In economic speech, Obama reveals true colors (and reveals he is insane)

[spence]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[likwid]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Listen to what we are actually saying.

You sound like you belong in a trailer park.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[zimmy]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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………

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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.