I'll apologize in advance for posting a link from Foxnews, but you can ignore commentary and look at the actual quotes attributed to Obama...

Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that' | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/15/obama-dashes-american-dream-suggests-nobody-achieves-success-alone/)

In a speech to supporters, Obama downplayed the role of the individual in starting successful busineses. Instead, in true socialist fashion, Obama lectured business owners that they didn't do it on their own. Look, no one has any issues with reminding business owners that the capitalist system creates the environment in which they thrive, and that it must continue to be supported. No one disagrees with that.

But why can't Obama acknowledge that, and at the same time, remind the rest of us that business owners are to be commended for taking the risks they take? Why can't he stop bashing business leaders?

Moreover, Obama took this notion to deranged, Twilight Zone levels. He said this, it's an exact quote from our Bolshevik-in-chief...

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"

Read that again. And a third time for good measure. That statement came from the mouth of the sitting president of the United States.

JohnR, aren't you relieved to hear Obama declare that it wasn't YOU that built this great website? Nope, it wasn't YOU who toiled away with building this. Rather, it was the FCC! Hooray for the government!! John, therefore you OWE it to the rest of us to give even more of your revenue to the feds. Otherwise, you are a selfish, greedy, bastard.

Individuals who start businesses from the ground up are to be honored, not dismissed. (I have never started a business, never so inclined). Those who start businesses from scratch work endless hours, take second mortgages, max out their credit cards, take enormous risks. Does Komrade Obama congratulate such folks? No. He derides them, to remind them that they owe the rest of us, big-time. He casually dismisses successful entrepeneurs who think they got where they are because of hard work. Even though that's irrefutably true, Obama cannot acknowledge it, because it contradicts liberalsim. Obama reminds business leaders that there are lots of smart, hard-working people out there.

In other words, those who start businesses from the ground up, aren't any different than anybody else, and therefore, they don't deserve anything more than those who don't start businesses. That's obviously what Obama is implying, and it's complete, 100 percent, bullsh*t.

JohnnyD, according to Obama, you never built a business. Someone else did it for you. No doubt some member of a public labor union.

Unfreakinbelievable. And here in CT, Obama will win with 98% of the vote.

How long, O' Lord?

Go ahead Spence, defend that...

Obama is also making the false assumption here that conservatives are somehow opposed to government infastructure, and that we need to be reminded that public schools and the fire department are good.

No sh*t. Nobody disagrees with that.

Again, since he cannot point to any record of presonal achievement in the area of economics, instead he demonizes those who disagree with him. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I think his point about "you didn't make that" is that your business was built on the backs I your employees.
Cost of living has gone up about 20%-30% in the last 15 years... Wages... Not so much.
Must be that mental illness again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think his point about "you didn't make that" is that your business was built on the backs I your employees.
Cost of living has gone up about 20%-30% in the last 15 years... Wages... Not so much.
Must be that mental illness again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Speaking in terms of minimum wages:

Minimum wage in 1997 = $5.15
Minimum wage in 2012 = $7.25

That is a 29% increase over the last 15 years and appears to be on par with cost of living...............

Explain how you could live on that wage today. It's impossible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain how you could live on that wage today. It's impossible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm glad I can't :)

It has increased with the cost of living though, just saying.............

I think his point about "you didn't make that" is that your business was built on the backs I your employees.
Cost of living has gone up about 20%-30% in the last 15 years... Wages... Not so much.
Must be that mental illness again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) Your assumption of what he meant is quite a leap, if you look at what the man actually said. Obama said business folks benefit from folks who build roads and bridges, and they benefit from sacrifices made by schoolteachers. (All that is true, by the way. But it's also pointless, because business owners continue to support that infastructure by paying taxes. I don't know why Obama felt the need to point out that we benefit from roads and bridges and schools, because I have never heard an influential conservative say otherwise)

(2) Do employees break their backs at work for free? I sure don't. Your point assumes that business owners are exploiting their employees. Where's the evidence of that? Unfortunately for liberals, not every wealthy American is a sinister, cartoonish version of Mr Potter from "It's A Wonderful Life" or Mr Burns from "The Simpsons". Liberals can beat the "blame the rich" drum all they want, and I'm certain they believe it's a valid point, but it's stupid nonetheless.

Eben, you sarcastically throw around the term mental illness. What do you call it when a President consistently blames succesful people for the challenges faced by others?

One person's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Bill Gates earns another million today (and he probably will), that does NOT mean there's a million less for the rest of us. In fact, it's better for all of us if he earns another million, because he pays a high tax rate on that, which lessens the burden on the rest of us.

To claim otherwise is, well, a mental illness. The irrefutable fact is, the existence of wealthy people is a good thing for the non-wealthy. As a group, they pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes, they create jobs, and they give a lot to charity. Yuo never hear Obama say these things. Because it's easier for him to blame them for his idiotic decisions.

.
Cost of living has gone up about 20%-30% in the last 15 years... Wages... Not so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And are you saying that small business owners are to blame for that? I'd love to hear that reasoning...

I think his point about "you didn't make that" is that your business was built on the backs I your employees.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"Yes, that is part of the point he was making. And "built on the backs [of?] your employees" is the kind of class warfare rhetoric he may well have wished to imply. Everybody's backs are being "ridden" in a business, including, and especially, the backs of those who start and run the business. The employees are riding the backs of the employers whose backs created and maintain the business that creates the jobs to which the workers voluntarily donate their backs for the remuneration that enables them to have a functional, if not a good, life. And a free enterprise system REQUIRES that there be entrepeneurs. They are its life blood. It requires individual effort from top down and bottom up. It's purpose is to make possible individualism and individual liberty, as opposed to a socialistic system which requires collective effort (whatever that is) to maintain Woodrow Wilson's concept of society as a well functioning beehive. Socialism's benefits are to the hive not the drones.

So the entrepeneur does not owe anything more to society than his effort. The society depends as much, or more, on him than he depends on society. He has already contributed greatly and more meaningfully than his employees to a society whose purpose is individual liberty

The biggest problem is when business owners outsource to china and give their employees the boot. That is the problem. Then those employees go on unemployment, then possibly welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Business owners take most of the risk and should get most of the reward.

And, no. I'm not a business owner.

The biggest problem is when business owners outsource to china and give their employees the boot. That is the problem. Then those employees go on unemployment, then possibly welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you see as a problem is actually a solution. The static idea of a never ending unchanging hive is possible with bees and ants. Humans appear to be more complex and seem to have a wide array of yearnings. Many, if not most, do not wish to be merely drones. Business owners "outsourcing" rather than maintaining the inflexible hive, creates a more fluid society with varying possibilities. New opportunities for new entrepeneurs and new jobs are made with shifting demographics. This is what usually happens when the free market is allowed to function. Is that uncomfortable? Freedom is not comfortable. It requires constant vigilance and constant effort. The comfort of one nice paying job for life with great bennies is only possible if it is sustainable. If you wish the comfort of the hive, how do you propose to sustain it?

The biggest problem is when business owners outsource to china and give their employees the boot. That is the problem. Then those employees go on unemployment, then possibly welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On that, I agree with you 100%. Outsourcing to China has hurt many American workers.

But (1) that's not what Obama was addressing. As someone else on this thread stated, Obama's speech that I posted is pure class warfare rhetoric, and it is has zero validity.

and (2) while outsourcing has caused problems, that's not the fault of wealthy people, nor is it the fault of business owners, nor is it the fault of on epolitical party.

Obama cannot address the outsourcing issue by telling his base that business owners are to blame for their lot in life. Obama is demonizing a group of people that have done nothing wrong. It's completely immoral.

Another part of the poverty problem is that, in the black community, 72.5% of babies are born without a father in the house. The black community will not , can not, rise out of poverty en masse, until that is addressed. But instead of giving them the tough love they need, Obama tells them to blame rich white folks.

If you see honor in that, that's your right. But I see no honor in it.

I think his point about "you didn't make that" is that your business was built on the backs I your employees.
Cost of living has gone up about 20%-30% in the last 15 years... Wages... Not so much.
Must be that mental illness again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just left a business where many of the employees made the same or more than I did in an average year. They also had less responsibility and worked fewer hours.

Then there's my current business with one employee (me) and the occasional Boston freelancers that I'll hire.

Because he's pandering to "the working man", Obama intentionally neglects to mention that 99% of all businesses are small businesses and they employ half of all working people in this country. Not to mention that 52% of those small businesses are home-based - meaning that the owner is likely working harder and longer hours than their employees.
Frequently Asked Questions (http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24)

Obama intentionally neglects to mention that the business world is made up of more than just Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and other massive businesses (that also happen to be top Obama Donors).
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Obama prefers to paint any person who owns a business as someone that has to find time between golf at their country club and trips on the yacht in order to make business decisions and decide on how best to screw over the average worker. Unfortunately because of this philosophy being preached by Obama, anyone who owns a business is assumed to be part of some secret society that has members that have never known a hard day's work.


I guess I should get started writing thank you letters to all those employees that worked for free in order to keep me propped up in high society.

How about you Nebe? Have you written thank you letters to all the employees of yours that have kept you propped up so The Glass Station can continue functioning?

Obama prefers to paint any person who owns a business as someone that has to find time between golf at their country club and trips on the yacht in order to make business decisions and decide on how best to screw over the average worker. Unfortunately because of this philosophy being preached by Obama, anyone who owns a business is assumed to be part of some secret society that has members that have never known a hard day's work.

Bingo.

I couldn't help but notice that when Obama (you know, the one who sympathisizes with the little guy) vacations on Martha's Vineyard, he's not pitching a tent or staying in a youth hostel. So it's OK, I guess, for him to pursue the rewards of wealth and prestige. But if anyone alse does it, we are the enemy.

I also notice that when Obama goes to fundraisers in Hollywood, he doesn't lecture Barbara Streisand and Steven Spielberg about the fact that their servents (employees) make a lot less than they do..

So if you are wealthy and vote Democrat, then you are a swell guy. If you are wealthy and vote Republican, you are a sinister crook hell-bent on screwing your employees.

That's "hope and change"?

Unfreakinbelievable. And here in CT, the only unknown this November, is how badly my side will lose to these people.

You guys are funny.

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP.

Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are funny.

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP.

Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP."

Spence, let's pretend for a second that I agree with you on this statement (which, of course, I do not). Why is Obama going to a scheduled speech for the purpose of provoking the GOP? Doesn't he have better things to do? In the 2008 campaign, he said he didn't believe in red states vs blue states, just the United States. He said he was going to be a uniter. He said that HE was going to bring change, and put an end to partisan rhetoric.

If you are corrcet, that he was just provoking the GOP, how does that fit in with his promises to unite all of us.

Hmmm?

"Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites."

No. Once again, you are categorically dismissing any and all things that Obama says, that make him look like an idiot. Once again, you are the one editing htings and taking things out of context, and making assumptions about his intentions that you cannot possibly have any knowledge of.

I'm discussing what the man actually said. He said that business owners did not create their businesses, someone else did. That's what the man said.

You guys are funny.

Good to know we have some value for you.

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP.

He wasn't "taking a shot", he was very clearly placing them in a collectivist context where dependence on society is the rationale of their existence. He was reframing our system into one in which the foundation is the collective group administered to by government which directs the "success" of its individuals rather than one that depends on the success of its individuals to sustain the success of society and its government.

At least us "guys" are funny. What is the benefit of provoking us?

Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.
Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, so I read it. Other than the "sound bites" quoted here, the rest of it was the usual political platitudes, lies, distortions, contradictions, and promises one would expect from a politician running for re-election. Other than the "sound bites" (which were truly revealing), the rest is the typical pablum meant to "provoke" agreement.

At a minimum, Obama believes that business owners owe their success to the government which created the system in which they could thrive.

It's true that the feds created a capitalist free market which allows some to excel. However, what Obama fails to acknowledge (probably because he genuinely doesn't believe this) is that the system can only take you to the starting line. The individual, not the government, is largely responsible for the outcome of the race.

I cannot believe this guy has a shot at re-election.

You guys are funny.

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is what Obama said, verbatum...

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"

Telling entrepeneurs that someone else, not they, is responsible for their success. That's not taking a shot at business owners?

The biggest problem is when business owners outsource to china and give their employees the boot. That is the problem. Then those employees go on unemployment, then possibly welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the key part of this post is: "Posted from my iPhone"

Hmm, where was that manufactured? :uhuh:

the key part of this post is: "Posted from my iPhone"

Hmm, where was that manufactured? :uhuh:
The irony is painful.


Saw this today and found it pretty amusing...
"Hey Wright Brothers..."
http://i.imgur.com/tUi7w.png

Going back 5-7 years a small business worked 4 months for the fed & state before the business saw one dime of profit.
Now a small business works 7 months a year for the state & fed.




I think his point about "you didn't make that" is that your business was built on the backs I your employees.
Cost of living has gone up about 20%-30% in the last 15 years... Wages... Not so much.
Must be that mental illness again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng)


google it and it has a crapload of pages http://www.google.com/search?q=If+you%E2%80%99ve+got+a+business%2C+you+d idn%E2%80%99t+build+that.+Somebody+else+made+that+ happen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=If+you%E2%80%99ve+got+a+business,+you+didn%E2% 80%99t+build+that.+Somebody+else+made+that+happen&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=EVD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsu&ei=ZasFUKbtLsnf0QHp6b3jCA&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=9ed169a75f53af9b&biw=1280&bih=638
I think he's getting too much publicity from this


people are going to spin it however they take it or see fit

truth is the truth, he said it


sounds like desperation to me

3-1/2 years and has not accomplished much

America is tired of going backwards

Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng)


google it and it has a crapload of pages If you?ve got a business, you didn?t build that. Somebody else made that happen - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=If+you%E2%80%99ve+got+a+business%2C+you+d idn%E2%80%99t+build+that.+Somebody+else+made+that+ happen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=If+you%E2%80%99ve+got+a+business,+you+didn%E2% 80%99t+build+that.+Somebody+else+made+that+happen&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=EVD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsu&ei=ZasFUKbtLsnf0QHp6b3jCA&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=9ed169a75f53af9b&biw=1280&bih=638)



sounds like desperation to me




My exact thought.

Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at.

Going back 5-7 years a small business worked 4 months for the fed & state before the business saw one dime of profit.
Now a small business works 7 months a year for the state & fed.





Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Source? I can't say if you are right or not, but a quick search shows this from the CBO as reported in the wall street journal

"Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008."

Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html)

and this:
"Small business sole proprietorships pay an average
effective tax rate of 13.3 percent. Sole proprietors
make up 84 percent of businesses with gross
receipts of less than $25,000 (13.5 million out of
15.9 million)." http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs343.pdf

Originally Posted by spence
Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at."

Zimmy..What??? do the math on this

Originally Posted by spence
Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at."

Zimmy..What??? do the math on this
The other 90 percent is too busy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At a minimum, Obama believes that business owners owe their success to the government which created the system in which they could thrive.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but would suggest a word of caution on the second half. It wasn't the present federal government that created the system in which business owners could thrive. It was individuals (many of whom were business owners) representing the States who created the government, not vice versa, and they carefully crafted a Constitution which was supposed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing regulations and taxes that would hamper their ability to thrive.

It's true that the feds created a capitalist free market which allows some to excel. However, what Obama fails to acknowledge (probably because he genuinely doesn't believe this) is that the system can only take you to the starting line. The individual, not the government, is largely responsible for the outcome of the race.

Now it's the second part of your statement that I agree with, and the first part to which I would advise a word of caution. The feds did not create a capitalist free market. That market already existed, and the Federal Government was reformed in order for that market to be allowed a more regular and free flow among the States, and the Constitution was to greatly restrict the Federal Government's regulatory power to specified limitations. And, yes, this was to, as you say, make the individual largely responsible for the outcome of the race.

I cannot believe this guy has a shot at re-election.

This is a result of a century of "progressive" socialistic political philosophy infiltrating our educational systems which in turn spawned journalists and commentators and judges and polititions who espoused that philosophy and reshaped a good portion of society to be dependent instead of self-sustaining. It is a philosophy that insists, as Obama demonstrated in his speech, that self-actuating, self-sustaining individuals are not possible. Ergo, the Federal Government that the Founders created, and limited, was an impediment to a society whose individuals depended on others, especially a beneficent central government.

Context is everything, the only desperate folks around here are you guys trying to analyze it by itself.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Nope, it wasn't YOU who toiled away with building this. Rather, it was the FCC! Hooray for the government!! John, therefore you OWE it to the rest of us to give even more of your revenue to the feds. Otherwise, you are a selfish, greedy, bastard.

Jim, why do you hate JohnR? Why do you think he's a selfish greedy bastard? He puts in alot more work to keep this place running than you do. You should apologize to JohnR. Right now.
You make me sad.

Why do you bother?

Why do you bother?

Its amusing.

And do you see how much he hates this site?
Disgusting isn't it?

Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at.

Zimmy, please show m ethe data that suggests that half the country thinks Obama was not born here?

Obama says something that is clearly stupid and divisive. I call him on it. Your immediate reaction is to dismiss me as a kooky hate-monger.

I believe he was born here. I also believe he hates much of what the country stands for, and I'm not crazy for concluding that. I'm just oblectively lookingh at the facts.

Obama's wife admitted that she was never proud of the country before he got elected.

Obama's spiritual advisor (Rev wright) clearly hates the country. The man said that the US Govt invented the AIDS virus to eradicate the black man.

Obama's political mentor is an unapologetic domestic terrorist named Bill Ayers, whose group planted bombs in police cars, targeting policemen who had done nothing wrong. Ayers hosted a fundraiser in his home for Barack Obama. That indicates a close relationship.

Obama's wife, spiritual advisor, and political mentor, clearly dislike the country. And many of Obama's apologies suggest he doesn't view America they way many Americans do.

Facts, Zimmy. No crazy, unsubstantiated conjecture, just facts.

Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama


The only thing here thats crazy is your mancrush on Obama.

Context is everything, the only desperate folks around here are you guys trying to analyze it by itself.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.



Jim, why do you hate JohnR? Why do you think he's a selfish greedy bastard? He puts in alot more work to keep this place running than you do. You should apologize to JohnR. Right now.
You make me sad.

Likwid, if you read my post and concluded that I hate John R, you desperately need to take an elementary school reading comprehension course.

I was saying that based on what Obama explicitly said, John R didn't build this site. In Obama's words, "someone else made that happen". Therefore, if you believe Obama, John R doesn't deserve any rewards that this site provides. Those rewards rightfully belong to the "someone else" that Obama says created this site, and that "someone else", according to Obama, is the government.

Likwid, everything I wrote in that post, is what Obama, not I, clearly believe. Obama, not I, thinks that John R didn't create this great site. SO if you think my words were hurtful to John, then you must also think that Obama's sentiment, which I was relying on, was wrong.

So in effect, you proved my point. Thanks for the assist.

Likwid, if you read my post and concluded that I hate John R, you desperately need to take an elementary school reading comprehension course.

.

Jim, I agree that you didn't say that.

Zimmy, please show m ethe data that suggests that half the country thinks Obama was not born here?



but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here?

I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.[/I]





Likwid, who is suggesting that we all start our own firehouses?

What Obama did there, and you sucked it up like a Hoover deluxe, is put radical, extremist, kooky words in the mouth of those who disagree with him.

Likwid, no rational person opopses property taxes being levied to fund a fire department. However, a very strong case can be made that you shouldn't take so much from me in taxes, so that the firemen can retire at age 45 with a fat pension and insane health benefits for teh rest of his life.

It's perfectly valid to question the validity of fire department benefits that are bankrupting cities everywhere. Rather than engage in that discussion, Obama says "see, conservatives want to get rid of the fire department".

We don't want to get rid of the fire department. We just don't want to overpay them.

That's off topic. But the point is, liberals have a recurring habit of taking a conservative issue, and taking it to a kooky extreme, in order to dismiss it. So in this case, Obama suggests that Republicans are suggesting we should get rid of the fire department. In reality, no one is saying that. But it's a lot easier for liberals to pretend that conservatives are a bunch of lunatics who want to get rid of the fire department, than it is to defend those insane benefits that firemen receive.

Put down the Kool Aid for 2 seconds, and listen to what each side is saying. Don't listen to what MSNBC says that conservatives are saying. Listen to what we are actually saying.

Small businesses have a responsibility to pay taxes to support the system that allows them to thrive. They should not be forced to pay confiscatory tax rates, particularly when that money is wasted to create burdensome regulation, or to go to political payoffs like Planned Parenthood funding, or billions to wasteful green energy projects, or to welfare priograms that give poor teenagers a financial incentive to have kids out of wedlock. That's what conservatives object to.

Likwid, if you read my post and concluded that I hate John R, you desperately need to take an elementary school reading comprehension course.

Jim, you called JohnR a selfish greedy bastard, your words.
Why are you trying to put your words into context you dirty liar?

This type of hypocrasy is disgusting. You should leave this site and go to "the other place" immediately where people like you belong.

Listen to what we are actually saying.


You sound like you belong in a trailer park.

You sound like you belong in a trailer park.

OK. If I ask you to judge me based on what I am actually saying and what I actually stand for, I'm trailer trash. Got it.

Once again. I did not sincerely insult John R. My point, and it is valid, is that Obama is calling entrepeneurs like John R selfish. Obama insults these entrepeneurs almost every single time he opens his mouth, because he explicitly states that entrepeneurs (1) are not responsible for their own success, and (2) don't want to pay their fair share to help those less fortunate.

I say kudos to John for creating this site. I hope it keeps growing and he sells it for a zillion dollars, I truly hope that. I, unlike Obama, recognize that I'm here learning about fishing, thanks to his hard work. John deserves teh credit for this site, not the feds.

Likwid, you could not have missed my point any more thoroughly, and you're probably the only one here who thinks I was sincerely calling John R selfish.

I also hope you note that you insulted me personally, and that I did not respond in kind.

Once again. I did not sincerely insult John R.

Pigs with JATOs strapped to them. Pigs with JATOs.

I say kudos to John for creating this site. I hope it keeps growing and he sells it for a zillion dollars, I truly hope that.

WHAT IS THAT STRANGE FLOPPING NOISE I HEAR?


ps: how's yer pushy?

Jim, I agree that you didn't say that.



but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here?

"Jim, I agree that you didn't say that."

I figured you knew what I meant...

"but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here"

In my opinion, yes he did...he said this...

"Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at."

I took that as Zimmy specualting that half the country (the conservative half) thinks Obama hates America and wasn't born here...

Give it a rest Gents.....Likwid, stop poking the dragon Please

Give it a rest Gents.....Likwid, stop poking the dragon Please

More like a skink.

WHAT IS THAT STRANGE FLOPPING NOISE I HEAR?


ps: how's yer pushy?

Likwid, here is what I actually wrote, bold font added here for emphasis...

"JohnR, aren't you relieved to hear Obama declare that it wasn't YOU that built this great website? Nope, it wasn't YOU who toiled away with building this. Rather, it was the FCC! Hooray for the government!! John, therefore you OWE it to the rest of us to give even more of your revenue to the feds. Otherwise, you are a selfish, greedy, bastard."

Likwid, I was demonsrtating how crazy Obama's notion is, that it wasn't John who built this site, but "someone else". That's clearly what Obama believes, not what I believe.

I don't know how else to say it, sorry, I'm not a professional writer.

Our system created an environment where folks like John can create proprietary websites. Without that environment, John could not have built this site. But it was John, not "someone else", who created this site. I can't fathom how Obama could say otherwise, but he did. And I have no doubt he believes it.

I still cannot believe the words Obama used, and it may well haunt him in November. This could be his "Joe-the-plumber" moment for 2012. I hope that's what happens...

Since this is yet another Political Forum thread that has turned into poo poo... I'm just going to post semi-relevant pictures that amuse me.

http://i.imgur.com/wP6N3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kN986.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8jwqg.jpg

And my favorite...



http://i.imgur.com/Q7w8J.jpg

Jim, I agree that you didn't say that.



but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here?

That is classic :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That last one made me laugh JD

Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at.

Just as Spence, above the fray of us "funny" folk, instructed us to read the full transcript, but disdained from helping us understand Obama's true message with examples from the speech, you also dismiss us (from a better place than we occupy?) also without explaining what Obama was getting at.

I DO understant you were being sarcastic (nice). And, as I responded to Spence, with no return reply on his part, I DID read the whole transcript and found that other than the "sound bites" being discussed here, the rest of it was the usual platitudes, lies, distortions, contradictions, and promises one would expect from a politician running for office. So, in response to your "why would anyone want to do that?" I read it again, with the same conclusion.

Some examples:

His opposition's "theory is the economy grows from the top down . . . if the wealthy investors are doing well, then everybody does well." No, not just wealthy investors, most of us have some investments of some kind. If investments are doing well, it is a sign that the ecomony is doing well. Some investments, including those by wealthy investors may not do well . The economy may do well anyway. Investments, as a whole, do well when that in which is invested does well. But the economy is symbiotic. It requires more than wealthy investors, but it does well with them and with the investment of others. "Trickle down" requires a down as well as an up from which it trickles, and that obviously implies the necessity of the down, not an elimination of it. If you want to make a class warfare argument, then you separate all the elements and point to the element of your choice (that which gives you the most votes), and "fight" for it.

He goes on "So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that's somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden." More class warfare rhetoric--"gutting" various programs and projects some of which are not doing what their supposed to do, or not performing well, or are not really Federal Government responsibilities, and would be done better by some States and would actually empower the middle class in those States by giving it the power to accept or reject or improve those programs.

He goes on: "they believe if you tear down all the regulations that we've put in place . . . that somehow the economy is going to do much better. So those are their two theories. They've got tax cuts for the high end, and they've got rollback regulation. . .Now here is the problem. You may have guessed--we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work." More warfare rhetoric--"tear down all the regulations"--who wants to "tear" them ALL down. Actually tax cuts have historically worked to improve the economy not only in the past ten years but the last 30, and 50, and more. And many regulations were actually added, including even in the "past ten years." I don't point this out to endorse Bush, merely to point out the gibberish that we who read the transcript are supposed to discover to be the true message of Obama.

He says: "I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out." More class warfare. Choose a section to divide, then promise to fight for it, not for everybody.

Then he changes his mind: "I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up." Well, maybe he considers the middle class the bottom.

He says: "I believe when working people are doing well, the country does well." DUH! And none work harder than business owners.

He says: "I believe in fighting for the middle class because if they're prospering, all of us will prosper." Good old divide and conquer class warfare.

He goes on about taxes going up on 98% if Congress doesn't act and calls the extension of Bush taxes a cut when it is merely a status quo. But he doesn't want the status quo for the top 2%, so for them he wants a tax hike. So, net, his opposition wants to maintain the status quo, no tax hikes, but, net, he wants a tax hike. More class warfare.

Then he goes on about the Repubs trying for the 33d time to repeal the HCB which he says the SCOTUS declared constitutional. But it did so as a tax. So he is massively raising taxes on the middle class that he fights for. And he goes on and on about what he's done for us which, including the maintence of tax cuts for 98%, being what people need to succeed--government action, tax those who do well so that they don't do too well and don't tax the rest so they presumably will do well--and it all depends on government not the individual.

So not taxing what he considers the engine of economy, the middle class, is an admission that taxing our economic engine is anti-growth. It's just that he views the train of cars as the engine, and the engine as an obstruction to the train rather than what pulls it.

To the progressives/liberals here -

Let's consider the successful entrepeneur Obama is targeting with his rhetoric and proposed tax hikes. He's talking about folks whose taxable income is above $250,000. To get taxable income over $250,00, let's say your gross income is $300,000.

Here is my question to you. How much of that guy's income do you think it's reasonable for the government (federal, state, local) to confiscate in taxes? What percentage shuold that guy be able to keep?

I keep hearing liberals say "well, tax rates on the rich were more than 70% when Eisenhower was president, and the wealthy Americans got by OK...". Obama himself has used this argument. It's completely dishonest for 2 reasons. First, there were many loopholes and deductions then that don't exist today (for example, back in the day, credit card interest was a deduction), so that virtually no one payed that top rate. Second, other taxes exist today that didn't exist then. In CT, there was no state income tax then. Today, there is an average income tax of 5.5%. So we need to consider total tax burden.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that the public has a right to more than 40% of what anyone else makes.

To the progressives/liberals here -

Let's consider the successful entrepeneur Obama is targeting with his rhetoric and proposed tax hikes. He's talking about folks whose taxable income is above $250,000. To get taxable income over $250,00, let's say your gross income is $300,000.

Here is my question to you. How much of that guy's income do you think it's reasonable for the government (federal, state, local) to confiscate in taxes? What percentage shuold that guy be able to keep?

I keep hearing liberals say "well, tax rates on the rich were more than 70% when Eisenhower was president, and the wealthy Americans got by OK...". Obama himself has used this argument. It's completely dishonest for 2 reasons. First, there were many loopholes and deductions then that don't exist today (for example, back in the day, credit card interest was a deduction), so that virtually no one payed that top rate. Second, other taxes exist today that didn't exist then. In CT, there was no state income tax then. Today, there is an average income tax of 5.5%. So we need to consider total tax burden.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that the public has a right to more than 40% of what anyone else makes.

You can include Alternative Minimum Tax to the list.....aka extortion

Governments cute little way to force you to work a little less, make less money and be less productive………

You can include Alternative Minimum Tax to the list.....aka extortion

Governments cute little way to force you to work a little less, make less money and be less productive………

exactly. Also, take into account that many deductions or benefits taxpayers get are reduced the more % you make. For example - parents can take a % of 5k for daycare while they work. but the more $$ you make the % gets less and less. Resulting in a higher % of tax paid aka rate. There are many examples of this. All of which are not captured when you discuss tax rates. Rates are one component.

exactly. Also, take into account that many deductions or benefits taxpayers get are reduced the more % you make. For example - parents can take a % of 5k for daycare while they work. but the more $$ you make the % gets less and less. Resulting in a higher % of tax paid aka rate. There are many examples of this. All of which are not captured when you discuss tax rates. Rates are one component.

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456)

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456)

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.
I feel your pain. How do you think I feel as a business owner when you include all the other taxes I'm required to pay in addition to income tax? Touched almost 50% when I did all the math out a couple years ago.

I'll pay in 4 states this year. Not all reciprocial

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456)

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

Most states did not have an income tax before. Many states did not have sales taxes. Most towns did not have car taxes before (here in CT, I pay my town $900 a year in "car tax" for my 3 year old minivan and my 6 year old Accord).

We need to look at TOTAL tax rates. That's what really matters. I presume you chose not to look at total tax rates, because doing so would refute the point you were making...

Zimmy, Johnny D says his rate touched 50% recently. How does that fit into your data?

I am a Business owner in Mass. 10 years as a Commercial Drywall Company.
It's not glamorous but it's what I do.
Every job I get is a competive bid against a number of similar firms. Then further negotiated. I then proceed to build say Walmart or say maybe an offfice building. I have to purchase the material and provide the manpower to complete the job profitably. Oh yeah I finance the job also......at best in 90 days I'll start to see a monthly payment on the job. Most smaller jobs are completed out of pocket. the joke is every morning I wake up and say" I'm all in". the risks are high. After I make this gross profit of 17-20% I pay my matching FICA of 7.5%on my payroll, though I think I get a 1.5% break(bush tax cut). then 7% workers comp then 3% liability and don't forgot 12% uneployment on the first 14k per man...I have 30. I have 3 trucks and office estimator and secratary. My monthly gas bill is $1600. When it is all said and done we strive for 8-10% net profit. Depending on volume I will owe 33-35% federal plus my social security being self employed and then my mass state tax.
in the end I get 5% of the money or 1/2 the profit......It's sad but true.
Personally I would think employing 30 men would be enough of a contribution.
I pay about a 100k in just matching FICA yearly...that's more than most.
now if I do well in a given year......They would llike me to "contribute" more.
As the risk taker/owner I should be encouraged not discouraged or worse made to be the greedy owner.
The real problem as I see it the american worker is lazy and unproductive.
They think they are great...why because you showed up.....ya right.....
I always say you have no problem sticking your hand out friday for your check....well I have no problem on tuesday asking for you to work.....
everyone knows people they work with that do nothing all day...if they never showed up again the company would be just fine.... maybe they spend the day on the internet or talk to the girlfriend or my favorite...just brag all day how they don't do anything...
They are the problem...the keep costs high and force companies to build their products elswhere. Or the local tax on real estate is so high because when you hire a 24 year old fire fighter you will pay for him until he dies.....
I tell my 3 sons 1 thing ...work hard...it doesn't matter what someone else does...the system will flush them out...just like if my company can't compete and be profitable the system will flush it out...
Lately a lot of people are having a hard time finding work and corporate profits are up... sounds like the system is working....

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.

If your income is 68000 and up, your total state, local, fed, was almost certainly between 28.3 and 30.4 percent. I am not sure what assumptions you have about my tax situation, but I can almost guarentee you it isn't very different than yours and is one of the highest as a percent based on total effective rates. I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depending on volume I will owe 33-35% federal plus my social security being self employed and then my mass state tax.


That percent you give is before deductions and not effective tax rate. I am sure you pay a lot in taxes since that is a top tax bracket, but that is not the actual percent payed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That percent you give is before deductions and not effective tax rate. I am sure you pay a lot in taxes since that is a top tax bracket, but that is not the actual percent payed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You own a business? If so, then you'll completely understand that what Uncle Scam calls "Effective Tax Rate" and the actual taxes that a business pays due to the multitude of required payments to Uncle Scam are extremely different - and typically not for the better, might I add. Shall I list them all out again?

I am taxed as married filing seperately. After 185k the 2011 rate is 35%.
They want to return to the rates under clinton of 39.6% as a top rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since I have owned my business for more than a year I think my income should be taxed as a long term gain at the 15% capital gains rate. Kind of like a hedge fund guy...
But you see noone in washington is looking out for me...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You own a business? If so, then you'll completely understand that what Uncle Scam calls "Effective Tax Rate" and the actual taxes that a business pays due to the multitude of required payments to Uncle Scam are extremely different - and typically not for the better, might I add. Shall I list them all out again?

you'd think he'd understand this as he was just recently arguing that the nearly 50% of Americans whose "effective federal tax rate" or federal income tax liability is currently "0"... are actually paying their "fair share' in taxes because they are paying things like sales tax etc.....guess it doesn't work both ways:)

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP.

Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so the President, once again engages in bomb throwing, intentionally provoking one segment of American Society or another.....which I guess is what you do when you are a community organizer, but not when you are an American President....and while many business owners clearly took it as a "shot", we're told, and even chastised by his defenders, that it is wrong to either react to the intentional provoking, or foolish to not understand the true and brilliant nature of the actual provoking, not the sound bite provoking, which can only be gleened from reading the complete comments over and over or, more likely, arrogantly regurgitating the talking points that were prepared for response to the reaction to the intentional provoking.....this is great:uhuh:

You own a business? If so, then you'll completely understand that what Uncle Scam calls "Effective Tax Rate" and the actual taxes that a business pays due to the multitude of required payments to Uncle Scam are extremely different - and typically not for the better, might I add. Shall I list them all out again?

This post, in a nutshell, demonstrates the dilemma we are in. If Zimmy's facts are correct as they were presented, it might be rational to conclude that the tax problem is overblown by conservatives. JohnnyD, who has owned businesses, explains why Zimmy's assumptions are flawed, and distort the conclusions.

If JohnnyD is correct, (having never owned a business I don't know firsthand, but I haven't seen any outrageous misrepresentations by him, ever) I'm curious to see Zimmy's reaction. Because in my experience, it's difficult, if not impossible, to have a rational conversation with a liberal about economics. Once they buy into the liberal economic agenda, they cannot be persuaded by common sense, not even by facts.

Assuming JohnnyD is correct, he has destroyed the premise of Zimmy's post.

so the President, once again engages in bomb throwing, intentionally provoking one segment of American Society or another.....which I guess is what you do when you are a community organizer, but not when you are an American President....and while many business owners clearly took it as a "shot", we're told, and even chastised by his defenders, that it is wrong to either react to the intentional provoking, or foolish to not understand the true and brilliant nature of the actual provoking, not the sound bite provoking, which can only be gleened from reading the complete comments over and over or, more likely, arrogantly regurgitating the talking points that were prepared for response to the reaction to the intentional provoking.....this is great:uhuh:

Yes. And what is as telling as Obama's "sound bite" that somebody else built your business is that his defenders have yet to actually agree with his comment. We are told to read the rest of the transcript, as if that were a defense or agreement. Well, the rest of the transcript is political gibberish. It is pablum to be fed to intellectual infants who have not learned to think critically and accept the words of those who feed them. The "sound bite" IS the true meat and heart of the rest of the transcript. It is what supports the whole notion of government uber all. It is the reason to vote for him and his party. Discussing the "sound bite" does get at the heart of the matter without being deflected to distracting arguments of fairness, or which class is the important one, or which class the government should fight for. It should fight for us all and defend us against those who would divide us. We are Americans first. Whatever class someone wants to analyze and divide us into is peripheral to what we are about. We are about liberty. That is an individual thing, not a class thing. And if some of us, like fburnsey931, or JohnnyD, create businesses, which in turn creates wealth and jobs, they have already done more to perpetuate what our free market system of liberty needs, than any politician or theory of class struggles.

You own a business?
Yes, we do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your income is 68000 and up, your total state, local, fed, was almost certainly between 28.3 and 30.4 percent. I am not sure what assumptions you have about my tax situation, but I can almost guarentee you it isn't very different than yours and is one of the highest as a percent based on total effective rates. I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try 45%

try 45%

Self employment tax does hit you hard. It is especially big if one doesn't have substantial section 179 deductions in a particular year.

im not self employed

I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You live in CT, and you don't think taxes are a problem? Do you work for the government in some way?

State income tax is north of 5%, state sales tax is 6%(I think), town property taxes are among the highest in the nation, most towns charge a 'car tax' that doesn't exist in most states, UCONN costs more than $20,000 for in-state tuition.

And for all that, our state has the highest debt-per-citizen in the nation, when you consider unfunded liabilities for public workers' retirement and healthcare benefits.

We have high taxes, and still manage to drastically overspend. Nope, nothing to see here. Keep voting liberal...

You live in CT, and you don't think taxes are a problem? Do you work for the government in some way?

State income tax is north of 5%, state sales tax is 6%(I think), town property taxes are among the highest in the nation, most towns charge a 'car tax' that doesn't exist in most states, UCONN costs more than $20,000 for in-state tuition.

And for all that, our state has the highest debt-per-citizen in the nation, when you consider unfunded liabilities for public workers' retirement and healthcare benefits.

We have high taxes, and still manage to drastically overspend. Nope, nothing to see here. Keep voting liberal...

Glad those casinos helped........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad those casinos helped........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I forgot about that...

So here in CT, we have some of the highest tax rates in the country, applied to some of the highest incomes in the country. Meaning, the state has never had a problem with a shortage of tax dollars. On top of that, the state gets hundreds of millions of dollars from the casinos.

The liberals spent that, and then borrowed all they could, and then spent all that. Then they gave every labor union in the state a blank check and gave them an IOU which said the following...

"Dear unions, thanks for keeping us in office. In return, you can have fat pensions and free healthcare for the rest of your life. When the time comes to pay for that, I'll be retired in Florida, so what do I care?

XXXOOO, the Democrats"

CT is as blue as it gets. And in 2010, when the entire country turned to the right, we turned harder left. What was our liberal government's idea? They implemented the largest tax hike in state history in July 2011. Worse, they made the hike retroactive back to January 1 of that year, so for the rest of 2011, we had to absorb double the increase. Honest to God, that's what they did.

I phoned my legislator and asked why they only made it retroactive back to January 1, 2011? Why not make it retroactive back to 1975?

All that revenue, and the state is a disaster. If my family wasn't here, I'd just leave the keys in the front door and walk to New Hampshire.

CT is a perfect, pure experiment of what a lifetime of liberal economics gets you...an unmitigated disaster.

Oh, I forgot. Next, our legislature approved funding for a busway from New Britain (a failing sh*thole of a town) to Hartford (another failing sh*thole of a town). The busway is 9 miles long. 9 miles. The cost of paving 9 miles of road, plus buying a few electric buses? Only $550 million dollars. That's right. A state that is completely bankrupt, thinks it's a sound economic idea to pave 9 miles of road for the bargain-basement price of $60 million per mile. Are they paving the road with Hope diamonds? Fabrege eggs? I can do it for half that, and still have enough money left over to buy Australia.

When they write the book on what went wrong in CT, every chapter of that book can be called "chapter 11".

And this November, my side will get absolutely clobbered by liberals. Clobbered.

State income tax is north of 5%, state sales tax is 6%(I think), town property taxes are among the highest in the nation, most towns charge a 'car tax' that doesn't exist in most states, UCONN costs more than $20,000 for in-state tuition..
Don't forget second highest gasoline tax in the nation.

im not self employed

Do you own a business? It is the same tax. Typically it is paid by the employer. Small business owners pay it themselves. If you own a company, you pay it for yourself and your employees. If you work for someone else and you are at 45%, you might need a new accountant. :)

Don't forget second highest gasoline tax in the nation.

Always fill up in Joisey before heading North, currently $3.29.

Doesn't pay to buy a new car anymore, just take the $2000 + sales tax, which
you get nothing for, and put it your car to get another 100,000 miles
out of it.
If you added up every tax you paid you would never believe it.

Who implemented the income tax in Conn? Didn't we just have years of Repub. govs?

I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? They might have been if it was merely taxes that they whined about. But it was not merely taxes. It was principle. They were willing to pay taxes if they had a say in how much and for what. To merely pay taxes at the whim of a magesterial government broke faith with a principle by which they had created a better life than that from which their forefathers had escaped. It was a better life than the common man in the mother country across the sea was living. It was a fledgling principle of freedom that created that better life. Of individual liberty within a society that respected and promoted that principle. They recognized the intrusion of taxes against their will not so much as an incursion on their wealth, though that too, but as such against their liberty. And their violent adherence to that principle of liberty inspired not only the creation of this country, but a worldwide movement against tyranny. That battle still exists, and will probably always exist.

Just so, in our still colonial way, it exists in America. The Tories don't mind the power of the king, or president, or government . . . take your pick. So long as their life is comfortable all is well. The form and size of government, the Constitution, the power of our magistrates . . . those are merely incidental . . . so long as we are comfortable.

The rebels understand that life, existence, flows in the direction that various principles and laws lead. That comfort is relative to the freedom to achieve it. That comfort given from higher powers is not dependable and can be taken or limited. That comfort earned, fought for, and created and protected by the hands of the comforted is more durable. And the principle that leads in the direction of the latter is liberty.

What many who "whine too much about taxes" are doing is verbally rebelling not so much about the taxes, but about the tyranny of their imposition.

Who implemented the income tax in Conn? Didn't we just have years of Repub. govs?

"Who implemented the income tax in Conn?"

Gov Lowell Weicker, who was an independent.

"Didn't we just have years of Repub. govs"

Yes, we did. But I'm not sure of your point, because (1) a republican, particularly in The People's Republic Of Konnecticut. is not necessarily the same thing as a conservative. And (2) even if the republican governors were fiscally conservative (which they were not), the legislature was dominated by liberals. I'm not sure how much you know about the way a democracy works, but the executive branch cannot unilaterally do away with the income tax. You see, the legislative branch controls the legislative agenda.

I love it when people say, as you were implying, that CT isn't all that liberal, because after all, we have had Republican governors. A state (or country) isn't defined as liberal or conservative simply by the party affiliation of its chief executive. The state's implemented policies define that state as liberal or conservative.

On that basis, you can't get more liberal than CT, you just can't. Astronomical taxes, massive government presence, massive spending, massive borrowing. Giving insane perks to labor unions. Endorsing gay marriage. Refusing to enforce duly constituted immigration laws. Giving tuition breaks to the children of undocumented citizens.

The political landscape of CT cannot be any more liberal than it is. It has been that way for 2 generations. And what have the liberals done? Created a liberal utopia with crippling taxes, staggering debt, astronomical cost of living, lousy business climate, shrinking population, horribly failing cities, forcing Catholic hospitals to offer abortions to rape victims, repeal of the death penalty, radically pro-abortion.

Yes, not every single elected official in CT is a Democrat. That doesn't mean this isn't a BLUE state.

There are Democrats in Texas. That doesn't mean that Texas isn't a very conservative place.

Paul, what policies exist in CT that you would define as "conservative" in nature? Our low taxes and balanced budget?

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? .

Knockout blow...

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;949498Gov Lowell Weicker, who was an independent.

[/QUOTE]

you sure about that? Didn't he run for Pres. as a Repub?

.

I love it when people say, as you were implying, that CT isn't all that liberal, because after all, we have had Republican governors.

I actually had to come back and respond again b/c your whole post made me laugh. So you can't label someone or thing based on one aspect of something?

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO??????

Atleast I got a good laugh today. Thanks for the joke.

you sure about that? Didn't he run for Pres. as a Repub?

Yes, he ran for President as a Republican. But he didn't ram the state income tax down our throats as a candidate for President. He did that when he was governor. And when he ran (successfully) as governor, he was representing the Independent party.

Paul, that is irrelevent. Simple political affiliation does not define a state as conservative or liberal. The state's political landscape defines that state as liberal or conservative.

CT isn't liberal because most of its legislature is Democrat. CT is liberal because this state has an almost unblemished record of adopting pure liberal policies.

Similarly, TX isn't conservative simply because most of its legislators are Republican. It's conservative because those elected officials have embraced conservative ideology.

Many of my liberal friends think liberal economics works, simply because Bill Clinton (a Democrat) turned the economy around. But do you know what he actually did? He cut taxes, cut spending, balanced the budget, and told millions on welfare to get back to work. The fact that Clinton was a Democrat does not mean that those ideas are liberal ideals...

A person's party affiliation doesn't define them as liberal or conservative. Their ideas define them as liberal or conservative.

I actually had to come back and respond again b/c your whole post made me laugh. So you can't label someone or thing based on one aspect of something?

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO??????

Atleast I got a good laugh today. Thanks for the joke.

"ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO?????? "

Ummm, no, that isn't remotely what I do. I judge people on what they say and do. If a Democrat wants to cut taxes, I call him conservative. If a Republican supports abortion, I call that a liberal idea.

Your posts might make me laugh, if they weren't so breathtakingly wrong all the time.

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? They might have been if it was merely taxes that they whined about. But it was not merely taxes. It was principle. They were willing to pay taxes if they had a say in how much and for what. To merely pay taxes at the whim of a magesterial government broke faith with a principle by which they had created a better life than that from which their forefathers had escaped. It was a better life than the common man in the mother country across the sea was living. It was a fledgling principle of freedom that created that better life. Of individual liberty within a society that respected and promoted that principle. They recognized the intrusion of taxes against their will not so much as an incursion on their wealth, though that too, but as such against their liberty. And their violent adherence to that principle of liberty inspired not only the creation of this country, but a worldwide movement against tyranny. That battle still exists, and will probably always exist.


Doesn't get any plainer than that.

A person's party affiliation doesn't define them as liberal or conservative. Their ideas define them as liberal or conservative.


Bingo, too many painting with a wide brush.
Canidates need to be voted for on their policies and not blanket party affliation.

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO??????

.

To clarify...I make conclusions when they are valid. For example, if a sitting President explicitly says that entrepeneurs didn't create their businesses, I would say that President (1) has no affection/understanding for free market capitalism, and (2) has a screw loose.

However...if a politician is a Democrat, I would not therefore conclude that he is liberal. YOU are the one who implied that CT is not a liberal place because we have had governors who were Republicans. You are therefore necessarily assuming that 'Republican' and 'liberal' cannot occur together. Nonsense.

I connect dots when the connection makes a great deal of sense. You do it out of blind desperation either to prove your points, or to refute mine. And it shows.

Yes, he ran for President as a Republican.

So you knew he was a Repub. but wrote that he was an Independant - Sounds dishonest.

he was independant when gov of CT, that was the context of Jim's post.

Another example is Romney, he is a repub, but was gov of MA, an extremely liberal state.

So you knew he was a Repub. but wrote that he was an Independant - Sounds dishonest.

What I said was that during the time he was governor, he was not a registered Republican, but rather affiliated with the Independent Party. That's 100% accurate.

I also said his party affiliation is meaningless in trying to decide whether or not CT is a liberal place.

Howling at the moon a bit?

Another example is Romney, he is a repub, but was gov of MA, an extremely liberal state.

No. no. According to PaulS, if Mass elected a Republican governor, it's therefore not a liberal place.

No. no. According to PaulS, if Mass elected a Republican governor, it's therefore not a liberal place.

Did I say that or is this more of your dishonesty?

he was independant when gov of CT, that was the context of Jim's post.

Another example is Romney, he is a repub, but was gov of MA, an extremely liberal state.

Yes, I know when he was governor he ran as an independant. He was a Repub. when he was 1st. selectman of Greenwich and as a Sentator. I knew that and Jim knew that, but he tried to imply he didn't have a very long time reg. as a Repub. by not mentioning it.

As Jim just said, what party a person is in is irrelevant as compared to how they vote. A con. Mass/Ct pol. is far different than a TX con.

But that is not how the vast majority of Jim threads read and I'm just showing the falicy in that thinking.

What I said was that during the time he was governor, he was not a registered Republican, but rather affiliated with the Independent Party. That's 100% accurate.Show me where you said that prior to my questioning your statement that he was an Independant?

Howling at the moon a bit?

No, just as I do frequently, just laughing at your posts.

Yet Again....Knock it off gentlemen...or we'll be shutting down another thread.

Notice any patterns her Kev?

Notice any patterns her Kev?

You're right. During my statement that CT is a liberal place, I failed to mention that Lowell Weicker was once a Republican. I also failed to mention that it's cloudy in Portugal today. Because neither of those facts (Weicker's one-time party affiliation, and the weather in Portugal) matters at all, if the topic at hand is whether or not CT is a liberal place.

CT is a liberal place because its elected officials (the vast majority of whom have been Democrats, but not all of them) have embraced, and enacted, liberal policies.

If you diasgree with that statement, that's your right.

I don't appreciate being called "dishonest" simply because I neglected to include facts which have no bearing whatsoever.

The 'pattern' you mention is, at best, both of us. Not just me. Look at the posts that TDF has closed. I'm being civilized and restrained here.

Doesn't get any plainer than that.

You are right, it was definitely plain. I guess lack of representation is still an issue? I missed the part about the forefathers whining over taxation because they didnt like what their representatives were doing.

You are right, it was definitely plain. I guess lack of representation is still an issue? I missed the part about the forefathers whining over taxation because they didnt like what their representatives were doing.

Zimmy, he asked you a question...do you think the founding fathers were wrong to whine about taxes? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your response...

I think lack of representation is a huge issue. The founding fathers' plan was for the feds to do things (and only those things) that cannot be done at the local level...like national defense, interstate highways, things like that.

Today, we have the department of education, for example. They get some of my tax dollars, some of which go to other states. Clearly, I have no say in how that money gets spent. If my tax dollars go to San Francisco, there is a great likelihood that San Francisco officials (who do not answer to me) will spend my money on things I object to. If I wanted to pay for 6 year olds to get condoms in a San Francisco elementary school, I'd move to San Francisco and advocate for that.

It's not just the lack of representation, because clearly our own legislators have a say in how $$ gets allocated. But that's part of it...

Notice any patterns her Kev?

Yep...you two take over threads arguing about what the other one meant.

The thread loses its way, and then I end up Shutting her down.

Deja Vu...all over again

ban them both from this godforesaken place and be done with it!

That would make it a "Kinder, Gentler place for all"

ban them both from this godforesaken place and be done with it!

That would make it a "Kinder, Gentler place for all"


I found it very helpful to impose bans via the User CP. If we all did it, Paul, nebe, Spence, RIRock and I could have our own private threads about corporate tax loopholes and the value of insurance and preventative care in driving down health costs. The four J's and their compadres could lament life in the gulag that is Obama's America :devil2:

I found it very helpful to impose bans via the User CP. If we all did it, Paul, nebe, Spence, RIRock and I could have our own private threads about corporate tax loopholes and the value of insurance and preventative care in driving down health costs. The four J's and their compadres could lament life in the gulag that is Obama's America :devil2:

I don't like corporate tax-cheats (though Obama, for all his talk, doesn't seem to mind corporate tax cheats, at least not GE...)...

I think health insurance is very valuable (which is why it isn't cheap).

Preventative care drives down costs? Hardly. Preventative care is cheaper for the folks whose problem is identified earlier. But that savings is usually more than offset by the cost of administering the preventative care to huge numbers of people who turn out to be healthy. If preventative care reduced costs, then who on Earth would be opposed to it? By the way, I'm not saying we do away with preventative care...but it usually does not lower aggregate costs...

Life is not a gulag under Obama. But he as added trillions to our debt. He has failed to do one single thing to fix social security and Medicare, meaning that the solutions will have to be that much more drastic whenever we get around to it. Those things make us less free, do they not?

You are right, it was definitely plain. I guess lack of representation is still an issue? I missed the part about the forefathers whining over taxation because they didnt like what their representatives were doing.

You, apparently, missed a lot of parts that I have been saying here for a while. And you tend, as here, to interject strawmen into the conversation. There was no part about the Founders whining over taxation by their representatives beacuse their representatives did not have the power they do now (by design of those Founders) to tax. The ability of the federal gvt. to tax was so limited that it was difficult for it to expand its power beyond that which was enumerated in the Constitution. That's why progressives, among so many other things, instituted the federal income tax (which you may have missed has massively expanded beyond its original parameters). It is also why States were wealthy enough to run their business then--they had power beyond the fedgov and with closer representation to their constituents.

As well as the examples that Jim in CT gave, you apparently missed the part of my discussion in other threads about the administrative federal state, the real shadow government, that creates most of the federal regulations and associated taxes without our vote and in which we are not truly represented since the regulatory agencies and departments operate independently for the most part from the congress that appoints them. These agencies are akin to one of the complaints against the King in the Declaration of Independence--"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." And we are little informed about the formation of these well over 300 agencies. And the representatives that create and appoint these agences have more power over us in the aggregate now than they did or were given in the Founders' time.

There is no dispute that the fedgov has grown way beyond its original constitutional powers. The only dispute now is whether that is a better thing, or worse.

Though the Founders would be repulsed by what has happened to the Constitution and how power has been transferred from individuals and local and State gvts. to the central gvt., they would not be stunned. They understood human nature. It is that nature that inspired them to devise a gvt. that would protect the intrinsic human desire for liberty from the tyranny of a leviathan state. But they knew also the weakness in our nature, of the desire for security and comfort above the desire for freedom and the rigors it requires once that freedom was established. They understood that lack of virtue could or would be the downfall of the system they created. Madison and others opined that it would only last 100 years. And he was not far off in that prediction as the progressive era with its anti-constitutional, pro-administrative central state, anti-individual, pro-collective philosophies began to make inroads a little over a century later and took firm hold another generation later under FDR. The fedgov has continued since then to grow in power and in debt and in its need for taxes. And the virtue and freedom of our people has progressively decayed, sold out by more and more to a fragile and unsecured promise of security and comfort by a leviathan gvt. that has outgrown even its ability to pay for its gifts.

Perhaps you've missed, besides past myriad examples of central gvt. tyranny, the latest tyrannical version of taxation for not buying something, or the now limitless power of gvt. to tax everything. If that is not tyrannical to you, then let us just discard the word.

Or, rather, you approve. That this is better not worse. After all, it is NECESSARY to tax everything in order to make the government work. Yes, necessity is not only not the mother of invention, it is the dictate of tyranny itself. All tyrannical goverments do what is necessary to rule the people.

It is interesting to end up on this page not logged in. You can see everyone's posts. Sorry det. I only saw what you said because jplug quoted you. Didn't mean to write something that initiated a response to me from you. And Jim, i wasn't ignoring his or your questions per se, i just don't see them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is interesting to end up on this page not logged in. You can see everyone's posts. Sorry det. I only saw what you said because jplug quoted you. Didn't mean to write something that initiated a response to me from you. And Jim, i wasn't ignoring his or your questions per se, i just don't see them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No need to waste your beautiful sarcasm or self-satisfied equilibrium on things that don't exist. Better to stay within your perfect private threads where bothersome and boring (stupid actually) opinions are banned, and have satisfying conversations with those that agree with you.

don't know if he'll actually see this unless someone that still plays in his sandbox happens to quote it or something... but I'm now convinced that Zimmy is about 12 years old....I've suspected it for a while based on the content, nature and tone of his posts.... :rotf2: this explains why you never get an answer when you ask how his thinking fits into Constitutional parameters, he either doesn't get the message because he only sees a fraction of what is written or hasn't covered it in Social Studies yet and doesn't really know.......

Getting back to the original topic...

Obama is now saying that when he stated business owners "didn't build that", he was referring to the infastructure that exists. The "that" that they didn't build isn't their business, but rather highways and bridges.

OK. So if American taxpayers didn't build that infastructure, then who the heck did?

Furthermore, that wasn't the only kooky comment Obama made. He also dismissed entrepeneurs who feel that their success is due to intelligence and hard work. Obama said that there are a lot of hard-working smart people out there. The irrefutable implication is that entrepeneurs arwe no different than peopl ewho do not start businesses from scratch.

How would Obama know this, anyway? What business has he built? On what does he base his knowledge that entrepeneurs are no different than anyone else?

JohnnyD, what do you think of that?

This is what you get when you have a guy whose life experience includes student, community organizer (rabble rouser), professor, and politician. No one with that background would be expected to have any clue how hard it is, for example, to start a business or meet payroll.

Then, Obama says any criticism of his idiotic remarks is "bogus". This is the guy who was supposed to unite all of us, now anyone who dares to criticize him is "bogus".

If this guy was polling at 5%, I'd be worried that 5% of this country is so easily manipulated by a charlatan. That he's polling in the mid 40's is nothing short of scary. Hilary Clinton never, ever looked so good.

Earth to Obama...folks who start a business and turn it into a success are absolutely different than those who never attempt that most American of endeavors. They are different. And they deserve to be honored and encouraged, not to be dismissed with an elitist wave of Obama's hand. Because in Obamaworld, drinking hot toddies in the Harvard faculty lounge is impressive...starting a business, like serving in the military, is for folks not good enough for the Ivy League. And not only are entrepeneurs inferior to Ivy League academocs, they are also the enemy...clearly they are all sinister tycoons, hell-bent on getting rich by exploiting the ignorant masses, who are too stupid to know they are being exploited, and thus need Obama to save them.

I see the posts from 1035 of the 1038 active members. Tough odds for three in a row.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Getting back to the original topic...

Obama is now saying that when he stated business owners "didn't build that", he was referring to the infastructure that exists. The "that" that they didn't build isn't their business, but rather highways and bridges.

.

he very well may have been...but the words used and the tone with which they were delivered at the time cannot be misconstrued regarding the "intent" with which he stated this .....he's done this over and over...offer a convoluted statement intended to inflame, stand back and watch the carnage for a bit and then jump in as saviour along with his apologists claiming that anyone who didn't understand what he really meant is just a hater....it's getting old from an American President who should be very much above this if he respects his office and the American people.....:uhuh:

By Shannen W. Coffin
July 20, 2012 10:05 A.M.

James Taranto labels as “bunk” the Obama campaign’s argument that Obama didn’t mean that a business owner didn’t build his business when he said “you didn’t build that.” The Obama campaign claims that it is obvious that Obama was referring to the roads, bridges, and infrastructure that a business depends upon when he said “you didn’t build that.” I’ve listened to the portion of the speech and actually agree that Obama — who was speaking without aid of his pacifier, er, teleprompter — was probably referring to the roads and bridges mentioned in his prior sentence when he said, “You didn’t build that.” I’ll give Taranto the benefit of the doubt that it is at least a debatable point, but listening to the speech in context, it is likely that Obama was really saying “If you’re a business owner, you didn’t build the infrastructure your business depends on. Government did.” That he can’t articulate the thought cleanly without the assistance of a teleprompter should not be that surprising.

The thing is, even accepting that as true and accepting the less nefarious construction of the sentence, it doesn’t make Obama’s statement that much more palatable. He’s still claiming that the small-business owner who toils to eke out a living while putting food on the table of his employees and serving the needs of some portion of the community owes much of his success to government, and is not the singular cause of his own success. It’s a silly and specious strawman, and it doesn’t take into account that the business owner is already paying taxes to fund those roads, bridges, and other government services that his business benefits from. Obama seems to suggest that much more is owed to the government that makes all things possible. All of the naysaying from the Obama campaign is for naught. In context or out of context, the speech is equally appalling and runs counter to how most Americans view individual success.

I see the posts from 1035 of the 1038 active members. Tough odds for three in a row.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, after 1035 you're just too tired to get to the last three--always the same three? Something else than "tough odds" goin on there.

This little tidbit, of course, is not for you since, after reading the other 1035 posts you will not have enough time, or energy, or ability to read it. It is for the other 1036 that might see it, as are my other posts. The willingness to engage in conversation, debate, shows that character to those listening who see, as well, the character of those who are reluctant.

Among the other contadictions in his speech, does anyone else see the glaring contradiction in "If youve got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made it happen."? If none of us is responsible for our success and can't achieve it without the help of others, then how can "somebody else" make it happen"? Aren't all somebody elses also not capable of building it? His camouflage of political pablums on how we must cooperate and work together for any individual success to happen is not disputed by his opponents. That basic societal necessity of working together to build a society is not disputed by Romney nor conservatives nor any save, perhaps, anarchists. That, in itself, is not a point of distinction. In his speech, Obama, says that this election is between two fundamentally different views. But, though he tries to paint the picture of his view that cooperation is necessary, and that it is not necessary for his opposition, that picture is BS. The distinction is not whether we work together or not, it is how we work together. The difference is a society built by and for individuals who have inalienable rights, who govern from the bottom up, and a society that is governed from the top down, a society whose individuals are granted rights by the government.

His rhetoric and the you didn't build your business sound bites imply the top down form of government. That is the true distinction.

"falling on deaf ears" comes to mind..............

I'm just hoping for more brilliant analysis like this....:biglaugh:

Do you own a business? It is the same tax. Typically it is paid by the employer. Small business owners pay it themselves. If you own a company, you pay it for yourself and your employees. :)

maybe while he's on a roll he can also answer Buckman's question(if he saw it)...wondering if those who "pay their fair share" with taxes like sales tax while having no Federal obligation and pay for their goods and services with some sort of government transfer payment which we know is a direct transfer from one American to another less the Ferderal bureaucracy processing costs.....who is ACTUALLY paying that fair share?:)

The New American Dream
Government assistance expands
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney February 7, 2012:

More than a third of Americans lived in households receiving government assistance in 2010.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in three Americans lived in households that received Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance in mid-2010, according to a new report.

And when Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are included, nearly half of the nation lived in a household that received a government check, according to the analysis of third-quarter 2010 Census data done by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian-leaning think tank. That's more than 148 million Americans.

Those numbers are on their way up thanks to the Great Recession and its aftermath, which have pushed record numbers of people onto public assistance programs. In particular, the stubbornly high unemployment rate has left millions of Americans in dire straits.

In 2008, one-quarter of people lived in households receiving a government lifeline and about 45 percent a government check, according to the Census Bureau.


The federal government sent a record $2 trillion to individuals in fiscal 2010, up nearly 75% from 10 years earlier.




we do know who built this..................:uhuh: