rushmc 23 #176 July 18, 2012 QuoteWhat happened to admiration and respect for those that succeed? This is the change Obama is pushing and hoping for"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #177 July 18, 2012 Some views from today's articles: Obama's Statism vs. the Self-Made Man Quote To redefine Steve Jobs as the product of the (necessary and unremarkable) infrastructure and government services around him is to devalue human creativity. The Obama formulation goes something like this: Steve Jobs couldn’t get to work every day without roads; he couldn’t drive safely on those roads without a well-regulated system of driver’s licenses; ergo, the San Jose, Calif., DMV practically built Apple. Obama to entrepreneurs: Your success belongs to the state Quote The point, though, is pointless. Of course successful businesses rely on roads and schools and firefighters. So do businesses that fail. But the existence of public infrastructure does not explain the difference between successful entreprenuers and failed ones. The difference is born from the very thing President Obama attempts to downplay almost to the point of denying it — the hard work, resourcefulness, creativity and ingenuity of those who persist until they succeed. Quote This is the thinking of a man who views businesses as entities to be milked for the good of the collective. This is the message he intends to try to sell in New Hampshire, where New Englanders often flee to start their own businesses because their home states tax and regulate too much. Good luck with that message, Mr. President. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #178 July 18, 2012 Man, the spin machine is working this one hard. I predict they're going to use this one right up until November. I sometime listen to conservative talk radio on the way home from work (Mark Levin is usually on) and Levin was practically cumming on his mike he was so excited about spinning Obama's speech. He said that this election is for the very soul of America. It is nothing less than freedom vs. tyranny. Very dramatic. Very misguided, but dramatic nonetheless. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #179 July 18, 2012 QuoteIt's Mitt's money. You'd think that this is Ireland and Mitt is Bono with the way he's villified for actually wanting to keep a bigger part of what he earned. Mitt can do anything legal that he wants with his money, but claiming the wealthy are job creators while stashing his own cash in the Caymans and Switzerland is simply hypocrisy. Fact is, the very wealthy have tilted the table to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the rest of the us. Mitt is a poster child for this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #180 July 18, 2012 QuoteSome views from today's articles: Obama's Statism vs. the Self-Made Man Quote To redefine Steve Jobs as the product of the (necessary and unremarkable) infrastructure and government services around him is to devalue human creativity. The Obama formulation goes something like this: Steve Jobs couldn’t get to work every day without roads; he couldn’t drive safely on those roads without a well-regulated system of driver’s licenses; ergo, the San Jose, Calif., DMV practically built Apple. I wonder how well Apple would have done if Jobs had been born and raised in Somalia, Niger or Sierra Leone.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #181 July 18, 2012 QuoteI wonder how well Apple would have done if Jobs had been born and raised in Somalia, Niger or Sierra Leone. He would have done better. Government only hinders business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #182 July 18, 2012 QuoteWhat happened to admiration and respect for those that succeed? Gone. Success is a bad word now. If a person is a success, it was because of somebody else. Because somebody else is responsible for it, then the successful person does not deserve to keep the fruits of that success. It's how it goes. I believe what the President is doing is delegitimizing the success of anybody who has experienced it. By doing so, it makes it easier to justify stripping the success from them. "You didn't earn your success. Other people built it. Therefore, I'm going to take it from and give it to them, with a cut off the top for me." Delegitimize someone's success and it's easier to go after that person. By pointing out that the American government is what gave them the success to begin with is cause to say, "you should be paying the government back, plus interest." It's a simple thing. Delegitimize the earnings. Delegitimize the person. If you believe the person, in essence, freeloaded off of everyone else then you'll have no problem removing those illicit gains. The more I think about it the more sense I am seeing about the statement. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #183 July 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhat happened to admiration and respect for those that succeed? Gone. Success is a bad word now. STRAWMAN.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #184 July 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteSome views from today's articles: Obama's Statism vs. the Self-Made Man Quote To redefine Steve Jobs as the product of the (necessary and unremarkable) infrastructure and government services around him is to devalue human creativity. The Obama formulation goes something like this: Steve Jobs couldn’t get to work every day without roads; he couldn’t drive safely on those roads without a well-regulated system of driver’s licenses; ergo, the San Jose, Calif., DMV practically built Apple. I wonder how well Apple would have done if Jobs had been born and raised in Somalia, Niger or Sierra Leone. The main difference I see with your line of thinking is the government risks nothing. They produce nothing. All they really do is spend and collect other people's money. When an individual decides to start his/her own business they are risking everything they have. To devalue that risk and equate it as equal to what the government has done is wrong. The line is starting to blur as to whether the government works for us or we work for the government.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #185 July 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat happened to admiration and respect for those that succeed? Gone. Success is a bad word now. STRAWMAN. not really - Lawrocket is pretty on about how the psychology is being established - I don't think it's on purpose though, this is actually how a LOT of people really think, that there is no such thing as personal property or success based on effort and abilities so it's less of at setup, rather, it's just them putting out their deeply felt philosophy of "what's yours, isn't really yours, it is mine" someone will give the grey area discussion right on cue soon (the "actually, there are examples that show exactly that government really DOES own everything") - perhaps with an 'eminent domain' gambit or so ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #186 July 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat happened to admiration and respect for those that succeed? Gone. Success is a bad word now. STRAWMAN. not really - Lawrocket is pretty on about how the psychology is being established - DISAGREE. The right has gone out of its way to vilify government for the past 30 years. Pointing out that government is necessary to individual success is NOT saying that success is a bad word.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #188 July 18, 2012 QuoteThe main difference I see with your line of thinking is the government risks nothing. They produce nothing. All they really do is spend and collect other people's money. When an individual decides to start his/her own business they are risking everything they have. You are comparing an institution to an individual. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Business and Government need eachother, one really cannot survive without the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #189 July 18, 2012 it is not a 50/50 proposition. In my world the government works for me as it was designed to.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #190 July 18, 2012 Quoteit is not a 50/50 proposition. In my world the government works for me as it was designed to. It's not ALL about you. There are some 310,000,000 others that the government has to work for.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #191 July 18, 2012 Quoteit is not a 50/50 proposition. In my world the government works for me as it was designed to. Government should work for the people, not for a person. But it does nicely highlight one of the major issues, people only think about themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #192 July 18, 2012 Quote Mitt can do anything legal that he wants with his money, but claiming the wealthy are job creators while stashing his own cash in the Caymans and Switzerland is simply hypocrisy.. What? How on earth is keeping your money not creating jobs? If you got that money because you were something like the CEO, Board Member, upper officer, etc. you certainly helped create jobs. If you got that money because you invested prior money into a company, you certainly helped create jobs, etc. You've gone way out into left field to make those dots connect.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #193 July 18, 2012 Strawman? Okay. So tell me, then, where is a successful person being appreciated by the President nowadays? Besides all the fundraising events he's attending? But in order for you to assert "strawman" you should tell me where the position that inidividual prosperity and success is encouraged. In order to say "strawman" you must point me to a cogent point that is not as severe or extreme as mine. So let's hear it. What is the President's position on the desirability of wealth and success and the individual maintenance of same? As a logician, you know that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the accuracy of the "STRAWMAN" argument. The President just said that Apple was better after Steve Jobs returned because of factors outside of Steve Jobs. As I wrote earlier, if society is responsible for successes of entrepeneurs (and the entrepeneeurs should pay society for it), then society should pay back all entrepeneurs who went out of business, since society brought about the failures, too. Ken Lay didn't cause Enron. Someone else did it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #194 July 18, 2012 QuoteStrawman? Okay. So tell me, then, where is a successful person being appreciated by the President nowadays? Besides all the fundraising events he's attending? But in order for you to assert "strawman" you should tell me where the position that inidividual prosperity and success is encouraged. In order to say "strawman" you must point me to a cogent point that is not as severe or extreme as mine. So let's hear it. What is the President's position on the desirability of wealth and success and the individual maintenance of same? As a logician, you know that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the accuracy of the "STRAWMAN" argument. The President just said that Apple was better after Steve Jobs returned because of factors outside of Steve Jobs. As I wrote earlier, if society is responsible for successes of entrepeneurs (and the entrepeneeurs should pay society for it), then society should pay back all entrepeneurs who went out of business, since society brought about the failures, too. Ken Lay didn't cause Enron. Someone else did it. 1. I call strawman because what you stated is simply untrue. The burden is on YOU to show where Obama said success is a bad word. 2. Government doesn't guarantee success, it enables it. Lack of government can guarantee failure (how many successful mega-corporations started in Somalia or Chad?). Your lawyer tricks don't work here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #195 July 18, 2012 QuoteBut in order for you to assert "strawman" you should tell me where the position that inidividual prosperity and success is encouraged. Your tax code. Getting very wealthy is certainly rewarded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #196 July 18, 2012 QuoteQuote Mitt can do anything legal that he wants with his money, but claiming the wealthy are job creators while stashing his own cash in the Caymans and Switzerland is simply hypocrisy.. What? How on earth is keeping your money not creating jobs? If you got that money because you were something like the CEO, Board Member, upper officer, etc. you certainly helped create jobs. If you got that money because you invested prior money into a company, you certainly helped create jobs, etc. You've gone way out into left field to make those dots connect. Nope, you just refuse to see the lines. I put my savings in a US bank. They lend it to small US businesses and US homebuyers. How is Mitt's money in the Caymans helping the US economy?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #197 July 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteit is not a 50/50 proposition. In my world the government works for me as it was designed to. Government should work for the people, not for a person. But it does nicely highlight one of the major issues, people only think about themselves. Indeed. It's why there isn't a person who doesn't get pissed off when the government works against him or her. When you are picked as the loser, it tends to cause bitterness. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 871 #198 July 18, 2012 overseas funding? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #199 July 18, 2012 Okay. So when the President "asks" the successful to "pay their fair share" the President presumes that they aren't. What the President is really saying is "I'm going to take more from you because you have more to take." Because the only money that he is "asking" for is campaign contributions for - himself. Sure they pay 90% of all income taxes - those wealthiest. But it's not enough, is it? Enough for whom? We've got a President who has brought subjective puffery to a science. Arguing "fairness" as if it is objective. Whom does he want to do more? The wealthy - who are already doing most. I find it so utterly fascinating that people are horrified that money is going overseas. And why are they horrified? Because they can't take it if the money is in Turks and Caicos. Of course, if the government said, "Keep your money here and you'll keep it. We won't take it from you" then the money would remain. Even do-gooders like Lennon and Bono split their homelands for better tax treatment. How much of that US money would be here if we, I dunno, did what Turks and Caicos does? A lot more. People put money in banks so that it would be more secure than under the mattress. People have private safes so that their valuables aren't taken. When a person who is successful begins to believe that the fruits of success will be stripped from him or her and it becomes a better option to simply LEAVE, we should begin to wonder, "what can we do to get those valuable people to stay?" The successful are feeling as if they are being punished. The President , with his words, is reinforcing that feeling. Perhaps others don't view it as punishment to increase the tax burden on the wealthiest in order to disburse more money to others or lower the burden on others. But as the Occupy Movement showed, the most successful people are the ones are subject to a treemendous amount of contempt. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #200 July 18, 2012 [Reply]I put my savings in a US bank. They lend it to small US businesses and US homebuyers. Are you taxed on the money that you make off of it? Would the choice of putting your money in a local bank versus the Caymans cost you millions of dollars per year? Note - are the Cayman banks depository institutions or investment banks? And do these Cayman banks fund larger investment banks in the US? I'll bet they do. It's like saying that Chinese money doesn't help Americans. Sure it does - our government would have been bankrupt years ago had China not pumped it up. So ironic that putting money offshore causes such horrors while servicing US Debt to foreign treasury note holders is just so fine and dandy and we should commit ourselves to sending a trillion per year for thirty years over to these foreign investors. (Aint nobody suggesting that taxing the wealthy will balance the budget). It boggles the mind! The ONLY reason the President wants wealthy money here is so that he can tax it. Congress could have done something about it, too. But didn't. They'd rather service debt in perpetuity by sending American dollars seized from citizens overseas... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
