Page 95 of 149 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105145 ... LastLast
Results 941 to 950 of 1482

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

  1. #941
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    No, but it is interesting that Romney seems to be basing his entire campaign on a fraud. lol
    You would at least categorize the sentence most widely repeated as a gaff, wouldn't ya?

  2. #942
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-24-13 @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,001

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    No, but it is interesting that Romney seems to be basing his entire campaign on a fraud. lol
    A Romney presidency would be basically identical to an Obama presidency.

    It's a fraud when these candidates claim otherwise.

  3. #943
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Hilarity should ensue

    Star of Romney ‘My Hands Didn’t Build This’ Ad Received Millions in Government Loans and Contracts
    The New Hampshire Union Leader’s John DiStato today reports that in 1999 the business in question, Gilchrist Metal, “received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority ‘to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment’…” In addition, in 2011, Gilchrist Metal “received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008…”

    The businessman, Jack Gilchrist, also acknowledged that in the 1980s the company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling “somewhere south of” $500,000, and matching funds from the federally-funded New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center.

    This next bit is truly 'special'
    “I’m not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government,” Gilchrest said. “As far as I’m concerned, I’m getting some of my tax money back. I’m not stupid, I’m not going to say ‘no.’ Shame on me if I didn’t use what’s available.”
    How can you say you're "getting some of my tax money back" when some of the government funding helped you start the business - that is before you were paying much in taxes?

    The question is being raised everyday; if Mitt Romney is running on his "executive experience" why are so many of the people he has employed to run his campaign completely incompetent? From Etch-a-Sketch guy to the clowns who created this ad without bothering to investigate the man's past, Mitt's campaign workers show their lack of skills and knowledge every day. The American electorate is supposed to think hiring dimwits and incompetents is a positive?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #944
    Student
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    09-05-12 @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    229

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    If it weren't for the private toll road you were able to take, there would be no road to where you wanted to go. Mexico is no bastion of free market capitalism, they just don't have the tax base to build the infrastructure seen in developed countries without capital investment. Also, businesses don't work like you described, they don't price themselves out of market share in order to save costs. Your favorite strip club would never double the price of drinks and admissions in order to save wear and tear to the carpet.
    First of all, they are not "pricing themselves out of market share" because there is no market share to be had-they already have all the market share in this particular case. They are, in essence, a monopoly and they alone get to set the prices on the road and do not have to compete with any other company in the area. My point here is that they found a price point that maximized there profits, not maximized traffic to help the local economies. Vehicle usage on a road has huge impact on road maintenance itself(unlike the carpet wear in your analogy, which is a corollary minor cost). If a private company has a toll price of $2 and is getting 3000 vehicles each day, but they research the matter and recognize that if they set a price of $6, they will only get 2000 vehicles each day, guess what they will opt for? It's a no-brainer, they would set it at $6, take the extra money, and cut down on road repairs to boot. BUT if they actually owned all of the little towns alongside the road, they would actually set the pricepoint in order to maximize traffic because then they would make serious money on the hotels, souvenir shops etc. that were in the towns. (The stipclub owner doesn't really care about minor wear and tear on his carpet because he knows that waitresses are probably walking across that carpet to deliver very expensive drinks(profit) to the clientel.) So my point is this: THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF A PRIVATE COMPANY CAN BE AND ARE, IN SOME CASES, DYAMMETRICALLY OPPOSED THE INTERESTS(ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL ETC) OF THE CITIZENS THEY ARE "SERVING". This is not up for debate, and I can give you hundreds of examples of this. For this reason, it is sometimes actually better to let government run some of the things which are so critical to our economy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    Again, this assumes the people of Mexico could afford the increase in users fees needed for a toll free road. Or, assumes investors would trust the Mexican government enough to issue bonds to finance the road's construction. They obviously didn't or couldn't, so your anxiety over the toll price is silly considering you might of had to ride a donkey to your destination if not for the toll road.
    I disagree and I do assume that Mexico has the money to build roads. It has more than enough money to build roads. What they don't have is a sound and moral government that protects the interests of its people. I've lived and travelled in Mexico extensively and I can almost guarantee you that they could have built the road themselves, but instead a few corrupt local politicians greased their own palms and gifted the contract to a group of millionaires.
    Last edited by zeusomally; 07-23-12 at 11:37 PM.

  5. #945
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Masada View Post
    Most of what you said is inaccurate. These exchanges are private companies, I said that earlier. But you are wrong about them setting their premiums. What is stated in the bill, is that these private companies, who are part of the exchange, can set their own MINIMUM premiums, but they are capped on the top side. Meaning, the exchange will determine the maximum cost for the premiums, and the exchange will also have sole discretion on any future increases in premiums, and by what percentage. So, if a private company does a cost analysis of premiums vs. claims, and determines they need to raise premiums by 12%, they can't just do it, it has to be approved through the committee.
    I think you are mistaken. Can you please cite the section(s) of ACA that lead you to conclude that premiums can be set by anyone other than the insurance companies participating in the exchanges?

    So, who does the "committee" consist of? Mostly politicians, the director of health and human services (Sebelius), and appointees of the administration. In other words, it's controlled by the government, not the private sector.
    And please cite the section discussing the alleged committee that controls premium increases.

    The only reason private companies support the ACA is because of the individual mandate. That's it. Nothing else. They are wrong to assume this is good business for them.
    All due respect, but I think that this multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry, with its legion of lawyers, accountants, and actuaries, probably has a better idea of what's good for it than you do.

    Your other point about covering large pools is meaningless too, and only adds to the problem. According to the info I've received, there will be no more than 10 carriers that are offered through the government exchange. With a good possibility that the Department of Health and Human Services develops their own "government plan" to compete with private companies within the exchange (unfair advantage because it will be subsidized with tax money).
    Again, the info. you've received is bull****. First, states are responsible for setting up their own exchanges. They can choose the carriers they prefer. If they choose not to do the work then the residents of the state will have access to the federal exchange. There will be no "government plan" as the public option was specifically nixed. There can, however, be independent nonprofit cooperatives.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #946
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zeusomally View Post
    First of all, they are not "pricing themselves out of market share" because there is no market share to be had-they already have all the market share in this particular case. They are, in essence, a monopoly and they alone get to set the prices on the road and do not have to compete with any other company in the area. My point here is that they found a price point that maximized there profits, not maximized traffic to help the local economies. Vehicle usage on a road has huge impact on road maintenance itself(unlike the carpet wear in your analogy, which is a corollary minor cost). If a private company has a toll price of $2 and is getting 3000 vehicles each day, but they research the matter and recognize that if they set a price of $6, they will only get 2000 vehicles each day, guess what they will opt for? It's a no-brainer, they would set it at $6, take the extra money, and cut down on road repairs to boot. BUT if they actually owned all of the little towns alongside the road, they would actually set the pricepoint in order to maximize traffic because then they would make serious money on the hotels, souvenir shops etc. that were in the towns. (The stipclub owner doesn't really care about minor wear and tear on his carpet because he knows that waitresses are probably walking across that carpet to deliver very expensive drinks(profit) to the clientel.) So my point is this: THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF A PRIVATE COMPANY CAN BE AND ARE, IN SOME CASES, DYAMMETRICALLY OPPOSED THE INTERESTS(ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL ETC) OF THE CITIZENS THEY ARE "SERVING". This is not up for debate, and I can give you hundreds of examples of this. For this reason, it is sometimes actually better to let government run some of the things which are so critical to our economy.
    Most road wear and tear is associated with weathering and large trucks not tourist traffic. To your larger point yes, sometimes government has to step and protect individuals from business--those instances are rare--and the onus of proof is on those calling for government intervention. Because the vast majority of our current regulatory environment--albeit well intentioned by some consumer activists--simply act as protection for large corporations from smaller competitors.

    I disagree and I do assume that Mexico has the money to build roads. It has more than enough money to build roads. What they don't have is a sound and moral government that protects the interests of its people. I've lived and travelled in Mexico extensively and I can almost guarantee you that they could have built the road themselves, but instead a few corrupt local politicians greased their own palms and gifted the contract to a group of millionaires.
    Ya, I looked into this, Mexico just doesn't have much money to build roads:

    Mexico still banks on privately run toll roads

    From the article...

    Still, President Felipe Calderon is touting toll roads as a solution to Mexico's infrastructure woes. His administration is moving aggressively to award contracts to private companies to finance, build and maintain highways -- and charge motorists to use them.

    It's a strategy embraced by cash-strapped governments worldwide.

    But it's highly controversial in Mexico, where La Autopista del Sol remains a potholed reminder of the risks of privatization.

    "Mexico is the poster child for how to do [highway privatization] wrong," said Robert Poole, a transportation expert at the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, a libertarian research organization. "Now they have a chance to redeem themselves."

    Mostly, Mexico's motivation boils down to a lack of money in government coffers.
    Take away private toll roads, and you'd be riding a donkey at 4mph to your destination. We here in the U.S. are doing fine with publicly financing our roads through users fees, just understand we can afford those user fees because we are rich (relative to Mexicans), because we have relatively more economic freedom than Mexicans. Remember though, at the federal level we have a useless multi-billion dollar bureaucratic middle man that should be cut from our budget. This is not what Obama wants to do.

  7. #947
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    My understanding is that fuel taxes and other fees only cover about 1/3 of the cost of road construction and maintenance, and the amount is diminishing as cars and trucks become more fuel efficient.
    Last edited by AdamT; 07-24-12 at 12:46 AM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #948
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    My understanding is that fuel taxes and other fees only cover about 1/3 of the cost of road construction and maintenance, and the amount is diminishing as cars and trucks become more fuel efficient.

    Are you talking about Federal highways or are you conflating spending by states and towns that are paid for seperatly.

  9. #949
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Are you talking about Federal highways or are you conflating spending by states and towns that are paid for seperatly.
    I'm talking about federal highways.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #950
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I'm talking about federal highways.
    Try 93%. ...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •