"You didn't get there on your own"

[ConzHateUSA]

MATCH



Who's Next

 

[Rozman]

So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
Who's fault is it when they fail?....

Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?

 

[ConzHateUSA]

So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
Who's fault is it when they fail?....

Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?

and when an idiot rightwinger is losing the argument they use words like "all" when nobody up until that point used that word at all..did they

you are very bad at this, son

 

[Foxfyre]

ThAt's the question that has been asked a LOT Roz, and not one of them has even acknowledged it, much less tried to answer it.

But does USMB have a limit on the number of posts in a row that can be posted before it is illegal spamming? Probably not.

 

[Mac1958]

.

When a business succeeds, it's because we have roads.

When a business fails, it's because its owner is stupid.

Something like that.

.

 

[Dr.House]

So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
Who's fault is it when they fail?....

Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?

No, they did that - they made that happen...

The government is only responsible for successes...

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Pretending not to understand what the Prez said, that it is obvious that what he said is true, is continuing your racism ...you dont see that, but we do....the planet sees that

time to put aside your very immature thoughts and understand that we are all in the same boat and there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it

 

[Rozman]

ThAt's the question that has been asked a LOT Roz, and not one of them has even acknowledged it, much less tried to answer it.

But does USMB have a limit on the number of posts in a row that can be posted before it is illegal spamming? Probably not.

I heard something the other day and I think it may be true.
You can earn money by signing up with let's say a left wing organization
and I would think right wing as well.You get paid by the post.Maybe a few cent's maybe
as much as 10c per post....I always wondered why some members here post let's say
10 times in a row when they can voice their opinion in one post.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
Who's fault is it when they fail?....

Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?

good point, about 60,000 a year go bankrupt. Barry should have a little welfare subsidy to help them get back on their feet!

 

[The T]

So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
Who's fault is it when they fail?....

Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?

No, they did that - they made that happen...

The government is only responsible for successes...

Indeed Doc...say... did you happen to see this yesterday?

Representative Mike Kelly on the Floor of the House?

Standing 'O'...unheard of on the floor...

[and he's correct]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1YQDjpuY_U"]Rep. Kelly's Rousing Floor Speech Receives Standing Ovation and Chants of "USA!" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it

Yes, like Gates and Jobs by offering us products at a price and quality that we prefer more than any others in the world to raise our standard of living. A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

We should punish Gates and Jobs and reward those who make little or no contribution to our ever rising standard of living. Its the liberal way.

 

[ABikerSailor]

there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it

Yes, like Gates and Jobs by offering us products at a price and quality that we prefer more than any others in the world to raise our standard of living. A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

We should punish Gates and Jobs and reward those who make little or no contribution to our ever rising standard of living. Its the liberal way.

You DO realize that those products are manufactured in China, right?

The only jobs that the iPhone or any of the other related products generated here in the US is sales jobs only, which is only a small percentage of the people employed overseas.

 

[flacaltenn]

there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it

Yes, like Gates and Jobs by offering us products at a price and quality that we prefer more than any others in the world to raise our standard of living. A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

We should punish Gates and Jobs and reward those who make little or no contribution to our ever rising standard of living. Its the liberal way.

You DO realize that those products are manufactured in China, right?

The only jobs that the iPhone or any of the other related products generated here in the US is sales jobs only, which is only a small percentage of the people employed overseas.

Just sales jobs eh? Not THOUSANDS of hardware and software engineers? No manufacturing engineers to watch over the Chinese? No MBAs to manage the cash flow and materials chain? No Human Resources? Advertising,? Compliance? Purchasing?

You're right about the ASSEMBLY jobs --- but the Apple example better be taken note of - because our kids are gonna have to start thinking about acquiring more skills..

But besides the 100s of thousands of jobs SELLING Apple crap, Apple DOES have a job presence in Cupertino, CA and all over the USA.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.

The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..

No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.

We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.

The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.

Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.

Let me recap and clarify.

The President made a speech about how business owners should "give something back". Conservatives and Republicans took the words OF HIS ENTIRE SPEECH exactly as they were meant and found them understandably offensive . . . understandable to everyone but ignorant, mooching liberals, that is. Liberal worshippers of Obama immediately jumped into action to spin, divert, and obfuscate, and have now spent 234 pages of this thread stubbornly pretending not just that conservative points are wrong, but that THEY WERE SIMPLY NEVER MADE AT ALL.

Liberal: "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that. Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."

Conservative: "Look at the text of the speech. He was talking about his economic plans for the future, and how the successful should give something back. He even said, 'You think you're successful because you were smart and worked hard, but you weren't.'"

Liberal: "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that. Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."

Conservative: "Private businesses contracting with the government build the roads and bridges, and they're paid for by taxpayer dollars. Government creates nothing and generates no revenue of its own. It has nothing that it hasn't taken from someone else. Business owners pay taxes, so they paid for and continue to pay for that infrastructure. They owe the government nothing more."

Liberal: "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that. Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."

Conservative: "Everyone uses the infrastructure, not just business owners, yet not everyone is a business owner or successful. Obviously, the roads and bridges and whatever other government services are NOT the reason businesses are successful."

Liberal: "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that. Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."

If we were doing this in real life, rather than on the Internet, this would be the point where the conservative starts bashing the liberal's empty head against a table.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have to try and get your information from other sources. And I'm not talking about getting your information from the Left, which would be equally as bad.

Obama was referring to the modern industrial base of this country, upon which capital depends. The Hoover Dam, the interstate system, the energy grids, water treatment and delivery, the postwar build-up of rural and suburban America - the incredible wealth of infrastructure that was created through taxation and the government allocation of capital. Great Republican presidents like Eisenhower put our noble veterans to work building the infrastructure of the modern industrial state upon which commerce depends. Much of the technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA.

The big banks crave FDIC insurance, which allows them to take greater risks with capital. Thousands of profitable businesses have depended deeply on government subsidies and bailouts. The entire property system depends on a vigorous and powerful law enforcement network (controlled and funded by the public). Do you know how much money it costs to fund just the legal infrastructure that safeguards just one futures market? Do you know how much Boeing and commercial aviation depended on government subsidies? Commerce and the profits made therein have always depended on a complicated partnership between government and the private sector. Not one penny of profit in the Southwest would be possible without the Hooever Dam. You need to study these things without repeating talk radio cliches. [There are great arguments against the Left, but none of them come from the think tanks and media sources on the right].

Do you understand the multiplier effect - the profit - made possible by Eisenhower's Interstate? Obama was inelegantly referring to the wider nexus of infrastructure upon which capital depends.

My friend did some of his Ph.D research in the outskirts of Nairobi. He lived in a building which had constant electrical fires because there were no regulations or codes for laying electrical lines. For this reason, business cannot invest in this part of the world. Their property - their goods - would be destroyed in a fire, or stolen because of zero law enforcement. Here is what you don't understand. Profit depends on the codes and law enforcement provided by the public, managed by government. Capital craves the modern industrial state. Commerce would be IMPOSSIBLE without these things. Profit makers depend on others. This doesn't mean that they should not earn a profit for the amount they add to the equation. It only means that the current anti-tax revolution ignores the infrastructure upon which profit so deeply depends.

Turn off talk radio. You have been lied to.

Which might all be interesting points if these businesses didn't ALREADY PAY TAXES. They do it continually, paying every kind of federal, state, local tax you can imagine. They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some. They've already paid their debt to a decent society. They don't owe anything extra to Obama and his electoral ambitions.

It's a long thread, but we've already covered this ground... repeatedly.

and yet, the same falsehood that they paid into the system is still being expressed.


30 major corporations that paid NOTHING in taxes in the last THREE years.

\

Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years


http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

how in the hell can anyone defend Wells Fargo paying NOTHING in taxes after we bailed them out? Thats the very definition of freeloader.

Who's defending it? It's YOUR President's administration that's been in control and letting them get away with not paying for the last three years. WE didn't elect the guy, and WE aren't clamoring to re-elect him. YOU are. So how are you getting from that to blaming US?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.

We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.

The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.

Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.

No, dipshit, we read the whole frigging speech. Please read it yourself and tell us what "context" we're supposed to derive from it . . . so we can laugh at your desperate attempts to continue kissing Obama's ass.

You folks keep on holding your hands over your ears and shouting I CANT HEAR YOU! I CANT HEAR YOU!!!

That seems to be your only response now to the truth you so conveniently ignore because it doesnt fit your OBAMABADMAN narrative.

See? It's just like I said.

Conservative: "Read the transcript of the speech, and tell us what it means and what the context is."

Liberal: "I'm right, you're wrong, you just don't like Obama."

Conservative: "Look, I'll even cut-and-paste the speech for you. Tell me what the context is that you think I'm refusing to hear."

Liberal: "I'm right, you're wrong, you just don't like Obama."

Yeah, dipshit, I'M the one with my hands over my ears, shouting, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" That's why YOU are the one repeating yourself and refusing to answer the question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus fuck y'all have completely lost it.

How so? Do you really believe all that is evil and greedy and corrupting in the world is found in the activity of the business owner? Do you honestly believe it is government that makes business prosper? Or do you think it might be the other way around and it is people prospering in the private sector that makes those in government prosper?

Or do you see as Fearless Leader apparently does that there is no such thing as the private sector? It ALL belongs to everybody?

How so?

You've taken intellectual dishonesty to new levels with this nonsense.

What you, and other lying douchebags have done, is fabricate this idea that Obama is saying the only reason businesses thrive is because of government/what we collectively provide. This is a big lie and you guys are in the process of repeating often enough and loud enough to try to make it true.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

This is the point that Obama was making and he said this immediately following the alleged big scary things that he said. The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious. It's not funny that you conveniently ignore this, and Mitt Romney saying almost exactly the same thing to the Olympians, and instead fabricate a lie, it's pathetic.

I invite you to read the entire transcript of Obama's speech and tell us in what POSSIBLE way it provides a different context than exactly what the ENTIRE NATION has read it to be.

Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia | The White House

 

[Cecilie1200]

The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.

Barry had two communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is beloved by the CPUSA, and just coincidentially is just stating what was obvious to Karl Marx.

As a liberal you lack the IQ to grasp that Barry's creeping communism is a cancer on our society.

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.

Read the thread, dimwit. We've been refuting it for approximately 240 pages. It's YOU who cannot refute what we've said. All you can do is parrot, "We're right, you're wrong, you just don't like Obama."

 

[Cecilie1200]

IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.

Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.

The town is not incorporated.

How did they get help from the government ?

How do people travel?

All right, let me simple this down for the simpletons (read: leftists) among us.

Picture the business world as a football game. The stadium would be, basically, the world: all of the environmental factors that affect our lives, like geography, weather, what-have-you.

The teams would be those people who chose to start businesses, or continue existing businesses. The spectators are all those people who chose not to be entrepreneurs for whatever reason, either because they didn't want the risk and effort and responsibility, or because their talent and skill sets didn't run that way, or whatever.

Now this is the important part, so try to stay with me. Government is not a member of any of the teams. It is not the coach, or the team trainer, or the team doctor, or any of the people who actively contribute to helping their team win. Government is the playing field. It is the basic gridiron on which all the teams play.

It is a very good thing to have a nice, solid, smooth, level playing field when playing football. But if necessary, football can be played on any large, empty piece of ground. It was played that way long before the building of fancy stadiums, and is still played that way by people in parks and on beaches and what-have-you.

When a team wins a football game, they don't say, "Thank God for that great field. We'd have never managed this victory if the field hadn't been so good." They don't give any of the credit for their win to the guy who mows the grass and paints the yard lines. And when one football team wins and the other loses, BOTH WERE PLAYING ON THE SAME FIELD. Which means the success created there isn't due to the field they both shared, but the talent, hard work, training, and practice that the winners put in to use that field more effectively than the losers did.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well done Cecile. Let’s try a different analogy.

At one time on the east side of the county there were no people. Then somebody builds a house out there, puts in his own well with a pump run by his own wind charger and battery backed up generator. Also necessary is a wood stove, propane tank, and septic system, all put in by private contractors. He has a rough road graded from the distant highway.

Gradually as more and more people move into the area, they are able to pool resources to have electricity and telephone service brought to their community, provided by private co-ops serving distant communities. With so many folks now in the area they agree that rather than risk contamination from so many septic systems, a shared sewer system should go in, and then a shared water system. Eventually there is enough tax base to pay for paved roads to replace the rough graded ones.

Then somebody takes the risk to put in a small grocery store so folks won’t have to drive 20 miles to the city for a loaf of bread or bottle of milk. Then somebody puts in a gas station, somebody else an auto repair shop, somebody else a dental office until there is a thriving business community. The growing tax base funds even more and better infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing community.

THAT is how government happens and how infrastructure is accomplished. It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.