I didn't build that

[tererun]

In my life I have owned a few small businesses, and so has my family. My first legitimate business i started when i was 19. I had a friend who's family ran a graphic design firm near NYC and this was when digital communication was running over modems in the early 90's. Same day delivery of negatives and data between them and clients was quicker by car in the NY area. Yes, i had to do the work, do my books, and run that business, but without my friend's family i would have nothing. Without a car my parents helped me get by requiring me to save for years and encouraging me to work as a teenager i would not have been capable. Without roads, or beiong in an area where this business was needed I was not going to be able to do it.

it was not the only time either.

i have owned a few businesses in my life. I sold and repaired computers. I started up an extreme sports production company. i have run my own paintball field. I have a costuming business. In each one of these ventures I had friends and contacts who helped me. in each one of these businesses I looked to places like the SBA to answer questions for me. I got investments and loans. I got advice. i got help. I had partners who brought in great knowledge and skill. I had family who backed me and helped me out. None of these businesses were possible without the present state of the US or other businesses who made products i needed.

I have listened to both candidates, and both Romney and obama have expressed the knowledge that businesses are successful in large part because of outside influences that they need. What i find disturbing is a number of people believe that a statement pulled from the context of a speech and distorted by the republican media has made it seem to many people that obama doesn't recognize these points when he clearly said that he did. No one is saying the dedication and effort of business owners is not a part of the success of any business. Even those who inherit a business will find it gone if they do not put effort into it, and business makers put their hearts and soul into a business. It is not a job that you just go home from, it is an integral part of your life, and even when you relax your thoughts go towards it. I know because i have made a few. obama has never claimed this to be wrong, but Romney says he has.

Still, for all the work you put in you always work off of the society of people and businesses you operate in. this means that you do not do everything yourself. You may work off of goods others have manufactured. you may ship along the roads others have created. You may use the retail netowork of another business to bring your goods to market. You may ship goods from one business to another. You rely on the communications networks of our society to take orders, advertise, and make orders. This is an area that Both obama and Romney agree on.

people who are standing tall and proud on the idea that they alone did that seem like they are not experienced in how things actually get done. You do put your effort into things, and to an extent that does make things happen, but without the rest of society you are just spinning your wheels. The only people calling on the pride of doing it alone seem to be the republicans. Could you imagine the idea of doing it alone making it in an election which relies on the votes of other people? no one is saying you have to give the credit for your effort to others, but in every case the credit for the final product has other's involved.

 

[Vallista]

In my life I have owned a few small businesses, and so has my family. My first legitimate business i started when i was 19. I had a friend who's family ran a graphic design firm near NYC and this was when digital communication was running over modems in the early 90's. Same day delivery of negatives and data between them and clients was quicker by car in the NY area. Yes, i had to do the work, do my books, and run that business, but without my friend's family i would have nothing. Without a car my parents helped me get by requiring me to save for years and encouraging me to work as a teenager i would not have been capable. Without roads, or beiong in an area where this business was needed I was not going to be able to do it.

it was not the only time either.

i have owned a few businesses in my life. I sold and repaired computers. I started up an extreme sports production company. i have run my own paintball field. I have a costuming business. In each one of these ventures I had friends and contacts who helped me. in each one of these businesses I looked to places like the SBA to answer questions for me. I got investments and loans. I got advice. i got help. I had partners who brought in great knowledge and skill. I had family who backed me and helped me out. None of these businesses were possible without the present state of the US or other businesses who made products i needed.

I have listened to both candidates, and both Romney and obama have expressed the knowledge that businesses are successful in large part because of outside influences that they need. What i find disturbing is a number of people believe that a statement pulled from the context of a speech and distorted by the republican media has made it seem to many people that obama doesn't recognize these points when he clearly said that he did. No one is saying the dedication and effort of business owners is not a part of the success of any business. Even those who inherit a business will find it gone if they do not put effort into it, and business makers put their hearts and soul into a business. It is not a job that you just go home from, it is an integral part of your life, and even when you relax your thoughts go towards it. I know because i have made a few. obama has never claimed this to be wrong, but Romney says he has.

Still, for all the work you put in you always work off of the society of people and businesses you operate in. this means that you do not do everything yourself. You may work off of goods others have manufactured. you may ship along the roads others have created. You may use the retail netowork of another business to bring your goods to market. You may ship goods from one business to another. You rely on the communications networks of our society to take orders, advertise, and make orders. This is an area that Both obama and Romney agree on.

people who are standing tall and proud on the idea that they alone did that seem like they are not experienced in how things actually get done. You do put your effort into things, and to an extent that does make things happen, but without the rest of society you are just spinning your wheels. The only people calling on the pride of doing it alone seem to be the republicans. Could you imagine the idea of doing it alone making it in an election which relies on the votes of other people? no one is saying you have to give the credit for your effort to others, but in every case the credit for the final product has other's involved.

+100, I couldn't say this better myself. I tried to say that, however conservatives here seem think other wise. I'm glad your able to successful with your skills and have the presence in mind to give credit to the people and your community that contribute to your success. If only conservatives could get their head out of their A$$, but I don't think that will come. :applaud

 

[code1211]

In my life I have owned a few small businesses, and so has my family. My first legitimate business i started when i was 19. I had a friend who's family ran a graphic design firm near NYC and this was when digital communication was running over modems in the early 90's. Same day delivery of negatives and data between them and clients was quicker by car in the NY area. Yes, i had to do the work, do my books, and run that business, but without my friend's family i would have nothing. Without a car my parents helped me get by requiring me to save for years and encouraging me to work as a teenager i would not have been capable. Without roads, or beiong in an area where this business was needed I was not going to be able to do it.

it was not the only time either.

i have owned a few businesses in my life. I sold and repaired computers. I started up an extreme sports production company. i have run my own paintball field. I have a costuming business. In each one of these ventures I had friends and contacts who helped me. in each one of these businesses I looked to places like the SBA to answer questions for me. I got investments and loans. I got advice. i got help. I had partners who brought in great knowledge and skill. I had family who backed me and helped me out. None of these businesses were possible without the present state of the US or other businesses who made products i needed.

I have listened to both candidates, and both Romney and obama have expressed the knowledge that businesses are successful in large part because of outside influences that they need. What i find disturbing is a number of people believe that a statement pulled from the context of a speech and distorted by the republican media has made it seem to many people that obama doesn't recognize these points when he clearly said that he did. No one is saying the dedication and effort of business owners is not a part of the success of any business. Even those who inherit a business will find it gone if they do not put effort into it, and business makers put their hearts and soul into a business. It is not a job that you just go home from, it is an integral part of your life, and even when you relax your thoughts go towards it. I know because i have made a few. obama has never claimed this to be wrong, but Romney says he has.

Still, for all the work you put in you always work off of the society of people and businesses you operate in. this means that you do not do everything yourself. You may work off of goods others have manufactured. you may ship along the roads others have created. You may use the retail netowork of another business to bring your goods to market. You may ship goods from one business to another. You rely on the communications networks of our society to take orders, advertise, and make orders. This is an area that Both obama and Romney agree on.

people who are standing tall and proud on the idea that they alone did that seem like they are not experienced in how things actually get done. You do put your effort into things, and to an extent that does make things happen, but without the rest of society you are just spinning your wheels. The only people calling on the pride of doing it alone seem to be the republicans. Could you imagine the idea of doing it alone making it in an election which relies on the votes of other people? no one is saying you have to give the credit for your effort to others, but in every case the credit for the final product has other's involved.

The point of Obama's statement and the point of the criticisms of that statement is that the President was saying that the people who are rich because of business don't have the right to keep the money they have earned as a result of the commerce produced from the businesses they started.

By creating the notion that the wealth was not earned and rightfully possessed, which was his goal, he creates the governmental right to steal that wealth from them.

That is the crux of the argument, not who built what.

The question is this: "Who owns the money earned by an individual? Is it the individual or is it the government?"

If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of government, then you are a Liberal. If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of the individual, then you are a Conservative.

If you feel that the truth is somewhere on a continuum between these two extremes, where you settle on that continuum also defines you.

You seem to agree with him that all wealth belongs to the government. Did you retain ANY of the wealth created by the commerce rising from the various businesses that you have been involved in?

If so, by what right did you retain this wealth?

 

[Deuce]

The point of Obama's statement and the point of the criticisms of that statement is that the President was saying that the people who are rich because of business don't have the right to keep the money they have earned as a result of the commerce produced from the businesses they started.

By creating the notion that the wealth was not earned and rightfully possessed, which was his goal, he creates the governmental right to steal that wealth from them.

That is the crux of the argument, not who built what.

The question is this: "Who owns the money earned by an individual? Is it the individual or is it the government?"

If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of government, then you are a Liberal. If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of the individual, then you are a Conservative.

If you feel that the truth is somewhere on a continuum between these two extremes, where you settle on that continuum also defines you.

You seem to agree with him that all wealth belongs to the government. Did you retain ANY of the wealth created by the commerce rising from the various businesses that you have been involved in?

If so, by what right did you retain this wealth?

You're inaccurately reading between the lines and then reading more lines in between the lines you just invented. Your interpretation is wildly deviated from reality. It appears that you are unable to think in anything but absolute terms. Do you really think an individual has a right to all of that wealth? So, no taxes for anyone? That means no military protection for us, I'll pass. And if you really think liberals believe all that wealth should go to the government, I don't know what to tell you. In a world where people are talking about a three percent increase in the top marginal tax bracket, you've gone and decided it's actually a 100% increase on all tax brackets that liberals support.

You don't even seem to have read the post you quoted. You just inserted your own opinions about liberals into it. You should really be concerned about that. You should ask yourself why it is that you are projecting alternate beliefs onto people that their statements explicitly contradict.

 

[code1211]

You're inaccurately reading between the lines and then reading more lines in between the lines you just invented. Your interpretation is wildly deviated from reality. It appears that you are unable to think in anything but absolute terms. Do you really think an individual has a right to all of that wealth? So, no taxes for anyone? That means no military protection for us, I'll pass. And if you really think liberals believe all that wealth should go to the government, I don't know what to tell you. In a world where people are talking about a three percent increase in the top marginal tax bracket, you've gone and decided it's actually a 100% increase on all tax brackets that liberals support.

You don't even seem to have read the post you quoted. You just inserted your own opinions about liberals into it. You should really be concerned about that. You should ask yourself why it is that you are projecting alternate beliefs onto people that their statements explicitly contradict.

I hardly know where to start with this. Obama's statement was to justify the removal of wealth from those who have it. It relies for justification on the assumption that their wealth is not deserved and therefore can be ethically removed. It is founded on the principle that that all wealth is the property of the government.

That is the basis of Liberalism. All wealth is the property of the government and therefore, government has the right to all wealth.

I happen to think that there are those who are pretty smart and those who work very hard and those who have a knack for amassing wealth. In bushiness, these people are referred to as "The Smartest Guy In the Room." When I was much younger, I often thought that I was the smartest guy in the room. Now I know that the room has to be pretty much empty for that to occur.

It is the "Smartest Guy in the Room" that has swept the rest of us along with them. Without Ford, Firestone, Einstein, Edison, Westinghouse, Gates and all the rest, we as a species are pretty much just harvesting wild grain from fields and clubbing the local fauna and the neighboring tribes to death.

If you can't see this, you are not seeing reality.

On a far more local basis, there are guys who start their own business and who risk everything and lose it. There are those who can make it work. It is this group of folks that hire the rest of us and we should be grateful that they do. Attacking them and punishing them for having achieved seems a little irrational to me.

Government is a poorly run enterprise that is peopled by folks who have little experience in anything outside of justifying their own job. These little men feel powerful because others tell them they are so. We suffer as a result.

On the continuum to which I referred in the previous post, you obviously are of the school that government owns all wealth and we only hold some of it temporarily at the pleasure of the pyramid of politically powerful until they feel they need more money to waste.

Those Trillion Dollar deficits aren't going to spend themselves.

 

[johnny_rebson]

The point of Obama's statement and the point of the criticisms of that statement is that the President was saying that the people who are rich because of business don't have the right to keep the money they have earned as a result of the commerce produced from the businesses they started.

By creating the notion that the wealth was not earned and rightfully possessed, which was his goal, he creates the governmental right to steal that wealth from them.

That is the crux of the argument, not who built what.

The question is this: "Who owns the money earned by an individual? Is it the individual or is it the government?"

If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of government, then you are a Liberal. If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of the individual, then you are a Conservative.

If you feel that the truth is somewhere on a continuum between these two extremes, where you settle on that continuum also defines you.

You seem to agree with him that all wealth belongs to the government. Did you retain ANY of the wealth created by the commerce rising from the various businesses that you have been involved in?

If so, by what right did you retain this wealth?

Exactly. If the government wants to repair the roads or build new ones, they need to get money for that without taxing wealthy people.

 

[Bobcat]

Exactly. If the government wants to repair the roads or build new ones, they need to get money for that without taxing wealthy people.

who said that? money for roads comes from taxes, everyone should pay a proportionate share of taxes in order to maintain the infrastructure.

The rich already pay MORE than a proportionate share, and I am OK with that, but your idea is to tax them into poverty so they can see what its like to be poor. your position is based on envy and jealousy, not common sense.

 

[johnny_rebson]

who said that? money for roads comes from taxes, everyone should pay a proportionate share of taxes in order to maintain the infrastructure.

The rich already pay MORE than a proportionate share, and I am OK with that, but your idea is to tax them into poverty so they can see what its like to be poor. your position is based on envy and jealousy, not common sense.

You totally misread my post. Every time liberals in government want to spend money, where do they look as a source for that money?

We are the job creators. If they want us to keep creating jobs, they can't raise our taxes.

 

[tererun]

The point of Obama's statement and the point of the criticisms of that statement is that the President was saying that the people who are rich because of business don't have the right to keep the money they have earned as a result of the commerce produced from the businesses they started.

Uh no, not at all. I am not sure where you got that idea but that is nowhere close to the idea of what he said. Obame has never said that businesses cannot keep their profits. That is an outright lie.

By creating the notion that the wealth was not earned and rightfully possessed, which was his goal, he creates the governmental right to steal that wealth from them.

Yeah, taxes are not stealing. they are the payments you make to keep the government operational and doing the things it does that makes society run. taxes are not theft, and no one is running on a platform for taxes.

That is the crux of the argument, not who built what.

The question is this: "Who owns the money earned by an individual? Is it the individual or is it the government?"

Technically the US government owns dollars and it uses it to regulate trade. Those things in your wallet that you call cash are really just a representation of an idea of units of exchange, and yes the US government and other governments of the world own and support those representations we call cash. However, that is an idea, and you are talking about something you really do not understand. The earnings of money is really a theoretical concept based on a social contract, and no you do not own that contract, you merely work within it. Of course I probably just spoke way over your head and I would guess you have no idea what i am talking about.

If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of government, then you are a Liberal. If you think that all wealth is the rightful property of the individual, then you are a Conservative.

You do not even know what those words mean, do you? your description there is not representative of either of their meanings.

If you feel that the truth is somewhere on a continuum between these two extremes, where you settle on that continuum also defines you.

You seem to agree with him that all wealth belongs to the government. Did you retain ANY of the wealth created by the commerce rising from the various businesses that you have been involved in?

If so, by what right did you retain this wealth?

by social contract and the laws of the US. It is pretty simple. Still it seems to be beyond you. you are just simply wrong.

 

[MaggieD]

...None of these businesses were possible without the present state of the US or other businesses who made products i needed...I have listened to both candidates, and both Romney and obama have expressed the knowledge that businesses are successful in large part because of outside influences that they need. What i find disturbing is a number of people believe that a statement pulled from the context of a speech and distorted by the republican media has made it seem to many people that obama doesn't recognize these points when he clearly said that he did. No one is saying the dedication and effort of business owners is not a part of the success of any business....Still, for all the work you put in you always work off of the society of people and businesses you operate in. this means that you do not do everything yourself...people who are standing tall and proud on the idea that they alone did that seem like they are not experienced in how things actually get done.

Oh, please. That entire speech was a pander-fest to his audience. And his audience was not made up of entrepreneurs, because they'd have run President Obama outa' town.

They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Smarts/Luck/Hard Work. Where was the slightest celebration of that skill set in President Obama's speech? To say, "You didn't build that," referring to roads and bridges? Well. Duh. Look, there isn't a business owner alive who isn't grateful he/she lives in the United States of America.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

In my life I have owned a few small businesses, and so has my family. My first legitimate business i started when i was 19. I had a friend who's family ran a graphic design firm near NYC and this was when digital communication was running over modems in the early 90's. Same day delivery of negatives and data between them and clients was quicker by car in the NY area. Yes, i had to do the work, do my books, and run that business, but without my friend's family i would have nothing. Without a car my parents helped me get by requiring me to save for years and encouraging me to work as a teenager i would not have been capable. Without roads, or beiong in an area where this business was needed I was not going to be able to do it.

it was not the only time either.

i have owned a few businesses in my life. I sold and repaired computers. I started up an extreme sports production company. i have run my own paintball field. I have a costuming business. In each one of these ventures I had friends and contacts who helped me. in each one of these businesses I looked to places like the SBA to answer questions for me. I got investments and loans. I got advice. i got help. I had partners who brought in great knowledge and skill. I had family who backed me and helped me out. None of these businesses were possible without the present state of the US or other businesses who made products i needed.

I have listened to both candidates, and both Romney and obama have expressed the knowledge that businesses are successful in large part because of outside influences that they need. What i find disturbing is a number of people believe that a statement pulled from the context of a speech and distorted by the republican media has made it seem to many people that obama doesn't recognize these points when he clearly said that he did. No one is saying the dedication and effort of business owners is not a part of the success of any business. Even those who inherit a business will find it gone if they do not put effort into it, and business makers put their hearts and soul into a business. It is not a job that you just go home from, it is an integral part of your life, and even when you relax your thoughts go towards it. I know because i have made a few. obama has never claimed this to be wrong, but Romney says he has.

Still, for all the work you put in you always work off of the society of people and businesses you operate in. this means that you do not do everything yourself. You may work off of goods others have manufactured. you may ship along the roads others have created. You may use the retail netowork of another business to bring your goods to market. You may ship goods from one business to another. You rely on the communications networks of our society to take orders, advertise, and make orders. This is an area that Both obama and Romney agree on.

people who are standing tall and proud on the idea that they alone did that seem like they are not experienced in how things actually get done. You do put your effort into things, and to an extent that does make things happen, but without the rest of society you are just spinning your wheels. The only people calling on the pride of doing it alone seem to be the republicans. Could you imagine the idea of doing it alone making it in an election which relies on the votes of other people? no one is saying you have to give the credit for your effort to others, but in every case the credit for the final product has other's involved.

You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

 

[Bobcat]

You totally misread my post. Every time liberals in government want to spend money, where do they look as a source for that money?

We are the job creators. If they want us to keep creating jobs, they can't raise our taxes.

sorry, my mistake

 

[code1211]

Uh no, not at all. I am not sure where you got that idea but that is nowhere close to the idea of what he said. Obame has never said that businesses cannot keep their profits. That is an outright lie.


Yeah, taxes are not stealing. they are the payments you make to keep the government operational and doing the things it does that makes society run. taxes are not theft, and no one is running on a platform for taxes.


Technically the US government owns dollars and it uses it to regulate trade. Those things in your wallet that you call cash are really just a representation of an idea of units of exchange, and yes the US government and other governments of the world own and support those representations we call cash. However, that is an idea, and you are talking about something you really do not understand. The earnings of money is really a theoretical concept based on a social contract, and no you do not own that contract, you merely work within it. Of course I probably just spoke way over your head and I would guess you have no idea what i am talking about.


You do not even know what those words mean, do you? your description there is not representative of either of their meanings.


by social contract and the laws of the US. It is pretty simple. Still it seems to be beyond you. you are just simply wrong.

1. What was the point of Obama's speech if not to justify taxing the rich at a higher rate? You are being disingenuously obtuse. If you support the man, be proud of what he stands for. If you oppose him, state why. By supporting him and claiming that he does not believe what he said he believes is a little schizophrenic, don't you think?
2. If taxes are payments for the operation of government, why are they not paid by all?
3. Wow!
4. In today's world, Liberalism endorses the widening growth of a strong central government to control the activities of all citizens. Conservatism endorses the weakening of the Central government in favor of States rights a personal responsibility. If you don't understand this, you have no idea what the two parties are doing.
5. Social contract? Did you sign one? A contract indicates mutual consent. If the consent is not mutual, that is domination. No contract is required for domination. Only the application of force to induce subjugation. I did not agree to enter into 16 trillion dollars of debt and yet, there it is. The debt over which i have control is zero. That is my preference and that is what i would have agreed to. My agreement was not sought.

When you say wrong, do you mean incorrect or morally bankrupt? I would submit that there is a moral bankruptcy in any operation that steals from future generations to secure votes to stay in power as this administration and their minion in the Congress are now doing. You just have to be impressed when no President in history ever had a Trillion dollar deficit and the current clown has racked up 4 straight.

How do you spell failed?

 

[Deuce]

I hardly know where to start with this. Obama's statement was to justify the removal of wealth from those who have it. It relies for justification on the assumption that their wealth is not deserved and therefore can be ethically removed. It is founded on the principle that that all wealth is the property of the government.

That is the basis of Liberalism. All wealth is the property of the government and therefore, government has the right to all wealth.

I happen to think that there are those who are pretty smart and those who work very hard and those who have a knack for amassing wealth. In bushiness, these people are referred to as "The Smartest Guy In the Room." When I was much younger, I often thought that I was the smartest guy in the room. Now I know that the room has to be pretty much empty for that to occur.

It is the "Smartest Guy in the Room" that has swept the rest of us along with them. Without Ford, Firestone, Einstein, Edison, Westinghouse, Gates and all the rest, we as a species are pretty much just harvesting wild grain from fields and clubbing the local fauna and the neighboring tribes to death.

If you can't see this, you are not seeing reality.

On a far more local basis, there are guys who start their own business and who risk everything and lose it. There are those who can make it work. It is this group of folks that hire the rest of us and we should be grateful that they do. Attacking them and punishing them for having achieved seems a little irrational to me.

Government is a poorly run enterprise that is peopled by folks who have little experience in anything outside of justifying their own job. These little men feel powerful because others tell them they are so. We suffer as a result.

On the continuum to which I referred in the previous post, you obviously are of the school that government owns all wealth and we only hold some of it temporarily at the pleasure of the pyramid of politically powerful until they feel they need more money to waste.

Those Trillion Dollar deficits aren't going to spend themselves.

You don't actually see a continuum because you are clearly unable to distinguish different points along that continuum. A 3% increase in marginal tax rates is not all wealth. End of discussion. Not one person anywhere on this board has suggested the government should acquire all wealth. 3% on top marginal rates is what we're discussing. Try and come back to reality. Smartest guys in the room? Really? You know what popularized that phrase more recently?

Enron. Fraud on a massive scale. They weren't the smartest, they were the best at cheating.

You totally misread my post. Every time liberals in government want to spend money, where do they look as a source for that money?

We are the job creators. If they want us to keep creating jobs, they can't raise our taxes.

Top marginal tax rates have no solid correlation to any economic indicator. The discussion is about returning to Clinton administration tax rates. The economy was great while Clinton was in office. Many, many jobs were created. To suggest that Clinton-era tax rates are economy-crippling flies in the face of reality. Want more proof? Check out the tax rates post-WW2 around the 1950s. Tax rates that would be considered criminally high today, and yet we expanded faster than ever. Why? Because we were the only industrialized nation with an intact production base. Everyone in the world was a customer.

I am not a job creator. My customers are. When I consider hiring a person or not, I'm not focusing on my profit margins or tax rates. I'm thinking about whether or not I have the demand to justify that additional employee. Tax me at 0% if you want, I'm not going to hire someone if it's not going to get me any extra customers. There's no reason to hire more widget builders if nobody is buying widgets. If I have demand for more widgets, I'm going to hire people to build widgets.

But I don't regurgitate the right wing mantra, so I guess my small business doesn't count.

 

[code1211]

You don't actually see a continuum because you are clearly unable to distinguish different points along that continuum. A 3% increase in marginal tax rates is not all wealth. End of discussion. Not one person anywhere on this board has suggested the government should acquire all wealth. 3% on top marginal rates is what we're discussing. Try and come back to reality. Smartest guys in the room? Really? You know what popularized that phrase more recently?

Enron. Fraud on a massive scale. They weren't the smartest, they were the best at cheating.



Top marginal tax rates have no solid correlation to any economic indicator. The discussion is about returning to Clinton administration tax rates. The economy was great while Clinton was in office. Many, many jobs were created. To suggest that Clinton-era tax rates are economy-crippling flies in the face of reality. Want more proof? Check out the tax rates post-WW2 around the 1950s. Tax rates that would be considered criminally high today, and yet we expanded faster than ever. Why? Because we were the only industrialized nation with an intact production base. Everyone in the world was a customer.

I am not a job creator. My customers are. When I consider hiring a person or not, I'm not focusing on my profit margins or tax rates. I'm thinking about whether or not I have the demand to justify that additional employee. Tax me at 0% if you want, I'm not going to hire someone if it's not going to get me any extra customers. There's no reason to hire more widget builders if nobody is buying widgets. If I have demand for more widgets, I'm going to hire people to build widgets.

But I don't regurgitate the right wing mantra, so I guess my small business doesn't count.

Blah, blah, blah. What gives the government the right to raise the tax on anyone? Why is the tax raised on only some? The increase that Obama is talking about is olly about 7 days of his spending.

The basic issue is the spending and the ill advised poorly planned, actually not planned at all spending of this administration. No budget ever passed under Harry Reid? That should be a capital crime.

This administration is a joke that is very hard to laugh at. No plan. No progress. No future for us and no hope for the country.

We are one re-election away from being Greece.

 

[Deuce]

Blah, blah, blah. What gives the government the right to raise the tax on anyone? Why is the tax raised on only some? The increase that Obama is talking about is olly about 7 days of his spending.

The basic issue is the spending and the ill advised poorly planned, actually not planned at all spending of this administration. No budget ever passed under Harry Reid? That should be a capital crime.

This administration is a joke that is very hard to laugh at. No plan. No progress. No future for us and no hope for the country.

We are one re-election away from being Greece.

So, what, taxes can only go down? Or only go down for rich people? The tax cuts passed under the Bush administration had an expiration date. They were intended to be temporary. It's fine when they go down, but suddenly it's communism when they expire?

What gives congress the right to raise taxes? The freaking constitution does that.

But now you're trying to shift the goalposts to spending. Sorry. You twice went with the absolutist rhetoric that raising taxes means someone supports all wealth going to the government. Are you going to acknowledge your backing off that point?

 

[code1211]

So, what, taxes can only go down? Or only go down for rich people? The tax cuts passed under the Bush administration had an expiration date. They were intended to be temporary. It's fine when they go down, but suddenly it's communism when they expire?

What gives congress the right to raise taxes? The freaking constitution does that.

But now you're trying to shift the goalposts to spending. Sorry. You twice went with the absolutist rhetoric that raising taxes means someone supports all wealth going to the government. Are you going to acknowledge your backing off that point?

You have a comprehension problem.

If taxes must go up, then raise taxes on all. If they stay stagnant for some, then let them stagnate for all.

I'm really tired of splitting up the population into this group that gets one favor and that group that gets another.

Don't you think that that we are spending just a tad more than we are collecting? We have already spent all of the money collected in taxes for this calendar year. Everything else is borrowed. We will spend more of the money on the interest on the debt than on Medicaid or on the war in Afghanistan.

To me, this seems like a problem. How about you?

 

[code1211]

So, what, taxes can only go down? Or only go down for rich people? The tax cuts passed under the Bush administration had an expiration date. They were intended to be temporary. It's fine when they go down, but suddenly it's communism when they expire?

What gives congress the right to raise taxes? The freaking constitution does that.

But now you're trying to shift the goalposts to spending. Sorry. You twice went with the absolutist rhetoric that raising taxes means someone supports all wealth going to the government. Are you going to acknowledge your backing off that point?

By the by, the tax cuts passed under the Bush Administration did expire. The current set of tax Cuts including those that were renewed from the Bush Administration and the Stoppage in the payroll taxes to further undermine Social Security are ALL on Obama. These are the Obama Tax Cuts.

 

[Keridan]

The quote was taken out of context, but it wasn't much better in context. I just read the speech again. It's roughly ten pages of him justifying raising taxes and talking about how bad the republicans are. The stuff about how I didn't build my business without help is part of his justifications.

As an employer and a business owner, I already pay far more in taxes for the benefits I receive. I make no denial that I benefit from roads, police, etc. The thing that gets overlooked by so many people is that this is no justification in any manner to raise my taxes.

For the roads, I pay higher gas taxes, I pay extra on the vehicles I use, and I pay more tolls.

For the police and firefighters, I pay more in property taxes and sales taxes when purchasing the items to protect.

For education, I pay my employees more (higher than my competitors, too) and pay higher FICA on them.

It's also worth noting that these are state government items and I pay higher state taxes as well as federal taxes because of the state I live in.

I'm not the 1%. Hell, if I were employed by someone else, I would get money from the federal government because of how little I will take home this year. Instead, my total tax burden this year will be about 44%.

What bothers me is that intelligence, hard work and salesmanship are huge factors. I honestly felt like the President was choking as he threw out his nuggets of acceptance that those even matter and then focused on how everyone else is responsible for my success.

He also shows that he doesn't seem to understand some principals. In 2008 he mentioned how bad of an idea it was to raise taxes during a recession. Now he says it's okay because it didn't kill us during the Clinton years. The difference of a dot-com bubble and a huge recession seems to have been forgotten when it's time to divide the people in order to fund the government an extra 8 days a year.

We are blessed to live in a country that has no revenue problem at all. Unfortunately, the extreme overspending our government does and divisive speeches like these about the wealthy give the wrong impression.

 

[Deuce]

You have a comprehension problem.

If taxes must go up, then raise taxes on all. If they stay stagnant for some, then let them stagnate for all.

I'm really tired of splitting up the population into this group that gets one favor and that group that gets another.

Don't you think that that we are spending just a tad more than we are collecting? We have already spent all of the money collected in taxes for this calendar year. Everything else is borrowed. We will spend more of the money on the interest on the debt than on Medicaid or on the war in Afghanistan.

To me, this seems like a problem. How about you?

So, just ignoring that part where you said "all wealth" then.

 

[code1211]

So, just ignoring that part where you said "all wealth" then.

Context, my friend.

 

[obvious Child]

Blah, blah, blah. What gives the government the right to raise the tax on anyone?

Uh, the very foundation of the country? You know, people signed it a long time ago. We can amend it in a long, painful process? It can overrule certain laws that don't measure up? Heard of it?

We are one re-election away from being Greece.

Not really. Simply doing nothing will cause the Bush tax cuts to kickback. That alone will start significantly reducing the deficit.

People like to compare the US to Greece but the actual real valid similar issues are almost nil.

 

[code1211]

Uh, the very foundation of the country? You know, people signed it a long time ago. We can amend it in a long, painful process? It can overrule certain laws that don't measure up? Heard of it?



Not really. Simply doing nothing will cause the Bush tax cuts to kickback. That alone will start significantly reducing the deficit.


People like to compare the US to Greece but the actual real valid similar issues are almost nil.

Again, the Bush Tax Cuts have expired. The current Tax Cuts are the Obama Tax Cuts.

Regarding the justification to tax, I speak of the moral justification, not the legal one. Do you think of wealth earned by an individual as being the property of that individual or the property of the government?

Income tax is a pretty recent development in the world of taxation. I'm not at all sure that the founders contemplated this as a revenue source.

 

[lunchbox]

I didn't build that

Given your background in small business, I find your remarks mind bending. It's one thing to hear something like that from a radical liberal like Barack Obama, as it's expected.... but you?

I'm curious. If you had to assign a value to your contributions, what percentage of your business' success would you take credit for? Considering the HUGE list of helpers you had, I can't imagine it being more than 1%.

Also, if you didn't build your businesses, do you think it was right to claim ownership of them? Given your overwhelming sense of community mindedness, it seems turning over your businesses to your city government would have been the correct thing to do.

 

[obvious Child]

I'm really tired of splitting up the population into this group that gets one favor and that group that gets another.

Okay. Then you're for a flat tax rate on all income regardless of source? So we'll whack the 1% who make money on low rate income with the same rate as those who earn it via labor?