"You didn't get there on your own"

[Jarhead]

well....seems Barb is another person who falls for the games they play in Washington.

YUou do realize, Barb, that the folks in Washington count on the gullible to suppoort their little games..

Just as you did when you posted that cute little picture.

Start paying attentrion. They are makingh you look naive.

Fyi...if a bill sasys..."all people who make 100K or less will get a check in the mail for 20K...and in return we will give a 10% tax refund to small bsuinesses....the GOP will filliubuster or vote against it.

Not becuase they are against a tax break....but becuase they are against giving out free money to select people.

fyi, that's NOT what the bill said.

FYI... I know...I used a ficticious buill to make my point.

Politicians play those games Barb. Theyputrediculous things in Bills so the opposition rejects them...even if it has a little of what the opposition wants....so they can then campaign about how the opposition turned down what the supporters of the opposition wants.

Its known as gaming the game in an effort to win ovotes from the opppsition.

And you posted a clear example of it.

Which means you fell for it.

Which means you are not paying attention.

 

[Murf76]

Is he repaying the loans? Is there interest on them? Did the government help him earn the credit rating that qualified him for the loans? Is the government sending someone to his business every day to help with the work and earn the money to pay back those loans, with interest?

So basically, your arguments are still crap. Only a dimwit like you would think there's a "Gotcha!" moment in pointing out that the government exists and is the backdrop of everyone's life, as though anyone has argued that.

The government does not deserve gratitude for existing and functioning, and it sure as shit doesn't deserve credit for the success of the people who build on the basic playing field we're all given simply because it's part of that field . . . and CERTAINLY not when they're getting all their money back, PLUS a hefty fee for its temporary use.

Don't even TRY to tell me Mr. Gilchrist "owes" the government even more for the success HE put the blood, sweat, and tears into on top of his taxes, his contributions to the community, his loan payments, AND his fucking interest!

This is the left's classic "straw man" argument, arguing against positions that conservatives don't even take. Check this out... The Ultimate Takedown:

Excerpt:

When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must all be true for the argument to remain standing:

1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget;
2. That business owners don’t already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and
3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.

If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses.

For good measure, we won’t just kick out one, we’ll kick out all three.

“Small Government” Is Not the Same as “No Government”

Progressives critique the fiscal conservative/Tea Party/libertarian position by purposely misrepresenting it as anarchy. When fiscal conservatives say “We want smaller government,” progressives reply, “Oh, so you want no government?”

(cont...)
Zombie » The Ultimate Takedown of Obama’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Speech

Do read the entire article though. It really does leave them with 'no leg to stand on'. (pun intended )
The idea that we're all some sort of anarchists is their invention. The conservative position is NOT that there should be "no government", it's that our federal government should be smaller and limited to functions enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, as we read down Zombie's piece, we find that the federal dollars provided that would "go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs", only amount to less than a quarter of what is spent.. and that's a more than generous accounting.

Our leftist friends have NO ARGUMENT. Their candidate has let the socialist cat out of the bag at a crucial moment in the campaign and there's just no way to spin it.
Of course, that leaves them testy and vitriolic, but their only alternative would be to re-think their entire ideology.

As I posted yesterday, you can't macromanage a society without micromanaging lives. And we can't have both a negative (what the government can't do TO you) Bill of Rights and a positive (what the government must do FOR you) Second Bill of Rights. They cancel each other out.

Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.

Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and “stabilize” (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom

Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

Are those your words or a book quotation? Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.

In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that. He gives you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%. It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay. At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.

Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty. Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year. This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.

We should ALL be pissed about that. This guy RAN on unity.

 

[Barb]

well....seems Barb is another person who falls for the games they play in Washington.

YUou do realize, Barb, that the folks in Washington count on the gullible to suppoort their little games..

Just as you did when you posted that cute little picture.

Start paying attentrion. They are makingh you look naive.

Fyi...if a bill sasys..."all people who make 100K or less will get a check in the mail for 20K...and in return we will give a 10% tax refund to small bsuinesses....the GOP will filliubuster or vote against it.

Not becuase they are against a tax break....but becuase they are against giving out free money to select people.

fyi, that's NOT what the bill said.

FYI... I know...I used a ficticious buill to make my point.

Politicians play those games Barb. Theyputrediculous things in Bills so the opposition rejects them...even if it has a little of what the opposition wants....so they can then campaign about how the opposition turned down what the supporters of the opposition wants.

Its known as gaming the game in an effort to win ovotes from the opppsition.

And you posted a clear example of it.

Which means you fell for it.

Which means you are not paying attention.

I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people.
That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.

 

[Barb]

This is the left's classic "straw man" argument, arguing against positions that conservatives don't even take. Check this out... The Ultimate Takedown:



Do read the entire article though. It really does leave them with 'no leg to stand on'. (pun intended )
The idea that we're all some sort of anarchists is their invention. The conservative position is NOT that there should be "no government", it's that our federal government should be smaller and limited to functions enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, as we read down Zombie's piece, we find that the federal dollars provided that would "go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs", only amount to less than a quarter of what is spent.. and that's a more than generous accounting.

Our leftist friends have NO ARGUMENT. Their candidate has let the socialist cat out of the bag at a crucial moment in the campaign and there's just no way to spin it.
Of course, that leaves them testy and vitriolic, but their only alternative would be to re-think their entire ideology.

As I posted yesterday, you can't macromanage a society without micromanaging lives. And we can't have both a negative (what the government can't do TO you) Bill of Rights and a positive (what the government must do FOR you) Second Bill of Rights. They cancel each other out.

Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.

Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and “stabilize” (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom

Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

Are those your words or a book quotation? Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.

In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that. He gives you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%. It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay. At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.

Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty. Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year. This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.

We should ALL be pissed about that. This guy RAN on unity.

My words. I quoted my source.

As to the bolded above, horse shit.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wha wha what?

 

[saveliberty]

So you support Obama who is even worse at helping small business. Great solution Barb.

 

[Murf76]

Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.

Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and “stabilize” (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom

Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

Are those your words or a book quotation? Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.

In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that. He gives you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%. It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay. At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.

Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty. Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year. This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.

We should ALL be pissed about that. This guy RAN on unity.

My words. I quoted my source.

As to the bolded above, horse shit.

By all means, let's take a look at your argument then. Show us where Zombie is wrong.

 

[Barb]

Wha wha what?

You post a picture using the insert image tag, and LOL did he REEEELY???

sWEEEET.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wha wha what?

You post a picture using the insert image tag, and LOL did he REEEELY???

sWEEEET.

I know, for some reason it didn't work for that photo for me.

And yes, really, LOL.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people.
That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.

Yet you vote for and lie for those very people.....

 

[Jarhead]

fyi, that's NOT what the bill said.

FYI... I know...I used a ficticious buill to make my point.

Politicians play those games Barb. Theyputrediculous things in Bills so the opposition rejects them...even if it has a little of what the opposition wants....so they can then campaign about how the opposition turned down what the supporters of the opposition wants.

Its known as gaming the game in an effort to win ovotes from the opppsition.

And you posted a clear example of it.

Which means you fell for it.

Which means you are not paying attention.

I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people.
That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.

Funny.....I have owned small businesses since the 80's...and my companies were vendors to small businesses....and I did not struggle due to any DEM or GOP policies whatsoever...nor did my clients.

However, I am now retired (54 years old...seems I really didnt get hurt)...but still in touch with my clients who became friends....and from what I hear, they are petrified by Obamacare...and not surprised that Obama has such a negative feeling towrd business owners.

FYI...small businesses THRIVE when large corporations do well. Most industries are oligopolies...and the anchors of oligopolies (large corporations) set the tone of the industry...they do well, the entire industry does well.

Sadly, you and Obama dont seem to want to understand that.

 

[Vast LWC]

Just for cut and pasting purposes...

"You Olympians... know that you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters, or brothers encouraged your hopes. Coaches guided. Communities built venues and organized competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them."

-Mitt Romney, 2002

That's right. This thread has been invalidated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Romney never said the Communities did that for them.

 

[Vast LWC]

Romney never said the Communities did that for them.

It was an exact quote.

You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.

You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc]Romney to Olympians: 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Romney never said the Communities did that for them.

It was an exact quote.

You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.

You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....

Wow, the context sure alters what you claim.

A bit desperate to cover for Obama's fuckup, aren't you?

 

[kaz]

Romney never said the Communities did that for them.

It was an exact quote.

You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.

You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....

This is just another stupid liberal trick. Yes, business owners and Olympians didn't do what they did in a bubble. There are two fundamental differences between them.

1) Obama is using it as a rationalization to take away from the business owner that which they built. Other people helped you, so we're taking your money. Romney is taking nothing from the Olympians, he's just saying to appreciate how much they helped you.

2) Obama's not even advocating the people who actually helped the business owner. He's just saying someone helped you, so I'm taking it and giving it to someone else. Romney is advocating the people who actually did help Olympians.

It's just one of the stupid games liberals like to play. Here are things that sound similar, but actually are clearly not to someone with even a modicum of intelligence. So it's the same. Yeah. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't it was lame.

 

[Jarhead]

Romney never said the Communities did that for them.

It was an exact quote.

You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.

You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc]Romney to Olympians: 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own' - YouTube[/ame]

No one is denying he said it.

We are laughing at those who feel there is a correlation between an olympic athlete and a business owner.

Most olympic athletes are youngsters....within the age of 22. Most are responsible for one thing...themselves. They fail, they fail...they deal with the disappointment and they move on to real life. WShile training they live at home...they do not have to buy their own food....put a roof over their heads...pay the salaries of employees...

Most business owners are adults. They have many other responsibilities...such as having to feed themselves, clothe themselves and put a roof over their heads...and in many cases...families as well. They need to worry about employees....business expenses.....taxes.....they fail...they may lose everything.

It is a joke to try to compare the two.

 

[Murf76]

Just for cut and pasting purposes...

"You Olympians... know that you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters, or brothers encouraged your hopes. Coaches guided. Communities built venues and organized competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them."

-Mitt Romney, 2002

That's right. This thread has been invalidated.

Really???
Did Romney try to raise taxes on them during that little speech? Did he tell those young Olympians to get out their wallets and hand over some cash to the federal government in return for what their families and communities had done for them?

It's not really an argument that 'no man is an island'. None is. The context of the argument is about what we owe to the ones who helped us along. Do we owe them our thanks and gratitude?... or do we owe them our CASH, ultimately at the point of a gun?

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow, the context sure alters what you claim.

A bit desperate to cover for Obama's fuckup, aren't you?

Really? That's interesting.

What context, specifically, alters the fact that Romney told the Olympic athletes that they "didn't do it on their own" and that the "communities" deserved some credit for their achievement?

Cause I'm not hearing it. Maybe you're hearing some other voices that are providing your "context"...

 

[kaz]

Wow, the context sure alters what you claim.

A bit desperate to cover for Obama's fuckup, aren't you?

Really? That's interesting.

What context, specifically, alters the fact that Romney told the Olympic athletes that they "didn't do it on their own" and that the "communities" deserved some credit for their achievement?

Cause I'm not hearing it. Maybe you're hearing some other voices that are providing your "context"...

Read my post roughly three up because I just explained it to you. Murf and Jarhead then pretty much said the same thing. If you read responses, you'll understand the answer to your questions better.