Obama's Subtle "You Didn’t Build That" Rhetoric

[driveby]

Workplace safety would not have been an issue if the government didn't demand it be so

Otherwise, accidents were the cost of doing business

This was already 'splained to you, lost time accidents are not an efficient and profitable way to run a business. Your Marxist hyperbole of "businesses don't care if they kill their employees" is total nonsense......

Total bullshit

Businesses were willing to take their chances until the government enforced safety regulations

Evil Government

Pardon me if I don't believe someone who has their head so far up governments ass they can barely spell business...

 

[Rozman]

A liberal claiming "Reagan" set things back says it all.

He only reversed the "misery factor" under Jimmy Carter by creating wealth and jobs across the country making it the so-called lavish 80s now highlighted in many Hollywood movies.

I don't recall many movies made about the Carter era....oh ,The Shining counts.

Lets see, what did Reagan bring us?

DEBT...

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

We are now $17 trillion in debt....
How much of that is on Obama's watch?

I can't wait to see the Libs response to this...
I'm sure we're gonna get 20-25 posts about republicans stealing elections.
But I've come to accept that.

 

[Dragonlady]

We are now $17 trillion in debt....
How much of that is on Obama's watch?

Obama took over a government in crisis. Republicans refused to let the Bush tax cuts expire and, given the economic free fall at the time, raising taxes would have only made things worse.

30 years of mostly Republican tax, borrow and make war policies cannot be reversed overnight and certainly not in the midst of the biggest economic crisis the world has seen.

Republicans have controlled Congress since 2 years into Obama's presidency and they have steadfastly refused to raise taxes. Obama has cut the size of government and reduced the growth of the deficit, but to Bush's unproductive wars didn't end the moment Obama was elected, nor did the downswing in the economy, nor Bush's tax cuts.

Republican economic policies have to end before the deficit spending can end. You can't continue the current level of military spending until you tax the corporations it benefits.

 

[Sunshine]

Yep,

Government provides stability through defense and police protection for the business.
Government provides regulatory frame work and uses its economic power to favor its local businesses.
It paves the roads and educates the children

I am all for the business but these rich people would be getting raped and beaten without the government.

Try to run your business without a monetary system

They do it in the projects all the time. They barter everything there.

 

[depotoo]

12 times better than Bush...

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

I love the smell of pure left wing desperation in the morning......

How many of those did the Bush administration blame on a you tube video?

When something like that happens on an American military base during Obama's administration, faggots like you call it "workplace violence".........

Do you have any idea how brainwashed and programmed you and some others appear when Benghazi is the answer by default for every and any topic being discussed?

Have you ever dared research outside of wiki as to the deaths of consulate and embassy employees since Obama took office outside of Afghan
istan and Iraq? Of course not because you wouldn't have dared bring Bush up. Start with Mexico.

 

[1776]

Do you want to compare the DEBT run up by Obama, eh dumbfuck?

Do you want to compare the economy under Carter and Obama to Reagan? Eh dumbfuck?

Funny how Bill Clinton moved more towards Reagan than closer to Obama and Carter...and his economy was far better than the shit we see today.

Yet dumbfucks like you talk about Reagan as if was a failure.

A liberal claiming "Reagan" set things back says it all.

He only reversed the "misery factor" under Jimmy Carter by creating wealth and jobs across the country making it the so-called lavish 80s now highlighted in many Hollywood movies.

I don't recall many movies made about the Carter era....oh ,The Shining counts.

Lets see, what did Reagan bring us?

DEBT...

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

 

[1776]

Such stupidity from a Canadian.

Get back to eating the brown snow.

We are now $17 trillion in debt....
How much of that is on Obama's watch?

Obama took over a government in crisis. Republicans refused to let the Bush tax cuts expire and, given the economic free fall at the time, raising taxes would have only made things worse.

30 years of mostly Republican tax, borrow and make war policies cannot be reversed overnight and certainly not in the midst of the biggest economic crisis the world has seen.

Republicans have controlled Congress since 2 years into Obama's presidency and they have steadfastly refused to raise taxes. Obama has cut the size of government and reduced the growth of the deficit, but to Bush's unproductive wars didn't end the moment Obama was elected, nor did the downswing in the economy, nor Bush's tax cuts.

Republican economic policies have to end before the deficit spending can end. You can't continue the current level of military spending until you tax the corporations it benefits.

 

[Londoner]

If you missed President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address or forgot about it as soon as he uttered the obligatory “God bless the United States of America,” you have at least this in common with your fellow Americans.

Stop lying about "you didn't build that".

"You didn't build that" refers to the infrastructure and subsidies atop which profit makers stand. Private corporations didn't initiate or pay for the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon & NASA budgets. This was paid for by the public through tax dollars and seeded to private industry who uses it to make massive profits. The roads that move goods and consumers, also paid for by the public. Obama was referring to the fact that commerce has always been heavily state dependent. This is why our largest corporations have built a lobbying empire in Washington DC, the place where business goes to get no-bid access to the taxpayer's wallet. Corporations also benefit from the Patent system which puts a virtual monopoly fence around their investments. They didn't build that either, but they benefit from it - which means they owe a debt to the public taxpayer who makes their profit possible through their tax contributions.

Our most profitable corporation, Exxon, doesn't defend its oil fields in the middle east. This is done by government military employees at the taxpayer's expense. The phrase "Exxon didn't build that" means that Exxon investors don't die protecting Exxon's oil fields. To the contrary, the company owes a massive debt to the public taxpayer and government workers who ensure the reliable delivery of their profit cow.

Stop lying.

 

[1776]

Uh, the space advances in this country were a collaborated effort by GOV and companies.

The GOV doesn't have the expertise and infrastructure to build the launch vehicles and satellites, they pay companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc to do it. The same goes for aircraft, ships, etc.

Trying to claim "you didn't build it" as if the GOV built it is ludicrous. The GOV paid for it in some cases but not all. Afterall, most private citizens don't have a need for an aircraft carrier, Atlas rocket, F-22, etc.

Obama is like the CEO of Ford going down to the auto plant and telling the workers "you didn't build that car, I did since I helped pay for it."

If you missed President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address or forgot about it as soon as he uttered the obligatory “God bless the United States of America,” you have at least this in common with your fellow Americans.

Stop lying about "you didn't build that".

"You didn't build that" refers to the infrastructure and subsidies atop which profit makers stand. Private corporations didn't initiate or pay for the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon & NASA budgets. This was paid for by the public through tax dollars and seeded to private industry who uses it to make massive profits. The roads that move goods and consumers, also paid for by the public. Obama was referring to the fact that commerce has always been heavily state dependent. This is why our largest corporations have built a lobbying empire in Washington DC, the place where business goes to get no-bid access to the taxpayer's wallet. Corporations also benefit from the Patent system which puts a virtual monopoly fence around their investments. They didn't build that either, but they benefit from it - which means they owe a debt to the public taxpayer who makes their profit possible through their tax contributions.

Our most profitable corporation, Exxon, doesn't defend its oil fields in the middle east. This is done by government military employees at the taxpayer's expense. The phrase "Exxon didn't build that" means that Exxon investors don't die protecting Exxon's oil fields. To the contrary, the company owes a massive debt to the public taxpayer and government workers who ensure the reliable delivery of their profit cow.

Stop lying.

 

[Doubletap]

"There is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel"-Ayn Rand

 

[rightwinger]

"There is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel"-Ayn Rand

Why did Ayn Rand benefit from that same redistribution of wealth that she so hated?

 

[Meathead]

Why not admit that you want America to have no government outside of defense? A free for all for the businesses within the borders and the rules of the jungle for the people.

I'll admit that I want no government whatsoever. However, your scenario of how that would work is pure fiction. Towns existed long before the state existed, and it wasn't a "free for all" with the law of the jungle.

Well, actually, that's exactly what it was. They called it The Wild West for good reason. Towns brought in government and law and order because families wouldn't settle in areas without some promise of law and order. Businesses couldn't be profitable unless the investment was safe from robbery or misappropriation.

There are still countries in the world which have little to no government. They are among the poorest nations on earth because wealth cannot be protected, and businesses have no regulatory framework.

It's no accident that countries with the most wealth have the most government, because government builds and maintains infrastructure and regulates commerce. It educates and trains the workforce and provides medical care for the population. It regulates businesses providing patent and trade mark protections so that intellectual property cannot be stolen. Banking is regulated so that the banking system doesn't squander other people's money on unsafe investments. All of this assists businesses and helps preserve wealth.

When the US intervenes in a foreign country, it's always to protect "US interests" which is to say the property of US multi-national corporations. Absent "US interests", countries are left to destroy themselves at will.

The idea that the US would be more successful with less government is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is that business needs in order to prosper.

An unmitigated mental mess. The communist world had/has the largest governments by far. The former private sector became of the the government and produced the most disastrous of economic models history has ever recorded, not to mention some of the most repressive government in history .

Think before you post!

 

[Listening]

You guys have this fixation on "makers" and "takers" but misidentify who is who.

Maker's make stuff. That's Labor.

Taker's take stuff. That's the 1%.

Our laws...right up to the Constitution, favor the rich. But not completely.

But because the rich use their money to legislate, they've gone far beyond the slight favor that the Constitution gives them.

And that was never original intent.

I am afraid it is you who misidentifies things.

While I avoid the maker and takers fallacy you love (in this context), I agree that the rich are using government to screw the rest of us.

What is your answer.....let's have more government.

How is it that you morons can't seem to get the connection.

 

[Listening]

I had a nice rebuttal but as the OP is just lousy paste from some blog without links or credit to the author I will just call the OP a lazy parasite on more literate, productive people.

Sure you did.

 

[Listening]

Yep,

Government provides stability through defense and police protection for the business.
Government provides regulatory frame work and uses its economic power to favor its local businesses.
It paves the roads and educates the children

I am all for the business but these rich people would be getting raped and beaten without the government.

The government does these things at only 10 times the amount it should cost, yay gubment!

Without the gubment taking half their money, the rich could hire a private security force that would work better than the gubment at a much lower cost. Many have to have private security already even with the big bad gubment "protecting" them.

It is business that cannot exist without the government protecting them

They coexist.

If you really think that government exists without commerce you are stupid as Shallow.

 

[Listening]

Yep,

Government provides stability through defense and police protection for the business.
Government provides regulatory frame work and uses its economic power to favor its local businesses.
It paves the roads and educates the children

I am all for the business but these rich people would be getting raped and beaten without the government.

The government does these things at only 10 times the amount it should cost, yay gubment!

Without the gubment taking half their money, the rich could hire a private security force that would work better than the gubment at a much lower cost. Many have to have private security already even with the big bad gubment "protecting" them.

Your post is stupid.

The reason Apple and Dell are able to make $400 IPODs and $2,000 computers in Singapore and ship them over here is because the US Navy keeps those shipping lanes open. It also keeps the shipping lanes open for our exports as well.

If you think the "rich" could fund that, I'm sorry but you're IQ is approximately you shoe size.

Wrong again. The rich do fund it and they could do it with a private navy (and probably do pretty good at it since they'd likely use a lot of ex-USNavy folks.

Don't kid yourself. If there is money to be made....someone will figure it out.

 

[rightwinger]

The government does these things at only 10 times the amount it should cost, yay gubment!

Without the gubment taking half their money, the rich could hire a private security force that would work better than the gubment at a much lower cost. Many have to have private security already even with the big bad gubment "protecting" them.

Your post is stupid.

The reason Apple and Dell are able to make $400 IPODs and $2,000 computers in Singapore and ship them over here is because the US Navy keeps those shipping lanes open. It also keeps the shipping lanes open for our exports as well.

If you think the "rich" could fund that, I'm sorry but you're IQ is approximately you shoe size.

Wrong again. The rich do fund it and they could do it with a private navy (and probably do pretty good at it since they'd likely use a lot of ex-USNavy folks.

Don't kid yourself. If there is money to be made....someone will figure it out.

Private Navy?


You know how much it costs to provide a single ship?

 

[Listening]

Your post is stupid.

The reason Apple and Dell are able to make $400 IPODs and $2,000 computers in Singapore and ship them over here is because the US Navy keeps those shipping lanes open. It also keeps the shipping lanes open for our exports as well.

If you think the "rich" could fund that, I'm sorry but you're IQ is approximately you shoe size.

Wrong again. The rich do fund it and they could do it with a private navy (and probably do pretty good at it since they'd likely use a lot of ex-USNavy folks.

Don't kid yourself. If there is money to be made....someone will figure it out.

Private Navy?


You know how much it costs to provide a single ship?

Yes.

What was your point ?

The sillyness isn't the cost. It's that whose going to control it and under what regulations will it operate. What happens if it clashes with the Chinese ? Who does China declare war on.

Bill Clinton shut down very effective mercinaries in Africa because of the political ramifications.

Enough Billionaires pull together and you'd have enought ships to protect shipping lanes.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong again. The rich do fund it and they could do it with a private navy (and probably do pretty good at it since they'd likely use a lot of ex-USNavy folks.

Don't kid yourself. If there is money to be made....someone will figure it out.

Private Navy?


You know how much it costs to provide a single ship?

Yes.

What was your point ?

The sillyness isn't the cost. It's that whose going to control it and under what regulations will it operate. What happens if it clashes with the Chinese ? Who does China declare war on.

Bill Clinton shut down very effective mercinaries in Africa because of the political ramifications.

Enough Billionaires pull together and you'd have enought ships to protect shipping lanes.

Like hell you would

A single Destroyer costs about a billion dollars just to build and outfit with weapons systems. Not counting what it costs to man and deploy

 

[Camp]

Private Navy?


You know how much it costs to provide a single ship?

Yes.

What was your point ?

The sillyness isn't the cost. It's that whose going to control it and under what regulations will it operate. What happens if it clashes with the Chinese ? Who does China declare war on.

Bill Clinton shut down very effective mercinaries in Africa because of the political ramifications.

Enough Billionaires pull together and you'd have enought ships to protect shipping lanes.

Like hell you would

A single Destroyer costs about a billion dollars just to build and outfit with weapons systems. Not counting what it costs to man and deploy

A single Carriar cost about 20 billion to build and a half a million a day to operate. They travel with a bunch of Destroyers. We maintain 11 Carriar Task Forces.