Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My taxes are already doing that. That is my share. What I dont want is be a part of building a nanny state any bigger than we already have. The Obumacrats may want to believe they owe more or more to the point anyone who isn't on the welfare dime owes more. I don't owe more. Wounded 3 times in combat in the service of my nation I call it even. I dont ask for more, I damn sure dont owe more. Did Obama serve? Did he wear a uniform? Make the sacrifice? NO thats right he says those who do are society's misfits.
But hey since you have this sense of debt feel free to donate extra and decline your tax returns. I am sure Obuma does.
The funny thing is until this latest gaff of his I wasn't all that anti Obama. In fact I would say neutral.
Between his gaffs and his lame campaign ads I find for the first time in my life unable to find anything respectable about my president. Now that is what really makes me sad.
Yeah, Obama is a radical lefty, like Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:
Quote:
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
The clear and obvious takeaway from the “you didn’t build that” controversy is that it’s another instance of a campaign seizing on its opponent’s mangled syntax to accuse him of believing something he clearly does not believe. There have been several of these episodes already — “you people” being the most recent — and there will undoubtedly be several more.
...
The outrage is that Obama would, even in the course of hailing the contributions and achievements of the rich, introduce context that in some way minimizes them. Nobody actually disputes Obama’s claim that government contributes some measure toward the success of business owners. They concede it is true, even banally so. Conservatives, nonetheless, feel angry that he would verbalize it. "Maybe Obama doesn’t understand how damaging and corrosive these sorts of statements and speeches, repeated over and over, might potentially be?," writes Pethokoukis. “There's something deeply disturbing in the world-view of those who would minimize the achievements of those who pursued the ideas, took the risks, invested the time and money and made things happen,” insists Tucille.
In other words, they are outraged that Obama is being insensitive toward the rich. They don’t use the exact term, because it’s a piece of phraseology associated with the left rather than the right, but it’s exactly what they mean.
The existence of this controversy offers an interesting window into the protected status of the rich. Republicans have embraced a vocabulary -- calling the rich "job creators" and dividing society into "makers and takers" -- that implies an extremist moral logic of market absolutism. Even mild, measured rebuttals provoke squeals of outrage. This is not limited to the political right: Even in publications like the New York Times, the complaints of rich people who feel belittled or victimized by Obama have probably received more media attention over the last four years than have, say, the collective plight of the 50 million Americans lacking health insurance. The massive economic privileges that have accrued to the rich have given rise to a widespread belief that they must also enjoy a protective cocoon of political correctness.
never claimed that it was. I am saying I paid my share. I dont owe. I damned sure dont owe the nanny state anything. Free ride? No I am not on welfare and never have been. No I never collected unemployment. What free ride to you talk about? I have not stopped paying taxes. Someone else built dick. Tax dollars built it meaning not free. meaning my current, future and past tax dollars. No debt is owed.
At what point did you stop owing? Was it at the point that you were wounded? Do others who were wounded also think they owe no more to fund their government? Who gets to decide, you? Do we all get to decide for ourselves when we no longer owe anything?
Good thing you never stopped paying taxes because if you did, they'd throw you in the pokey.
And with all the help the government could give... it still turned out a failure.
I know your post was intended to be just a cheap dig but do you really know anything about the Solyndra issue? The "help" the government gave was loans. Those loans couldn't overcome the Chinese dumping solar panels on the world market. So any claim that Solyndra failed because of mismanagement is not only untrue but is noteworthy because it reveals the mind of the right-wing -- who are so unpatriotic that they're gleeful that an American firm closed because that firm was aided by the Obama Administration.
MTA, small business owners know that there are no excuses in making their business succeed. If there is a failure for any reason, it is their fault. The buck stops with them as the buck is now stopping with the President.
People are not happy about Solyndra failing. It is just wrong for you to say that people are unpatriotic and gleeful over the failure. People are upset about Solyndra failing because it is $520+million of American taxpayer money that is completely lost--taxpayer money that should not have been spent in the first place. It is not only the Chinese dumping solar panels on the world market (we really didn't know about competitive products they're manufacturing? I know what my competitors are doing), it was wrong choices Solyndra made in the manufacture. Here is the reason Solyndra failed:
I've seen your messages here focusing instead on Obama's comment that together we succeed. That is not the comment that Obama is now having to wear. It is the comment, "if you have a business, you didn't build that." No one can deflect it, excuse it, side step it, put lipstick on that swine, or make it go away. It may be that he misspoke, because that statement doesn't even jive with his comments as a whole, but say it he did.
I have found it difficult to believe that Obama hates small business, giving him the benefit of every doubt, but I see that he really does because small businesses are a spirit that is the polar opposite of his government view. He needs to go in November, no question about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
I know your post was intended to be just a cheap dig but do you really know anything about the Solyndra issue? The "help" the government gave was loans. Those loans couldn't overcome the Chinese dumping solar panels on the world market. So any claim that Solyndra failed because of mismanagement is not only untrue but is noteworthy because it reveals the mind of the right-wing -- who are so unpatriotic that they're gleeful that an American firm closed because that firm was aided by the Obama Administration.
Last edited by carolac; 07-22-2012 at 07:14 AM..
Reason: Typo
MTA, small business owners know that there are no excuses in making their business succeed. If there is a failure for any reason, it is their fault. The buck stops with them as the buck is now stopping with the President.
People are not happy about Solyndra failing. It is just wrong for you to say that people are unpatriotic and gleeful over the failure. People are upset about Solyndra failing because it is $520+million of American taxpayer money that is completely lost--taxpayer money that should not have been spent in the first place. It is not only the Chinese dumping solar panels on the world market (we really didn't know about competitive products they're manufacturing? I know what my competitors are doing), it was wrong choices Solyndra made in the manufacture. Here is the reason Solyndra failed:
I've seen your messages here focusing instead on Obama's comment that together we succeed. That is not the comment that Obama is now having to wear. It is the comment, "if you have a business, you didn't build that." No one can deflect it, excuse it, side step it, put lipstick on that swine, or make it go away. It may be that he misspoke, because that statement doesn't even jive with his comments as a whole, but say it he did.
I have found it difficult to believe that Obama hates small business, giving him the benefit of every doubt, but I see that he really does because small businesses are a spirit that is the polar opposite of his government view. He needs to go in November, no question about it.
If you read what President Obama said, it’s completely obvious from the context of Obama’s remarks that he was trying to say that rich people did not build roads and other infrastructure, not that they did not build their own business.
You focus on the one sentence, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that," without looking at what followed, "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." Do you really think that Amazon.com and Google would exist today had the government not invested in building the internet? That's the point. Some are invested in not seeing the point. Don't be one of them.
Mr. Romney is trying to make "Obama wear" a narrative that he did not say. It is misleading and dishonest.
On Chinese dumping, this isn't just competitors offering a product for less. It's the Chinese government subsidizing solar panels for less than they cost to make in order to drive their competitors out of business. It's an illegal trade practice governed by international law.
I am very invested in seeing the point, and have not missed it. And I do know the rest of his comment, "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." What is being missed is that opportunities to build a business in America do not equate to actually investing the money, blood sweat and tears to build a business. If Obama had said, "if you have a business, be thankful for the opportunities to do so," or if he had even omitted the words, "you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen," no one would be saying a thing. Again, opportunities afforded every single American citizen, do not equate to actually starting, financing, working, struggling, employing, failing, succeeding in a business. Solyndra is the perfect example. Despite all the efforts to make it succeed, it failed.
Your references to Amazon and Google are also perfect examples and actually make my point. The owners of Amazon and Google used the opportunity, but opportunity does not invest the money, the hours, the effort, create the business plan, assume the risk. I can clearly see the difference.
Finally, Romney is directly quoting Obama. I submit that it is Obama himself trying to walk away from those words with misleading ads. Again, it is possible he misspoke, but misspeak he did. To suggest Romney is misleading is laughable at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
If you read what President Obama said, it’s completely obvious from the context of Obama’s remarks that he was trying to say that rich people did not build roads and other infrastructure, not that they did not build their own business.
You focus on the one sentence, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that," without looking at what followed, "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." Do you really think that Amazon.com and Google would exist today had the government not invested in building the internet? That's the point. Some are invested in not seeing the point. Don't be one of them.
Mr. Romney is trying to make "Obama wear" a narrative that he did not say. It is misleading and dishonest.
On Chinese dumping, this isn't just competitors offering a product for less. It's the Chinese government subsidizing solar panels for less than they cost to make in order to drive their competitors out of business. It's an illegal trade practice governed by international law.
Your references to Amazon and Google are also perfect examples and actually make my point. The owners of Amazon and Google used the opportunity, but opportunity does not invest the money, the hours, the effort, create the business plan, assume the risk. I can clearly see the difference.
Finally, Romney is directly quoting Obama. I submit that it is Obama himself trying to walk away from those words with misleading ads. Again, it is possible he misspoke, but misspeak he did. To suggest Romney is misleading is laughable at best.
What is not being quoted was what Obama said about a paragraph below the one that went viral. This paragraph goes directly to what you said:
Quote:
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
But you don't hear Romney quoting that part, because they want to frame the narrative as 'Obama thinks it's all about the government' and ignore the portions of the speech that reject that point.
That is exactly what I mean by Obama having to wear these comments, no matter what he said before or after. Every politician, including Obama, is going to have their comments scrutinized. Romney is seizing an opportunity just as Obama would and already has done. The Obama campaign is creating ads that don't tell the whole story. For example, on this very issue, the Obama campaign is putting out ads saying that Romney is agreeing with what Obama said--saw one this morning. No one in America can disagree with everything Obama says or everything Romney says if they are intellectually honest with themselves. But to say in the ad that Romney is misquoting or misrepresenting what Obama said is not right. I guess we are agreeing to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
What is not being quoted was what Obama said about a paragraph below the one that went viral. This paragraph goes directly to what you said:
But you don't hear Romney quoting that part, because they want to frame the narrative as 'Obama thinks it's all about the government' and ignore the portions of the speech that reject that point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
