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

Misterveritis · Aug 4, 2012

Thunder said:
business-haters don't pass laws giving private businesses 30 million new customers.

This law, Obamacare, uses the strategy of the not quite so indirect approach to end private health care in the US. It will take a while, but not a long while to see the results.

We will become a socialist country in the Marxist model of many European-socialist nations. We will see high unemployment as the new normal. We will see more and more money taken from those who make new wealth to be given to those who do nothing other than vote themselves more...until the makers who can emigrate do. And then we shall see the inevitable collapse of society followed by a harder tyranny.

Harshaw · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Gimmesometruth said:
Community came before business, you lose again.

Nope. This was my entire argument, and I'm correct:

Harshaw said:
hazlnut said:

Tax dollars paid for all.

Click to expand...

Which came from the fruits of business. There's no chicken/egg relationship here; business came first.

No one said anything about "community." That's something you made up and injected in. If you think it has anything to do with the actual point, it's because, indeed, you can't follow an argument very well.

'Sall that needs to be said about that. If you have further to say, refer to this post; my responses won't change.

johnny_rebson · Aug 4, 2012

Misterveritis said:
This law, Obamacare, uses the strategy of the not quite so indirect approach to end private health care in the US. It will take a while, but not a long while to see the results.

So why are we nominating the guy who created RomneyCare?

Misterveritis · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Romulus said:
The private space industry is producing a better product at a lower cost than any government. I'm sure you're not advocating the societal benefits of nuclear bombs..are you?

I think the ready availability of nuclear weapons has made the world safe from nuclear war. But it has also made the world safer for small, limited, conventional wars.

I think there has been a very great societal benefit.

Misterveritis · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Boo Radley said:
You mean like having our rivers catch on fire. Regualtion that stopped that was useless and harmful. Or like LA being so smog filled people died because they couldn't breath. We certainly need no reuglation there. And God knows, that the meat industry was just fine prior regulations concerning safety. Is this what you mean?

There may be a place where somethign is over regulated, but you shouldn't speak of them in blanket form. Be specific, and deal with each one. Otherwise, we can be China with lead in toys and poisoning PB.

Did government do that or did a population become more wealthy cause it?

How do we filter laws that cause more harm than good? One simple way is to have provision that sunset every law. We could use a sliding scale. If a law is passed unanimously then allow it to run for a decade. Then expire it. If it passes with one vote let it run a year. Do not allow any law to be re-passed without a debate in both chambers of Congress. Eliminate the ability of any agency to develop rules that can be foisted upon the American public without debate and votes in both houses of Congress. Put every proposed rule and law on the net for a minimum of one month along with all of the hearings about the rules or laws prior to a vote.

Immediately sunset the most costly laws and rules today with a minimum of 1% of those not yet discussed as above every month. Make no exceptions. Then the American people will begin to see that it is morning once again, in America.

Misterveritis · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Boo Radley said:
No, if you buy the lies, you're just part of the problem. :coffeepap

Fortunately, those of us who "buy the lies" are about to be the solution. Come NOvember there will be NObama.

He is a disaster. He must go. His ideas are foreign. His philosophy is Marxist. His beliefs are anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-liberty.
NOvember will be a turning point for the nation. If we reject the one term Marxist, as I believe we will, then we are on the very hard path toward liberty once again. If we keep the Marxist in power then it will be time to recognize that this experiment in individual liberty and freedom is over.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Harshaw said:
You see, your problem is that you don't follow arguments very well (a theme I will continue in my next post).

My argument is:

1) Private money, not tax money, got the Golden Gate Bridge built.

2) As you point out, the bonds were paid back by tolls. Not taxes.

This, of course, is plenty to shatter the idea that the Golden Gate Bridge was paid for out of tax dollars. It wasn't. And obliviously though you did, you helped show it.

Oh, for FS, govt fees upon users are little different from taxes, you are quibbling, and I was not making an argument about taxes, the general idea in play is "we all" paid for it. Those additional customers to the business are paying for the access, you have to show how the business is paying for the additional traffic to his door.

However, as you continued to push on the point, I also observed that:

3) As the bonds were paid back by the people who use the bridge, looking at the tolls, business pay three to five times more to use it, and possibly more if they use vehicles with more than five axles.

You are being slippery, we are not talking about the truck owner, we (you and I) are talking about the businesses directly benefiting from the increase in traffic from the bridge and how they do not pay an amount proportional to the benefit derived.

It's YOU who are trying to delve into an actual accounting of their "increased benefit" of the Golden Gate Bridge. You, of course, have provided absolutely no documentation toward this. I, however, have given you the actual toll schedule. If YOU wish to claim that it's not enough, then it's up to YOU to show it. My entire and sole claim is that yes, they pay considerably more. And if they run more traffic over the bridge, then they pay even more.

I already showed that for the example we are discussing, the additional cost to the business is tiny, marginal, in comparison to the benefit. You have to show by argument or accounting that the business is somehow bearing a proportional cost for the benefit, yo have not done that.

So yes, it is indeed "so silly," because the feebleness of your attempt at argument was exposed and dispensed with several posts ago, yet you won't let it go. You insist on making it worse for yourself with each post.

(Really -- you couldn't have looked up the toll schedule before you posted?)

I made a counter point, you insist that that you have made a winning argument, but it does not exist in fact.

No one is forcing you to continue, it is up to you, but the fact is you have not countered my point.

Romulus · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Misterveritis said:
I think the ready availability of nuclear weapons has made the world safe from nuclear war. But it has also made the world safer for small, limited, conventional wars.

I think there has been a very great societal benefit.

I agree, the person for whom I was addressing the question would not be inclined to agree.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Harshaw said:
Nope. This was my entire argument, and I'm correct:

I agree, that is the entirety of your argument, it is not the entirety of the argument.

Harshaw · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, for FS, govt fees upon users are little different from taxes, you are quibbling, and I was not making an argument about taxes, the general idea in play is "we all" paid for it.

You're STILL wrong, then, because no, "we all" didn't pay for it. Bank of America paid for its construction; only the people who used it paid back the bonds. The people who used it MORE paid more, and the people who use LARGER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES paid even more.

This "argument" is a loser for you no matter how many times you want to rephrase it. Why do you not get that? Why do you keep coming back for more?

Those additional customers to the business are paying for the access, you have to show how the business is paying for the additional traffic to his door.

You keep injecting bull****. Face it -- your arguments suck. No amount of spaghetti you throw at the wall is going to camouflage it.

You are being slippery, we are not talking about the truck owner, we (you and I) are talking about the businesses directly benefiting from the increase in traffic from the bridge and how they do not pay an amount proportional to the benefit derived.

No, this is an entirely new thing you're suddenly throwing in and pretending it's what "we" have been talking about. (While accusing ME of being "slippery.")

And it's about a point you simply will not -- and cannot -- document.

I already showed that for the example we are discussing, the additional cost to the business is tiny, marginal, in comparison to the benefit.

You did? Show me where you did that math.

No, you just conjectured, posed a hypothetical on what you think must be what actually happens, and you didn't even bother make up any figures for it.

You have to show by argument or accounting that the business is somehow bearing a proportional cost for the benefit, yo have not done that.

I don't have to disprove your arguments; you have to prove them.

I made a counter point, you insist that that you have made a winning argument, but it does not exist in fact.

No one is forcing you to continue, it is up to you, but the fact is you have not countered my point.

I countered your point spectacularly. You simply can't decide what your point actually is, apparently. You keep slipping (ar ar) from new point to new point and accusing me of not addressing things you never said.

But I'll say it again -- show me the math. Give me figures and documentation. Hypotheticals don't cover it.

Harshaw · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Gimmesometruth said:
I agree, that is the entirety of your argument, it is not the entirety of the argument.

"The argument" is not defined by what YOU wish it was.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Harshaw said:
You're STILL wrong, then, because no, "we all" didn't pay for it. Bank of America paid for its construction; only the people who used it paid back the bonds.

I already made clear that the we in this case are the users

The people who used it MORE paid more, and the people who use LARGER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES paid even more.

Which again, are not the BUSINESS OWNERS deriving the greater benefit from the increased traffic.

This "argument" is a loser for you no matter how many times you want to rephrase it. Why do you not get that? Why do you keep coming back for more?You keep injecting bull****. Face it -- your arguments suck. No amount of spaghetti you throw at the wall is going to camouflage it.No, this is an entirely new thing you're suddenly throwing in and pretending it's what "we" have been talking about. (While accusing ME of being "slippery.")

No, it is not "new", it is the same point from the beginning of our discussion.

And it's about a point you simply will not -- and cannot -- document.
You did? Show me where you did that math.No, you just conjectured, posed a hypothetical on what you think must be what actually happens, and you didn't even bother make up any figures for it.I don't have to disprove your arguments; you have to prove them.
I countered your point spectacularly. You simply can't decide what your point actually is, apparently. You keep slipping (ar ar) from new point to new point and accusing me of not addressing things you never said.
But I'll say it again -- show me the math. Give me figures and documentation. Hypotheticals don't cover it.

Really, you need the accounting? It is beyond your ability to conceive of a situation where a bridge is built, dramatically increasing the number of customers to a business, the business pays a tiny fraction of additional cost per unit for the delivery costs for a truck crossing that bridge, but more than makes up for that cost by the increased sales......and the only additional cost to that business for the bridge...is that tiny margin added to the product, which is paid by the massive numbers of new customers? Really?

This is why I don't bother with you, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you still cannot concede to reason.

Harshaw · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Gimmesometruth said:
I already made clear that the we in this case are the users

No, you didn't; you said "we all."

You're just lying now.

Which again, are not the BUSINESS OWNERS deriving the greater benefit from the increased traffic.

Which you've never shown in the slightest to be so; you've simply declared it over and over and over.

I, however, have shown how much more commercial vehicles pay to cross the bridge.

No, it is not "new", it is the same point from the beginning of our discussion.

No, it's not; you made it up out of whole cloth. If you think it's what you've been arguing from the beginning, you are really, really, really, REALLY bad at communicating ideas, because it's not even a tiny bit in the words you put on the screen.

But, in reality, you just made it up when the other stuff didn't work.

Really, you need the accounting?

If you're going to claim that what they pay is "miniscule" compared to their benefit, then yes, you need to show the accounting.

Otherwise, you're just saying what you hope is true. What you "conceive" is meaningless; your "conception" of something doesn't make it so.

This is why I don't bother with you, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you still cannot concede to reason.

:rofl

1) The only one here who has given any "evidence" is I.

2) You "don't bother with me," yet I'd never even deal with you if you didn't engage me first, as you did in this thread.

What I don't "concede" to is unsubstantiated claims, especially when I've backed up my own arguments.

I take it, though, you've thrown in the towel and aren't even going to attempt to document your cost/benefit analysis claims. Run along if you must.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

LOL....you entirely ignore the main, repeated argument in the last paragraph AGAIN, the one you claimed as new, and show that it is beyond your comprehension.

This is a perfect example of your repeated inability to effectively debate. Dismissal while ignoring is not debate, it is avoidance.

Harshaw · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....you entirely ignore the main, repeated argument in the last paragraph AGAIN, the one you claimed as new, and show that it is beyond your comprehension.

Dude.

Seriously.

How do you not get that your conjecture, your claim, is meaningless without the actual documentation of fact to back it up?

You're making a mathematical claim -- show the math. Until you do, you've got exactly bupkis.

This is a perfect example of your repeated inability to effectively debate. Dismissal while ignoring is not debate, it is avoidance.

I have repeatedly invited you to substantiate your claims.

You have repeatedly declined to do so. This is not my problem.

Boo Radley · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Misterveritis said:
Fortunately, those of us who "buy the lies" are about to be the solution. Come NOvember there will be NObama.

He is a disaster. He must go. His ideas are foreign. His philosophy is Marxist. His beliefs are anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-liberty.
NOvember will be a turning point for the nation. If we reject the one term Marxist, as I believe we will, then we are on the very hard path toward liberty once again. If we keep the Marxist in power then it will be time to recognize that this experiment in individual liberty and freedom is over.

Romney may or may not win, but your lies will not cahnge anything in terms of the direction of the country. Romeny will govern with very little difference. You'll just not see it as clearly.

Boo Radley · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Misterveritis said:
Did government do that or did a population become more wealthy cause it?

How do we filter laws that cause more harm than good? One simple way is to have provision that sunset every law. We could use a sliding scale. If a law is passed unanimously then allow it to run for a decade. Then expire it. If it passes with one vote let it run a year. Do not allow any law to be re-passed without a debate in both chambers of Congress. Eliminate the ability of any agency to develop rules that can be foisted upon the American public without debate and votes in both houses of Congress. Put every proposed rule and law on the net for a minimum of one month along with all of the hearings about the rules or laws prior to a vote.

Immediately sunset the most costly laws and rules today with a minimum of 1% of those not yet discussed as above every month. Make no exceptions. Then the American people will begin to see that it is morning once again, in America.

How about, and this is a novel thought, addressing each law and regulation individually? If there is a good reason, keep it. If not, repeal it?

Also, what you keep missing is that people, American people, are often who brought these regulations about. Rarely did government act without some push from some group in the population outside of government.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Harshaw said:
I have repeatedly invited you to substantiate your claims.

You have repeatedly declined to do so. This is not my problem.

This is stupidity beyond belief. I am not going to gather the facts and figure showing the increased income for a business before and after a bridge is built, compare that to the marginal per unit trucking costs of using said bridge, and show that beyond these marginal costs passed to the huge increased numbers of customers, that the business has paid nothing for the massive benefits derived.

It is a fools errand for someone simply wanting to waste another's time while holding to a losing argument.

Dude.

Harshaw · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Gimmesometruth said:
This is stupidity beyond belief.

I absolutely agree, except YOU are the one offering it.

I am not going to gather the facts and figure showing the increased income for a business before and after a bridge is built, compare that to the marginal per unit trucking costs of using said bridge, and show that beyond these marginal costs passed to the huge increased numbers of customers, that the business has paid nothing for the massive benefits derived.

Well, if you want to make the claim that such a benefit exists over and above what they pay to use the bridge, then you're going to have to gather and post those facts.

Sorry if that's too bothersome for you.

It is a fools errand for someone simply wanting to waste another's time while holding to a losing argument.

You've never successfully repeated back what my argument is. What you want me to do is prove WRONG an argument of YOURS which you've pointedly REFUSED to substantiate.

No, really. You have expressly stated that you WILL NOT substantiate your argument.

If you don't have any confidence in your argument, that, too, is not my problem.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Harshaw said:
I absolutely agree, except YOU are the one offering it.Well, if you want to make the claim that such a benefit exists over and above what they pay to use the bridge, then you're going to have to gather and post those facts.Sorry if that's too bothersome for you.You've never successfully repeated back what my argument is. What you want me to do is prove WRONG an argument of YOURS which you've pointedly REFUSED to substantiate.No, really. You have expressly stated that you WILL NOT substantiate your argument.If you don't have any confidence in your argument, that, too, is not my problem.

Your argument...against mine....is simply a denial of my argument.....that the business IS paying a proportion amount for the benefit derived from the traffic increase. Your only supportive point has been "the delivery truck pays more"....but as I have repeatedly pointed out, that cost is tiny, marginal, per unit...AND IS PASSED ON to those increased numbers of customers.

Further, you can't even bring yourself to post, in its entirety and without parsing, my argument. You continue to avoid it. You claim it is "new". You want the math. The math is unnecessary since the costs you claim exist....do not. They are passed on. So unless YOU have some costs in mind that have not shown up in my argument....you again have nothing.

I have total confidence in my argument, and your denial has no standing.

Harshaw · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Gimmesometruth said:
Your argument...against mine....is simply a denial of my argument.....that the business IS paying a proportion amount for the benefit derived from the traffic increase. Your only supportive point has been "the delivery truck pays more"....but as I have repeatedly pointed out, that cost is tiny, marginal, per unit...AND IS PASSED ON to those increased numbers of customers.

Bzzzt. Incorrect. I told you twice what my argument is.

You prove me correct when I say you want me to disprove your argument which you expressly refuse to substantiate. And you have the temerity to say I don't know how debate works.

Further, you can't even bring yourself to post, in its entirety and without parsing, my argument. You continue to avoid it. You claim it is "new". You want the math. The math is unnecessary since the costs you claim exist....do not

That's hilarious. I posted the toll schedule. Those are the costs.

They are passed on. So unless YOU have some costs in mind that have not shown up in my argument....you again have nothing.

I have total confidence in my argument, and your denial has no standing.

So much confidence that you adamantly refuse to prove it.

Look, if your next post isn't mathematical support for your mathematical argument, then we're done here. No more time to waste on you.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 4, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Harshaw said:
Bzzzt. Incorrect. I told you twice what my argument is.

Your previous points were addressed by me....and you say I don't read well! The argument you are having with me now has moved beyond those.

You prove me correct when I say you want me to disprove your argument which you expressly refuse to substantiate. And you have the temerity to say I don't know how debate works.That's hilarious. I posted the toll schedule. Those are the costs.So much confidence that you adamantly refuse to prove it.
Look, if your next post isn't mathematical support for your mathematical argument, then we're done here. No more time to waste on you.

Obviously you have not worked retail, where the marginal shipping costs you cite as being the costs paid for the bridge, are past on to the customer. The business is not bearing those costs, they are passed on. And again, if that is all you have to counter that a business does not pay a proportional amount for the increased traffic to his door, sorry it amounts to zero.

If you don't want to address the current argument, my point, I suggest you move on.

hazlnut · Aug 5, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Not sure why the "That" and the "It" threads were never merged... nevertheless, here's hoping some people get better informed about the 'That' and the 'It'.

Cheers!!

Misterveritis · Aug 5, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Boo Radley said:
Romney may or may not win,

I will be delighted if the one term Marxist loses. If the number of takers has risen to the point that they can keep the one term Marxist in the White House that is enough of a signal that the nation is doomed for reasonable people to begin to consider their options.

but your lies will not cahnge anything in terms of the direction of the country.

Other than defeating the one term Marxist no action I take can change the direction of the nation-lies or not.

Romeny will govern with very little difference. You'll just not see it as clearly.

Romney's winning is just the beginning. We must also put more conservatives into the House and the Senate. We need to replace Speaker Boehner with a leader, preferably a conservative leader.

Then we must begin to dismantle the European-socialist state piece by piece. There will be a very great task ahead of us once Romney wins.

Misterveritis · Aug 5, 2012

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Boo Radley said:
How about, and this is a novel thought, addressing each law and regulation individually? If there is a good reason, keep it. If not, repeal it?

I offer the opposite approach because the quantity of regulations have become so vast. Let us do away with them and see if anyone notices them. If they are important enough to be noticed then let's follow my entirely reasonable approach to make sure the people actually want to bear the enormous burdens imposed upon them.

Also, what you keep missing is that people, American people, are often who brought these regulations about. Rarely did government act without some push from some group in the population outside of government.

I agree. But now it is time for a re-evaluation. Did the people really intend to shackle themselves to long term high unemployment and high energy costs? Did the people really intend that some busybody bureaucrat somewhere else could decide how they can or cannot use their land? Did American citizens really intend to sell their birthright to freedom for a handful of food stamps and utopian promises of getting something for nothing?

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

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Active member

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes