Obama shares his beliefs about business

[artao]

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?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.