"You didn't get there on your own"

[ConzHateUSA]

No, you cant simply fill out a form and get a bunch of money for a long period of time for doing nothing, unless you work for Bain or are a Koch bros.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama didn't mean what he said. What he meant to say is, You CAN'T get there on your own.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them

and yet still they hate him, why? we all know, dont we

 

[saveliberty]

View Post Today, 10:23 AM
Remove user from ignore listConzHateUSA
This message is hidden because ConzHateUSA is on your ignore list.

^^^^^
Worthless 24/7/365

 

[Murf76]

And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American

Alexander Hamilton (among the founding fathers), rallying support for the ratification of the US Constitution, wrote this about taxes:

"Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible
that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the
reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?"

Even those embodying the "invisible hand" of laissez-faire capitalism recognize the public good of freeing those in business from the dangers of fraud, breach of contract, safety from fire, protection from criminals (whether disenfranchised marauders, corporate thieves, or terrorists), etc. The founding fathers recognized how commerce would be enhanced by public infrastructure. Yes, these are all paid by taxes. Since they are therefore provided, businesses can be built.

This doesn't touch on the fact that most of modern businesses (which depend on computers, the internet, telecommunications, interstate roads, etc.) could not exist without the educated populace and government investments that gave rise to such tools (the list goes on).

I have owned and now run small businesses successfully. I've worked hard. I am reasonably clever. I asked for no handouts. However, I'm not so deluded to think that my success arose from my sheer efforts alone. I think those who believe so need a reality check.

So you've got a small business... and you don't pay any taxes? And your State and local governments don't provide any of the infrastructure?... it's all federal money?

Here's your problem... Even if we very generously tossed in every federal bureau or agency that could be viewed as having anything to do with supplying "the infrastructure", and that would include such things as the Department of Defense and the Department of Ed... we're still talking about less than 25% of federal spending.
Zombie » The Ultimate Takedown of Obama’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Speech
Take a look at the link, there's a complete run-down.

Note too that this is the Classic Straw Man argument, whereby one projects a position onto his debate opponent that he doesn't even have. Republicans are NOT anarchists who don't believe people should have to pay taxes in order to live in a decent society. That wasn't the position of our Founders, let alone our Constitution. Our position is Limited Constitutional Government and Responsible Spending.

But we've got an administration currently which doesn't even bother to give us a budget, won't bother to reform our runaway entitlements, and instead have given us a new, LARGER one. We're nearly 16 trillion in debt, paying nearly a half trillion just to service the debt annually, which will be a full trillion by the end of the decade on our current path.

WHY should even one citizen, no matter how filthy rich, be forced to provide another red cent to this reckless, irresponsible administration???

 

[Listening]

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.

Which is really a big point. Which came first.....

However, the example I provided on the travel agency is true. To the extent I have described the start up....the government was nothing but a pain in the ass and a costly one at that which brought no value.

Your example prompted a memory of something that happened in Pittsburg, CA, a city I lived next to for six years.

A rather large subdivision was planned for an area that was to the south of the city. Something like 3,000 homes. To get to the main drag, the entire subdivision would have to get out onto one large artery and then make it's way to Highway 4 (many people would likely be working in Concord, Walnut Creek, Oakland, and even SF....BART did not come out that far and even if it did, they would still need to get to the station).

The city did an Environmental Impact Study which said that main artery and several north/south streets would have to be expanded to handle the additional traffic. Keep in mind this subdivsion was going to increase the size of the city by about 20% on the north side. The cost to do this was going to be kicked back onto the subdivision (so no free roads.....they were going to pay for it). The developer said the cost would make his houses uncompetative and indicated he would not build). The people of the city were O.K with that (they didn't want the congestion it would bring and thought the project was way to big and aggressive).

However, the city council wanted the additional tax revenue that all these households would produce so they approved the project anyway. They simply blew off the EIS and said they would not be expanding the roads.

This was going to require new schools, which had already been pushed into the cost of the houses almost dollar for dollar. The city tried to keep the additional taxes for the schools but "put off" actually building the schools.

You see, there were to many other things they had already done thinking they could garner taxes to pay for them...which had not panned out and they were in the red. Some of these projects were activities that were clearly favors to friends and supporters.

In the end, the people of Pittsburg went nuts and almost rioted against the new subdivsion because the roads were not going to be expanded. The project was significantly scaled back (the developer tried to sell the idea of phases to break things in....but the numbers just did not fly). The people also threw out most of the city council for being so irresponsible for not paying as they went.

There was no "you didn't build that" here. If anything, it was the opposite. Government wanted the money need to support this expansion to pay for other crap. They were quite willing to sacrafice the balance of infrastructure to get their hands on new cash sources.

That story happens time and time again.

Obama is full of crap.

 

[saveliberty]

If interstates are so helpful, why aren't there more exits? Most of them have wide expanses of nothing.

 

[Listening]

wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them

and yet still they hate him, why? we all know, dont we

Hate him ?

Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative. You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.

Ain't working.

We don't hate him. We just don't want him in the WH. We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.

Nobody admitted anything.

And you don't know s**t.

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[Mac1958]

Roads and bridges cannot be credited or blamed for a business' success or failure... They exist and their existence does not guarantee you will be successful in your business...

You'd think, but this notion appears to be at the heart of the left's argument. A business owner drives on roads, so they clearly don't work nearly as hard or risk nearly as much as they think they do.

Astonishing, huh?

.

It appears as though you are talking out of your ass. Nobody said that their existence guarantees success. That's you and the House Gimp dishonestly making shit up.

.

This is too easy. Now I guess it's YOUR turn to talk out YOUR ass. You just served up a lovely straw man argument. I didn't say "that their existence guarantees success."

That wasn't even CLOSE.

Wanna try again, only using something even approaching intellectual honesty this time?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business. I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?' So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.

And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.

 

[Mac1958]

I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business. I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?' So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.

And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.

Yep.

And something else that occurs to me is that Obama and his apologists are making assumptions based on where a business is NOW. His comments ignore the early days or months or years of the business, when it has no employees, the owner is just trying to keep the heart beating. Hiring that first employee is a massive step, with all risks and costs and regulations that come with it, even AFTER the business owner has ALREADY been dealing with risks and costs and regulations. That first employee may not be hired for the first two or three years, let alone a group of employees.

But of course, Obama couldn't know that, since he's speaking (and campaigning, more importantly) out of pure ignorance.

.

 

[kaz]

I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business. I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?' So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.

And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.

Government is a ball and chain for businesses. No one who's ever owned a business would think otherwise. I'm not saying there aren't liberal business owners. I'm just saying even a liberal business owner couldn't think government did a damned thing to help them and frequently greatly harmed them. They would have to want government for other reasons.

My sister in law is a lifelong liberal who's a partner in a veterinary practice. She's done well and is becoming the lead partner and they are expanding and building more facilities. She's decided not to vote for Obama, her whole attitude towards government is changing now that she is first hand getting the reality of what they are.

 

[Listening]

I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business. I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?' So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.

And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.

And that is the nuance of the argument that nobody would disagree with if it were not for the fact that Obama has never been about anything but......you owe something to the rest of us.

We agreed to build those roads through our governmental processes and you paying taxes is just like you paying a toll. You pay for your use.

The road would not be there if you were the only one who needed to use it. Nobody built that for you. We built it for us.

But that can also be said for satisfying demand. Nobody builds a Sonic just for you. They build it for many "yous". And the fact that you use it, means it is available for the use of others too. But nobody would have built it if they did not know you were going to use it.

So thanks !

So the argument is nuanced in that these things show up because of us. But they are not build by government and then we get to use them. I described the mess that was next door in CA. One thing...we paid taxes for BART even though it did not come "over the hill". That continued for 25 years before it finally made it to Pittsburg. Government didn't build that...we did. The government just sat in the middle and played favorites.

Obama is full of crap.

 

[saveliberty]

If I help pay for some new technology with my tax dollars, I don't expect the next generation to pay too.

 

[Foxfyre]

I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business. I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?' So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.

And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.

Yep.

And something else that occurs to me is that Obama and his apologists are making assumptions based on where a business is NOW. His comments ignore the early days or months or years of the business, when it has no employees, the owner is just trying to keep the heart beating. Hiring that first employee is a massive step, with all risks and costs and regulations that come with it, even AFTER the business owner has ALREADY been dealing with risks and costs and regulations. That first employee may not be hired for the first two or three years, let alone a group of employees.

But of course, Obama couldn't know that, since he's speaking (and campaigning, more importantly) out of pure ignorance.

.

Very true. Employees are a huge biggie in any business and add a whole extra layer of paperwork and expense management. But the fact that we need those employees is a testament to the hours and expertise and risk that we put into the business and they, in turn, are able to earn income and acquire property that in turn is also taxed and contributes to the expansion and maintenance of the infrastructure.

 

[Mac1958]

I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business. I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?' So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.

And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.

Yep.

And something else that occurs to me is that Obama and his apologists are making assumptions based on where a business is NOW. His comments ignore the early days or months or years of the business, when it has no employees, the owner is just trying to keep the heart beating. Hiring that first employee is a massive step, with all risks and costs and regulations that come with it, even AFTER the business owner has ALREADY been dealing with risks and costs and regulations. That first employee may not be hired for the first two or three years, let alone a group of employees.

But of course, Obama couldn't know that, since he's speaking (and campaigning, more importantly) out of pure ignorance.

.

Very true. Employees are a huge biggie in any business and add a whole extra layer of paperwork and expense management. But the fact that we need those employees is a testament to the hours and expertise and risk that we put into the business and they, in turn, are able to earn income and acquire property that in turn is also taxed and contributes to the expansion and maintenance of the infrastructure.

Yeah, sure, that's all true, but remember: You don't work as hard as you think you do, you're not as smart as you think you are. Your President says so, so it must be true.



.

 

[Freewill]

wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them

and yet still they hate him, why? we all know, dont we

Yes, Obama is conservative to moderate, just look at his record:

Obamatax

DADT repeal

Pipeline stopped.

Shutdown of Yucca Mountain.

I could go one but why bother?

 

[Bfgrn]

wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them

and yet still they hate him, why? we all know, dont we

Hate him ?

Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative. You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.

Ain't working.

We don't hate him. We just don't want him in the WH. We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.

Nobody admitted anything.

And you don't know s**t.

The FACTS are: Obama Is The Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History.

The FACTS are: Ronald Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.

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!

 

[Listening]

wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them

and yet still they hate him, why? we all know, dont we

Hate him ?

Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative. You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.

Ain't working.

We don't hate him. We just don't want him in the WH. We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.

Nobody admitted anything.

And you don't know s**t.

The FACTS are: Obama Is The Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History.

The FACTS are: Ronald Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.

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!

Please explain to me just what the hell this has to do with what I posted.

Or were you so anxious to show you can post a graph that you didn't really stop to consider if you should.