• 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]

I don't think so either, but your message suggested hackery in that you don't know what he did and regards to Staples, but assert it must have been evil things. Then again, you could have been using satire - like I was.

Reorganizing companies doing down the toilet likely does require layoffs, closing locations, and other "harsh" measures, for which the alternative is bankruptcy for which everyone - including all investors, all employees and all pensioners lose everything.

Well, as I have said, I watched this go on. The object was to make money, and the targets were only sometimes "companies on the verge of bankruptcy". Most were better characterized as having riches that had not been plundered, such as employee pension plans.
 
Yes, that's exactly what it means. No one is entitled to win. You are given fair rules in the game, and you may win or lose based on your own steam.

If there is one thing that can be said about that comment that is negative is that when he says 'opportunity' he means with the chance of welfare assistance. In effect he saying, with the use of other people. That is not what it really means to people that really believe in it, but I guess that is for a different day.
 
Nope :). Staples was start-up straight investment capital.


Which isn't to say that it is bad to save some jobs instead of losing all jobs. Simply that Romney (as I understand it) didn't have to do that in this instance.

Whatever he may have done was to make a profit, which is not the goal of government, thank God.
 
Oh I'm sure he sent out hit squads to kill pensioners and excess workers given how much Romney liked for people do die. :roll:

Of course, that pathological liar Romney probably would say they injected cash and credit and restructured the company to pull it back from bankruptcy that so many other retailers were going thru, but that can't be it given how purely evil Romney is. That's the reason he wants to be president too. As president he can destroy the most people possible to try to satisfy his bloodlust.

:D Haven't you heard? Mitt Romney is the head of SPECTRE.
 
As 10 other posters in this thread (of all kinds of ideologies) have argued, you simply don't have a right to success. You have a right to opportunity and the significant difference is in the way in which rights are described in various. Right to PURSUE happiness. Not right TO happiness

Don't confuse people about the differences between the meaning of "the right to pursue happiness" and the "right to happiness". Some minds can't handle such concepts. :2razz:
 
Whatever he may have done was to make a profit, which is not the goal of government, thank God.

Agreed. And profit in the private sector is a good thing, as it means that you have added value to the lives of others.

Government's goal is to come closer to breaking even, while performing a few basic necessary functions as efficiently as it can manage. Unfortunately, currently our government wants to help run our economy - which is not it's role or its' proper goal, any more than making a profit is. And so we need someone who knows how to stop government from screwing that up, while bringing us closer to getting out of the red.
 
You're stretching. She's not benefiting from my success by receiving an education. She's entitled to an education from the day she's born just like every child. It's what she does with that education that she's not entitled to. In other words, what she doesn't have and the point which you fail to grasp is birthright success. Which is what Obama stated in his quote. 4th page you seem to fail at understanding this small fact.

How is she "entitled" to an education with the use of your income? How is one entitled to a service anyway?
 
Agreed. And profit in the private sector is a good thing, as it means that you have added value to the lives of others.

Government's goal is to come closer to breaking even, while performing a few basic necessary functions as efficiently as it can manage. Unfortunately, currently our government wants to help run our economy - which is not it's role or its' proper goal, any more than making a profit is. And so we need someone who knows how to stop government from screwing that up, while bringing us closer to getting out of the red.

I'm not sure what I believe government's role in running our economy should be, cpwill. However, both candidates say they will tinker with the interest rates on T-bills, etc.

I agree 100% with your description of the goal of government.
 
How is she "entitled" to an education with the use of your income? How is one entitled to a service anyway?

By the fact that it is only through education that you can be guaranteed an opportunity at achieving success. :shrug:
 
By the fact that it is only through education that you can be guaranteed an opportunity at achieving success. :shrug:

So basically what you saying that in order to ensure opportunity we must entitle them to the fruits of others labor.

Yeah, that doesn't really work.
 
So basically what you saying that in order to ensure opportunity we must entitle them to the fruits of others labor.

Yeah, that doesn't really work.

that is patently absurd and a direct contradiction of history and reality. We have been providing public education for the last century and a half for the American people and it is paid for with taxation.
 
I'm not sure what I believe government's role in running our economy should be, cpwill. However, both candidates say they will tinker with the interest rates on T-bills, etc.


well that's interesting. where do you see that?
 
that is patently absurd and a direct contradiction of history and reality. We have been providing public education for the last century and a half for the American people and it is paid for with taxation.

The money that is taxed is earned by ______.
 
that is patently absurd and a direct contradiction of history and reality. We have been providing public education for the last century and a half for the American people and it is paid for with taxation.

which does not change the nature of the equation involved. There are neither free lunches, nor free education to be had in the real world.
 
So if the "fair share" has already been determined, what is he rabbiting on about?

This is it in a nutshell. "Obama has blasted Romney's tax plan for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney's tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000."
 
Don't confuse people about the differences between the meaning of "the right to pursue happiness" and the "right to happiness". Some minds can't handle such concepts. :2razz:

What right to pursue happiness are you talking about?
 
So basically what you saying that in order to ensure opportunity we must entitle them to the fruits of others labor.

Yeah, that doesn't really work.

Should people be denied education based on the fact that they can't pay for it? 19th century thinking which gave us this:

child%20labor.jpg


Sorry. Don't feel like going back in time.
 
which does not change the nature of the equation involved. There are neither free lunches, nor free education to be had in the real world.

It speaks to the absurdity of the poster and their abysmal ignorance of the last century and a half of American history.
 
This is it in a nutshell. "Obama has blasted Romney's tax plan for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney's tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000."

No, they didn't. They found that those numbers would be the result if they ran a program that wasn't Romney's, but had some shouting similarities to it.


So, for example, if I were to take Obama's claim that he wants the wealthy to pay "a little bit more" to help with the deficit, and instead of taking his proposed increases of 3.5% points, said "okay, in order to fix the deficit we have to tax the wealthy at 185%".... and then I were to calculate the jobs that would be lost from imposing a tax rate like that, and then blame Obama's plan for those job losses... that would be silly. And that is just what has happened here.
 
It speaks to the absurdity of the poster and their abysmal ignorance of the last century and a half of American history.

The poster never claims that we have not had tax-supported education. He claims explicitly that public education is supported by taxes.


What do you think it is supported by? Magic money trees?
 
The poster never claims that we have not had tax-supported education. He claims explicitly that public education is supported by taxes.

And in other breaking news: the sun rose in the east today. Reliable sources state that it will set in the west this evening.
 
Last edited:
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.
he source article was poorly written and I am glad this came. I needed to the United States Code, the history of the term "fair share" and put it with context in order to fully understand what this issue was about. The source should have given more instead glossing over such important information.
 
he source article was poorly written and I am glad this came. I needed to the United States Code, the history of the term "fair share" and put it with context in order to fully understand what this issue was about. The source should have given more instead glossing over such important information.

Good way of avoiding the fact that Mya royally screwed up in her assertion that one is in fact entitled to success. Well, I guess it did create some forum activity.
 
No, they didn't. They found that those numbers would be the result if they ran a program that wasn't Romney's, but had some shouting similarities to it.


So, for example, if I were to take Obama's claim that he wants the wealthy to pay "a little bit more" to help with the deficit, and instead of taking his proposed increases of 3.5% points, said "okay, in order to fix the deficit we have to tax the wealthy at 185%".... and then I were to calculate the jobs that would be lost from imposing a tax rate like that, and then blame Obama's plan for those job losses... that would be silly. And that is just what has happened here.


That is how the issue is fashioned. Moreover, "Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said she could not respond to the center's report without reading it first." Do you have any back up for your assertions. If so please post it with sources.
 
Back
Top Bottom