• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

Where he lacks leadership on issues that matter, he has a preference towards hotwings at aimless beer summits over trivial issues.
Thanks. You really helped everyone understand the very serious issues that we are confronted with today. You're a real political genius there Romulus! :)
 
I agree that Obama has handled this issue very poorly. He said one thing and did another on tax raises. He backed down at least twice when he drew the line and then let the other side convince him to retreat and wave the white flag.

There is nothing to be proud of in the Obama tax record on tax increases.

The time is now to change. We need to let the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire across the board.

I doubt even the demorats want that, you do realize that is a 50% increase in the bottom bracket rate; from 10% to 15%.
 
This is the transcript of what Obama actually said. He is exactly right ... America is strong because we have been a mixed economy.



Fox knows what he is saying and in your mind ... you all know he is exactly correct and that Mitt Romney would agree with this. The alchemists at Fox infotainment were just playing the indoctrinated citizens again!


I have to give credit to Obama for one thing, he knows that Gore didn't invent the internet.
 
I am new to this thread and have noted that I have the option to "like" only some of the posts, and not others. Is there a reason for this? I can't find any pattern to it.

try refreshing the page, or try again later, it's just a glitch.....
 
I think you should learn about the two ideas as evidenced by the following statement and this one..



That argument you just made has it roots in the socialist movement. What it says is the market has an obligation to meet some higher purpose than it lies out. That a certain service is unfit or unfair to the people if the market runs it as such and such service has a high importance to the people and the society as a whole so we as a society can't afford it to be left to the businessman. It's entirely rooted in the movement itself. You might have noticed that Obama used it when talking about healthcare.



No, that is the argument for taxes made by those like yourself.

I know perfectly well what the two ideas represent and I still contend that the two of them(capitalism and socialism) can, have and should continue to coexist as a counterbalance against one another.
We've successfully pulled that very system off for generations in this country! It's not new. It's not radical. What's new and radical is the move by the right to destroy government so that it can no longer act as an intermediary between the free market and the well-being of the citizenry.

Also, I am not sure I understood your "argument for taxes made by those like youself" statement when you referenced my Marxism comment. It was a bit lacking in specificity but am I to take it that you mean by my supporting a progressive tax system I am a Marxist?
 
I know perfectly well what the two ideas represent and I still contend that the two of them(capitalism and socialism) can, have and should continue to coexist as a counterbalance against one another.

That's not what you said. You said you could be a socialist an a capitalist at the same time. No. You cannot.
 
I doubt even the demorats want that, you do realize that is a 50% increase in the bottom bracket rate; from 10% to 15%.
I think the bottom 50% could live with that. And I imagine it would be even less painful(yeah, that's right, I used the word "painful"!) for the top 5% who would see there income go up even further.
Also, I will need to check the numbers again to verify it, but a good number of those in the bottom 50% are actually in a position that they could absorb some more taxes, but many of those in the bottom 50% pay so little, or no taxes at all, that rolling back the BTCs would impact them very minimally.
 
That's not what you said. You said you could be a socialist an a capitalist at the same time. No. You cannot.
It is not possible to be 100% socialist and 100% capitalist at the same time and I did not intend to imply that was so. If I did, it was sloppy writing on my part. It is, however, possible to support elements of socialism and capitalism in the same economic system. In other words, you can embrace elements of both systems. And, most importantly, the two do not necessarily work at odds with one another if balanced correctly. Does that clarify my standing for you?
 
That's not what you said. You said you could be a socialist an a capitalist at the same time. No. You cannot.

your sig.....it is Jefferson deriding the christian clergy of the day....
Thomas Jefferson quotes

but it should be applied liberally to all propagandists, marketers, advertisers, political hacks, or anybody who attempts to lead the less educated astray.
Sad part is, thenumber of less educated among us is increasing exponentially...no way to keep up when they would rather watch "reality" TV...or pro sports....or only one news channel, if that...
 
I have to give credit to Obama for one thing, he knows that Gore didn't invent the internet.
Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Conservatives that say that keep believing it, not because it is true, but because it makes them feel good to believe it so. Here is a link to an article on the subject. FactCheck.org and a whole host of other media have disproven the claim. Just goes to show how difficult it is to stomp out misinformation once it has been disseminated.
snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet
 
Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Conservatives that say that keep believing it, not because it is true, but because it makes them feel good to believe it so. Here is a link to an article on the subject. FactCheck.org and a whole host of other media have disproven the claim. Just goes to show how difficult it is to stomp out misinformation once it has been disseminated.
snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

No, but he claimed that he "took the initiative" to get the ball rolling on inventing the Internet when it already existed well before he was ever in Congress.

(He also claimed his sister was the first member of the Peace Corps and that his mother sang him union songs as lullabyes which weren't written until he was in his late teens.)
 
your sig.....it is Jefferson deriding the christian clergy of the day....
Thomas Jefferson quotes

but it should be applied liberally to all propagandists, marketers, advertisers, political hacks, or anybody who attempts to lead the less educated astray.
Sad part is, thenumber of less educated among us is increasing exponentially...no way to keep up when they would rather watch "reality" TV...or pro sports....or only one news channel, if that...

huh? WHAT should be applied liberally? I am a bit confused as to what, specifically, you are referencing.
 
He wasn't just talking about building roads and bridges. He was saying that success is not possible without govt help. This is not true. If it were true, you should be real pissed off that you are not rich and successful because Pres. Obama let you down.
How successful would any business in America be without the government providing a military to defend this great nation?
 
Feel free to state the former, there is ample evidence of it and, personally, I would be prepared to defend him on this. As to you second statement about government control of ownership over market production, I would like to see more evidence of what you are speaking of . Are you referring to the GM/auto industry issue? If so, I think you are correct about having serious misgivings over the government takeover of this company. Even though there is some evidence that it may be successful(or at least not the disaster that many predicted), I still think it sets a bad precedent and the government overstepped its bounds in the way it took controlling share in the company. But I don't see a desire of Obama to take ownership of the market as a whole. Is there something, specifically, that I am missing? Please share, if so.

I'm glad we agree Obama overreached with the auto industry and that you don't want government "ownership of the market as a whole". The list is long where Obama would like to see more government intervention--PPACA comes to mind, the "green jobs" debacle, among those you've already mentioned. But the topic of this thread dealt with roads and fire related issues. Obama used a fire department as a backdrop and pretended more government is necessary for certain services (such as highways). It has been my contention throughout this thread (and another similar one) that very little government is necessary for fire and infrastructure services.
 
No, but he claimed that he "took the initiative" to get the ball rolling on inventing the Internet when it already existed well before he was ever in Congress.

(He also claimed his sister was the first member of the Peace Corps and that his mother sang him union songs as lullabyes which weren't written until he was in his late teens.)

He sponsored a number of bills while he was a congressman that advanced the development of the internet. That is a fact. Perhaps his wording in that one single interview that conservatives have so launcehed into was a bit clumsy, but that doesn't make him a liar. As far as the Peace Corps and lullabyes stories go, I'll have to look into that, as I've never heard it. I will look into them. Just from the sounds of it I am supposing it a possibility that he simply recalled incorrectly. I have made similar mistakes in my life(swearing to my sister just the other day that one of our childhood babysitters lived in a particular house. Turns out that my memory was just mixed up on the matter, not that I was a liar!), so I'm always willing to give politicians some degree of leeway when they have inaccuracies in the telling of their youth stories.
 
Thanks. You really helped everyone understand the very serious issues that we are confronted with today. You're a real political genius there Romulus! :)

Hey, I didn't bring up hotwings! :3oops: They make me think of beer, I couldn't help myself.
 
I'm glad we agree Obama overreached with the auto industry and that you don't want government "ownership of the market as a whole". The list is long where Obama would like to see more government intervention--PPACA comes to mind, the "green jobs" debacle, among those you've already mentioned. But the topic of this thread dealt with roads and fire related issues. Obama used a fire department as a backdrop and pretended more government is necessary for certain services (such as highways). It has been my contention throughout this thread (and another similar one) that very little government is necessary for fire and infrastructure services.
So how would you suggest that we fund the building and maintaining of roads in the country(I assume that is one of the things you are referring to when you say "infrastructure")? This sounds like a good place to begin.
 
No, but he claimed that he "took the initiative" to get the ball rolling on inventing the Internet when it already existed well before he was ever in Congress.
No, he didn't say that either as he never claimed to "invent" any aspect of the Internet. :roll:

What he claimed was that he passed legislation which helped create the Internet as we know it. Prior to his legislation, it was used privately within the military and some universities. Al Gore pushed through legislation that helped commercialize it to become the Internet like it is today.
 
What branch of the military did Obama serve in?
Who said that he did?

But he is a member of the government which funds the military.

Were you asking as a diversion from the question I asked? Because I couldn't help but notice you avoided answering it.
 
huh? WHAT should be applied liberally? I am a bit confused as to what, specifically, you are referencing.

wasn't meant for you specifically, it is about Harshaw's signature quote
 
So how would you suggest that we fund the building and maintaining of roads in the country(I assume that is one of the things you are referring to when you say "infrastructure")? This sounds like a good place to begin.

Funding isn't an issue, about 70 to 75% of highways and interstates are funded through users fees. Which is cool with me but that funding mechanism should be 100% user fees. Raising the capital required for infrastructure doesn't justify the bloated multi-billion dollar federal bureaucratic institutions that we have. In fact, the agencies taxed with raising funding for highways are separate from those who "build" highways. I intentionally use scare quotes there because the government doesn't build highways, private contractors do.
 
I know perfectly well what the two ideas represent and I still contend that the two of them(capitalism and socialism) can, have and should continue to coexist as a counterbalance against one another.
We've successfully pulled that very system off for generations in this country! It's not new. It's not radical. What's new and radical is the move by the right to destroy government so that it can no longer act as an intermediary between the free market and the well-being of the citizenry.

They can't. One naturally destories the other and the principles it lays out. Regardless, that is not what you said before.

Also, I am not sure I understood your "argument for taxes made by those like youself" statement when you referenced my Marxism comment. It was a bit lacking in specificity but am I to take it that you mean by my supporting a progressive tax system I am a Marxist?

I call you a planned economy socialist because that is what you are. The progressive tax system is a system of theft by the state to interfere with the distribution of resources, and yes, that is socialist. The argument of funding the state has little to do with the argument behind the progressive tax system and you shouldn't confuse the two.
 
It is not possible to be 100% socialist and 100% capitalist at the same time and I did not intend to imply that was so. If I did, it was sloppy writing on my part. It is, however, possible to support elements of socialism and capitalism in the same economic system. In other words, you can embrace elements of both systems. And, most importantly, the two do not necessarily work at odds with one another if balanced correctly. Does that clarify my standing for you?

Taking over industry or interfering with resources and how they are aligned naturally does interfere with capitalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom