• 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: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

You've been a member here 5 years and you don't know how this works? He questioned moderation publically. That's a pretty big no no.

I understand and respect the wishes of the mods - I just hope that you respect my wishes to leave. He was dead on in his responses concerning the topic of this thread... Didn't see what he said about the mods, but I wish he hadn't said that.....

Anyway, take it easy.
 
I agree with you. I don't like to follow the mob and I do enjoy thinking and analyzing for myself. And when I have questions or concerns, I ask or express them. That's what I'm doing here.

So, Pinkie, do you have any answers or insights to my questions? I am being quite sincere when I say that I really would like to know more.

Well, 75% of 0 is 0. Everyone will do better if the economy recovers, and I have no insight as to how best to do that -- but I am utterly unmoved by the "trickle down" ideas from Romney, having living through the 1970's Recession.

That said, there are a variety of ways to look at "fair share". First, is government as lean and mean as it could be?

I believe I can get an "Amen" on that from everyone.

So, once we know where "the bottom" is, do we need a tax hike? Probably -- we borrow like a freshman in college with a new credit card.

Who should pay that increase?

Well, alas, all the money that fuels this economy is owned by the wealthy. If we disincentivize savings or investment, we are all screwed. So there is a limit on what we can gouge them for.

Can't gouge the poor, because of no blood from stones reality.

I'd like to take as much from the wealthy as possible before laying off an additional tax increase on the middle class. This is because a $1,000 increase in a tax bill at my house is going to deprive me of far more discretionary income than one such at Bill Gates' house.

So, I don't know what should be done -- but I have a feel for what guides I want my government to follow when they decide.

 
Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

I understand and respect the wishes of the mods - I just hope that you respect my wishes to leave. He was dead on in his responses concerning the topic of this thread... Didn't see what he said about the mods, but I wish he hadn't said that.....

Anyway, take it easy.

Of course, it's your choice. Peace.
 
Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'


People are very jumpy, Mya. it's always like this at election time, and this is probably a more important election than most.

It'll pass.
 
Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

I understand and respect the wishes of the mods - I just hope that you respect my wishes to leave. He was dead on in his responses concerning the topic of this thread... Didn't see what he said about the mods, but I wish he hadn't said that.....

Anyway, take it easy.

Be well, Nightrider. I hope you'll reconsider.

 
Put it another way. What he is saying to everyone is:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Really??!!

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (alternatively, "There's no such thing as a free lunch" or other variants) is a popular adage communicating the idea that it is impossible to get something for nothing. The initialisms TNSTAFL, TANSTAAFL, and TINSTAAFL are also used. Uses of the phrase dating back to the 1930s and 1940s have been found, but the phrase's first appearance is unknown.[1] The "free lunch" in the saying refers to the nineteenth century practice in American bars of offering a "free lunch" as a way to entice drinking customers. The phrase and the acronym are central to Robert Heinlein's 1966 libertarian science fiction novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which popularized it.[2][3] The free-market economist Milton Friedman also popularized the phrase[1] by using it as the title of a 1975 book, and it often appears in economics textbooks;[4] Campbell McConnell writes that the idea is "at the core of economics".[5]

"Free lunch"

The "free lunch" referred to in the acronym relates back to the once-common tradition of saloons in the United States providing a "free" lunch to patrons who had purchased at least one drink. All the foods on offer were high in salt (e.g. ham, cheese and salted crackers) so those who ate them ended up buying a lot of beer. Rudyard Kipling, writing in 1891, noted how he came upon a bar room full of bad Salon pictures, in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter.

"It was the institution of the 'free lunch' I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts."[6]

TANSTAAFL, on the other hand, indicates an acknowledgment that in reality a person or a society cannot get "something for nothing". Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole even though that cost may be hidden or distributed. For example, as Heinlein has one of his characters point out, a bar offering a free lunch will likely charge more for its drinks.[7]

Meanings

TANSTAAFL demonstrates opportunity cost. Greg Mankiw described the concept as: "To get one thing that we like, we usually have to give up another thing that we like. Making decisions requires trading off one goal against another."[13] The idea that there is no free lunch at the societal level applies only when all resources are being used completely and appropriately, i.e., when economic efficiency prevails. If not, a 'free lunch' can be had through a more efficient utilisation of resources. If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.

In the sciences, TANSTAAFL means that the universe as a whole is ultimately a closed system—there is no magic source of matter, energy, light, or indeed lunch, that does not draw resources from something else, and will not eventually be exhausted. Therefore the TANSTAAFL argument may also be applied to natural physical processes in a closed system (either the universe as a whole, or any system that does not receive energy or matter from outside). (See Second law of thermodynamics.) The bio-ecologist Barry Commoner used this concept as the last of his famous "Four Laws of Ecology".

In mathematical finance, the term is also used as an informal synonym for the principle of no-arbitrage. This principle states that a combination of securities that has the same cash flows as another security must have the same net price in equilibrium.

TANSTAAFL is sometimes used as a response to claims of the virtues of free software. Supporters of free software often counter that the use of the term "free" in this context is primarily a reference to a lack of constraint ("libre") rather than a lack of cost ("gratis"). Richard Stallman has described it as "free as in speech not as in beer".

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now...in that whole wiki article, there is no mention of "fair share" or anything like it. Plus, TANSTAAFL doesn't answer my questions: Exactly what is their fair share? Who decides? And what happens if I don't do what Obama considers my "fair share"?
 
Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

I liked him - why was he banned?

I guess that if someone can't express their right to freedom of speech in this forum, I would like no part of it either.

Adios (I won't be back).

Moderator's Warning:
1) Commenting PUBLICLY on Mod action is strictly forbidden at DP.
2) This forum has rules. You agree to abide by them when you sign up. People get infracted and sometimes banned for breaking those rules.
3) What happened to 4Horseman is was a result of him breaking forum rules.
4) If anyone further comments publicly on this action, you would also be making a "poor choice".
 
Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

People are very jumpy, Mya. it's always like this at election time, and this is probably a more important election than most.

It'll pass.


Who's jumpy my friend??? we are ok here ... all of us .... we are cool :mrgreen: we are just fine thank you very much !:peace;)
 
Well, 75% of 0 is 0. Everyone will do better if the economy recovers, and I have no insight as to how best to do that -- but I am utterly unmoved by the "trickle down" ideas from Romney, having living through the 1970's Recession.

That said, there are a variety of ways to look at "fair share". First, is government as lean and mean as it could be?

I believe I can get an "Amen" on that from everyone.

So, once we know where "the bottom" is, do we need a tax hike? Probably -- we borrow like a freshman in college with a new credit card.

Who should pay that increase?

Well, alas, all the money that fuels this economy is owned by the wealthy. If we disincentivize savings or investment, we are all screwed. So there is a limit on what we can gouge them for.

Can't gouge the poor, because of no blood from stones reality.

I'd like to take as much from the wealthy as possible before laying off an additional tax increase on the middle class. This is because a $1,000 increase in a tax bill at my house is going to deprive me of far more discretionary income than one such at Bill Gates' house.

So, I don't know what should be done -- but I have a feel for what guides I want my government to follow when they decide.


Obama's words were "everyone is doing their fair share" not "everyone is paying their fair share". So, I believe you've spoken about the wrong point in your post.
 
Obama's words were "everyone is doing their fair share" not "everyone is paying their fair share". So, I believe you've spoken about the wrong point in your post.

What would Obama like me to do, apart from paying my taxes?
 
For a President to say that nobody is is entitled to success in the USA? :roll:

That's plain wrong.

I'm confused. The Republican Party has been saying this for a while now, and it was true then.
 
What would Obama like me to do, apart from paying my taxes?

shrug...

I don't know. That's why I'm asking and that's why I'm more concerned about that part of his statement than the "We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country" part that everyone is going on about.
 
shrug...

I don't know. That's why I'm asking and that's why I'm more concerned about that part of his statement than the "We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country" part that everyone is going on about.

I'm fairly confident you misunderstood him, Mycroft.

I don't think Obama will reinstate the draft or anything.
 
I'm fairly confident you misunderstood him, Mycroft.

I don't think Obama will reinstate the draft or anything.

Gulags.




.
 
I'm pretty sure Obama isn't culpable of being called a socialist commie HERE.

I think what he meant was that nobody is given success off the bat. You need to earn it... by taking the opportunities that are given to you, and that america is still the land of opportunity.

However, it did come out wrong. I think Obama is showing his exhaustion. No surprise seeing as how he has been campaigning for about 2 years already.
 
I'm fairly confident you misunderstood him, Mycroft.

I don't think Obama will reinstate the draft or anything.

Oh, I don't think he will either. And, to be honest, I don't think I've "misunderstood" him...I just don't understand what he's saying and that's why I'm asking my questions.

So far, nobody's ventured to answer them.

Maybe nobody really knows what he means, eh? I can see that possibility and I find it kind of curious that nobody asks him.
 
Or maybe you should stop taking them out of context.

Whichever you prefer I guess.

I think he does actually need to watch his tongue a little more carefully. He doesn't exactly give off the impression he respects people that are successful and what they have done to get there and when he makes comments like this people will see nothing but further contempt towards it. You may not like it, but when people see comments like this they are reminded of his earlier comments on wealth and success and regardless if it should be applied here or not its should be understood by Obama that is the impression he gives to people. If he wants to make these kind of comments and have his views on taxes and wealth that he has he should keep away from open ended comments like this.
 
Oh, I don't think he will either. And, to be honest, I don't think I've "misunderstood" him...I just don't understand what he's saying and that's why I'm asking my questions.

So far, nobody's ventured to answer them.

Maybe nobody really knows what he means, eh? I can see that possibility and I find it kind of curious that nobody asks him.

Meh, I did not have the same confusion. But it's all puffery.

And as Mya pointed out, not especially good puffery.
 
I think he does actually need to watch his tongue a little more carefully. He doesn't exactly give off the impression he respects people that are successful and what they have done to get there and when he makes comments like this people will see nothing but further contempt towards it. You may not like it, but when people see comments like this they are reminded of his earlier comments on wealth and success and regardless if it should be applied here or not its should be understood by Obama that is the impression he gives to people. If he wants to make these kind of comments and have his views on taxes and wealth that he has he should keep away from open ended comments like this.

I agree, that is the subtext.

But this is a campaign speech. There's no upside to him courting the wealthy -- they'll never vote for him. He can win if he galvanizes the poor and (some of) the middle class to vote. Much as I loathe it, I do thinking pandering to the class warfare motif is a winning strategy as long as he does so effectively but not openly.

Because if they vote, they'll vote for him.
 
I'm confused. The Republican Party has been saying this for a while now, and it was true then.

True, but they don't have the tax views or an aroma of hating wealth that he has. They can very easily make comments like this and everyone knows exactly what they mean. Obama really should keep away from things like this. Fear can be a funny thing and when people feel like their fear has merit its best to know where the turns in the road are and keep away from certain neighborhoods. Both parties have neighborhoods they should avoid and success is the democrats neighborhood they should not go in.
 
I think he does actually need to watch his tongue a little more carefully. He doesn't exactly give off the impression he respects people that are successful and what they have done to get there and when he makes comments like this people will see nothing but further contempt towards it. You may not like it, but when people see comments like this they are reminded of his earlier comments on wealth and success and regardless if it should be applied here or not its should be understood by Obama that is the impression he gives to people. If he wants to make these kind of comments and have his views on taxes and wealth that he has he should keep away from open ended comments like this.

Not so.

He gives that impression to people who had the pre-conceived incorrect notion that he:

A: Hates the successful.

B: Is a socialist.

If you already believe that, of course you're going to find that comment to mean what I said above.

But that's your problem, not his and certainly not those among us who don't have to take words out of context to find meanings in things that don't exist.

And by the way it's wrong no matter who does it.

That whole "You didn't build that" was complete crap taken completely out of context in the same way that it's being done here.
 
Meh, I did not have the same confusion. But it's all puffery.

And as Mya pointed out, not especially good puffery.

Puffery??

Does that mean I should just disregard these words?

Tell me, how am I to know what he says is puffery and what is not? Which of the following is puffery?

"...everybody is getting a fair shot..."

"...everybody is doing their fair share..."

"...everybody is playing by the same rules..."

Or, is it ALL puffery?

In honesty, Pinkie, I think "confusion" is the wrong word. I'm not confused, I'm just asking questions and I don't think you are confused...you are just not asking questions. Now, that's your choice. No problem. But you're not helping me any.
 
Puffery??

Does that mean I should just disregard these words?

Tell me, how am I to know what he says is puffery and what is not? Which of the following is puffery?

"...everybody is getting a fair shot..."

"...everybody is doing their fair share..."

"...everybody is playing by the same rules..."

Or, is it ALL puffery?

In honesty, Pinkie, I think "confusion" is the wrong word. I'm not confused, I'm just asking questions and I don't think you are confused...you are just not asking questions. Now, that's your choice. No problem. But you're not helping me any.

I think it's the difference between the list of ingredients on a jar of peanut butter and the Madison Avenue ad for a brand of peanut butter. Both tell you things you may want to know about the manufacturer, etc. but to answer a question such as you are asking takes research.

Elections are about emotions, Mycroft. Not for you, obviously -- this is not how you vote. But I assure you, if Romney can get one good catchphrase embedded in people's minds and Obama makes a single gaffe (between now and the election), Obama can lose. It's herd behavior, and cannot be understood on a purely rational level.
 
Back
Top Bottom