• 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]

Grant said:
In fact Mitt Romney has an excellent reputation throughout the business world though if you have something you can legitimately pin on him then the Obama campaign, and many others, would like to know what it is.
Click to expand...

Lots of mergers and acquisitions that were blessed by the business community involved a reduction in the labor force of the target business. How is this the "growth" you guys seem to think Romney will bring the US?

Are you aware of the storied corruption of Chicago politics?
Click to expand...

Yup. Are you aware that the Mayor of Chicago is not simultaneously a professor at Harvard Law School?

What you are suggesting, Grant, is that no one who has ever lived in Chicago should be elected President, which is preposterous on its face.
 
Mycroft said:
As I said, this isn't the first time he's said those words. Here they are...with context:



My questions remain:

What is my "fair share" that I should be doing?

Who decides what my "fair share" is?

What happens if I don't do my "fair share"?
Click to expand...

Pay. Your. Taxes.

This has become a silly argument, Mycroft.

 
Pinkie said:
You are banging on his use of the term "fair share". What could that mean, apart from dividing up the pain -- and if not the pain of taxes, then what?
Click to expand...

Ahhh...I see. You are still on the "paying" thing. As I said the last time you talked about paying, Obama didn't say "Everyone PAYS their fair share"...he said "Everyone DOES his fair share".

As to what else he could mean...THAT'S what I'm asking.

What is my "fair share" that I should be doing?

Who decides what my "fair share" is?

What happens if I don't do my "fair share"?

Now, if, as you say, it has to do with taxes why would he use the same phrase in a context that has nothing to do with taxes? Is it a phrase that has no meaning? Does he just pop it out whenever he thinks it'll sound good? That would be in line with your stuff about puffery, but if true, then as I asked, how do we determine what he says is puffery and what he says is not? Or do we consider everything he says to be puffery?
 
X Factor said:
I notice you never answered my question. If nobody is entitled to success, does that include the people who already have earned it? I would prefer some lip service, for once, about how you are somewhat entitled to keep the fruits of the sucess you earn. The word "entitle" and it's variation doesn't always have to mean government entitlements (though, I'm not surprised that's what you immediately think of. Lol. J/k).
Click to expand...

I did answer your question, sorry you didn't like the answer. I said it depended on how the person earned the wealth. I've a feeling you might be applauding the Bernie Madoffs of this world right up to the point at which they are arrested. There are ethical and unethical ways of earning wealth, and those are not to be confused with legal and illegal ways of doing so. They are not always the same thing.
 
Pinkie said:
Pay. Your. Taxes.

This has become a silly argument, Mycroft.
Click to expand...

When he used that phrase in the debate, he wasn't talking about "Pay. Your. Taxes.".


btw, Pinkie, I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking questions that nobody appears to want to answer.
 
Mycroft said:
As I said, this isn't the first time he's said those words. Here they are...with context:



My questions remain:

What is my "fair share" that I should be doing?

Who decides what my "fair share" is?

What happens if I don't do my "fair share"?
Click to expand...

Thanks this has more substance rather than an invitation for an open ended interpretation.

Obama has historically used the term "fair share " when referring to taxes IIRC. He has been criticized for this for example, "Republicans dispute Obama's 'fair share' claims, say top earners already pay enough"..: |Republicans dispute Obama's 'fair share' claims, say top earners already pay enough Fox News


The fair share is determined by U.S.C. 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE passed by Congress. In the US we have what is called a progressive tax system where individuals tax liability is determined by a number of factors including: income, deductions, credits etc. Once all those are taken into account a final tax liability is determined.

A person must file a tax return even if it is incorrect or incomplete thereafter they can file an amended return. Should they not file a return they are breaking the law.
 
Mya said:
For a President to say that nobody is is entitled to success in the USA? :roll:

That's plain wrong.
Click to expand...

How the **** is that "plain wrong?" Hasn't it been mostly conservatives who have been claiming that nobody is entitled to anything in this country? What precisely did Obama say that is so controversial?
 
Mya said:
For a President to say that nobody is is entitled to success in the USA? :roll:

That's plain wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you think that is wrong. They are entitled to the opportunity to succeed, not success in and of itself.

This is more a 'conservative' view than a 'liberal' view, so it's kinda surprising Obama would say it, however, considering he is in campaign mode, and a lot of the crap thrown at him has been about him wanting equal outcomes, it makes sense he would say it. If he believes it or not is a different matter.

To even suggest that equality of outcome is what the government should be pushing, suggest the desire for government involvement in a hell of a lot more than it's already got it's fingers in, and also suggests a form of government we do not have, nor would most want.
 
Pinkie said:
Lots of mergers and acquisitions that were blessed by the business community involved a reduction in the labor force of the target business. How is this the "growth" you guys seem to think Romney will bring the US?
Click to expand...

Failing companies were targeted which Romney felt might be saved. Among those he saved were Staples, Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunk' Donuts, Sealy, Toys 'R Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel.

How many people do you think work for these companies and owe their jobs to Mitt Romney?
Yup. Are you aware that the Mayor of Chicago is not simultaneously a professor at Harvard Law School?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am and never claimed otherwise.
What you are suggesting, Grant, is that no one who has ever lived in Chicago should be elected President, which is preposterous on its face.
Click to expand...

Rather than go with what you think I 'suggest", why not go with what I actually say and then respond to that?
 
StillBallin75 said:
How the **** is that "plain wrong?" Hasn't it been mostly conservatives who have been claiming that nobody is entitled to anything in this country? What precisely did Obama say that is so controversial?
Click to expand...

Don't expect Mya to respond to such a question. They pounced on the statement and now run away from their flawed interpretation of it.
 
Connery said:
Thanks this has more substance rather than an invitation for an open ended interpretation.

Obama has historically used the term "fair share " when referring to taxes IIRC. He has been criticized for this for example, "Republicans dispute Obama's 'fair share' claims, say top earners already pay enough"..: |Republicans dispute Obama's 'fair share' claims, say top earners already pay enough Fox News


The fair share is determined by U.S.C. 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE passed by Congress. In the US we have what is called a progressive tax system where individuals tax liability is determined by a number of factors including: income, deductions, credits etc. Once all those are taken into account a final tax liability is determined.

A person must file a tax return even if it is incorrect or incomplete thereafter they can file an amended return. Should they not file a return they are breaking the law.
Click to expand...

So if the "fair share" has already been determined, what is he rabbiting on about?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The difference between "entitled to" and "earned" is "just semantics".
That's quite an answer right there in itself.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't semantics at all. When people say it's semantics they mean that people are using different words to mean the same thing. That is not at all the case with "entitled" versus "earned". Entitled means that you have it coming to you whether or not you earned it.
 
Grant said:
Failing companies were targeted which Romney felt might be saved. Among those he saved were Staples, Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunk' Donuts, Sealy, Toys 'R Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel.

How many people do you think work for these companies and owe their jobs to Mitt Romney?
Click to expand...

How is this anything other than a redistribution of wealth to those YOU see as more deserving of it, Grant?

Point is, thousands lost their jobs, and thus anyone who believes jobs growth is a task government should perform should not vote for Romney.

Yes, I am and never claimed otherwise.

Rather than go with what you think I 'suggest", why not go with what I actually say and then respond to that?
Click to expand...

I was pointing the foolish but logical extension of your argument. Please, feel free to start babbling about William Ayers, if you feel you must.
 
Grant said:
Failing companies were targeted which Romney felt might be saved. Among those he saved were Staples, Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunk' Donuts, Sealy, Toys 'R Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel.

How many people do you think work for these companies and owe their jobs to Mitt Romney?

Yes, I am and never claimed otherwise.


Rather than go with what you think I 'suggest", why not go with what I actually say and then respond to that?
Click to expand...

Romney "saved" them? By doing what? Being on the board of directors for companies hardly qualifies as having "saved" a company anymore than being CEO means you've founded them. Let's take Staples, what measures, did Romney take to "save" it?
 
Pinkie said:
The government needs more money and he's discussing who should pay that increase.
Click to expand...


What I see is Obama repeating a phrase that has a nebulous meaning. You know...repeat something long enough and it becomes true. Even though nobody knows what he really means.
 
Mycroft said:
What I see is Obama repeating a phrase that has a nebulous meaning. You know...repeat something long enough and it becomes true. Even though nobody knows what he really means.
Click to expand...

I've already said this, and your rejoinder was "it must mean something".

Geeze louise, Mycroft.
 
Pinkie said:
How is this anything other than a redistribution of wealth to those YOU see as more deserving of it, Grant?

Point is, thousands lost their jobs, and thus anyone who believes jobs growth is a task government should perform should not vote for Romney.



I was pointing the foolish but logical extension of your argument. Please, feel free to start babbling about William Ayers, if you feel you must.
Click to expand...
When those businesses were bought and reorganized and revitalized, it was due to the REALITY that those businesses were struggling and at risk. WHat was done with those businesses is no different than what Obama and the fed did with GM. Factories were shut down, car dealers and their entire staffs were shut down and denied rolling stock. Jobs were reorganized and yes...gasp...many jobs were transferred overseas. Non union employees were stripped of their pension plans. Whe...because Obama was evil? No..because GM had failed and continued to make bad business decisions and the company was beyond 'at risk'. So...if your final premise is that because Romney and Bain caused some people to lose their jobs while reorganizing already failing businesses and therefore you should not vote for Romney, well, you have to apply that same thought process to Obama...which means there are going to be a WHOLE LOT of third party or non-voters this year.
 
VanceMack said:
When those businesses were bought and reorganized and revitalized, it was due to the REALITY that those businesses were struggling and at risk. WHat was done with those businesses is no different than what Obama and the fed did with GM. Factories were shut down, car dealers and their entire staffs were shut down and denied rolling stock. Jobs were reorganized and yes...gasp...many jobs were transferred overseas. Non union employees were stripped of their pension plans. Whe...because Obama was evil? No..because GM had failed and continued to make bad business decisions and the company was beyond 'at risk'. So...if your final premise is that because Romney and Bain caused some people to lose their jobs while reorganizing already failing businesses and therefore you should not vote for Romney, well, you have to apply that same thought process to Obama...which means there are going to be a WHOLE LOT of third party or non-voters this year.
Click to expand...

Great response to a nonsensically partisan post.
 
VanceMack said:
When those businesses were bought and reorganized and revitalized, it was due to the REALITY that those businesses were struggling and at risk. WHat was done with those businesses is no different than what Obama and the fed did with GM. Factories were shut down, car dealers and their entire staffs were shut down and denied rolling stock. Jobs were reorganized and yes...gasp...many jobs were transferred overseas. Non union employees were stripped of their pension plans. Whe...because Obama was evil? No..because GM had failed and continued to make bad business decisions and the company was beyond 'at risk'. So...if your final premise is that because Romney and Bain caused some people to lose their jobs while reorganizing already failing businesses and therefore you should not vote for Romney, well, you have to apply that same thought process to Obama...which means there are going to be a WHOLE LOT of third party or non-voters this year.
Click to expand...

This is an entirely different argument from "vote for the businessman who grows jobs".

It's also not how I see Romney's record, but it's less preposterous than Grant's claim.
 
Hey Hatuey...I cant help but wonder if our resident token 'young money millionaire' is going to pass on his success to his children or if he is going to make them start from the same starting point as every ghetto or impoverished Appalachian state trailer park kid. Does that mean they will be 'entitled'? Will you expect them to work hard at school? To have jobs as a teenager? To achieve at college? To work hard at business? To commit to a family while also committing to a successful career? Will you champion his growth and success, facilitated by his hard work but certainly enabled by the successful foundation you put in place? If so...to coin our current commander in chief...

If you had a son, he would like like Mitt...

Kinda why Obamas comments are so foolish but expected. Gotta bang that class warfare drum. Lord knows he is going to make his two beautiful childs hit the streets. Oh...wait...he and M'Obama are dumping 48k a year in their bank accounts tax free. Theres a little bit of entitlement there. And we see that as a GOOD THING... a bi-roduct of parents hard work and success. Just dont tell all those heathen that Obama is preaching to.
 
Pinkie said:
This is an entirely different argument from "vote for the businessman who grows jobs".

It's also not how I see Romney's record, but it's less preposterous than Grant's claim.
Click to expand...
Its the same argument. If you take failing businesses and turn them VERY successful you are growing jobs. Conversely...if you are a community organizer and your 'community' is Chicago...you are...well...in the words of that New Hampshire voter..."not even qualified to run a lemonade stand". And it shows.

All Im saying is...apply the same standard. If you insist on judging Romney by an incomplete review of his record, than you HAVE to apply that same standard to Obama. He 'saved' GM (his words) by firing tens of thousands of people and dumping billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into it.
 
VanceMack said:
Its the same argument. If you take failing businesses and turn them VERY successful you are growing jobs. Conversely...if you are a community organizer and your 'community' is Chicago...you are...well...in the words of that New Hampshire voter..."not even qualified to run a lemonade stand". And it shows.

All Im saying is...apply the same standard. If you insist on judging Romney by an incomplete review of his record, than you HAVE to apply that same standard to Obama. He 'saved' GM (his words) by firing tens of thousands of people and dumping billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into it.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges. The purpose of a business is to make money, and anything it can do towards that goal is amoral because the objective is amoral.

By contrast, the purpose of our government is to serve our needs. The failure to do so is immoral. You cannot look at a profit & loss statement for a government and conclude it was successful or not, as this is not the yardstick.
 
VanceMack said:
Hey Hatuey...I cant help but wonder if our resident token 'young money millionaire' is going to pass on his success to his children or if he is going to make them start from the same starting point as every ghetto or impoverished Appalachian state trailer park kid.
Click to expand...

Daughter already goes to a public school in St Maarten. :shrug: - I don't like privates schools. And don't have any Ivy league connections I could count on for a ride into Yale. Get a job at 15 like my wife and I did if you want your own money. The rest of your post? Don't care for it. Same old collage of nonsensical yelling only you seem to understand.
 
Pinkie said:
How is this anything other than a redistribution of wealth to those YOU see as more deserving of it, Grant?
Click to expand...


Saving companies is a redistribution of wealth? I suppose you can look at it that way but in any case I think we can agree that it was a very good thing for those employees and the overall economy.. And of course he did it without taxpayer money.
Point is, thousands lost their jobs, and thus anyone who believes jobs growth is a task government should perform should not vote for Romney.
Click to expand...

Thousands lose their jobs when companies fail and Romney worked to save many thousands of jobs that would otherwise have been lost. That is no small accomplishment, Pinkie.

I was pointing the foolish but logical extension of your argument. Please, feel free to start babbling about William Ayers, if you feel you must.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't feel the need. Everyone should be aware of Barrack Obama's past by now and if they still want to vote for him knowing what everyone else knows then we just chalk it up to democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom