• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gallup: Group Most Disapproving of Obama: Business Owners

cpwill said:
actually, since he used the singular, it isn't. had he been referring to the earlier bit about "roads and bridges" he would have said "you didn't build those".
Click to expand...

That was a grammar mistake. Context matters. I've tried to get this across to you for years. You have to read all the words to get meaning.
 
Both sides are half right on the liberalism vs. modern day liberal debate.

Both modern day conservatives and modern day liberals are descendants of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was the root of ideas like representative democracy and private property. It was in opposition to monarchy. So, yes, modern day liberals are descended from classical liberalism, but so are modern day conservatives.

As for whether classical liberalism represented the "left" or the "right" back in the olden days, there isn't any real answer to that. On one hand, liberalism was the small government option, but it was also the populist side fighting against the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of very few, who were largely determined by birth, and that certainly would be a more "left" thing. The reality is that both the modern day left and the modern day right come from liberalism and there are attributes of it that each side chose to focus more on. Today any liberal would agree that we shouldn't have a monarchy and any conservative would agree that we shouldn't have 100% of the wealth determined by birth, so it's a pretty meaningless question.
 
Born Free said:
Are there any business owners that don't have employees? You know the mom and pop businesses.
Click to expand...

Not that I care about this debate in the least... but wouldn't a mom and pop business with 1-2 employee still counted as a business with employees....?
 
Last edited:
Bobcat said:
why is it moronic to post facts? here's another one for you, most blue states are going broke----liberalism fails everyplace it is tried. why hasn't that high average income resulted in a balanced budget? could it be that the govts of those states are too big and too intrusive?
Click to expand...

I think you may have failed to include your cite for this statement. Maybe its just me, but I think you pulled it out of that personal space that sees no sunshine. OTH, the fact is that blue states tend to contribute money TO the federal government and red states tend to be net takers FROM the federal government.

America's fiscal union: The red and the black | The Economist
TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
Ezra Klein - The red state ripoff
 
Hatuey said:
Not that I care about this debate in the least... but wouldn't a mom and pop business with 1-2 employee still counted as a business with employees....?
Click to expand...

You absolutely can have a business with no employees. It is easy to create a corporation with a business purpose and have no employees associated with it. The business can be an S-Corp, LLC or sole proprietorship. It might be used to own intellectual property and collect royalties thereon or own land or other passive income.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Didn't "business owners" cause the 2008 recession that everyone has been so upset about?
Click to expand...


Business owners will not continue to create jobs if you don't give the the tax breaks that they need.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Business owners will not continue to create jobs if you don't give the the tax breaks that they need.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Taxation is not the regulator of employment, nor does it regulate the economy. There is no direct correlation between taxation and employment, and there is actually a slight positive correlation between higher levels of taxation and GDP.

What drives employment..is demand.
 
Last edited:
Oh my God! Business Owners disapprove of Obama! What could Obama be thinking? The tried and true formula is to scapegoat, to demonize the least powerful, the ones who matter the least, have the least effect. Every angry conservative and libertarian craves someone to resent, to feel superior to. Venerate the most powerful, the wealthiest, and ye shall inherit the presidency!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...
TIME - Nov 14, 1988
"Ronald Reagan kept it up with his allusions to "welfare queens" and the " strapping young buck" using food stamps to buy a T-bone steak. ... "
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DBM...
Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive - Feb 9, 1976

"by John Fialka of the Washington Ster

Few people realize it, but Linda Taylor, a 47-year old, Chicago welfare recipient, has become a major campaign issue in the New Hampshire presidential primary. Former California governor Ronald Reagan has referred to her at nearly every stop, using her as part of his "Citizens Press Conference" format. "There's a woman in Chicago," Reagan said last week to an audience in at Gilford. as part of his free-swinging attack on welfare abuses...."

http://www.salon.com...9/23/grayson_2/
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) — my guest on Salon Radio today — yesterday pointed out that the bill passed by both the Senate and House to de-fund ACORN is written so broadly that it literally compels the de-funding not only of that group, but also the de-funding of, and denial of all government contracts to, any corporation that “has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.” By definition, that includes virtually every large defense contractor, which — unlike ACORN — has actually been found guilty of fraud. As The Huffington Post‘s Ryan Grim put it: ”the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.”.....

http://watchdogwire....n-vote-florida/

The discredited group ACORN successfully used the minimum wage issue in Florida in 2004. ”In Red State Florida, Victory for Working People” John Atlas reported, “The decision for ACORN, which has chapters in 28 states, to invest heavily in a Florida campaign [to raise the minimum wage] was not made in haste. The group commissioned a statewide poll in November 2003 that found overwhelming support for increasing the state’s minimum wage, especially among low-income and minority residents … ACORN was betting that many low-income people, who might not otherwise register or vote, would do so to increase their pay, and once they went to the polls, they would vote overwhelmingly for a Democrat.” [Emphasis mine]
Mr. Atlas noted, “ACORN budgeted over $2 million for the campaign.
Click to expand...

Picture this: the majority of the U.S. electorate, the majority of the participants on this forum, enthusiastically supporting the most powerful, fully at the expense of their own best interests and the best interests of their families, cementing this gross disparity as the permanent status quo.:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2006/200613/200613pap.pdf
Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989–2004 (a new triennial, SCF, Fed Reserve "Study of Conusmer Finances...will be released shortly after the election...sure to document, even further wealth concentration into the hands of the top ten percent.)

January 30, 2006
Abstract

This paper considers changes in the distribution of the wealth of U.S. families over the 1989–2004 period using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF)...
page 27

...Ownership shares. For some assets, the distributions of the amounts held are far more disproportionate than the differences in ownership rates. MOST STRIKING is the 62.3 percent share of business assets OWNED BY THE WEALTHIEST 1 percent of the wealth distribution in 2004 (table 11a); the NEXT-WEALTHIEST 4 percent OWNED ANOTHER 22.4 percent of the total. Other key items subject to capital gains also show strong disproportions: THE WEALTHIEST 5 PERCENT OF FAMILIES OWNED 61.9 percent of residential real estate other than principal residences, 71.7 percent of nonresidential real estate, and 65.9 PERCENT OF DIRECTLY- AND INDIRECTLY HELD STOCKS. For bonds, 93.7 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL WERE HELD BY THIS GROUP...."

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf
(bottom of page 32)

"..it is possible to provide a partial update of the wealth figures to July 1, 2009 based on two notable developments....

...Trends in inequality are also interesting.... The share of the top 1 percent advanced from 34.6 to 37.1 percent, that of the top 5 percent from 61.8 to 65 percent, and that of the top quintile from 85 to 87.7 percent, while that of the second quintile fell from 10.9 to 10 percent, that of the middle quintile from 4 to 3.1 percent, and that of the bottom two quintiles from 0.2 to -0.8 percent. ..the share of households with zero or negative net worth, from 18.6 to 24.1 percent."
Click to expand...

Yes....it is a failing state, with a clearly failed economic system betrayed by the dysfunctional politics of its electorate, and the crowd calls out for more, more, more !!!

There is a woman in Chicago.......
 
Oh my God! Business Owners disapprove of Obama!
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DBM...
Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive - Feb 9, 1976

"by John Fialka of the Washington Ster

Few people realize it, but Linda Taylor, a 47-year old, Chicago welfare recipient, has become a major campaign issue in the New Hampshire presidential primary. Former California governor Ronald Reagan has referred to her at nearly every stop, using her as part of his "Citizens Press Conference" format. "There's a woman in Chicago," Reagan said last week to an audience in at Gilford. as part of his free-swinging attack on welfare abuses...."
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Good for them. I'm not one and don't make any claims regarding them.
Click to expand...
Good for you, but if you aren't one then why would you think I was talking about you?
 
Boo Radley said:
That was a grammar mistake
Click to expand...

Do you have any objective evidence for your claim that the President did not mean to say what he actually said?
 
Morality Games said:
Didn't "business owners" cause the 2008 recession that everyone has been so upset about?

I'm not sure why these polls are meaningful. Nobody has any sense of accountability, there's little personal stake in having an opinion, and few people have a developed understanding of why events unfold the way they do anyway.
Click to expand...

Business-owners caused the 2008 recession??? Such generalizations show that you have absolutely no freaking clue whatsoever. Embarrassing!
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Do you have any objective evidence for your claim that the President did not mean to say what he actually said?
Click to expand...
Are you denying that conservatives are taking what Obama said out of context?
 
Wiggen said:
I haven't been this shocked since I learned the group most disapproving of Abraham Lincoln were the plantation owners.
Click to expand...

That's just the point, though... isn't it?

The people who create commerce, employ people, and create wealth are the ones who are the most pissed at the president... who was elected at a time when we needed someone to jumpstart the economy, get people back to work, and increase the wealth of everyone in the country...

This president is anti-business, we need someone who can create growth... That's why Romney is the best candidate for the job, and Obama should be replaced for not getting it done...
 
 
cpwill said:
Do you have any objective evidence for your claim that the President did not mean to say what he actually said?
Click to expand...

Context. Learn to read for meaning and not political gottcha moments. You'll do much better once you do.

Als, try working out grammatically what the "that" had to refer to. Following the sentence before it, it had to be roads and bridges, thus the mistake was the word "that." It should have been those. Context is your friend.
 
Boo Radley said:
Context. Learn to read for meaning and not political gottcha moments. You'll do much better once you do.
Click to expand...

Oh. So the President didn't mean what he said, and you know this because you just know. Well, your faith is touching.

Als, try working out grammatically what the "that" had to refer to. Following the sentence before it, it had to be roads and bridges, thus the mistake was the word "that." It should have been those. Context is your friend.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking of roads and bridges. But that is not what he said, and we have no evidence to suggest that he meant something else.

:shrug: even then, if you want to say he was talking about roads and bridges, the point he was making remains almost as venal. It's not as if only business owners get access to roads. Everyone has access to the same public infrastructure.
 
cpwill said:
Oh. So the President didn't mean what he said, and you know this because you just know. Well, your faith is touching.



I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking of roads and bridges. But that is not what he said, and we have no evidence to suggest that he meant something else.

:shrug: even then, if you want to say he was talking about roads and bridges, the point he was making remains almost as venal. It's not as if only business owners get access to roads. Everyone has access to the same public infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I know because I read all the words. I'm not a cheap hack who breaks things down in order to miss the meaning on purpose. And yes, there is plenty of evidence, the rest of the speech and the words that follow "The point is. . .."
 
cpwill said:
:lamo


someone's running a bit skeered :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Odd you see addressing the lie as running "skeered." How can we expect honesty from our elected leaders when we don't seem capable of being honest. Be it your side here with this or the other side's bit about Romney likeing fireing people. If we're no better, we deserve what we get.
 
specklebang said:
The latest insult is the closing, without notice, of the roll your own cigarette shops. These mom and pop businesses bought machines for $33K and provided a service for the very poor who can't afford "tailor made" cigarettes. With the stroke of a pen, they are now criminalized. Thousands of jobs lost, hundred of small business oowners destroyed and left in debt for leases and equipment and an attack on the poor whose smokes are now unaffordable. All this to benefit the big corporations.

If they had the decency to give a few years notice, I might have been able to accept this. But I guess the donations from Big Tobacco are too needed for the re-election campaign and therefore, no mercy, screw the little guy.

I voted for this turd (pun intended I think) with real hope. I thought he cared about the "little people". But he doesn't - all he cares about is his campaign donations and his life of luxury. I'm disgusted and want this bad, bad man out of office. He's already made his fortune.

I'm so angry that my hands are shaking. Yes, he's done a FEW good things and he's taken the rap for things that were not in his power to control. But he's a threat to small business and if we're ever going to recover, this guy needs to go. Maybe he can get a job at a welfare office.
Click to expand...

Those roll your own shops just need to change their inventory to e-cigarettes and stop pushing those cancer sticks and sell people a safer alternative. Smoking tabacco kils people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom