PDA

View Full Version : If you have a business, you didn't build that



BonMallari
07-16-2012, 05:26 PM
" ..if you have a business, you didn't build that, someone else made it happen.."- BHO

WTH, what an insult to those of you out there that are self employed or business owners, Gee I guess all of you that started your own businesses/practices and put your own family jewels on the line are beholding to someone else for your success..Guess all those unpaid hours and using your own personal income and that of your family didnt amount to anything..

if you are an entrepreneur and that statement doesnt make your blood boil...then it should

Gerry Clinchy
07-16-2012, 08:16 PM
Guess Obama really believed that "Life of Julia" narrative :-)

M&K's Retrievers
07-16-2012, 10:21 PM
I have a business that I built. I started 30 years ago providing employee benefit programs to employers for their employees. Thanks, Obubba.

coachmo
07-16-2012, 10:41 PM
There's lots of really dumb or naive people that support this president and his skewed ideology.

charly_t
07-16-2012, 11:12 PM
There's lots of really dumb or naive people that support this president and his skewed ideology.

There's a lot of truth in your statement.

TN_LAB
07-17-2012, 06:10 AM
FWIW,
Here’s the full context of what he said:

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
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.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”




By grabbing one sentence, you can always have some fun:


I worked harder than everybody else...the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea.

PMG 131
07-17-2012, 06:42 AM
Yeah someone may have helped you along the way, but I built my business. I took the assistance and knowledge given to me and utilized that into a product or service someone else wants. They weren't eating Top Ramen for 3 years while I poured every dime I had into my business. To even say a line like that takes alot of balls. How did a pothead from Hawaii transfer into Columbia? That is the best example of someone else making something happen.

Didley
07-17-2012, 07:24 AM
FWIW,

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.









He's kidding, right?

HPL
07-17-2012, 08:03 AM
FWIW,



We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.


That’s how we created the middle class.






I'd like to see a list of the cuts. A trillion is a very big number. Seems like we would have heard about a Trillion dollars worth.


The comment about the middle class also seems a subtle little attempt to deny individual accomplishment to me.

Buzz
07-17-2012, 08:18 AM
FWIW,
Here’s the full context of what he said:

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
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.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”




By grabbing one sentence, you can always have some fun:
I worked harder than everybody else...the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea.










This is a fine example of how dishonest the "fair and balanced" network is. They chop up a statement and pull out a couple sentences to make Obama look bad, they play it over and over, and express outrage. If you guys don't see how this is bad for America and bad for democracy, then there is no hope for you or the country. Or parents and grandparents believed in investing in and building the country for the greater good. Now it's all about me me me me me.

Jason Glavich
07-17-2012, 08:39 AM
I'd like to see a list of the cuts. A trillion is a very big number. Seems like we would have heard about a Trillion dollars worth.


The comment about the middle class also seems a subtle little attempt to deny individual accomplishment to me.

Like every cut they make it is always over the course of 10 years or more, they make very very small immediate cuts.

His quote was not taken out of context, his overall message is still the same the gov makes you successful with infrastructure you did not succeed on your own, this argument is tired and old. yes everyone has had some help from the gov whether it is public schools, roads,cops, firemen, etc. The downside of this assessment is if that is true than everyone should succeed, which is not nor has it ever been true that the gov is fair to everyone, the bottom 40+% doesn't tax them and I see that as not fair, but yet they are getting the bennies from the gov and not paying for them to be sustained.

Building a successful business is more than the gov building roads and blah blah blah. It takes hard work and a sound plan. This is not done by the gov, if it was every company would fail, as they would never have a budget, would not be able to hire or fire based on skills, or cut costs to make the books even out, no business can run as the gov does, they are the worst business model in existence, as is his rhetoric on equality. Get over it, no one is equal, we all have good qualities and bad, not every body is a rocket surgeon!( yes I meant rocket surgeon). Not every welfare recipient is trying to get over on the system but there are some, there are people who are out to get something for nothing, there are people who over spend, there are STUPID PEOPLE all around this country, and yes they all vote.

I get sick when he speaks and people cheer.

caryalsobrook
07-17-2012, 08:48 AM
This is a fine example of how dishonest the "fair and balanced" network is. They chop up a statement and pull out a couple sentences to make Obama look bad, they play it over and over, and express outrage. If you guys don't see how this is bad for America and bad for democracy, then there is no hope for you or the country. Or parents and grandparents believed in investing in and building the country for the greater good. Now it's all about me me me me me.

Obama Quote. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Tell me how ANYBODY could take that out of context. Furthermore tell me who that SOMEBODY was. Curious to see if you respond.:rolleyes:

Buzz
07-17-2012, 09:05 AM
Obama Quote. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Tell me how ANYBODY could take that out of context. Furthermore tell me who that SOMEBODY was. Curious to see if you respond.:rolleyes:


If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.

PMG 131
07-17-2012, 09:15 AM
Isn't out of context what MSNBC, NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and so many left leaning newspapers have been doing to people they disagree with for the last 12+ years? And this is so much more in context than anything they have pulled out of speaches.

road kill
07-17-2012, 09:16 AM
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.

Quick, everyone switch stations to MSNBC!!!!

(you know, the station owned by GE???);)

road kill
07-17-2012, 09:17 AM
Isn't out of context what MSNBC, NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and so many left leaning newspapers have been doing to people they disagree with for the last 12+ years? And this is so much more in context than anything they have pulled out of speaches.
That's not fair, they don't take things out of context!!!

They just make it up!!

Ain't that right Dan Rather????:cool:

caryalsobrook
07-17-2012, 09:24 AM
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.

Just the sort of BS answer if any answer at all. As for insulting my intelligence, only I can insult my intelligence, NOT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE!!

By the way , in my opinion, it takes one of intelligence to come up with such a BS answer that says nothing and ignores the facts and reason. More power to you.:p

PS As usual you didn't ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Cody Covey
07-17-2012, 09:43 AM
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.

We've all seen the whole statement. It wasn't out of context and doesn't change the point he was making. You keep screaming that it was taken out of context when it wasn't and the rest of the statement further proves the point being made here anyway....

Ken Bora
07-17-2012, 09:44 AM
. 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.
http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/United-States/Al-Gore/ranting-al-gore.jpg

Buzz
07-17-2012, 09:45 AM
We've all seen the whole statement. It wasn't out of context and doesn't change the point he was making. You keep screaming that it was taken out of context when it wasn't and the rest of the statement further proves the point being made here anyway....


I feel very sorry about your inability to comprehend what you read.

M&K's Retrievers
07-17-2012, 09:46 AM
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.

I suppose you rely on CNN's Erin Burnett for your news.

Ken Bora
07-17-2012, 09:56 AM
This is a fine example of how dishonest the "fair and balanced" network is. They chop up a statement and pull out a couple sentences to make Obama look bad, .


so, what is CBS's excuse then? They are runnin the same line.

Ken Bora
07-17-2012, 09:59 AM
I feel very sorry about your inability to comprehend what you read.

is it hard to breath with your head in the sand Buzz
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AlaZTgDZ_Rc/TZsMXn6WxGI/AAAAAAAAAA8/rkBkO13RaMM/s1600/head-in-sand.jpg
:D

Buzz
07-17-2012, 11:10 AM
so, what is CBS's excuse then? They are runnin the same line.


I guess they took the handoff from Faux. Shame on them too.

road kill
07-17-2012, 11:55 AM
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.
Buzz, with all due respect, please enlighten we the unwashed as to what this means?

To me it shows a guy clueless as to what it means to make something out of nothing.
Minimizing the acheivements of the very people that pay the biggest chunk of taxes (his income) and provide the biggest chunk of jobs (tax base for his income) in America.

Please Buzz, explain to me where I mis understood!!??!!??

caryalsobrook
07-17-2012, 01:17 PM
Buzz, with all due respect, please enlighten we the unwashed as to what this means?

To me it shows a guy clueless as to what it means to make something out of nothing.
Minimizing the acheivements of the very people that pay the biggest chunk of taxes (his income) and provide the biggest chunk of jobs (tax base for his income) in America.

Please Buzz, explain to me where I mis understood!!??!!??

The pres said what he meant and meant what he said. You understood what he said and understood what he meant. Cudos for the pres speaking honestly. Only problem is the libs, progs, socials and coms. are uneasy trying to explain away his honesty. Fun asking them to though.

road kill
07-17-2012, 01:31 PM
The pres said what he meant and meant what he said. You understood what he said and understood what he meant. Cudos for the pres speaking honestly. Only problem is the libs, progs, socials and coms. are uneasy trying to explain away his honesty. Fun asking them to though.
I know I won't get an answer (I already know the answer anyway).

The progressives here avoid my questions.
I don't need multiple paragraphs to make my points.
They are well defined direct and to the point.
Something they do NOT like.

Illinois Bob
07-17-2012, 01:35 PM
Those comments by the president were an insult to everybody that has ever started,built or ran their own business.

starjack
07-17-2012, 02:17 PM
This is a fine example of how dishonest the "fair and balanced" network is. They chop up a statement and pull out a couple sentences to make Obama look bad, they play it over and over, and express outrage. If you guys don't see how this is bad for America and bad for democracy, then there is no hope for you or the country. Or parents and grandparents believed in investing in and building the country for the greater good. Now it's all about me me me me me. Where is Andrea Mitchell when we need her.

HPL
07-17-2012, 02:36 PM
FWIW,
Here’s the full context of what he said:

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
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.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”




By grabbing one sentence, you can always have some fun:

I worked harder than everybody else...the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea.









The real problem here is that after reading the whole quote, it appears to me that the quote in its entirety simply builds on the thought represented by the excerpt. As I interpret it, the point seems to be based on a system of beliefs that denies or at least dismisses the importance of individual choices, effort, and accomplishment. This system of beliefs also tends to dismiss the importance of individual RESPONSIBILITY for outcomes. If people aren't responsible for their own success, it logically follows that neither are they responsible for their failures. That leads to a culture of victimhood, helplessness, and envy. All very destructive to a free society.

J Hoggatt
07-17-2012, 04:41 PM
Attributed to Ben Franklin-
"Don't Argue with Stupid People..... They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!" --- I think this comment still hold today!

Obama - shows his true colors (Red or Pink) --- I think he might just be to the LEFT of Socialism--He might just be the "C" word......

Buzz - I will hand it to you-- you have a backbone to defend Obama still --- go ahead and hate Fox News - but realize what Obama stands for.......

coachmo
07-17-2012, 05:01 PM
That's really the argument and defense some of you guys are using to defend obama...his quote was taken out of context! PLEASE! This further shows his true feelings toward business, well businesses that he doesn't approve of.

murral stark
07-17-2012, 06:59 PM
I interpreted the you didn't build it referring to business was him referring to people getting the govt grants and loans to help them start up a business. You do have to have a solid business plan laid out to present to the govt or you won't get your grant or loan. That's the way I interpreted it anyway. Not toom many start up businesses get off the ground without some type of aid, whether it be govt. or an investor, or even a relative or friend. That's what he meant that somebody helped you along the way.

coachmo
07-17-2012, 07:26 PM
It's another blatant example of the role obama sees for government to play in the lives of the American people. Are you guys really that blind? In denial or what?

PMG 131
07-18-2012, 12:52 AM
Wasn't this one of the main ideas of Communism? Your business belongs to the gov't. The gov't made your business, not you or your hard work.

Matt McKenzie
07-18-2012, 08:29 AM
The real problem here is that after reading the whole quote, it appears to me that the quote in its entirety simply builds on the thought represented by the excerpt. As I interpret it, the point seems to be based on a system of beliefs that denies or at least dismisses the importance of individual choices, effort, and accomplishment. This system of beliefs also tends to dismiss the importance of individual RESPONSIBILITY for outcomes. If people aren't responsible for their own success, it logically follows that neither are they responsible for their failures. That leads to a culture of victimhood, helplessness, and envy. All very destructive to a free society.

BINGO! All we can hope is that this guy keeps talking and people finally start to listen to what he says.

Gerry Clinchy
07-18-2012, 12:47 PM
I was inclined to believe that govt infrastructure was an asset to a business being built, and was not "created" by the business-owner.

I was mulling that over, when I heard a comment by Rush Limbaugh. Rush may have a messed up personal life; speak in sound bites; be abrasive, and be an "entertainer" ... but he does come up with some insights.

Rush made a simple statement: Which came first? Paved roads or the automobile? There was no need for paved roads until we had the automobile.

That got me to thinking ...

Why did we need roads at all? So that commerce could flow freely. And there were toll roads ... those who used them paid for them. And the Founding Fathers believed that toll roads were a legitimate function of govt.

The earliest schools were decided upon by the local community ... not by the Federal or state govt. Education was necessary for the flow of commerce ... reading and writing contracts; keeping tally of costs to price goods suitably. Communities could agree that their children needed these skills to function in commerce. They even realized that they needed higher education, so colleges and universities were also funded.

These things could only be funded with the proceeds from commerce; to benefit more commerce. Those who benefited from their commerce were willing to invest in these things to aid in the continued growth of commerce. They made the investment not through being forced to do so, but because it made good sense to encourage the growth of commerce.

Govt has now grown so large and diverse that it is easy to forget that it all starts with commerce ... no govt can function without the funds it gets from commerce.

BonMallari
07-18-2012, 12:58 PM
Here is an interesting question: Name me a government investment/business that has paid off in a large profit, not talking bailout money but actual capital investment


will wait for an answer

T. Mac
07-18-2012, 01:12 PM
Here is an interesting question: Name me a government investment/business that has paid off in a large profit, not talking bailout money but actual capital investment


will wait for an answer

The last one was probably aero-space. One could say that it spun off the entire semiconductor industry with its drive for miniaturization of electronics. Also produced advanced insulation and thermal resistant surfaces, propulsion technology, satellite communication systems, etc.

Prior to that was probably the interstate highway system. Just the excise tax on fuel has more than paid for the investment. It has only been since the siphoning off of funds for mass transit that the highway tax fund has been depleted.

T. Mac

Jason Glavich
07-18-2012, 01:35 PM
The gov invents everything even when Bush was prez here is an article from 2007 and the US gov invented all of these things.

http://voices.yahoo.com/great-inventions-courtesy-united-states-government-514813.html

Buzz
07-18-2012, 01:35 PM
The real problem here is that after reading the whole quote, it appears to me that the quote in its entirety simply builds on the thought represented by the excerpt. As I interpret it, the point seems to be based on a system of beliefs that denies or at least dismisses the importance of individual choices, effort, and accomplishment. This system of beliefs also tends to dismiss the importance of individual RESPONSIBILITY for outcomes. If people aren't responsible for their own success, it logically follows that neither are they responsible for their failures. That leads to a culture of victimhood, helplessness, and envy. All very destructive to a free society.


Totally off the mark...

road kill
07-18-2012, 01:59 PM
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/obamaflight.jpg

I agree Buzz, Obama was WAAAAAAY off the mark!!

Jason Glavich
07-18-2012, 02:30 PM
That is a great picture.

Don Horstman
07-18-2012, 02:47 PM
Liberals do not like to have the facts about President Obama, the Democratic party, and their flawed economic/business philosophy pointed out to them, because then they might actually need to have facts to back up theur argument, and facts are a pesky little problem when they constantly point out that every time we try socialism/communism it ends up being a failure. My question for liberals and the president is why should the CEO of any business pay more than you or me. I have numerous friends and relatives who own their own companies or businesses and in my humble opinion neither you nor I have a right to expect them to pay more because they are successful. You and I weren't there when they were working a full time job while building their company, and we didn't miss birthdays, ball games and Sunday dinners to build something. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from doing what those evil CEO's have done. And for those liberals who say that Obamacare (and the health care systems in Canada/UK/France) is not socialist is beyond naive. When the government controls an industry the way they will under Obamacare that is the vey definition of socialism. The biggest problem with our system now is government intervention. If car insurance worked like this plan it would cost five times what I does now. At some point in time you will run out of other people's money. You need to watch "Eat The Rich" on YouTube - even if we confiscated every dollar of wealth from the private sector for one year we couldn't solve our budget problems. The bottom line is we spend to much.

All you need to do is look at the facts of how our tax rates currently work:
The top 1% of earners take home 16.9% of the nations income, but pay 36.7% of taxes
The top 5% of earners take home 31.7% of the nations income, but pay 58.7% of taxes
The top 10% of earners take home 43.2% of the nations income, but pay 70.5% of taxes.
Half of American workers pay no federal income taxes at all.
The top 1% pay 24%
The top 5% pay 20%
The top 10% pay 18%
The bottom 50% pay 1.85%

HPL
07-18-2012, 03:17 PM
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.

Well, now that I have read it in context, I think what he really meant is pretty clear, as I posted earlier. You seem to have come to some misinterpretation, so perhaps you would care to enlighten us.

HPL
07-18-2012, 03:35 PM
The real problem here is that after reading the whole quote, it appears to me that the quote in its entirety simply builds on the thought represented by the excerpt. As I interpret it, the point seems to be based on a system of beliefs that denies or at least dismisses the importance of individual choices, effort, and accomplishment. This system of beliefs also tends to dismiss the importance of individual RESPONSIBILITY for outcomes. If people aren't responsible for their own success, it logically follows that neither are they responsible for their failures. That leads to a culture of victimhood, helplessness, and envy. All very destructive to a free society.


Totally off the mark...

Really? When was the last time that you heard any liberal leader say to any poor person that perhaps the reason they were poor was that they made bad decisions? That perhaps, had they paid more attention in school, chosen NOT to spend too much time getting drunk or high, chosen not to get pregnant before they were in a position to raise a child without a govt check, etc., their station in life could be different? When was the last time that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or Barak Obama said "You want to know who is responsible for your lack of success? First take a good look in the mirror."?

The liberals are all about lack of individual accountability and shifting blame to someone else, so it seem perfectly logical to me that they would also deny individual credit.

Daniel J Simoens
07-18-2012, 03:38 PM
http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1207/lightbulb-obama-2012-business-build-that-politics-1342525304.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yn-GZQcqGE0/UAW_-dO2elI/AAAAAAAAG-U/6mD3nw2OjA8/s640/you+didnt+build+that+3.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UoK4z8GEaTE/UAapUxULGjI/AAAAAAAAGp0/Esg7Zop48wA/s1600/said+no+business+owner+ever.jpg

http://www.bookwormroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Obama-killed-Bin-Laden-by-himself.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7brakFk3h1rbxfido1_400.jpg

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/didntbuildblocks.png-png

Buzz
07-18-2012, 04:39 PM
Liberals do not like to have the facts about President Obama, the Democratic party, and their flawed economic/business philosophy pointed out to them, because then they might actually need to have facts to back up theur argument, and facts are a pesky little problem when they constantly point out that every time we try socialism/communism it ends up being a failure. My question for liberals and the president is why should the CEO of any business pay more than you or me. I have numerous friends and relatives who own their own companies or businesses and in my humble opinion neither you nor I have a right to expect them to pay more because they are successful. You and I weren't there when they were working a full time job while building their company, and we didn't miss birthdays, ball games and Sunday dinners to build something. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from doing what those evil CEO's have done. And for those liberals who say that Obamacare (and the health care systems in Canada/UK/France) is not socialist is beyond naive. When the government controls an industry the way they will under Obamacare that is the vey definition of socialism. The biggest problem with our system now is government intervention. If car insurance worked like this plan it would cost five times what I does now. At some point in time you will run out of other people's money. You need to watch "Eat The Rich" on YouTube - even if we confiscated every dollar of wealth from the private sector for one year we couldn't solve our budget problems. The bottom line is we spend to much.

All you need to do is look at the facts of how our tax rates currently work:
The top 1% of earners take home 16.9% of the nations income, but pay 36.7% of taxes
The top 5% of earners take home 31.7% of the nations income, but pay 58.7% of taxes
The top 10% of earners take home 43.2% of the nations income, but pay 70.5% of taxes.
Half of American workers pay no federal income taxes at all.
The top 1% pay 24%
The top 5% pay 20%
The top 10% pay 18%
The bottom 50% pay 1.85%

Yes facts are pesky. The tea party is extremely upset about taxes being so high. Yet, taxes are lower now than they have been in 80 or 90 years.

Have your taxes increased or decreased since Obama was elected president.

And yes, it's a well known fact that only conservatives work hard, start businesses, or know anything about running businesses.

I loved listening to Rush rip on Obama for having admitted to smoking weed when he was a kid. It was very interesting coming from a guy who was addicted to narcotics...


And for all you conservatives who are challenged when it comes to reading comprehension, I'll code what Obama said with colors.


We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
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.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

PMG 131
07-18-2012, 06:36 PM
What do you seem to think you understand that the rest of us don't? Your color code points out what we have been saying. We all had someone that taught us or even helped get the business up and running, but that wasn't the gov't building my buisness. The millitary industrial complex (business) created the internet, not Al Gore.

Buzz
07-18-2012, 08:03 PM
What do you seem to think you understand that the rest of us don't? Your color code points out what we have been saying. We all had someone that taught us or even helped get the business up and running, but that wasn't the gov't building my buisness. The millitary industrial complex (business) created the internet, not Al Gore.

Can you show me where it says the government built your business? I'm not seeing it. And yes you got Al Gore there.

BonMallari
07-18-2012, 08:14 PM
Can you show me where it says the government built your business? I'm not seeing it. And yes you got Al Gore there.

OK Buzz then answer this question:

Who built your business...who is responsible for the success or failure of your business

PMG 131
07-18-2012, 08:24 PM
Ok, he never said that the gov't built it. But who is this someone else? My idea, my money, my time.

caryalsobrook
07-18-2012, 09:30 PM
Liberals do not like to have the facts about President Obama, the Democratic party, and their flawed economic/business philosophy pointed out to them, because then they might actually need to have facts to back up theur argument, and facts are a pesky little problem when they constantly point out that every time we try socialism/communism it ends up being a failure. My question for liberals and the president is why should the CEO of any business pay more than you or me. I have numerous friends and relatives who own their own companies or businesses and in my humble opinion neither you nor I have a right to expect them to pay more because they are successful. You and I weren't there when they were working a full time job while building their company, and we didn't miss birthdays, ball games and Sunday dinners to build something. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from doing what those evil CEO's have done. And for those liberals who say that Obamacare (and the health care systems in Canada/UK/France) is not socialist is beyond naive. When the government controls an industry the way they will under Obamacare that is the vey definition of socialism. The biggest problem with our system now is government intervention. If car insurance worked like this plan it would cost five times what I does now. At some point in time you will run out of other people's money. You need to watch "Eat The Rich" on YouTube - even if we confiscated every dollar of wealth from the private sector for one year we couldn't solve our budget problems. The bottom line is we spend to much.

All you need to do is look at the facts of how our tax rates currently work:
The top 1% of earners take home 16.9% of the nations income, but pay 36.7% of taxes
The top 5% of earners take home 31.7% of the nations income, but pay 58.7% of taxes
The top 10% of earners take home 43.2% of the nations income, but pay 70.5% of taxes.
Half of American workers pay no federal income taxes at all.
The top 1% pay 24%
The top 5% pay 20%
The top 10% pay 18%
The bottom 50% pay 1.85%

Don, Buzz is right when he says that taxes as a percent of GDP has been lowered and was done so with all the tax cuts implemented during the W Bush Administration. Historicallyl, taxes have been about 18% of GDP and are now at a little more that 16% of GDP. Now here is the point that he so wants to ignore. Since the Reagan Administration, the % of the total existing tax burden has been shifted to the middle and upper incomes. Percentage wise those of lower income have had a much larger tax decrease. As my father used to say "everybody can't ride in the wagon, somebody has to pull it." Since the Reagan Admin. those of the upper income have had a larger burden of pulling the load. Liberals want to talk about the tax rate but even when the tax rate was 75-90%, the upper income people had less of a burden of pulling the wagon than they have today. Liberals want allto ignore this fact also. they want you to pay attention to the fact that rates are lower but ignore that the tax burden of the higher income people is higher.

I must admit that I have picked on Buzz often. I have tried to pin him down with question after question, actually knowing the answer but trying to understand why he supports the positions he advocates. To date he has NEVER answered a single question I have asked, not even the simplest of questions. My objective was to try to understand why he holds the views he has, thinking that if one could understand why they held the beliefs they do then maybe there would be some chance to come to some understanding. Like my sister, a retired economics professor, Buzz is a clasic liberal, both of which respond with the attitude that you are too stupid to understand what they are saying or that they do not "want to insult your intelligence by answering. Sound Familiar??

I know what most liberals believe a do everybody do everybody on this forum. What I don't know is why they believe what they do. That is the question that I get no answer. I may as many do, call out Buzz when he states something so outratiously false that I can't pass it up, but asking him to give reasons for his opinions is a waste of time. the best you get is some silly graph with misinterpretation or a graph that is incomplete or false.

PS
His term "Faux News" makes me want to coin the term "Commycrats":p

charly_t
07-18-2012, 09:42 PM
[QUOTE=caryalsobrook;98............................ .................................................. ...................

PS
His term "Faux News" makes me want to coin the term "Commycrats":p[/QUOTE]

I like your term. I have a distant relative by marriage who worked in a government job for many years. She says "dummycrats" when she talks about democrats.

Buzz
07-19-2012, 08:22 AM
Don, Buzz is right when he says that taxes as a percent of GDP has been lowered and was done so with all the tax cuts implemented during the W Bush Administration. Historicallyl, taxes have been about 18% of GDP and are now at a little more that 16% of GDP. Now here is the point that he so wants to ignore. Since the Reagan Administration, the % of the total existing tax burden has been shifted to the middle and upper incomes. Percentage wise those of lower income have had a much larger tax decrease. As my father used to say "everybody can't ride in the wagon, somebody has to pull it." Since the Reagan Admin. those of the upper income have had a larger burden of pulling the load. Liberals want to talk about the tax rate but even when the tax rate was 75-90%, the upper income people had less of a burden of pulling the wagon than they have today. Liberals want allto ignore this fact also. they want you to pay attention to the fact that rates are lower but ignore that the tax burden of the higher income people is higher.

I must admit that I have picked on Buzz often. I have tried to pin him down with question after question, actually knowing the answer but trying to understand why he supports the positions he advocates. To date he has NEVER answered a single question I have asked, not even the simplest of questions. My objective was to try to understand why he holds the views he has, thinking that if one could understand why they held the beliefs they do then maybe there would be some chance to come to some understanding. Like my sister, a retired economics professor, Buzz is a clasic liberal, both of which respond with the attitude that you are too stupid to understand what they are saying or that they do not "want to insult your intelligence by answering. Sound Familiar??

I know what most liberals believe a do everybody do everybody on this forum. What I don't know is why they believe what they do. That is the question that I get no answer. I may as many do, call out Buzz when he states something so outratiously false that I can't pass it up, but asking him to give reasons for his opinions is a waste of time. the best you get is some silly graph with misinterpretation or a graph that is incomplete or false.

PS
His term "Faux News" makes me want to coin the term "Commycrats":p

I have tried to answer some of your questions, but apparently not to your satisfaction. Honestly, I don't really have time to give you a good answer most of the time. I just stop in here to get my mind onto something else a few times a day, but otherwise I've been working 70-110 hours a week. That doesn't leave me time for much else. I am going to try and start living like a normal person the last half of summer into the fall so I can get out training with my dogs and run them in field trials on the weekends, right up to hunting season. Then I'm going to hunt as much as I can.

I really get a kick out of listening to liberals get characterized as dumb, lazy, or both. We all know that they are incapable of understanding what makes a business go, let alone build and run one.

Buzz
07-19-2012, 08:23 AM
I like your term. I have a distant relative by marriage who worked in a government job for many years. She says "dummycrats" when she talks about democrats.


Like I said in my post above, that characterization makes me chuckle.

caryalsobrook
07-19-2012, 09:56 AM
I have tried to answer some of your questions, but apparently not to your satisfaction. Honestly, I don't really have time to give you a good answer most of the time. I just stop in here to get my mind onto something else a few times a day, but otherwise I've been working 70-110 hours a week. That doesn't leave me time for much else. I am going to try and start living like a normal person the last half of summer into the fall so I can get out training with my dogs and run them in field trials on the weekends, right up to hunting season. Then I'm going to hunt as much as I can.

I really get a kick out of listening to liberals get characterized as dumb, lazy, or both. We all know that they are incapable of understanding what makes a business go, let alone build and run one.

First of all, I have never characterized liberals as "dumb or lazy", let alone that they are incapable of understanding what makes a business go. You know better than that.

Second, I challenge you to show a post where I have asked you a question and the post where you have answered it. THEN all can decide if you have answered the question.

Illinois Bob
07-19-2012, 11:19 AM
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t231/trackerlab/D1ECCC27341345D3B805B13DA84CB26C.jpg

Uncle Bill
07-19-2012, 12:05 PM
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t231/trackerlab/D1ECCC27341345D3B805B13DA84CB26C.jpg


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! FINALLY...someone found a way to show the messiah knows what he's talking about! Good job, Bob.


UB

PS...Is this the "truthfullness" Democrats are into, Buzz?

Illinois Bob
07-19-2012, 12:26 PM
Thank Jon Lovitz from SNL for that one.

shawninthesticks
07-19-2012, 12:36 PM
In My uneducated opinion I still think its a shame that these 2 are our only choices out of all of the honest hard working,intelligent american people.
Politicians have us pinned to the floor and it is very scary.

ARay11
07-19-2012, 01:08 PM
In My uneducated opinion I still think its a shame that these 2 are our only choices out of all of the honest hard working,intelligent american people.
Politicians have us pinned to the floor and it is very scary.

Amen.
.....

Franco
07-19-2012, 03:22 PM
In My uneducated opinion I still think its a shame that these 2 are our only choices out of all of the honest hard working,intelligent american people.
Politicians have us pinned to the floor and it is very scary.

Right On!

But, I have to add this cartoon as it sums it up pretty darn well.


http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/549051_10151041359157726_390803054_n.jpg

charly_t
07-19-2012, 03:46 PM
In My uneducated opinion I still think its a shame that these 2 are our only choices out of all of the honest hard working,intelligent american people.
Politicians have us pinned to the floor and it is very scary.

You got that right ! The whole political scene is run by crooks, thieves and those rich enough to buy their way "in". Sad thing is some are all 3 of those things. Just reading about the FBI looking into a N.J. fiasco.
Made me think of a bunch of gangsters. One can only hope that one of those rich enough to buy in will have some common sense and some morals. And is strong enough to stand up and do the correct things. It's going to take a real man or a real woman to do that. A true fighter.

Franco
07-19-2012, 04:34 PM
You got that right ! The whole political scene is run by crooks, thieves and those rich enough to buy their way "in". Sad thing is some are all 3 of those things. Just reading about the FBI looking into a N.J. fiasco.
Made me think of a bunch of gangsters. One can only hope that one of those rich enough to buy in will have some common sense and some morals. And is strong enough to stand up and do the correct things. It's going to take a real man or a real woman to do that. A true fighter.

The only real reformer and fighter running for President lost the Beauty Contest. I don't think the American electorate knows what they want!
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/531461_10151029014479837_1935234763_n.jpg
!

J Hoggatt
07-19-2012, 05:55 PM
Politicians need to be reminded that they are “public servants” and We are not servants to the government.
Our President thinks we work for him and the government—he needs reminded that he works for us – and we are about to fire him.

BonMallari
07-19-2012, 05:59 PM
Politicians need to be reminded that they are “public servants” and We are not servants to the government.
Our President thinks we work for him and the government—he needs reminded that he works for us – and we are about to fire him.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a237/chumbet/791cf4ae.jpg

road kill
07-19-2012, 06:04 PM
Like I said earlier, Gov't. did NOT build business, business built Gov't.

See what I'm sayin'????????

Franco
07-19-2012, 06:18 PM
When a nation such as ours is 16 TRILLION in debt, we work for the politicians. When politicians can tell us how much of our money they can take from us, money we have earned, then we have lost most of our Liberty!

I don't know how else to put this nicely. We, the electorate have allowed our politicians to piss a way many of our Freedoms and has allowed them to sellout tax payers to every special interest imaginable.

And, the electorate wants more Democrats and Republicans! We have the government we deserve.

caryalsobrook
07-19-2012, 09:32 PM
Tonight, I tuned in to Rachael Maddow on MSNBC for a little bit( Yes Buzz I do watch MSNBC also). Instead of talking about taking President Obama's business statement out of context, she did give her interpretation of his statement. She said that what he meant was that the gov. built the roads and bridges that businesses need to exist, and without gov. providing such things that business could not exist. Good for her. At least she was brave enough to put forth the position instead of hiding behind a frivilious statement such as "you don't understand the context".

Buzz, I have to admit that given this the true meaning of his statement, you were smart to run and hide from it since you have such liberal views. The statement was silly at the least if not totally idiotic. Let me give you an example. How about "if you are going to have schools, you must have teachers". That statement is about as informative as what Obama said. I might also say that if you want to consider the contribution of roads and business that all Americans has the same access to roads and bridges whether they succeed or fail or even try to create business. I might add that if he chooses to make such a silly statement as to the importance of roads and bridges in the creation of business, then he should have the gov. also take credit for the more than 50,000 motorists killed on those very same roads and bridges. How about him having the gov. taking credit for those such as Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer who used roads and bridges to kill people, and the drug trafficers who use them to transport their drugs? And how about this: "You didn't carry those drgs all over the country by yourself. YOU HAD HELP. You didn't do that by yourself, somebody else did that" All such silly statements including those also of the President. He has no clue as to what constitutes success, failure and abuse. He literally has no clue.

mjh345
07-19-2012, 09:55 PM
Tonight, I tuned in to Rachael Maddow on MSNBC for a little bit( Yes Buzz I do watch MSNBC also). Instead of talking about taking President Obama's business statement out of context, she did give her interpretation of his statement. She said that what he meant was that the gov. built the roads and bridges that businesses need to exist, and without gov. providing such things that business could not exist. Good for her. At least she was brave enough to put forth the position instead of hiding behind a frivilious statement such as "you don't understand the context".

Buzz, I have to admit that given this the true meaning of his statement, you were smart to run and hide from it since you have such liberal views. The statement was silly at the least if not totally idiotic. Let me give you an example. How about "if you are going to have schools, you must have teachers". That statement is about as informative as what Obama said. I might also say that if you want to consider the contribution of roads and business that all Americans has the same access to roads and bridges whether they succeed or fail or even try to create business. I might add that if he chooses to make such a silly statement as to the importance of roads and bridges in the creation of business, then he should have the gov. also take credit for the more than 50,000 motorists killed on those very same roads and bridges. How about him having the gov. taking credit for those such as Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer who used roads and bridges to kill people, and the drug trafficers who use them to transport their drugs? And how about this: "You didn't carry those drgs all over the country by yourself. YOU HAD HELP. You didn't do that by yourself, somebody else did that" All such silly statements including those also of the President. He has no clue as to what constitutes success, failure and abuse. He literally has no clue.

Cheers!!!!!

Gerry Clinchy
07-20-2012, 06:32 AM
ALL the citizens get to use the roads, so it's reasonable that all citizens should pay for them.

Why is it so hard for the POTUS to understand that individuals who use those govt services to create new wealth are "entitled" to use the services they have already paid for? The difference is only that some individuals use those services to create new wealth in which everyone shares through jobs and innovation that makes life better not just for the innovator, but for many others as well.

Individuals existed before govt or taxes. Individuals created the govt to bring order to society, to serve the needs of individuals, not become an end in itself.

Buzz
07-20-2012, 09:17 AM
Tonight, I tuned in to Rachael Maddow on MSNBC for a little bit( Yes Buzz I do watch MSNBC also). Instead of talking about taking President Obama's business statement out of context, she did give her interpretation of his statement. She said that what he meant was that the gov. built the roads and bridges that businesses need to exist, and without gov. providing such things that business could not exist. Good for her. At least she was brave enough to put forth the position instead of hiding behind a frivilious statement such as "you don't understand the context".

Buzz, I have to admit that given this the true meaning of his statement, you were smart to run and hide from it since you have such liberal views. The statement was silly at the least if not totally idiotic. Let me give you an example. How about "if you are going to have schools, you must have teachers". That statement is about as informative as what Obama said. I might also say that if you want to consider the contribution of roads and business that all Americans has the same access to roads and bridges whether they succeed or fail or even try to create business. I might add that if he chooses to make such a silly statement as to the importance of roads and bridges in the creation of business, then he should have the gov. also take credit for the more than 50,000 motorists killed on those very same roads and bridges. How about him having the gov. taking credit for those such as Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer who used roads and bridges to kill people, and the drug trafficers who use them to transport their drugs? And how about this: "You didn't carry those drgs all over the country by yourself. YOU HAD HELP. You didn't do that by yourself, somebody else did that" All such silly statements including those also of the President. He has no clue as to what constitutes success, failure and abuse. He literally has no clue.

I really only have a couple minutes here, so forgive me for not going through in detail... But I'm not sure I agree with the analogy here.

I think a better analogy is: If you're going to have an educated populous, you need a system that provides to everyone regardless of where they live and what economic background they come from, access to a quality education.


And yes, everyone has the same access to roads, they are all free to use or not use them. But does everyone benefit from them equally? Does everyone benefit in exact proportion to their incomes? That appears to be what the flat-taxers believe.

I believe that our system of progressive taxation props up the poor and the middle class and it is part of the reason that we have had such a healthy middle class for so long. You would probably refer to that as "transferring the wealth around." I believe the direction we have been taking the last 30 years is promoting a society where there are the rich, and there are the poor. It really looks to me like today's conservatives long for the days of serfs and aristocrats.

menmon
07-20-2012, 09:27 AM
WHAT MY GOVERNMENT HAS DONE FOR ME - AND WHAT I'M TODAY FOR IT

Public School - High School Graduate

Public University - BBA

Private University - MBA (Federal Student Loans)

Because of this assistance from the government and the tax dollars collected from individuals and corporations, I have earned a 6 figure income since 1998.

SBA Guaranteed Loan - Because of the governement guaranty of mine and my wife's pet resort, we were able to build and start up a fantastic business are are employing 10 indiduals, where without the guarantee it would not have been possible.

Now if it was not for the public school system, most likely I would have never had the earning power that I have today.

So you are kidding yourself when you say you did it alone. The beauty of our tax system is you only pay when make money, so once you are making money, you should not be too upset when they ask for some back. Please get a clue people.

PMG 131
07-20-2012, 10:01 AM
Those were loan programs, you were expected to pay those back. They were not gifts from the government or even investments in your business. No normal conservative wants serfs and lords. That was a system in which people (serfs) worked and gave everything to the gov. (lords), that sounds alot like the direction liberals want to take us. The sad thing is Obamacare and the newly proposed milage tax disproprtionately(?) affect the middle class and rural america.

Buzz
07-20-2012, 10:03 AM
The beauty of our tax system is you only pay when make money, so once you are making money.

Sambo, I believe that this is what has their panties in a twist.

Buzz
07-20-2012, 10:05 AM
Those were loan programs, you were expected to pay those back. They were not gifts from the government or even investments in your business. No normal conservative wants serfs and lords. That was a system in which people (serfs) worked and gave everything to the gov. (lords), that sounds alot like the direction liberals want to take us. The sad thing is Obamacare and the newly proposed milage tax disproprtionately(?) affect the middle class and rural america.


I could not disagree more. How does a progressive tax system promote this?

ARay11
07-20-2012, 10:07 AM
I really only have a couple minutes here, so forgive me for not going through in detail... But I'm not sure I agree with the analogy here.

I think a better analogy is: If you're going to have an educated populous, you need a system that provides to everyone regardless of where they live and what economic background they come from, access to a quality education.


And yes, everyone has the same access to roads, they are all free to use or not use them. But does everyone benefit from them equally? Does everyone benefit in exact proportion to their incomes? That appears to be what the flat-taxers believe.
Every citizen has the same access. Whether or not they use (benefit from) the road, is up to them. Do they benefit in exact proportion to income? I doubt that I benefit $$$$$$$ in relation to my receptionist benefiting only $$. She's 21.... I promise she runs the roads far more than I do :-P

I believe that our system of progressive taxation props up the poor and the middle class and it is part of the reason that we have had such a healthy middle class for so long. You would probably refer to that as "transferring the wealth around." I believe the direction we have been taking the last 30 years is promoting a society where there are the rich, and there are the poor. It really looks to me like today's conservatives long for the days of serfs and aristocrats.

The direction of our current system will continue to divide people into Rich vs Poor. Soon, there will be fewer in the middle because there is no incentive for anyone at the bottom to fight their way up.

PMG 131
07-20-2012, 10:32 AM
A progressive tax system shifts taxes disproportionately to the wealthy. How is it fair that because I worked hard and had some luck that I should pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes? We might as well say everyone should get paid $50,000 no matter what job they do. A progressive tax does exactly the same thing just in a different way, no wage cap just taxed so they have the same.

caryalsobrook
07-20-2012, 10:32 AM
I really only have a couple minutes here, so forgive me for not going through in detail... But I'm not sure I agree with the analogy here.

I think a better analogy is: If you're going to have an educated populous, you need a system that provides to everyone regardless of where they live and what economic background they come from, access to a quality education.


And yes, everyone has the same access to roads, they are all free to use or not use them. But does everyone benefit from them equally? Does everyone benefit in exact proportion to their incomes? That appears to be what the flat-taxers believe.

I believe that our system of progressive taxation props up the poor and the middle class and it is part of the reason that we have had such a healthy middle class for so long. You would probably refer to that as "transferring the wealth around." I believe the direction we have been taking the last 30 years is promoting a society where there are the rich, and there are the poor. It really looks to me like today's conservatives long for the days of serfs and aristocrats.
First of all, thanks for the reply. kConcerning the school statement, I made it to be taken as silly. If you hunt ducks, you have to have ducks. If you want cars you have to have roads. If you want schools, you have to have teachers. If you want to create a business, you have to have roads. Each of these statements gives such miniscule earth shaking information as to be rediculous to even make. That was my point.

I was watching Joe in the Morning on MSNBC(one of my favorite morning shows by the way) and a discussion, civil I might add, that went straight to the point as to the difference between liberals and conservatives. The issue came up as to the value of the individual, individual freedoms and initiative as opposed to the value of the collective. A discussion that has gone on for time immemorable. That is the heart of difference between liberals and conservatives. You yourself display that concept when you talked about education in your post. Those who believe in the value of the collective believe that the standard of living shold be fairly equal for all and as a result the standard of living will be higher for all. Those who believe in the value of the individual bellieve that while the standard of living may not be equal for all, the standard of living will be higher for all who put forth an effort. This is in fact the crux of the arguement. The Soviet Union rejceted dictatorship and embrassed collectivism and after 70 years and 20-40 million killed, the gov. owning the means of production with its 5-year plans,year after year, collapsed in failure. Cuba, N. Korea, greece, Iceland, Spain, Cambodia, Vietnam ar classic examples of countries that either have a very low standard of living or are on the verge of collapse while embrasing the value of the collective and ignoring the value of the individual. Europe, trying a hybred of the two languishing in a growth of GDP of about 1% over the last 10 years. I see almost no value of the collective other than offering equal ACCESS to those things that cannot be provided by the private sector. An example, you talk about education. Let's go back about 100 years when we did truly have unfettered access to public secondary education. The gov. paid for the schools and the teachers. If you wanted to go to a school, you went. There were no busses, no school districts which you were assigned, no manditory rules or regulations that make each school "equal and the same". No rules and regualtions dictating what school that you had to go to. It was up to the individual of if and where they went to school. During this 100 years even with the depression and numerous recessions, this country grew and the standard of living grew immesurably. You picked a time frame of 30 years to show the harm to the middle class. I will go back to 1965 when the Great Society Pogram was initiated. Valuing the concept of the "collective" as opposed to the individual, we spent trillions of dollars to as Johnson said "eliminate the poor" and I think we both will agree that has been unsuccessful. Had it worked, you would hear no complaints from me but I firmly believe that instead of eliminating poverty it only created a culture of dependence and control of the very people it was supposed to help. I suspect your arguement like that of the stimulus bill was that the Great Society program would have worked had it been more. Make no mistake, I don't classify liberals as lazy or deadbeats, nor do I classify conservatives as a group as industrious and innovative. I do classify liberals' value of the collective as WRONG, and state that history proves it. If we continue down the road of emphasizing the collective over the individual more and more then history will again prove that the standard of lliving for all suffers.

caryalsobrook
07-20-2012, 10:54 AM
Buzz, let me add one more thing. I once heard the difinition of success as that person who "got up the last time they fell down". I always revel in the stories of those who tell of failing, mostly as a result of their own fault, accepting the consequences of failing, picking themselves up and succeeding. The joy and pride of their acccomplishments is something to behold.

Buzz
07-20-2012, 11:04 AM
I see almost no value of the collective other than offering equal ACCESS to those things that cannot be provided by the private sector. An example, you talk about education.

I do classify liberals' value of the collective as WRONG, and state that history proves it. If we continue down the road of emphasizing the collective over the individual more and more then history will again prove that the standard of lliving for all suffers.

I don't know where you get the idea that I believe that we should all have equal standards of living. I busted my butt qualify to attend and earning the money to attend a good university. I worked hard when I was there. I went out and busted my butt applying the engineering skills I learned there and ended up making a pretty good living. I do not believe that others who had the same opportunities but decided not to apply themselves (or lacked the talent) are entitled to the same lifestyle I enjoy. But, I do believe that I owe it to society to give back the same way those who came before me did in order to offer the same opportunities to those who will follow after me.

And that is what I believe Obama was saying. To say that he was promoting a soviet style collective is a huge and dishonest leap in my opinion.

Buzz
07-20-2012, 11:20 AM
Short and sweet little videos presented without comment:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24230825@N02/7607243718/


And then this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24230825@N02/7607288708/

Marvin S
07-20-2012, 11:28 AM
WHAT MY GOVERNMENT HAS DONE FOR ME - AND WHAT I'M TODAY FOR IT

Public School - High School Graduate

Public University - BBA

Private University - MBA (Federal Student Loans)

Because of this assistance from the government and the tax dollars collected from individuals and corporations, I have earned a 6 figure income since 1998.

SBA Guaranteed Loan - Because of the governement guaranty of mine and my wife's pet resort, we were able to build and start up a fantastic business are are employing 10 indiduals, where without the guarantee it would not have been possible.

Now if it was not for the public school system, most likely I would have never had the earning power that I have today.

So you are kidding yourself when you say you did it alone. The beauty of our tax system is you only pay when make money, so once you are making money, you should not be too upset when they ask for some back. Please get a clue people.

I guess we all take a different path & see the stones in that path differently :).

Public School - provided by the taxpayers of the community - the government only acted as collector & disbursor!

State school - again provided by the taxpayers - BS in Engineering with assistance from the GI Bill - a fringe of being subject to the draft ;)

When I went to the SBA office in February - they were out of money for the year - so did it on our own - same business - business still exists today, 43 years after startup - employs several people - not as fancy as your place as we did it with our own money after taxes :-P.

We stay involved even to this day giving back to the community - & BTW the government profited immensely from the risk we took.



And that is what I believe Obama was saying. To say that he was promoting a soviet style collective is a huge and dishonest leap in my opinion.

You strike me by your posting as an old style moderate like the majority of us on this forum - but you really do need to open your eyes to what is happening - the chosen one wants the government to be able to pick the winners & losers! & Public Employee unions exist to pick our pocket :(!

caryalsobrook
07-20-2012, 11:37 AM
I don't know where you get the idea that I believe that we should all have equal standards of living. I busted my butt qualify to attend and earning the money to attend a good university. I worked hard when I was there. I went out and busted my butt applying the engineering skills I learned there and ended up making a pretty good living. I do not believe that others who had the same opportunities but decided not to apply themselves (or lacked the talent) are entitled to the same lifestyle I enjoy. But, I do believe that I owe it to society to give back the same way those who came before me did in order to offer the same opportunities to those who will follow after me.

And that is what I believe Obama was saying. To say that he was promoting a soviet style collective is a huge and dishonest leap in my opinion.
I believe the school system does exactly the opposite as the goals you aspire. Let me skip that and go to your last statement.

Tell me the difference in Obama ideology of central control of the economy through taxes, regulation and subsity to his hosen sectors of the economy and that to the 5-year plans of the UssR? the gov. owned the means of production in the USSR, Obama's method is that as stated above. Same result is to control the means of production with central planning. I don't think that to be a dishonest leap. Latest example I am aware of is its requirement that the refineries use ethanol produced from ethanol made from some particular kind of grass. Not to do so results in a fine(tax?) to the refinery. Only problem is THERE IS NO PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM THE PARTICULAR KIND OF GRASS IT SPECIFIES. Typical of USSR 5-year plans and typical of Obama's central planning. Now you can be specific and tell me how I have been dishonest.

PS: I don't know why you keep defending liberals as industrious and hard working in general and yourself in particular. Again let me emphasize: NEVER HAVE I EVER CLASSIFIED LIBERALS AS LAZY OR DEADBEARS AND CONSERVATIVES AS INDUSRIOUS AND HARD WORKING. NEITHER HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE AS DOES NEITHER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A SENSE OF CHARITY TOWARD THE POOR, DISADVANTAGED OR SICK. IT HAS TO DO WITH AN APPROACH TOWARD ETHICS, MORALS AND CHARITY. You don't have to defend yourself and liberals as to yor industriousness and working ethic.

HPL
07-20-2012, 12:10 PM
I do believe that I owe it to society to give back the same way those who came before me did in order to offer the same opportunities to those who will follow after me.

To say that he was promoting a soviet style collective is a huge and dishonest leap in my opinion.

The first sentence that I left of your statement is admirable and I have no problem with that, although I am not sure that government should determine what one owes to those who follow and then force one to contribute that amount.

As to the second sentence that I left, it is certainly not a huge leap or even a big step to believe that Obama might be a believer in the basic tenets of communism/Marxism considering his up-bringing, education, and life experiences (see thread "It's a Miracle") and thus that he actually was dismissing or at least diminishing the importance of individual initiative and effort (not to mention ability).

menmon
07-20-2012, 12:57 PM
The bottomline is I don't have to have wealthy parents to get ahead. I took advantage of the opportunities given me and made something with them. That is all the president and I are saying. Lets make education available to everyone...but you still have to embrace it and work hard, but at least it is there for the taken. Let given veterns a head start through the GI Bill, lets give entrepreneurs access to capital by guarantying the debt on well thought out plans, etc.

By the government taxing us an making these opportunities available to people we are a great nation. Yes I'm moderate and if I thought for a minute the policies the president was proposing were harmful and not helpful, I would be the first to say so. All this rheteric is politics...no truth in any of it. The leaders of the country have made what is best for corporations the top priority for too long. Things need to swing the other way for a while, but if it shift too far that way, I'll be the first to say we need to take things back some.

Marvin S
07-20-2012, 01:22 PM
The bottomline is I don't have to have wealthy parents to get ahead. I took advantage of the opportunities given me and made something with them. That is all the president and I are saying. Lets make education available to everyone...but you still have to embrace it and work hard, but at least it is there for the taken. Let given veterns a head start through the GI Bill, lets give entrepreneurs access to capital by guarantying the debt on well thought out plans, etc.

By the government taxing us an making these opportunities available to people we are a great nation. Yes I'm moderate and if I thought for a minute the policies the president was proposing were harmful and not helpful, I would be the first to say so. All this rheteric is politics...no truth in any of it. The leaders of the country have made what is best for corporations the top priority for too long. Things need to swing the other way for a while, but if it shift too far that way, I'll be the first to say we need to take things back some.

That's disingenious!!! The other banker on this forum is moderate - you're just a little piggy at the trough ;-).

Franco
07-20-2012, 01:39 PM
The less the Federal Government gets involved in, the better for all American! Maybe everyone including our politicains should read The Constitution. It would be a real eye-opener.

Can anyone name anything the government has done that runs is an effective & efficient manner other than our military?

And, don't forget that the government does NOT create wealth or success, they consume it! Anything the government tries to do, the private sector can do much better!

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/529486_10151260385888747_311844606_n.jpg

menmon
07-20-2012, 01:56 PM
Private sector is not always aligned correctly. Military is a perfect example....if it was up to me, we would have no military....but I know that is not right either

BonMallari
07-20-2012, 02:01 PM
Private sector is not always aligned correctly. Military is a perfect example....if it was up to me, we would have no military....but I know that is not right either


seriously.....would love to know the rationale behind that mode of thinking..but maybe on another thread

Franco
07-20-2012, 02:07 PM
Private sector is not always aligned correctly. Military is a perfect example....if it was up to me, we would have no military....but I know that is not right either

The Private Sector is much better alligned than the Federal Government! If we had real and true Free Markets & Capitalism, the checks and balances would keep it so. It is the government inteference with commerce that screws everything up from our Monetary Policy to Education. The Fed Gov and the politicans that inhabit it are more concerned with pandering to every speacial interest and not in what is in the best interest of its citizens and especially not the tax payers!

But then again, the Electorate today is not as astute as they were 50 years ago because of the great dumbing-down of America.

road kill
07-20-2012, 02:17 PM
seriously.....would love to know the rationale behind that mode of thinking..but maybe on another thread

Rationale????
We don't got no rationale.......we don't got to show you no rationale......we don't got no stinking rationale........we are progressive ralis!!!:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

PMG 131
07-20-2012, 02:18 PM
I agree that everyone should have access to an education, but why did my public university raise tuition every semester for the 6 years I was there? My student services didn't increase, my pay for being a graduate assistant didn't go up, but the teachers pay sure went up.

BonMallari
07-20-2012, 02:23 PM
The Private Sector is much better alligned than the Federal Government! If we had real and true Free Markets & Capitalism, the checks and balances would keep it so. It is the government inteference with commerce that screws everything up from our Monetary Policy to Education. The Fed Gov and the politicans that inhabit it are more concerned with pandering to every speacial interest and not in what is in the best interest of its citizens and especially not the tax payers!

But then again, the Electorate today is not as astutue as they were 50 years ago because of the great dumbing-down of America.

do you think it has anything to do with the influence of TV...and now the internet

Franco
07-20-2012, 02:27 PM
do you think it has anything to do with the influence of TV...and now the internet

I think that TV, music, movies, and public education have a lot to do with it. The internet and Smart Phones have only handicapped their social skills.

The internet can be an amazing learning tool. But, like everything that can be abused, it can be destructive.

We as a nation came out of WW2 with not only great pride but, the feeling of invincibility. Then, may Americans got too caught up in the good life and had taken their eye off of the government, trusting it to do the right thing. Apathy set in with many and we let the special interest take over our political and monetary systems. Add in the corrupt entertainment establishment coupled with out-of-control entitlements and we have what we have today! A complete failure of traditional American values of work and family.

Gerry Clinchy
07-20-2012, 02:40 PM
I thought we did have universal access to education?

The big dispute is the quality of that education, and whether the govt involvement with it has really improved the quality of the education.

menmon
07-20-2012, 02:56 PM
We do all have access....both parties always say they are going to fix it and neither do....access is what is important.

I had a high school drop out work a few days and yesterday after I had him reclean some windows and explained to him that just rubbing a rag on something does not clean it, he told me that the job was not his cup of tea and he was going back to school. I told him that he needed to go back to school but if he approched it like he did those windows that there was no use.

Bottomline, the majority of the kids out there are lazy and technology has much to do with it. There is nothing wrong with the school system really, not to say it can not be improved. However, until they read and understand what is being put in front of them, no politican can fix it, but that does not mean we short change the ones that will embrace it.

HPL
07-20-2012, 03:14 PM
I thought we did have universal access to education?

The big dispute is the quality of that education, and whether the govt involvement with it has really improved the quality of the education.


We do all have access....both parties always say they are going to fix it and neither do....access is what is important.

I had a high school drop out work a few days and yesterday after I had him reclean some windows and explained to him that just rubbing a rag on something does not clean it, he told me that the job was not his cup of tea and he was going back to school. I told him that he needed to go back to school but if he approched it like he did those windows that there was no use.

Bottomline, the majority of the kids out there are lazy and technology has much to do with it. There is nothing wrong with the school system really, not to say it can not be improved. However, until they read and understand what is being put in front of them, no politican can fix it, but that does not mean we short change the ones that will embrace it.

Funny that this should come up. A couple of days ago I was buying some garlic powder at the grocery store. The store I patronize has little stickers below the various products showing the cost per unit (in this case ounces). It was a 10oz bottle selling for $3.98. The sticker said that it was $0.3618/oz. Well, those little things kinda bug me so I went looking for a manager. Couldn't find a manager at first but instead pointed it out to a couple of the floor people (college age kids). They didn't really understand what the problem was. Asked them to divide 398 by 10. Couldn't do it in their heads. The said "Ok, let's say it's $4.00 for the 10oz bottle." Still couldn't do it!!! Told them that their highschool owed them (and the taxpayers) a large apology. Just amazing.

road kill
07-20-2012, 03:54 PM
Funny that this should come up. A couple of days ago I was buying some garlic powder at the grocery store. The store I patronize has little stickers below the various products showing the cost per unit (in this case ounces). It was a 10oz bottle selling for $3.98. The sticker said that it was $0.3618/oz. Well, those little things kinda bug me so I went looking for a manager. Couldn't find a manager at first but instead pointed it out to a couple of the floor people (college age kids). They didn't really understand what the problem was. Asked them to divide 398 by 10. Couldn't do it in their heads. The said "Ok, let's say it's $4.00 for the 10oz bottle." Still couldn't do it!!! Told them that their highschool owed them (and the taxpayers) a large apology. Just amazing.

I bet they knew when "Gay Pride" week was though!!!!

coachmo
07-21-2012, 02:15 PM
Sambo once again you make generalizations that are not accurate. The majority of kids are not lazy, LAZY kids are LAZY!! Now here's a generalization for you, I would imagine most of the voting aged, lazy kids voted for your man obama! I have 3 daughters; one is an RN working on becoming a nurse practitioner, one is working on her MBA and the.youngest is working on her bachelors degree. You making such asinine statements is kinda like me saying all liberals must be stupid for voting for and supporting obama. There are plenty of hard working young people out there. Thank God for them.

Uncle Bill
07-21-2012, 05:17 PM
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.


Quite the contrary, "BUZZ"...you and your batch of fools is what's 'despicable' for America. God help your offspring if your ilk succeeds in giving this total phoney and his regime another 4 years.

UB

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2012, 07:25 PM
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Buzz http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=989268#post989268)
If you read it in context, you know what he was saying. So I won't insult your intelligence and try and explain it to you, except to say that he was actually making a patriotic statement and your guys are taking him out of context to make it into something that it wasn't. Faux is TERRIBLE for America. They are despicable.


Reading the entire context in a few different places, I do not believe he was being patriotic at all. He was pandering to an audience that would like to believe that somehow they could take credit for the success of those businesses; or the "government" could take credit.

The point that was not made was that each of them (his listeners) had the same taxes-paid-for public services available to them that could have made them the highly successful individuals ... because they are just as smart & just as hard-working (by his own words) ... but somehow those people listening had not done so. Why? Any, and all, have access to those services that help a business succeed. Only some have the ideas, the motivation, the passion, the ambition, the courage, & the determination to invest and risk to succeed.

I am always struck by the passion of immigrants who have come here with nothing (even today), and sacrifice greatly to become successful. When you hear those people tell their stories, none of them would trade the opportunity they have here for a return to life in their home countries. We ought to listen carefully to those who have left oppressive homelands to strive and thrive here.

We're not talking about the huge corporations when we talk of people whose taxable income is $250,000/year (family). Those small business owners having that amount in taxable income are the lifeblood and engine of the country's economy.

If he were talking about those making $20 or $30 million a year, maybe he'd get my support for the idea, but even then "giving back" is not "giving" when it is "mandatory". Interestingly, those people he says are willing to give more back ... continue to say they won't do so unless the tax man tells them they "must". They could write a check if they wanted to do so from a purely altruistic standpoint. Evidently, their altruism doesn't extend far enough to do this voluntarily.

The only response I've ever seen to this is, "Why should I, if I don't have to?" If they think it's the right thing to do, why not?

And isn't the discussion of taxing "the rich" kind of academic, since it won't do much at all to help assuage the huge deficit. (I'd fully expect that the politicians will not even use it to pay off debt, but find new ways to spend the new revenue, and probably spend it ineffectively.) However, hammering this point is a very effective way to establish class warfare and divisiveness.

ErinsEdge
07-23-2012, 09:42 AM
The less the Federal Government gets involved in, the better for all American! Maybe everyone including our politicains should read The Constitution. It would be a real eye-opener.

Can anyone name anything the government has done that runs is an effective & efficient manner other than our military?

And, don't forget that the government does NOT create wealth or success, they consume it! Anything the government tries to do, the private sector can do much better!

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/529486_10151260385888747_311844606_n.jpg

I like that.


Public School - provided by the taxpayers of the community - the government only acted as collector & disbursor!

State school - again provided by the taxpayers - BS in Engineering

Both my kids, BS in Engineering-one at a state school and one private. No student loans! At that time single parent. I saved all monetary gifts from the time they were born and paid for 3 years of college. The last year paid by a generous grandparent.

I built my business with no government loans. I'm sure I am a drop in the bucket of all the taxpayers that never accepted the government dole that are now royally pissed off with Obamas blather and story telling.

He only wants to think that the money should be spread around to 3 generations that were on the dole because we all owe the government, meanwhile the government takes it's share.

Uncle Bill
07-24-2012, 10:53 AM
FWIW...an article correcting another prevarication by the messiah.

UB

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html

Buzz
07-24-2012, 12:05 PM
FWIW...an article correcting another prevarication by the messiah.

UB

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html



What a surprise, a Murdoch rag trying to rival Faux for BS inaccuracy.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-history-to-argue-government-didnt-launch-the-internet/



"It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet," writes L. Gordon Crovitz (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html) in Monday's Wall Street Journal, launching into just one of a myriad of problems with his short opinion piece.While he concedes that the military's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program funded the creation of the ARPAnet, the first large-scale packet-switched network, he argues that the government doesn't deserve credit for the creation of the Internet:
If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.
But full credit goes to the company where [Robert Taylor] worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks. Researchers there also developed the first personal computer (the Xerox Alto) and the graphical user interface that still drives computer usage today.

Crovitz is right that Vinton Cerf, along with Bob Kahn, invented the TCP/IP protocol that is the foundation of the modern Internet. But he neglects to mention that Cerf's early work on the protocol was funded by the US military through its DARPA program.
"Hyperlinks" are not the Internet, and Tim Berners-Lee didn't invent them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History_of_the_hyperlink) Nor is the World Wide Web the Internet, although the Web has become such a popular Internet application that many people confuse the two. But more to the point, Berners-Lee was working at CERN, a research organization funded by European governments, when he invented the World Wide Web in the early 1990s.
Xerox is indeed a private company, and Xerox PARC researchers did develop some important computing technologies, including Ethernet and the graphical user interface. But it's not accurate to say that "the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks." Ethernet was designed primarily as a local networking technology to connect computers in a home or office. The point of the Internet's TCP/IP protocol was to allow networks using different standards, including Ethernet, to communicate with each other. Many of the networks that now comprise the Internet use the Ethernet protocol, but what makes the Internet the Internet is TCP/IP, not Ethernet.
Indeed, not only is Crovitz confused about the origins of the Internet, he also seems not to understand the conventions of the World Wide Web. He quotes George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen as saying that "The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government." But that quote wasn't written by Cowen. It was quoted by Cowen in a 2005 blog post. (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/08/did_government_.html)The page Cowen was quoting has succumbed to bitrot, but the Internet Archive has a copy. (http://web.archive.org/web/20080513051103/http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/1999/000015.html)
The Wall Street Journal has earned a reputation for producing in-depth and meticulously fact-checked news coverage. Unfortunately, it doesn't always apply that same high standard of quality to their editorial page.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/xerox-internet/


Xerox: Uh, We Didn’t Invent the Internet


Who invented the internet?
Wall Street Journal columnist L. Gordon Crovitz took a stab at this question (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html) on Monday and settled on Xerox — the copier company whose research and development group, Xerox PARC, invented just about everything people like about the personal computer.
The columnist took exception to Barack Obama’s recent claim that the internet was actually created by government research. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia)
Crovitz’s argument? Well, Xerox had to cook up the internet, because it couldn’t wait for those dithering government researchers to make it happen. Xerox hired Robert Taylor, the guy who ran the Department of Defense’s ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) Information Processing Technologies program in the 1960s to run Xerox PARC’s computer lab.
“If the government didn’t invent the Internet, who did?” Crovitz writes, adding: “Full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox.”
Xerox maintains a decade-by-decade list of its technological accomplishments (http://www.xerox.com/about-xerox/company-history/enus.html) on its website. And while it’s eager to take credit for Ethernet, the graphical user interface, and the PC, Xerox doesn’t take credit for the internet.
Why not? “Robert Metcalfe, researcher at PARC, invented Ethernet as a way to connect Xerox printers and the Alto computer,” Xerox spokesman Bill McKee said on Monday. “But inventing Ethernet is not the same as inventing the internet.”
In other words, don’t confuse a network of computers with the birthplace of TCP/IP and lolcats.
To be fair, Xerox invented a lot more than just Ethernet. And many of the things that came out of Xerox — the PC and the graphical user interface — were crucial to the internet as we know it today, according to Robert Taylor, who we interviewed Monday.
To hear Taylor tell it, finding the inventor of the internet is a bit like finding the inventor of the blues. It’s origins are murky and complex.
“The origins of the internet include work both sponsored by the government and Xerox PARC, so you can’t say that the internet was invented by either one alone,” he says.
So would the internet have been invented without the government? “That’s a tough question,” he says. “Private industry does not like to start brand new directions in technology. Private industry is conservative by nature. So the ARPAnet probably could not have been built by private industry. It was deemed to be a crazy idea at the time.”
In fact, Taylor says, the two biggest computer and telecommunications companies back in the 1960s were pretty hostile to two of the big ideas behind the internet: time-sharing computing (IBM liked batch processing) and packet switching (AT&T liked circuit switching).
“Both AT&T and IBM were invited to join the ARPAnet and they both refused,” he says.
Michael Hiltzik, the LA Times journalist who wrote the definitive biography of Xerox PARC, Dealers of Lightning, provides a definitive debunking of Crovitz’s argument here (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story)

Buzz
07-24-2012, 12:06 PM
And so on...



http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story




So, who really did invent the Internet?


By Michael HiltzikJuly 23, 2012, 8:32 a.m.


Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal (http://www.latimes.com/topic/arts-culture/mass-media/newspapers/the-wall-street-journal-PRDPER00035.topic)'s editorial page reopens the ancient debate over who invented the Internet with a column Monday (http://on.wsj.com/MSgjGd) calling out the notion that it was the government as an "urban legend."
And while I'm gratified in a sense that he cites my book about Xerox PARC, "Dealers of Lightning," (http://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC-Computer/dp/0887309895) to support his case, it's my duty to point out that he's wrong. My book bolsters, not contradicts, the argument that the Internet had its roots in the ARPANet, a government project. So let's look at where Crovitz goes awry.
First, he quotes Robert Taylor, who funded the ARPANet as a top official at the Pentagon (http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/the-pentagon-PLCUL00216.topic)'s Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, as stating, "The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks." (Taylor eventually moved to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, where he oversaw the invention of the personal computer, and continued promoting research into networking.)
But Crovitz confuses AN internet with THE Internet. Taylor was citing a technical definition of "internet" in his statement. But I know Bob Taylor, Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the Internet as we know it today. Nor was ARPA's support "modest," as Crovitz contends. It was full-throated and total. Bob Taylor was the single most important figure in the history of the Internet, and he holds that stature because of his government role.
Crovitz then points out that TCP/IP, the fundamental communications protocol of the Internet, was invented by Vinton Cerf (though he fails to mention Cerf's partner, Robert Kahn). He points out that Tim Berners-Lee "gets credit for hyperlinks."
Lots of problems here. Cerf and Kahn did develop TCP/IP--on a government contract! And Berners-Lee doesn't get credit for hyperlinks--that belongs to Doug Engelbart of Stanford Research Institute, who showed them off in a legendary 1968 demo you can see here (http://bit.ly/SFkQ). Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web--and he did so at CERN, a European government consortium.
Cerf, by the way, wrote in 2009 that the ARPANet, on which he worked, "led, ultimately, to the Internet."
As for Ethernet, which Bob Metcalfe and David Boggs invented at PARC (under Taylor's watchful eye), that's by no means a precursor of the Internet, as Crovitz contends. It was, and is, a protocol for interconnecting computers and linking them to outside networks--such as the Internet. And Metcalfe drew his inspiration for the technology from ALOHANet, an ARPA-funded project at the University of Hawaii.
So the bottom line is that the Internet as we know it was indeed born as a government project. In fact, without ARPA and Bob Taylor, it could not have come into existence. Private enterprise had no interest in something so visionary and complex, with questionable commercial opportunities. Indeed, the private corporation that then owned monopoly control over America's communications network, AT&T, fought tooth and nail against the ARPANet. Luckily for us, a far-sighted government agency prevailed.
It's true that the Internet took off after it was privatized in 1995. But to be privatized, first you have to be government-owned. It's another testament to people often demeaned as "government bureaucrats" that they saw that the moment had come to set their child free.

Buzz
07-24-2012, 01:30 PM
Another article stating that Crovitz is FOS.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/


It is really telling that Romeny needed to resort to a lie and misquote Obama to make up one of his main points of attack against him.


Yes, Government Researchers Really Did Invent the Internet (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/)

By Michael Moyer (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/) | July 23, 2012 | http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/icon_comment_small.gif13 (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/#respond)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/flair/share.gifShare (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/) http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/flair/email.gifEmail (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/) http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/flair/print.gifPrint (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/?print=true)

“It’s an urban legend that the government launched the Internet,” writes (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html) Gordon Crovitz in an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. Most histories cite the Pentagon-backed ARPANet (http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=Internet-at-40) as the Internet’s immediate predecessor, but that view undersells the importance of research conducted at Xerox PARC labs in the 1970s, claims Crovitz. In fact, Crovitz implies that, if anything, government intervention gummed up the natural process of laissez faire innovation. “The Internet was fully privatized in 1995,” says Crovitz, “just as the commercial Web began to boom.” The implication is clear: the Internet could only become the world-changing force it is today once big government got out of the way.
But Crovitz’s story is based on a profound misunderstanding of not only history (http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=Internet-at-40), but technology. Most egregiously, Crovitz seems to confuse the Internet (http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=Internet-at-40)—at heart, a set of protocols designed to allow far-flung computer networks to communicate with one another—with Ethernet, a protocol for connecting nearby computers into a local network. (Robert Metcalfe (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=using-the-internets-history-to-develop), a researcher at Xerox PARC who co-invented the Ethernet protocol, today tweeted (https://twitter.com/BobMetcalfe/status/227426481901559808) tongue-in-cheek “Is it possible I invented the whole damn Internet?”)
The most important part of what we now know of as the Internet is the TCP/IP protocol, which was invented by Vincent Cerf (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=internet-pioneer-cerf) and Robert Kahn. Crovitz mentions TCP/IP, but only in passing, calling it (correctly) “the Internet’s backbone.” He fails to mention that Cerf and Kahn developed TCP/IP while working on a government grant (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=internet-pioneer-cerf).
Other commenters, including Timothy B. Lee at Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-history-to-argue-government-didnt-launch-the-internet/) and veteran technology reporter Steve Wildstrom (http://techpinions.com/wsjs-internet-history-is-way-off/8080), have noted that Crovitz’s misunderstandings run deep. He also manages to confuse the World Wide Web (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web) (incidentally, invented by Tim Berners Lee (http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=web-20-anniversary) while working at CERN, a government-funded research laboratory) with hyperlinks, and an internet—a link between two computers—with THE Internet.
But perhaps the most damning rebuttal (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story) comes from Michael Hiltzik, the author “Dealers of Lightning (http://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC-Computer/dp/0887309895),” a history of Xerox PARC that Crovitz uses as his main source for material. “While I’m gratified in a sense that he cites my book,” writes Hiltzik, “it’s my duty to point out that he’s wrong. My book bolsters, not contradicts, the argument that the Internet had its roots in the ARPANet, a government project.”
In truth, no private company would have been capable of developing a project like the Internet, which required years of R&D efforts spread out over scores of far-flung agencies, and which began to take off only after decades of investment. Visionary infrastructure projects such as this are part of what has allowed our economy to grow so much in the past century. Today’s op-ed is just one sad indicator of how we seem to be losing our appetite for this kind of ambition.



About the Author: Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of technology coverage at Scientific American. Follow on Twitter @mmoyr (http://twitter.com/mmoyr).

HPL
07-24-2012, 01:47 PM
Another article stating that Crovitz is FOS.

It is really telling that Romeny needed to resort to a lie and misquote Obama to make up one of his main points of attack against him.

To what "lie" are you referring, and where did Romney "misquote" Obama? I have to say that although I really don't like Uncle Bill's name calling I find your specious attacks pretty unconvincing also. Romney didn't write the article to which you refer and there is no reason to believe that he had anything to do with it.

Buzz
07-24-2012, 02:02 PM
To what "lie" are you referring, and where did Romney "misquote" Obama? I have to say that although I really don't like Uncle Bill's name calling I find your specious attacks pretty unconvincing also. Romney didn't write the article to which you refer and there is no reason to believe that he had anything to do with it.


The lie is that Obama said that business owners didn't create their business. Everyone with an open mind should know by now that he said that the small businessman didn't put all the infrastructure in place that the small business depends on. This the government didn't invent the internet was just done to discredit Obama further with his statement (in the speech that he was misquoted from) that government research was responsible for the internet.

HPL
07-24-2012, 02:16 PM
The lie is that Obama said that business owners didn't create their business. Everyone with an open mind should know by now that he said that the small businessman didn't put all the infrastructure in place that the small business depends on. This the government didn't invent the internet was just done to discredit Obama further with his statement (in the speech that he was misquoted from) that government research was responsible for the internet.

I have watched and read Obama's full statement multiple times (much as it makes me want to retch) and it is simply dead wrong to say that he was "misquoted". He was not. One might argue that some are misinterpreting his meaning, but he certainly has not been misquoted anywhere that I have seen. He said those words, in that order. If he didn't mean what he said, he should either fire his speechwriters or quit going off script. As I have written earlier, I am dead certain that he meant those words just as they were strung together. I fully believe that he doesn't respect personal initiative and effort. I believe that he truly believes that success is normally due to luck or influence. I believe that he believes that those that haven't "made it" in our society are "disadvantaged" and thus not culpable for their lot in life. I believe that when he spoke of a fundamental change in his first presidential campaign, that a change in the fundamentals of how this country runs was exactly what he was talking about.

Perhaps the article about the internet was an attempt to weaken Obama's chances to win in November, but there is no reason to blame that article on Romney or even link him to it. Show me proof that he in some way had it written or influenced the tenor of the article and then maybe you have a point, otherwise you can as the saying goes "pound sand".

Gerry Clinchy
07-24-2012, 03:50 PM
The lie is that Obama said that business owners didn't create their business. Everyone with an open mind should know by now that he said that the small businessman didn't put all the infrastructure in place that the small business depends on. This the government didn't invent the internet was just done to discredit Obama further with his statement (in the speech that he was misquoted from) that government research was responsible for the internet.

One more time:
1) Taxes paid for that infrastructure development. Taxes that were paid by ...
2) That infrastructure, paid for with taxes, are now available to everyone; even those who pay no taxes.
3) His statement carries the implication that ANYone (just as smart, just as hard-working) could do this. But only some do. The ones who do ARE different than those who DO NOT. They should be role models, not pillaged.
4) So, if someone made the best of the opportunity and accumulated some wealth (while also creating wealth for others through the jobs created), why should the rest of us feel we are "entitled" to a larger portion of that wealth ... while we didn't grasp the opportunity ourselves?
5) We are NOT talking about Warren Buffett here ... we are talking about business-owners whose businesses earn as little as $250K; income which is counted as income even if the owner puts that $ back into his business.

I truly believe that someone like Obama who never held a private sector job of any consequence simply does not understand what it's like to run a business that MUST be run on a budget.

road kill
07-24-2012, 04:32 PM
One more time:
1) Taxes paid for that infrastructure development. Taxes that were paid by ...
2) That infrastructure, paid for with taxes, are now available to everyone; even those who pay no taxes.
3) His statement carries the implication that ANYone (just as smart, just as hard-working) could do this. But only some do. The ones who do ARE different than those who DO NOT. They should be role models, not pillaged.
4) So, if someone made the best of the opportunity and accumulated some wealth (while also creating wealth for others through the jobs created), why should the rest of us feel we are "entitled" to a larger portion of that wealth ... while we didn't grasp the opportunity ourselves?
5) We are NOT talking about Warren Buffett here ... we are talking about business-owners whose businesses earn as little as $250K; income which is counted as income even if the owner puts that $ back into his business.

I truly believe that someone like Obama who never held a private sector job of any consequence simply does not understand what it's like to run a business that MUST be run on a budget.

This was a huge monumental BLUNDER by the smartest man on the planet.

It has, is and will cost him.

M&K's Retrievers
07-24-2012, 04:58 PM
The lie is that Obama said that business owners didn't create their business. Everyone with an open mind should know by now that he said that the small businessman didn't put all the infrastructure in place that the small business depends on. This the government didn't invent the internet was just done to discredit Obama further with his statement (in the speech that he was misquoted from) that government research was responsible for the internet.

Buzz, you are flat out wrong on this one. Opinions are fine and are what makes POTUS Place. Obama was not misquoted, taken out of context or misunderstood. He said it and I believe he meant every word.

Gerry Clinchy
07-24-2012, 04:58 PM
This was a huge monumental BLUNDER by the smartest man on the planet.

It has, is and will cost him.

And he, or his speech-writers, went to the trouble of plagiarizing it, almost verbatim, from Elizabeth Warren. Since she (or her speech-writers) dreamed up the idea, does that make her smarter than he is?

Buzz
07-24-2012, 05:21 PM
Buzz, you are flat out wrong on this one. Opinions are fine and are what makes POTUS Place. Obama was not misquoted, taken out of context or misunderstood. He said it and I believe he meant every word.


Whatever...

Buzz
07-24-2012, 05:58 PM
One more time:

I know, I'm pretty dense, but I appreciate your patience.


1) Taxes paid for that infrastructure development. Taxes that were paid by ...

Yes, our parents and grandparents paid taxes and built a country that provides us ALL with the opportunity to make it. But today while taxes are lower than they have been in 80-90 years, the conservatives want to complain about their tax burden. In my view they care little about passing on the country our ancestors passed to us, it's all me me me, let me keep ALL MY MONEY.

2) That infrastructure, paid for with taxes, are now available to everyone; even those who pay no taxes.

I think that's the point. There has been infrastructure and a system built that provides opportunity for those currently trying to make their mark. You state it like that's a bad thing or something.


3) His statement carries the implication that ANYone (just as smart, just as hard-working) could do this. But only some do. The ones who do ARE different than those who DO NOT. They should be role models, not pillaged.

So, you don't believe that in America anyone can make it? I'm sorry... So, in your opinion, if they are "just as smart, just as hard working" then what is it that they lack? Yes, they should be role models, but the example they are setting is, country be damned, it's all about me me me.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48


4) So, if someone made the best of the opportunity and accumulated some wealth (while also creating wealth for others through the jobs created), why should the rest of us feel we are "entitled" to a larger portion of that wealth ... while we didn't grasp the opportunity ourselves?

Do you believe that everyone makes use of and profits from our system and infrastructure in exact proportion to their income? I don't.

5) We are NOT talking about Warren Buffett here ... we are talking about business-owners whose businesses earn as little as $250K; income which is counted as income even if the owner puts that $ back into his business.

I don't know what you're talking about here. What does the businessman making "as little as" $250k have to do with it? Obama proposes those tax cuts to be extended to everyone on their earnings up to $250k. In the income above $250k their "marginal rate" will increase from 35% to 39.6%. So, if you make "as little as" $300k, that will increase your income by $50k x 4.6% = $2,300. If your income is "as little as" $400,000, your taxes will increase by $150,000 x 4.6% = $6,900. I bet that'll make them want to throw in the towel and just stop creating jobs! I know it would be enough for me to shrug & go all Galt and everything.

Yes, if you are incorporated as a pass-through, you pay taxes on your income, then you can invest it into your business. But if you buy capital equipment, you can write off the depreciation against gross in the future, reducing future tax bills.

I truly believe that someone like Obama who never held a private sector job of any consequence simply does not understand what it's like to run a business that MUST be run on a budget.

I see no comparison between a government and a business. Why should the government not borrow money at negative effective interest rates (yes you read that right, negative) and spend it on infrastructure? Investors are willing to actually PAY the US Government to hold on to their money for them at this time. See below:





Message too short text...

Franco
07-24-2012, 07:38 PM
Another article stating that Crovitz is FOS.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/


It is really telling that Romeny needed to resort to a lie and misquote Obama to make up one of his main points of attack against him.

I'm curious as to which administration first granted the research money, Bush41 or Clinton? Because if it was Clinton, then Al Gore is a big fat liar!;-)

Buzz, you bring up taxes. When I see, hear and read of the Government's corruption and gross mismangement by both political parties of tax payer money, I get concerned. Especially, when there are as many tax takers as there are tax payers, a situation created by our government. The only way to reform government is to cut off their drug of choice, tax money! Well, I want some deep cuts in present and future spending. Not these pie in the sky cuts in future spending that both parties offer. I also don't want the Government getting into areas inwhich they shouldn't, like Healthcare. Government may attempt to project themselves as problem solvers with very good intentions but the reality that there is a long history of the Feds actually making the situation worse! LBJ's social programs are still costing us billions annually and all that it has done is grow poverty, which is at an all time high thanks to our government.

In regards to quoting Luke; all I can say is, " thank you Tom Jefferson for clarifying the seperation of Church from State"!
Luke is free to give all of his earnings to the Government but, I would like to keep as much of my earnings as I can and not give it to a bumbling, fumbling Federal Government.

HPL
07-24-2012, 09:18 PM
Buzz, I believe that you misunderstood what Gerry was saying here:

3) His statement carries the implication that ANYone (just as smart, just as hard-working) could do this. But only some do. The ones who do ARE different than those who DO NOT. They should be role models, not pillaged.

So, you don't believe that in America anyone can make it? I'm sorry... So, in your opinion, if they are "just as smart, just as hard working" then what is it that they lack? Yes, they should be role models, but the example they are setting is, country be damned, it's all about me me me.

Gerry was not himself saying that all are as smart and hardworking, he was paraphrasing part of Obama's statement. This perhaps explains to some extent why you also appear to be unable to correctly interpret what Obama said.


As to the Luke quote: I have always liked liked that verse, but had never really noticed that it uses the word "GIVEN" rather than the word "EARNED". In that quote Luke also seems to be downplaying the importance of individual initiative. There are those who believe that any accomplishment is a "Gift" from God, but even then, it's not a gift from the Government.

mjh345
07-24-2012, 09:48 PM
I'm curious as to which administration first granted the research money, Bush41 or Clinton? Because if it was Clinton, then Al Gore is a big fat liar!;-)

Buzz, you bring up taxes. When I see, hear and read of the Government's corruption and gross mismangement by both political parties of tax payer money, I get concerned. Especially, when there are as many tax takers as there are tax payers, a situation created by our government. The only way to reform government is to cut off their drug of choice, tax money! Well, I want some deep cuts in present and future spending. Not these pie in the sky cuts in future spending that both parties offer. I also don't want the Government getting into areas inwhich they shouldn't, like Healthcare. Government may attempt to project themselves as problem solvers with very good intentions but the reality that there is a long history of the Feds actually making the situation worse! LBJ's social programs are still costing us billions annually and all that it has done is grow poverty, which is at an all time high thanks to our government.

In regards to quoting Luke; all I can say is, " thank you Tom Jefferson for clarifying the seperation of Church from State"!
Luke is free to give all of his earnings to the Government but, I would like to keep as much of my earnings as I can and not give it to a bumbling, fumbling Federal Government.

Touche!!

If there is one thing the govt has proven it is that they aren't the solution; they are the problem!!

The problem we have is that both parties in our 2 party system give lip service to the fact that spending needs to be cut and the size of govt reduced.
They both promise balanced budgets and state that if we will vote for them they will deliver. However with the exception for the last 2 yrs of Clintons time in office they have all failed to balance budgets & universally have failed to reduce the size of govt. Hell recently they have even failed to come up with a budget!!

The solution I see is that we the people are going to have to kick these two self serving lying parties to the curb and pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. These imbeciles routinely raise the "DEBT CEILING" on their supposed attempt at fiscal responsibility on an annual or semi-annual basis. Yet we voters remain complicit in allowing these imbeciles to remain in office.
Congress has an approval rating in the single digits; however the percentage of incumbents who run for reelection remain high. Everybody wants to kick the bastards out, but in practice they want every other congressman thrown out. However they like the Congresscritter they have the ability to vote out, and return them to office where they are free to screw us for another term. Undoubtedly they like their Congresscritter based on the fact that he gets money spent on their district, which he no doubt uses his franking priviledge to keep him well aware of.
This results in a system where spending is the lifeblood of the Congresscritters exixstence. That is why we have to have a balanced budget amendment in order to force Congress to live within their (OUR) means and get rid of the deficit spending Santa Claus mentality which gets them reelected

Franco
07-25-2012, 06:46 AM
Touche!!

If there is one thing the govt has proven it is that they aren't the solution; they are the problem!!

The problem we have is that both parties in our 2 party system give lip service to the fact that spending needs to be cut and the size of govt reduced.
They both promise balanced budgets and state that if we will vote for them they will deliver. However with the exception for the last 2 yrs of Clintons time in office they have all failed to balance budgets & universally have failed to reduce the size of govt. Hell recently they have even failed to come up with a budget!!

The solution I see is that we the people are going to have to kick these two self serving lying parties to the curb and pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. These imbeciles routinely raise the "DEBT CEILING" on their supposed attempt at fiscal responsibility on an annual or semi-annual basis. Yet we voters remain complicit in allowing these imbeciles to remain in office.
Congress has an approval rating in the single digits; however the percentage of incumbents who run for reelection remain high. Everybody wants to kick the bastards out, but in practice they want every other congressman thrown out. However they like the Congresscritter they have the ability to vote out, and return them to office where they are free to screw us for another term. Undoubtedly they like their Congresscritter based on the fact that he gets money spent on their district, which he no doubt uses his franking priviledge to keep him well aware of.
This results in a system where spending is the lifeblood of the Congresscritters exixstence. That is why we have to have a balanced budget amendment in order to force Congress to live within their (OUR) means and get rid of the deficit spending Santa Claus mentality which gets them reelected

The people aren't demanding it because most of the electorate doesn't know any better. Why should Congress do any different when they are allowed to continue doing the same thing, over and over. There is little hope with the Dems and Repubs and it will take a complete financial meltdown before we will see any real change.

Dear Barry and Mitt,

Want my vote?

Then tell me how you will end the Nanny State, the War On Drugs, get the Fed Reserve under control and either abolished or at the very least, audited? How will you put an end to all the useless agencies and departments, drastically reduce the size of the Fed payroll and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment? Put an end to our Foreign Intervention and place that money in real Defense? End Lobbyist and other special interest and place the interest of the citizens first.

Signed,

A Voter

Buzz
07-25-2012, 08:58 AM
If the government cuts spending to the extent that you two seem to want right now, the current depression we are in will look like a boom economy.

Maybe what we need is for the Paul Ryan types to completely take over the government because I believe that giving them enough rope will put their ideas permanently where they belong, in the dustbin of history.

Buzz
07-25-2012, 09:01 AM
Buzz, I believe that you misunderstood what Gerry was saying here:

3) His statement carries the implication that ANYone (just as smart, just as hard-working) could do this. But only some do. The ones who do ARE different than those who DO NOT. They should be role models, not pillaged.

So, you don't believe that in America anyone can make it? I'm sorry... So, in your opinion, if they are "just as smart, just as hard working" then what is it that they lack? Yes, they should be role models, but the example they are setting is, country be damned, it's all about me me me.

Gerry was not himself saying that all are as smart and hardworking, he was paraphrasing part of Obama's statement. This perhaps explains to some extent why you also appear to be unable to correctly interpret what Obama said.


As to the Luke quote: I have always liked liked that verse, but had never really noticed that it uses the word "GIVEN" rather than the word "EARNED". In that quote Luke also seems to be downplaying the importance of individual initiative. There are those who believe that any accomplishment is a "Gift" from God, but even then, it's not a gift from the Government.




I don't think I misunderstood her comment. Maybe she can come on here and let me know one way or the other. The only ingredient I can think of that one person "just as smart and just as hard working" might be missing is an appetite for taking risk, or the self confidence to believe that giving an idea a shot is without risk.

Illinois Bob
07-25-2012, 09:33 AM
If the President ran Bo in hunt tests or trials he would tell all the other dog owners,handlers,and trainers that they didn't get their ribbons on their own. All of the judges,hunt test workers,bird boys,trainers,and anybody that helped along the way did it all for you. You didn't do it. Lots of people train as hard as you do. While the help along the way part is true for most of us,I think the president would want all of the ribbons and titles evenly distributed among all of the dogs no matter how they do.

FC AFC HRCH BO MH (If the president has his way)
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t231/trackerlab/c232e86e.jpg

road kill
07-25-2012, 09:42 AM
If the President ran Bo in hunt tests or trials he would tell all the other dog owners,handlers,and trainers that they didn't get their ribbons on their own. All of the judges,hunt test workers,bird boys,trainers,and anybody that helped along the way did it all for you. You didn't do it. While the help along the way part is true for many of us,I think the president would want all of the ribbons and titles evenly distributed among all of the dogs no matter how they do.

FC AFC HRCH BO MH (He's entitled to the titles)
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t231/trackerlab/c232e86e.jpg

Amazingly, Obama got Bin Laden all by himself!!!!!:cool:

Buzz
07-25-2012, 10:50 AM
Thank God for the comedians...


Daily Show: Back in Black - Campaign Fibs (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailyshow.com%2Fwatch% 2Ftue-july-24-2012%2Fback-in-black---campaign-fibs%3Fxrs%3Dplayershare_fb&h=QAQFqH-CK) the Obama and Romney campaigns produce bulls**t at the same rate as actual bulls.

Franco
07-25-2012, 11:22 AM
If the government cuts spending to the extent that you two seem to want right now, the current depression we are in will look like a boom economy.

Maybe what we need is for the Paul Ryan types to completely take over the government because I believe that giving them enough rope will put their ideas permanently where they belong, in the dustbin of history.

It willl be a much bigger disaster to continue with the current level of spending than to feel some pain now and fix the situation at the core. How much longer can we continue with our present deficit spending? Look at what is happening in Europe. We don't need to mirror their policies with more fiat money and borrowing. If the current Dems or Repubs raise taxes, they will just spend more. That has always been their pattern. We need real reform and I understand that is NOT what Americans want given the two candidates we have to choose from. Yes, we have the government we deserve because the American voter has continued to support our two inept parties. Nothing substanial will change even if Rmoney were to win the election. That is exactly why we need to put the breaks on now, before our politicians dig a hole too deep to get out of! So, since neither party is willing to fix our core problems, then the only thing to do is to stand behind Grover Norquist and forbid Congress from increasing taxes and further burdening those that are productive.

mjh345
07-25-2012, 04:44 PM
If the government cuts spending to the extent that you two seem to want right now, the current depression we are in will look like a boom economy.

Maybe what we need is for the Paul Ryan types to completely take over the government because I believe that giving them enough rope will put their ideas permanently where they belong, in the dustbin of history.

Buzz, unlike most on here I generally listen to and respect what you say and post with an open mind. Unlike most on here I also frequently agree with you
I'm assuming I am one of the "two" spending cutters you are referring to in your quote.

Before going to Law School, my undergrad degrees were in Finance and Economics. Admittedly that was a long time ago, however I still kinda Academically have the tools tounderstand and accept the theory's behind the modeling that calls for increased govt spending to stimulate an economy in a depression.

However you can have all of the Academic modeling you want, but eventually you have to acknowledge reality.
The academic modelling doesn't account for the reality of influence peddling that is so predominant in our corrupt political system. The models assume that the influx of govt spending will result in reinvestment and a certain exponential multiplier and ripple effect that will have on the overall economy.

The academic models dont assume lobbyists influence that will allow for the financial system to be given 100's of billions of $'s to do with it as they please.

The models would have anticipated that the financial system would have taken those funds and reinvested them by making loans to businessmen who in turn would have hired more people resulting in more payroll & goods and services & allowing your multiplier effect thus benefitting the economy as a whole.
The models don't anticipate the banks sitting on this money, or loaning it to Europe, reinvesting in T-bills, paying bonuses to their execs etc.


As far as the govt spending that was to go for "Shovel ready" infrastructure reconstruction, your academic models presume most of that money to go to rebuild roads, bridges, sewers etc that will have an immediate and long lasting effect on the creation of payroll and selling of goods and services.
Most models I would assume wouldn't allow for the political cronyism that resulted in boondoggles like Solyndra and other fiascos that have been in the news that created very little economic impact for the economy as a whole

Because of the cronyism and corruption that is rife in our political system we will never know if the Academic models are correct. Because of my academic background I suspect that they may be.................


Eventually you have to use some common sense!!

Common sense would tell you that after Bush tried a couple of stimulus packages and after Obama has tried a few stimulus packages and after QE1, QE2, etc and the fed allowing the banks to have free money at the discount window for years that IT AINT WORKIN!!!!

Common sense would tell you that during the boom years we should have been retiring debt and saving for a rainy day so that when a depression hits the govt can increase spending by using what they have set aside; kinda like they tell us to do

Common sense would tell you that when the world is up in arms because of the debt crisis in Greece and Spain, and that our debt as a % of GDP is worse than Spains that maybe it is time to back off of the deficit spending

Common sense would tell you that because of cronyism, crookedness and general inefficiencies that the GOVT AINT THE ANSWER........THE GOVT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!

I could go on for pages about what common sense would say but if you aint got my drift by now you aint gonna

.

huntinman
07-25-2012, 05:03 PM
Buzz, unlike most on here I generally listen to and respect what you say and post with an open mind. Unlike most on here I also frequently agree with you
I'm assuming I am one of the "two" spending cutters you are referring to in your quote.

Before going to Law School, my undergrad degrees were in Finance and Economics. Admittedly that was a long time ago, however I still kinda Academically have the tools tounderstand and accept the theory's behind the modeling that calls for increased govt spending to stimulate an economy in a depression.

However you can have all of the Academic modeling you want, but eventually you have to acknowledge reality.
The academic modelling doesn't account for the reality of influence peddling that is so predominant in our corrupt political system. The models assume that the influx of govt spending will result in reinvestment and a certain exponential multiplier and ripple effect that will have on the overall economy.

The academic models dont assume lobbyists influence that will allow for the financial system to be given 100's of billions of $'s to do with it as they please.

The models would have anticipated that the financial system would have taken those funds and reinvested them by making loans to businessmen who in turn would have hired more people resulting in more payroll & goods and services & allowing your multiplier effect thus benefitting the economy as a whole.
The models don't anticipate the banks sitting on this money, or loaning it to Europe, reinvesting in T-bills, paying bonuses to their execs etc.


As far as the govt spending that was to go for "Shovel ready" infrastructure reconstruction, your academic models presume most of that money to go to rebuild roads, bridges, sewers etc that will have an immediate and long lasting effect on the creation of payroll and selling of goods and services.
Most models I would assume wouldn't allow for the political cronyism that resulted in boondoggles like Solyndra and other fiascos that have been in the news that created very little economic impact for the economy as a whole

Because of the cronyism and corruption that is rife in our political system we will never know if the Academic models are correct. Because of my academic background I suspect that they may be.................


Eventually you have to use some common sense!!

Common sense would tell you that after Bush tried a couple of stimulus packages and after Obama has tried a few stimulus packages and after QE1, QE2, etc and the fed allowing the banks to have free money at the discount window for years that IT AINT WORKIN!!!!

Common sense would tell you that during the boom years we should have been retiring debt and saving for a rainy day so that when a depression hits the govt can increase spending by using what they have set aside; kinda like they tell us to do

Common sense would tell you that when the world is up in arms because of the debt crisis in Greece and Spain, and that our debt as a % of GDP is worse than Spains that maybe it is time to back off of the deficit spending

Common sense would tell you that because of cronyism, crookedness and general inefficiencies that the GOVT AINT THE ANSWER........THE GOVT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!

I could go on for pages about what common sense would say but if you aint got my drift by now you aint gonna

.



Common sense is not so common...

Gerry Clinchy
07-25-2012, 05:29 PM
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by HPL http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=991885#post991885)
Buzz, I believe that you misunderstood what Gerry was saying here:

3) His statement carries the implication that ANYone (just as smart, just as hard-working) could do this. But only some do. The ones who do ARE different than those who DO NOT. They should be role models, not pillaged.

So, you don't believe that in America anyone can make it? I'm sorry... So, in your opinion, if they are "just as smart, just as hard working" then what is it that they lack? Yes, they should be role models, but the example they are setting is, country be damned, it's all about me me me.

Gerry was not himself saying that all are as smart and hardworking, he was paraphrasing part of Obama's statement. This perhaps explains to some extent why you also appear to be unable to correctly interpret what Obama said.


As to the Luke quote: I have always liked liked that verse, but had never really noticed that it uses the word "GIVEN" rather than the word "EARNED". In that quote Luke also seems to be downplaying the importance of individual initiative. There are those who believe that any accomplishment is a "Gift" from God, but even then, it's not a gift from the Government.





then Buzz

I don't think I misunderstood her comment. Maybe she can come on here and let me know one way or the other. The only ingredient I can think of that one person "just as smart and just as hard working" might be missing is an appetite for taking risk, or the self confidence to believe that giving an idea a shot is without risk.


Buzz, I believe you read my thought correctly, that there is some additional ingredient, other than just being smart & hardworking, that makes some very successful, and others not.

Obama's statement ignores the other ingredients. After infrastructure, after smart, after hard work ... there is more. Motivation, ambition, working harder than the other guy, perseverence in adversity, deferred gratification ...

I don't think that all successful people are of the opinion "the country be damned". Many, many successful people give back a lot ... not just in taxes ... but in voluntary charitable donations.

road kill
07-26-2012, 05:58 AM
If the government cuts spending to the extent that you two seem to want right now, the current depression we are in will look like a boom economy.

Maybe what we need is for the Paul Ryan types to completely take over the government because I believe that giving them enough rope will put their ideas permanently where they belong, in the dustbin of history.

Gosh Buzz, I am in total agreement with that!!!

ErinsEdge
07-26-2012, 06:58 AM
If the President ran Bo in hunt tests or trials he would tell all the other dog owners,handlers,and trainers that they didn't get their ribbons on their own. All of the judges,hunt test workers,bird boys,trainers,and anybody that helped along the way did it all for you. You didn't do it. Lots of people train as hard as you do. While the help along the way part is true for most of us,I think the president would want all of the ribbons and titles evenly distributed among all of the dogs no matter how they do.

FC AFC HRCH BO MH (If the president has his way)
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t231/trackerlab/c232e86e.jpg

Where's the LIKE button

Gerry Clinchy
07-26-2012, 09:19 AM
This quote came to me in an email (having nothing to do with politics), but seemed appropriate here:

"WHEN PEOPLE HAVE NO DREAMS AND NO HOPES OR ASPIRATIONS,LIFE BECOMES A DULL AND MEANINGLESS WILDERNESS."

If no one can claim any individual responsibility for success, and if they achieve it, the fruits of their labors are distributed to others, aspiration is stifled. Not just talking about the revenue, but also the personal satisfaction for turning an idea into a reality.

Gerry Clinchy
07-30-2012, 12:43 PM
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/240915-opinion-capitalism-works-even-in-capitol

Interesting story about entrepreneurship ... about the difference between the govt running something; and private sector motivation.

Maybe the govt itself should do more outsourcing?

Gerry Clinchy
07-30-2012, 01:11 PM
Earlier we were discussing exactly what POTUS meant by his comments. For clarification, POTUS put out a campaign video explaining that. He explains:

In an attempt to combat the negative attention, the president’s team released a television ad Tuesday night, in which Obama directly addresses the attacks from Romney and accuses his political rival of taking his "words about small business out of context."

“Of course Americans build their own businesses. Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has," says Obama in the ad.


To me that sounds very little like what he said originally. No wonder we've been confused as to what he really meant by his original remarks.

gmhr1
08-02-2012, 01:34 PM
Lumber store owner in Ga put a big sign outside his store saying. I built this business without govt help pres Obama can kiss my A He urges others to follow

Gerry Clinchy
08-02-2012, 03:07 PM
Lumber store owner in Ga put a big sign outside his store saying. I built this business without govt help pres Obama can kiss my A He urges others to follow

But the third line really made me smile: "I am Bob Gastner, & I approved this message." (not sure I got the fellow's name correct).

Have noticed that the bulk of campaign ads carry that "approval" message. If any of the "facts" in them ever are proven false, it won't be easy for the "approver" to wheedle out of them. (Goes for both sides, BTW).

gmhr1
08-02-2012, 03:24 PM
I'm srory I forgot that

caryalsobrook
08-05-2012, 03:34 PM
If the government cuts spending to the extent that you two seem to want right now, the current depression we are in will look like a boom economy.

Maybe what we need is for the Paul Ryan types to completely take over the government because I believe that giving them enough rope will put their ideas permanently where they belong, in the dustbin of history.

Would you have made that same prediction in 1920 when the Fed budget was cut by MORE THAN 1/2 IN LESS THAN 2 YEARS???? Yes, you probably would have.:p

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2012, 11:09 PM
I knew this sounded familiar!

From Atlas Shrugged:


“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”

“Who?”

“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”

She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”

- Atlas Shrugged (http://www.facebook.com/AtlasShrugged), P1C9