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

Where he lacks leadership on issues that matter, he has a preference towards hotwings at aimless beer summits over trivial issues.

there three possibles here...

1) You have a problem with your president.
2) You are mentally incapable of basic logical thought.
3) You have not actually studied Economics, Civics, or history and are simply commenting on things you should not.

No matter, as any of the three excuse you from being relevant to this debate.
 
What branch of the military did Obama serve in?
All of them. Obama is the Commander in Chief of all the armed US military forces and he outranks all the Generals. He is their commander they are not his. Too bad Romney can't and never will be able to say the same, eh?
 
All of them. Obama is the Commander in Chief of all the armed US military forces and he outranks all the Generals. He is their commander they are not his. Too bad Romney can't and never will be able to say the same, eh?

Serving as president is not serving in the military. I hope I do not actually have to explain why.
 
there three possibles here...

1) You have a problem with your president.
2) You are mentally incapable of basic logical thought.
3) You have not actually studied Economics, Civics, or history and are simply commenting on things you should not.

No matter, as any of the three excuse you from being relevant to this debate.

You mad bro?
 
Funding isn't an issue, about 70 to 75% of highways and interstates are funded through users fees. Which is cool with me but that funding mechanism should be 100% user fees. Raising the capital required for infrastructure doesn't justify the bloated multi-billion dollar federal bureaucratic institutions that we have. In fact, the agencies taxed with raising funding for highways are separate from those who "build" highways. I intentionally use scare quotes there because the government doesn't build highways, private contractors do.
I haven't read much on the issue, but what I have read indicates that user fees are actually funding considerably less than 70-75% of our highway bills and that they are actually on the decrease....hmmm.
But as to the bigger issue, it's still a tax, no matter how you cut it. The only difference is, I contend, that user fee taxes can actually harm the economy because people will actually become less likely to use our highways if they know that everytime they motor down the highway it will cost them. User fees, because of their immediacy, impact consumer behavior in ways that income taxes don't. I guess the question would be: Does the negative impact that user fees has on the economy as a result of altered consumer behavior(more likely to stay home instead of travelling and stimulating the economy) outweigh the loss of inefficiancy we endure as the result of government bureaucracy that manages our roads?
But, then again, no matter how the monies are raised, someone has to manage and distribute them to the private contractors that build the roads. I hope you're not suggesting that we allow a profit-driven private company manage these contracts that are given out to other private companies?!! Sounds like you would just replace one set of problems, government inefficiency, with another, private sector corruption. Take your pick.
 
All of them. Obama is the Commander in Chief of all the armed US military forces and he outranks all the Generals. He is their commander they are not his. Too bad Romney can't and never will be able to say the same, eh?

That's idiotic. The office of the President specifically is NOT part of the military; the whole point is that he's a civilian commander.

Clinton tried to claim he was "active duty military" to keep some medical records secret; didn't work for him. Why? He wasn't in the military.
 
All of them. Obama is the Commander in Chief of all the armed US military forces and he outranks all the Generals. He is their commander they are not his. Too bad Romney can't and never will be able to say the same, eh?
That was rather witty, Moot. Touche.
 
Taking over industry or interfering with resources and how they are aligned naturally does interfere with capitalism.
You bet it does. I won't disagree with you on that point. What I believe I would disagree with you on however is :
#1) the degree to which Obama has actually interfered with Capitalism in comparison to his predecessors. and
#2)how important it is for government to regulate business. I contend that it is very important. In fact, essential.
 
your sig.....it is Jefferson deriding the christian clergy of the day....

I would not characterize it that way:

_To Dr. Benjamin Rush_
_Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800_


DEAR SIR, -- I have to acknolege the receipt of your favor of
Aug. 22, and to congratulate you on the healthiness of your city.
Still Baltimore, Norfolk & Providence admonish us that we are not
clear of our new scourge. When great evils happen, I am in the habit
of looking out for what good may arise from them as consolations to
us, and Providence has in fact so established the order of things, as
that most evils are the means of producing some good. The yellow
fever will discourage the growth of great cities in our nation, & I
view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the
liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but
the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the
others, with more health, virtue & freedom, would be my choice.


I agree with you entirely, in condemning the mania of giving
names to objects of any kind after persons still living. Death alone
can seal the title of any man to this honor, by putting it out of his
power to forfeit it. There is one other mode of recording merit,
which I have often thought might be introduced, so as to gratify the
living by praising the dead. In giving, for instance, a commission
of chief justice to Bushrod Washington, it should be in consideration
of his integrity, and science in the laws, and of the services
rendered to our country by his illustrious relation, &c. A
commission to a descendant of Dr. Franklin, besides being in
consideration of the proper qualifications of the person, should add
that of the great services rendered by his illustrious ancestor, Bn
Fr, by the advancement of science, by inventions useful to man, &c.
I am not sure that we ought to change all our names. And during the
regal government, sometimes, indeed, they were given through
adulation; but often also as the reward of the merit of the times,
sometimes for services rendered the colony. Perhaps, too, a name
when given, should be deemed a sacred property.


I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not
forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it,
that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present
dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease
neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many
to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it
would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms
against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be
softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it
possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom
of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of
obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro'
the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country
threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of
power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their
opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets
against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison,
&c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to
rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison,
for they are men of truth.


But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to
paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and
printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you
mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I
fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom.
You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state.
I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our
state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to
see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at
Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But
nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I
wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection.
Adieu.

Though I can see how one could read it as such.

but it should be applied liberally to all propagandists, marketers, advertisers, political hacks, or anybody who attempts to lead the less educated astray.
Sad part is, thenumber of less educated among us is increasing exponentially...no way to keep up when they would rather watch "reality" TV...or pro sports....or only one news channel, if that...

I apply it to anyone who seeks to force another to comport to their own viewpoint. This is why I'm a libertarian.
 
I doubt even the demorats want that, you do realize that is a 50% increase in the bottom bracket rate; from 10% to 15%.

I realize it. If I had my way I would increase the taxes of every American who earns dollar one by five points across the board.
 
They can't. One naturally destories the other and the principles it lays out. Regardless, that is not what you said before.

So just a second here, Henrin. Before I expand with more detail on my "socialist" beliefs, let me ask you what type of government you favor so that I may have some inkling of where you are coming from? Are you suggesting a pure market system for our schools, roads, regulatory bodies, military, social programs? Or are you just suggesting it for some of them while doing away completely with others. If you think any government that has elements of socialism in it is bad for our society, please do explain to me your SUPERIOR system and how it work.
 
I would not characterize it that way:



Though I can see how one could read it as such.



I apply it to anyone who seeks to force another to comport to their own viewpoint. This is why I'm a libertarian.
So what, then, do you believe of Paul's stance on abortion. Sounds like he trying to force women to comport to his own viewpoint....
And he thinks it is okay for local school boards to force non-believers to sit through prayer in public schools
I could go on. Maybe you don't support Paul, but he does appear to be the current flagbearer of the Libertarian movement and I think it more than fair to say that he has no problem with "forcing others to comport to his viewpoint". Kind of a disconnect.---and allow me to rephrase that: He is ONE of the leaders of the Libertarian movement.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read much on the issue, but what I have read indicates that user fees are actually funding considerably less than 70-75% of our highway bills and that they are actually on the decrease....hmmm.
But as to the bigger issue, it's still a tax, no matter how you cut it. The only difference is, I contend, that user fee taxes can actually harm the economy because people will actually become less likely to use our highways if they know that everytime they motor down the highway it will cost them. User fees, because of their immediacy, impact consumer behavior in ways that income taxes don't. I guess the question would be: Does the negative impact that user fees has on the economy as a result of altered consumer behavior(more likely to stay home instead of travelling and stimulating the economy) outweigh the loss of inefficiancy we endure as the result of government bureaucracy that manages our roads?

That 75% figure is the average of all monies (municipal, county, state, and federal). 93.5% of federal interstate revenue comes from that 18.4 cents you pay on every gallon of gas. You'd have to raise income taxes by allot to pay for our highways...I'm talking like 100%.

But, then again, no matter how the monies are raised, someone has to manage and distribute them to the private contractors that build the roads. I hope you're not suggesting that we allow a profit-driven private company manage these contracts that are given out to other private companies?!! Sounds like you would just replace one set of problems, government inefficiency, with another, private sector corruption. Take your pick.

Come to think of it...you're right. No private organization could handle the coordination between the states, the massive technical challenge of setting standards for construction, engineering, and safety needed to build the enormous highway, bridge, and infrastructure system we have in the U.S. Such an organization...because it's private...would be ripe with greed and corruption. Anarchy would certainly follow...death and destruction on the highways, Armageddon would ensue. Allowing a private firm to make those decisions will surely break the 7th seal of the apocalypse.

Wait..you ever heard of AASHTO?

They do all those things you're worried about, and they do it FOR the feds. They, of course, are non-governmental.
 
Last edited:
You bet it does. I won't disagree with you on that point. What I believe I would disagree with you on however is :
#1) the degree to which Obama has actually interfered with Capitalism in comparison to his predecessors.

That is a tall order considering how much others that came before him did like FDR.

1.He tried to take over healthcare, and instead put in a system that forces people to take part in the a market while others are forced under programs they may not desire to be on. By all accounts that is still socialist by design and by even hinting at the former showed who he was.

2. He bailed out industry, gave government shares, and switched up the hierarchy of ownership in those companies. Again, that is socialist.

3. He assisted people from losing their homes when they otherwise would of done so. Again, that is socialist.

4. Grew and supported funding of private industry. ex: Wind turbines

and the list goes on and on, but those are all bad enough in my book and yes they are all socialist.

and
#2)how important it is for government to regulate business. I contend that it is very important. In fact, essential.

Right violations are one thing, but beyond that I disagree.
 
Last edited:
What branch of the military did Obama serve in?

What the hell does that have to do with this debate....come on, you cannot possible be this transparent intentionally.

Where did Your guy serve...and how many drone strikes, Osama killings, international conflicts has he had to deal with.

Before you bash your own President...try to imagine what yoou would do...let alone what Romney would, hell I still cant figure out his healthcare stance.
 
I realize it. If I had my way I would increase the taxes of every American who earns dollar one by five points across the board.


I would agree with the above. My sense if everyone really had skin in the game both sides would have incentive for the real tax reform, noth personal and corporate taxes that the country needs.
 
That 75% figure is the average of all monies (municipal, county, state, and federal). 93.5% of federal interstate revenue comes from that 18.4 cents you pay on every gallon of gas. You'd have to raise income taxes by allot to pay for our highways...I'm talking like 100%.



Come to think of it...you're right. No private organization could handle the coordination between the states, the massive technical challenge of setting standards for construction, engineering, and safety needed to build the enormous highway, bridge, and infrastructure system we have in the U.S. Such an organization...because it's private...would be ripe with greed and corruption. Anarchy would certainly follow...death and destruction on the highways, Armageddon would ensue. Allowing a private firm to make those decisions will surely break the 7th seal of the apocalypse.

Wait..you ever heard of AASHTO?

They do all those things you're worried about, and they do it FOR the feds. They, of course, are non-governmental.
I don't think AASHTO is in charge of allocating billions of dollars to private contractors so....Also, government DOT reps make the decisions and call the final shots in this particular organization so I think, at best, we can call it a quasi-governmental agency. I don't think it is a particularly good example. But I do not necessarily disagree with your larger point that there may be some government programs that could be best implemented by the private sector. I just have have some serious qualms about most of them because I never like to see a system in which the needs of a private company(profits!, profits and more profits!) can become dyametrically opposed to the needs(service, service, service!) that the citizenry deserves.
Allow me to give you an example that I experienced first hand not all that long ago and, interestingly, it deals with roads.
About 10 years ago I drove down into Mexico to do some surfing in some small communities to the south of the city of Manzanillo, Mexico. There was one of two routes to get to these cities:an old windy mountain road that wound through small towns and took forever, but eventually popped out NEAR the small beach towns and a newer road that the Mexican government permitted a private company to construct that went right across all the flatlands near the beach. But the whole thing was privately managed, which meant that the company put toll booths up along the way. And they were expensive(like 5-8 dollars a pop if I remember correctly), and that was SUPER expensive for the Mexicans(more than many of them make in a day just for ONE of the booths!). So why such super high prices? When you look at the math from the private company's perspective it probably looked like this:
If we charge 2.50$ a car at each station, 2000 people will travel on the road each day, but if we charge $5 at each station only 1000 vehicles will make the journey. So what is the most logical decision for us? Obviously it is to charge the higher amount, make the same amount of money as we would have made at the lower rate, but we'll be way ahead because that will result in half the wear and tear on the roads which will just translate to more profit for us! Perfect business sense, and the company would be foolish not to make this decision.
The problem, of course, is that this business decision by the road company ran completely counter to the interests of the entire economy of that entire stretch of beach because it cost them gobs of money in the decrease of tourist traffic that came their way from the cities. In fact, I would bet my last dime that those higher toll rates(optimized for profit, not traffic) caused much more in economic loss to the communities than it resulted in economic gain for the private road company. It's just a classic example of how the interests of the economy at large can be harmed by the privatization of what, I believe, should be government run.
 
Obama was right, business-owners didn't build those roads & bridges.

Their tax-dollars may have helped pay for them, but they themselves didn't build them.
 
I guess when the truth won't work, this is all your side has left. :coffeepap

yeah that is why obama and his toadies whine about Mitt having a swiss bank account or that he personally outsourced jobs

Lets talk about the truth of Obama being completely inept and an failure
 
Obama was right, business-owners didn't build those roads & bridges.

Their tax-dollars may have helped pay for them, but they themselves didn't build them.

nor did the government. the government took taxes from private entities and paid others to build the road

but what people are missing is that Oblama is trying to justify taking more and more from a few and justifying it all the specious claim that those who prosper somehow deserve to pay more taxes while those who use the infrastructure but are failures or slackers do not have to pay more
 
How successful would any business in America be without the government providing a military to defend this great nation?

So, you're big on military spending then?
 
yeah that is why obama and his toadies whine about Mitt having a swiss bank account or that he personally outsourced jobs

Lets talk about the truth of Obama being completely inept and an failure

No, that's politics. I have stated often I wouldn't take any political ad seriously. That you do, well, that reflects you and not me. :coffeepap
 
Last edited:
yeah that is why obama and his toadies whine about Mitt having a swiss bank account or that he personally outsourced jobs

Lets talk about the truth of Obama being completely inept and an failure

You write as if one cancels out the reality of the other. Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies?
 
Back
Top Bottom