• 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]

Okay, so Barrack Obama has made the economy much worse for everyone, and I happen to agree.

I hope you keep that in mind while in the voting booth.

I live in Ohio, Grant. I'd give Obama a B on the economy. There are other performance areas on which I'd give him a much lower grade, and no, he did not clue in that we were in trouble as fast as I would have liked. OTOH, there was never a day in his presidency that he wasn't working on it.

I'd give Romney an F, based upon what I believe the impact of his policies would be. As I mentioned, I lived through the Recession of the 1970's and I have no faith whatsoever in "trickle down economics".

I am baffled that anyone still believes this could work, but apparently, some do.
 
I live in Ohio, Grant. I'd give Obama a B on the economy. There are other performance areas on which I'd give him a much lower grade, and no, he did not clue in that we were in trouble as fast as I would have liked. OTOH, there was never a day in his presidency that he wasn't working on it.

I'd give Romney an F, based upon what I believe the impact of his policies would be. As I mentioned, I lived through the Recession of the 1970's and I have no faith whatsoever in "trickle down economics".

I am baffled that anyone still believes this could work, but apparently, some do.

Wait. You lived through the recession of the 1970s..... did you live through the recovery of the 1980s? Who do you think was President when?
 
Obama qualified this statement with the second part of the sentence. It has to be read together otherwise there will be a mass of confusion. Entitlement is a matter of law or some other means where someone declares they are due success and that is not the case in this situation.

You just cannot separate that which is grammatically connected as glean the proper meaning of the statement. "We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country, but we do believe in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules."

Excuse me, but in my very first post in this thread I stated that I have no problem with the first part. I also didn't mention any problem with the part about everyone getting a fair shot or playing by the same rules. As I've stated, I have questions about the "everybody is doing their fair share" part. Plus, this isn't the first time Obama has uttered that phrase. He said it during the debates and, at that time, there was no mention of any entitlements. I want to know what that phrase means.

Like every one else who has responded to me, you have avoided answering my questions. Thank you, Connery...for nothing.
 
Wait. You lived through the recession of the 1970s..... did you live through the recovery of the 1980s? Who do you think was President when?

Reagan, but I do not credit him with the recovery. Anymore than I hate on Carter for the recession.
 
Excuse me, but in my very first post in this thread I stated that I have no problem with the first part. I also didn't mention any problem with the part about everyone getting a fair shot or playing by the same rules. As I've stated, I have questions about the "everybody is doing their fair share" part. Plus, this isn't the first time Obama has uttered that phrase. He said it during the debates and, at that time, there was no mention of any entitlements. I want to know what that phrase means.

Like every one else who has responded to me, you have avoided answering my questions. Thank you, Connery...for nothing.

Just because you don't care for my answers does not mean they do not exist.
 
So, your big complaint about Obama is that he did not cure the Great Recession? And you believe Romney will?

Exactly what is it that Romney will do to end recession, Grant?

No, there are many other legitimate complaints against Obama rather than just the economy. That is just one of his failures, though an important one.

Romney has actually outlined his plans very articulately, and you can go to his web site or follow the last debate to see what they are. It might be wise to look at the plans from both candidates and see which one is more realistic. Looking at their records of success and failures might also shed some light.
 
I think the key word is "entitled." You are not "entitled" to success, you get there by your own work.

It baffles me that so many Conservatives in this thread are so quick to attack Obama that they don't see it. For a group that's always talking about things like "work hard," and "you're not entitled." I mean, if you work hard and earn it, that's great. But you are not entitled to have it handed to you.
 
I think the key word is "entitled." You are not "entitled" to success, you get there by your own work.

It baffles me that so many Conservatives in this thread are so quick to attack Obama that they don't see it. For a group that's always talking about things like "work hard," and "you're not entitled." I mean, if you work hard and earn it, that's great. But you are not entitled to have it handed to you.

Are you entitled to success if you've earned it? Why will nobody answer this question?
 
I live in Ohio, Grant. I'd give Obama a B on the economy. There are other performance areas on which I'd give him a much lower grade, and no, he did not clue in that we were in trouble as fast as I would have liked. OTOH, there was never a day in his presidency that he wasn't working on it.

I'd give Romney an F, based upon what I believe the impact of his policies would be. As I mentioned, I lived through the Recession of the 1970's and I have no faith whatsoever in "trickle down economics".

I am baffled that anyone still believes this could work, but apparently, some do.

Considering how many Republicans in the primaries were willing to vote for "not Romney," the gymnastics they're going through now to declare that he will "save us from certain destruction" are kind of fun to watch.

We've had 2 straight failures in the White House. If Republicans have their way, they want to make it 3.
 
I live in Ohio, Grant. I'd give Obama a B on the economy. There are other performance areas on which I'd give him a much lower grade, and no, he did not clue in that we were in trouble as fast as I would have liked. OTOH, there was never a day in his presidency that he wasn't working on it.

I'd give Romney an F, based upon what I believe the impact of his policies would be. As I mentioned, I lived through the Recession of the 1970's and I have no faith whatsoever in "trickle down economics".

I am baffled that anyone still believes this could work, but apparently, some do.

Where did Romney use the phrase of 'trickle down economics'? He actually referred to 'trickle down government'.

By giving Romney an "F" for his policies, which policy in particular do you find to be the worst?

It seems this 'Great Recession" would have been so great had Obama been able to turn things around. It would have just been a dark memory of the final couple of years of the Bush Presidency. It is the length of it which makes it great, with no end in sight through Obama's failed policies. I can't see how the American economy can continue to survive under his mismanagement. Questions are now being openly asked if he is destroying the economy deliberately.
 
So, your big complaint about Obama is that he did not cure the Great Recession? And you believe Romney will?

Exactly what is it that Romney will do to end recession, Grant?

Goodness. Hm. where to start:


currently our tax system costs us $431 Billion annually - just to figure out how to comply with the damn thing. thats' $431 Billion wasted on paperwork. that's huge - it's fully 3% of GDP that could be plowed right back into growth instead wasted on compliance, avoidance, and paperwork. Our tax structure provides all kinds of incentives and tax loopholes for people to engage in economically unproductive behavior; shifting income, investment, wealth, and location around so as to minimize tax exposure rather than maximize productivity. To be blunt, it diverts massive amounts of wealth from productive to less (or straight up 'un') productive uses every year. Our tax code punishes people for saving and investing (which is economically beneficial) and rewards them for going into debt in order to consume (which is economically harmful). It punishes people for getting married and forming stable families in which to raise children. It discourages new business formation and investment. It encourages malinvestment and helps to feed bubbles. On top of all that, it costs us a huge amount of money to maintain. We could fight four wars the size of Iraq and Afghanistan, and still have enough left to fund the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, NASA, and the EPA; just on the cost of compliance alone.

The Laffer center estimates that if we could just cut our complexity in half, we would gain 0.5% of extra growth every year which means it would compound over time. That's why both the Bi-Partisan Bowles Simpson plan, the 2012 House Republican plan, and the Romney plan build on the success of earlier tax reforms and strip out corporate welfare, tax loopholes, and complexities in the tax code and replace it with flatter, lower rates with minimized compliance costs and minimized ability to avoid taxes as a necessary step in stimulating economic growth. That they are revenue neutral (IE: since they cut rates only enough to make up the gain given by the stripping of the loopholes) is an added bonus - though Bowles-Simpson estimates it will get us an extra $100 Billion a year, which it suggested we should automatically peg towards debt reduction. Both of those predictions, it should be noted, are (as i understand it) scored statically; given the likely growth following that significant reduction in complexity there is a strong argument to be made that revenues would rise by considerably more than that. The growth from the loss of complexity and the loss of uncertainty would be explosive and compounding, meaning that every year the effect would be stronger.


The unemployment rate right now in North Dakota is about 3%. In oil country, even truck drivers can make six figures. We have more oil in the Rocky Mountains alone than Saudi Arabia has; and we have even more natural gas and oil along our shorelines, and even more coal. Energy jobs are A) blue collar jobs that B) pay significantly higher than the median wage and C) cannot be shipped overseas, ever. The growth potentials of this are amazing, and the jobs that would be directly and indirectly created are legion. I'm a pretty pessimistic guy when it comes to our nations' fiscal state, but the growth potential in our energy sector is one of the few things that really gets' me excited. We need to make like Canada, Great Britain, and Russia, and start taking advantage of it to create decent jobs and higher living standards for our people.


Generally, Romney is a businessman. He knows how to make stuff grow, and he knows that his reelection would be dependent on him doing so. Obama is a college lecturer. He knows how to give good monologues, but the operations of the free market are a bit opaque to him, so of course he isn't going to be able to handle it skillfully.
 
Just because you don't care for my answers does not mean they do not exist.

My dear, you didn't answer any of my questions.
 
If you earned it, you earned it. That's not an entitlement.

Doesn't "entitle" just mean getting what you're due? Entitle does not always have to mean government entitlements, and actually nothing's that's unearned should even be considered an "entitlement".
 
I really don't understand the point of this thread. Are rightists complaining because he says that people cannot expect to have success spoon-fed to them, or handed to them on a plate? I thought that that was their schtick. I thought the Right was whole-heartedly against the entitlement culture. If they are now saying that he was wrong in what he said, what would they have had him say?

That is my understanding yes.... entitlements to success. Like a free lunch...
 
Goodness. Hm. where to start:


currently our tax system costs us $431 Billion annually - just to figure out how to comply with the damn thing. thats' $431 Billion wasted on paperwork. that's huge - it's fully 3% of GDP that could be plowed right back into growth instead wasted on compliance, avoidance, and paperwork. Our tax structure provides all kinds of incentives and tax loopholes for people to engage in economically unproductive behavior; shifting income, investment, wealth, and location around so as to minimize tax exposure rather than maximize productivity. To be blunt, it diverts massive amounts of wealth from productive to less (or straight up 'un') productive uses every year.

Agreed.

Our tax code punishes people for saving and investing (which is economically beneficial) and rewards them for going into debt in order to consume (which is economically harmful).

Wrong. There is a capital gains rate, and the only interest expense a family may deduct is mortgage interest, which BTW, has been deductible as long as we have had an income tax.

It punishes people for getting married and forming stable families in which to raise children.

No, there's a hefty penalty on remaining single and childless. However, IMO, "encouraging stable families" is no more the proper goal of a tax that "discouraging smoking". Taxes should raise revenue, period.

It discourages new business formation and investment.

How so? Yes, there are limits on deductions for the expenses associated with passive income and hobbies, but these are necessary to curb tax avoidance.

It encourages malinvestment and helps to feed bubbles.

I dunno whether I agree with this or not.

On top of all that, it costs us a huge amount of money to maintain. We could fight four wars the size of Iraq and Afghanistan, and still have enough left to fund the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, NASA, and the EPA; just on the cost of compliance alone.

Not sure about your numbers, but yes, the cost of compliance is too high. I'd support a flat tax partially for this reason -- however, the costs associated with third party reporting are offset by their efficiencies and the tax avoidance they inhibit.

The Laffer center estimates that if we could just cut our complexity in half, we would gain 0.5% of extra growth every year which means it would compound over time.

What complexity? The IRS Code's? Unless you can explain which loophole you are closing, I cannot agree.

That's why both the Bi-Partisan Bowles Simpson plan, the 2012 House Republican plan, and the Romney plan build on the success of earlier tax reforms and strip out corporate welfare, tax loopholes, and complexities in the tax code and replace it with flatter, lower rates with minimized compliance costs and minimized ability to avoid taxes as a necessary step in stimulating economic growth.

This is my "don't kid a kidder" face, cpwill. No way will Romney do any such thing.

That they are revenue neutral (IE: since they cut rates only enough to make up the gain given by the stripping of the loopholes) is an added bonus - though Bowles-Simpson estimates it will get us an extra $100 Billion a year, which it suggested we should automatically peg towards debt reduction.

First, no one can predict that any closed loophole will generate more revenue. There'll be pushback from the sector who had been enjoying it, and the tax bar is VERY creative. Second, only a naive person could believe Romney will "end corporate welfare", as he'd be defeating the interests of his core constituency as well as betraying the "promise" of trickle down.

Both of those predictions, it should be noted, are (as i understand it) scored statically; given the likely growth following that significant reduction in complexity there is a strong argument to be made that revenues would rise by considerably more than that. The growth from the loss of complexity and the loss of uncertainty would be explosive and compounding, meaning that every year the effect would be stronger.

What "loss of uncertainty"? There's an unavoidable efficiency cost associated with every change to the IRS Code.

The unemployment rate right now in North Dakota is about 3%. In oil country, even truck drivers can make six figures. We have more oil in the Rocky Mountains alone than Saudi Arabia has; and we have even more natural gas and oil along our shorelines, and even more coal. Energy jobs are A) blue collar jobs that B) pay significantly higher than the median wage and C) cannot be shipped overseas, ever. The growth potentials of this are amazing, and the jobs that would be directly and indirectly created are legion. I'm a pretty pessimistic guy when it comes to our nations' fiscal state, but the growth potential in our energy sector is one of the few things that really gets' me excited. We need to make like Canada, Great Britain, and Russia, and start taking advantage of it to create decent jobs and higher living standards for our people.

BP Oil Spill? Ring any bells?

Generally, Romney is a businessman. He knows how to make stuff grow, and he knows that his reelection would be dependent on him doing so. Obama is a college lecturer. He knows how to give good monologues, but the operations of the free market are a bit opaque to him, so of course he isn't going to be able to handle it skillfully.

Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.

OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.
 
Doesn't "entitle" just mean getting what you're due? Entitle does not always have to mean government entitlements, and actually nothing's that's unearned should even be considered an "entitlement".

Now we're just getting hung up on semantics. You could also say that you are not due success. You earn it.
 
Excuse me, but in my very first post in this thread I stated that I have no problem with the first part. I also didn't mention any problem with the part about everyone getting a fair shot or playing by the same rules. As I've stated, I have questions about the "everybody is doing their fair share" part. Plus, this isn't the first time Obama has uttered that phrase. He said it during the debates and, at that time, there was no mention of any entitlements. I want to know what that phrase means.

Like every one else who has responded to me, you have avoided answering my questions. Thank you, Connery...for nothing.


There is no first or second part... In context it appears he is talking about tax issues.

What do you consider fair share to mean. I did not avoid anything just keep it all in context.
 
Well, whatever "cost" you believe Obama intends to extract from Americans remains a mystery to us all, Mycroft.

"Cost"???

I've said nothing about any "cost", Pinkie.
 
Agreed.



Wrong. There is a capital gains rate, and the only interest expense a family may deduct is mortgage interest, which BTW, has been deductible as long as we have had an income tax.



No, there's a hefty penalty on remaining single and childless. However, IMO, "encouraging stable families" is no more the proper goal of a tax that "discouraging smoking". Taxes should raise revenue, period.



How so? Yes, there are limits on deductions for the expenses associated with passive income and hobbies, but these are necessary to curb tax avoidance.



I dunno whether I agree with this or not.



Not sure about your numbers, but yes, the cost of compliance is too high. I'd support a flat tax partially for this reason -- however, the costs associated with third party reporting are offset by their efficiencies and the tax avoidance they inhibit.



What complexity? The IRS Code's? Unless you can explain which loophole you are closing, I cannot agree.



This is my "don't kid a kidder" face, cpwill. No way will Romney do any such thing.



First, no one can predict that any closed loophole will generate more revenue. There'll be pushback from the sector who had been enjoying it, and the tax bar is VERY creative. Second, only a naive person could believe Romney will "end corporate welfare", as he'd be defeating the interests of his core constituency as well as betraying the "promise" of trickle down.



What "loss of uncertainty"? There's an unavoidable efficiency cost associated with every change to the IRS Code.



BP Oil Spill? Ring any bells?



Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.

OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.

[QOUTE]I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.

Oh they they are most definately sharks. Of this I know you are so right.
 
Well, the President should pick up his words more carefully then

I agree. It's amazing to me that the both sides have an army of script writers, and gaffs still happen.

'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

as opposed to:

We don't guarantee success in this country...

There's plenty enough "gotcha' moments to go around on both sides. This is one of those. Very poorly written.
 
"Cost"???

I've said nothing about any "cost", Pinkie.

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?
 
There is no first or second part... In context it appears he is talking about tax issues.

What do you consider fair share to mean. I did not avoid anything just keep it all in context.

As I said, this isn't the first time he's said those words. Here they are...with context:

In President Obama's closing statement at last night's debate, he seemed to make a remarkable slip. "All those things are designed to make sure that the American people, their genius, their grit, their determination, is -- is channeled and -- and they have an opportunity to succeed. And everybody's getting a fair shot. And everybody's getting a fair share," Obama said, before quickly correcting himself and adding.

"[E]verybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules," he added.

Obama: 'Everybody's Getting a Fair Share' | The Weekly Standard

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"?
 
Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.

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.


OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.

Are you aware of the storied corruption of Chicago politics?
 
Back
Top Bottom