to admit that his run for President created an artificial demand for those product. Without it neither of those books would have earned a penny. If that's his idea of business experience it's not exactly resume material...
On that, I agree. I think he started running for president to drum up publicity for his book, just like Herman Cain. It was only after the campaign gained steam that he seriously considered being President. Just my uninformed opinion, I guess.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.