QuakerOats;1226584 wrote:We did.

Mr. Bush attempted to address Social Security, and was villified by the Left.

Mr. Ryan has attempted to address Medicare, and the budget as a whole, and has been villified by the Left.

It is becoming more apparent that compromise is defined as occurring only when republicans bow down to the wishes of the democrats. I have yet to see the mainstream media suggest that compromise ever be achieved through democrat acquiescence; instead they merely label republicans as the 'party of no', and the masses soak it up.

This- and an earlier post mentioned Harry Reid, who heads the legislative body where legislation and budgets go to die. No party leader is a bigger partisan hack than that guy, but Republicans need to compromise more.

I think I have this about right- when Republicans compromise a little and pass a CR that increases our debt, the Republicans share blame for our debt problems. When Republicans merely mention that Medicare and SS need fixed and the left howls and wails and gnashes their teeth, it's the Republicans' fault. Compromise means Republicans bowing to the left and never the other way around. Nobody gave a crap about compromise during Obama's first two years when he had 60 Senators and control of the House.

This just in --- obama's budget director is a Bain guy ...... maybe his campaign staff should let him in on that secret. Too funny

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-budget-director-bain-guy-married-bain-gal_648652.html

Read a real interesting insight today, that since the media is so left-leaning and liberal, they shape our debates for the worst. Makes a lot of sense, too. Dangerous thing to be so one-sided not only in the content of the question, but how it's phrased.

QuakerOats;1226658 wrote:This just in --- obama's budget director is a Bain guy ...... maybe his campaign staff should let him in on that secret. Too funny

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-budget-director-bain-guy-married-bain-gal_648652.html

Not so fast....Now when Romney attacks Obama's irresponsible budgets, Obama can say "well, we have a Bain guy doing it so why should you be any better?"

QuakerOats;1226461 wrote:I simply cannot believe it. I think he has just gone right past being a socialist and is an avowed communist, just like his dad. And his arrogance is just plain disgusting.

November '12 ---- our final chance to save the republic.

Had 2 one-hour conversations about his talk this morning, one with my dad and the other with stepfather in law. I'm going to have to avoid this board the rest of the day and turn off the tv - I can't believe the cluelessness and narcissism of this guy. I suppose on one hand anyone can say they couldn't have done anything "but for", but ultimately it is meaningless because it can be due to anything (I'd like to thank the pine trees in my parents front yard for converting carbon dioxide to oxygen, or else I wouldn't be able to breathe and do my job today).

More importantly, the bigger issue is government hindrance, ask any small business owner how much the government does to help them, rather than pester them with regulations, permits, taxes (direct and indirect) and bureaucracy dealing with government. The time and efforts wasted more than make up for government help in a lot of cases.

I also note the hubris of the most inexperienced, unaccomplished POTUS talking about successful business as if he knows the first thing about one. If we elect this guy again, we deserve what is coming to us. The only saving grace is he's so incompetent that I don't know what damage he can cause - just play golf and send your wife to a dying continent to party and leave the competent people to pick up the pieces.

You didn't build that bridge, and neither did he....but give him some money, anyway.

Always got a give a shoutout to the teachers, too. At some point in your life, you had a great teacher. Yeah, god forbid we should actually expect a few of them to be good at their job.

gut;1226920 wrote:Always got a give a shoutout to the teachers, too. At some point in your life, you had a great teacher. Yeah, god forbid we should actually expect a few of them to be good at their job.

You forgot to mention policemen and firemen. The U.S. would be an ideal country if we had 320,000,000 teachers, policemen and firemen and Obama and his administration would tell us all what to do. The teachers would teach the policemen how to set fires, the firemen would try to put them out and the policemen would arrest the ones that don't succeed in putting the fire out.

I have nothing against people in those fields (my father is a retired teacher), but I went to public school and there are #^$tty teachers at every level, yet they all get the same salary and pension. More doesn't mean better. To the real point, this is the same tired, pandering, lame type of speech he's been giving since his election when he realized his farts don't turn into unicorn breath and that there is actually a job in being the POTUS. I can't believe people still defend him - most Americans I know don't, most Euros I know do - how is it going for them over there?

Manhattan Buckeye;1226917 wrote:The only saving grace is he's so incompetent that I don't know what damage he can cause - just play golf and send your wife to a dying continent to party and leave the competent people to pick up the pieces.

Naw....the competent people will be too busy "not being responsible" for the successes of their endeavors to care.

Even I am stunned that obama said what he said --- I think he has seriously zoomed right past being a socialist and is actually a communist. I'm sorry, there is no other explanation. Nov '12 is our only hope to salvage the republic.

http://www.restaurant.org/nra_news_blog/2012/07/thousands-of-nyers-sign-petition-opposing-soda-ban.cfm?NL=NRA-01&Issue=NRA-01_20120718_NRA-01_832&YM_RID=%60email%60&YM_MID=%60mmid%60


By the way, back to the Statists Soda ban (that some here were apparently unaware of). I am amazed once again at the hypocrisy of the Left - it is fine and dandy to advocate For Choice when it involves killing an unborn child, but God forbid we have 'Choice' in deciding what size soda we want to drink. It is simply unbelievable how twisted the liberal mindset is. God help them.

QuakerOats;1227674 wrote:http://www.restaurant.org/nra_news_blog/2012/07/thousands-of-nyers-sign-petition-opposing-soda-ban.cfm?NL=NRA-01&Issue=NRA-01_20120718_NRA-01_832&YM_RID=`email`&YM_MID=`mmid`


By the way, back to the Statists Soda ban (that some here were apparently unaware of). I am amazed once again at the hypocrisy of the Left - it is fine and dandy to advocate For Choice when it involves killing an unborn child, but God forbid we have 'Choice' in deciding what size soda we want to drink. It is simply unbelievable how twisted the liberal mindset is. God help them.

Since it is rare that I agree with a Quakeroats post I'm going to take this opportunity to do so. I completely agree that the soda ban is totally ridiculous. I could see a pigovian tax levied on high-calorie/low-nutrient soft drinks to reflect their external costs but the ban is ridiculous IMHO.

BoatShoes;1227752 wrote:Since it is rare that I agree with a Quakeroats post I'm going to take this opportunity to do so. I completely agree that the soda ban is totally ridiculous. I could see a pigovian tax levied on high-calorie/low-nutrient soft drinks to reflect their external costs but the ban is ridiculous IMHO.

The fact that the size of sodas has risen to the level of mayoral politics in the largest city in the US is beyond amazing.

jhay78;1227800 wrote:The fact that the size of sodas has risen to the level of mayoral politics in the largest city in the US is beyond amazing.

Lol. I agree.

BGFalcons82;1226072 wrote:To claim that roads, bridges, public education, etc. make small businesses what they are is ludicrous if not a form of brainwashing the uneducated. These things are wonderful to have, but they DO NOT make small businesses what they are.

Regarding "modern society", how in the hell did Ford get his car company off the ground without any of this wonderful government aid? The Wright Brothers were working on a government entitlement program 110 years ago? Where was their electricity, sidewalks, public roads, etc? How in the hell did we ever live through the first 2 centuries of this country without government intrusion? I'm not picking on you, but the idea that the government is directly responsible for successful businesses is unfathomable. Yet, here we are discussing it as Warren and Soetoro have said it is so.

Umm, do you know who the first customers were for the Wright Brothers? The Federal Government. It was one of the first contracts written by the War Department. And it was one page. If not for that, no one was really going to by the thing.

BGFalcons82;1226146 wrote:No No No

What did the government infrastructure do to take credit for Henry Ford's cars? Don't change the point. Barry claims businesses were built by government and not individuals. All success is due to government. I ask again, how in the Sam hell did we survive for 2 centuries without governmental intrusion? Pure f*cking luck? Lucky sperm society? Tell us, please.

QuakerOats;1226461 wrote:I simply cannot believe it. I think he has just gone right past being a socialist and is an avowed communist, just like his dad. And his arrogance is just plain disgusting.

November '12 ---- our final chance to save the republic.

The whole context for this quote is here.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/did-obama-say-if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that/

I missed the overall discussions on Ford, which is one example, but misses the bigger point. People can't succeed in a vacuum. It does take a combination of personal will, drive, and yes, help from various aspects of modern society we take for granted. We all benefited from R&D from the Government, or different technologies that would not have flourished if not for the Government.
That doesn't mean the Government deserves credit, no, but we simply cannot dismiss the fundamental things that Government can provide through R&D and infrastructure.

That said, man, what a stupid thing/ way he said it. I would have said much better than that.

Commie huh, so I guess the Government is totally taking over the private sector Quaker? Give up the boiler plate language. At least try to string a coherent thought together without the loaded language. Can you do that? I haven't seen it yet. What a joke.

Edit: Back to the Wright Brothers, Government did not create it, but helped foster an environment for it to grow, and launched the industry. A nice write-up. The case if always Procurement 101: http://www.jaymesokolow.com/publications/Wright_Brothers_1908.pdf

^^^^

Awesome.

Apparently an entrepreneur is taking advantage of this - he CAN THANK the government and Obama for this:

https://www.mittromney.com/donate/built-it-shirt

More seriously, this is the type of thing that has concerned many people since Obama's election. Politics aside, the guy is a narcissistic weirdo. His speeches (though delivered well, to his credit) always refer to positives in "I" and "me" and all negatives to "you", and not a "we" (unless he uses the term "wee weed up" which no one in the history of human development ever used).*


* This isn't an original opinion, the President/CEO/owner of one of my biggest clients mentioned this during the BP oil spill. Obviously being the owner of a smallish business (but still has about 75 people on payroll) he leans Republican and I'm sure will not be voting for Obama, but at a closing dinner he explained very succinctly how the use of the words "I" and "me" are important and that if a leader uses it, it needs to be in a smart manner. This administration is anything but smart.

Ptown- nice try. Under Obama's twisted version of history, no one was smart enough or worked hard enough to create their own business. What a fucking disgraceful and disdainful thing to say to the country. I get angry every fucking time I hear his quotes on this.

I'll answer you with this: which came first, the car or roads? Which came first, planes or airports? Which came first, the light bulb or the electric grid? The government has been at its best when it's reactionary not proactive. Obama got off the teleprompter and showed us all that he prays at the altar of big government. We should all take note. If QO sees his prayers as communistic , then he certainly is correct in calling him as he sees him.

I really think we owe small business success to the big bang, God or both. Whatever floats your boat. Without that, no business would have ever been successful.

This election cant end soon enough. Ive made my stance well known but the next 4 months are going to be so mind numbingly stupid it will drive me crazy. All the talk about non issues. Bain, Birther, tax returns, college transcripts, race, communism etc... None of that really matters.

8% is the number that matters I believe, If we stay above that, Romney could win. If it moves below 8% Obama will probably win.

Like I mentioned in another thread, I am honestly starting to believe the Republicans are trying to throw the election to get their real guy in 2016. The thing is, Obama is so bad that even with them doing that, they could still have Romney win.

BGFalcons82;1228360 wrote:Ptown- nice try. Under Obama's twisted version of history, no one was smart enough or worked hard enough to create their own business. What a ****ing disgraceful and disdainful thing to say to the country. I get angry every ****ing time I hear his quotes on this.

I'll answer you with this: which came first, the car or roads? Which came first, planes or airports? Which came first, the light bulb or the electric grid? The government has been at its best when it's reactionary not proactive. Obama got off the teleprompter and showed us all that he prays at the altar of big government. We should all take note. If QO sees his prayers as communistic , then he certainly is correct in calling him as he sees him.

I don't see it as an either-or thing. You cannot have one without the other. The car, plans, and light bulbs came first, but without infrastructure and investment by the Government, they would not have panned out. It is a combination of both, the private and the Government, that contributes to what is great in the society. Saying one can live without the other ignores the history of Government R&D and the private sector.

Think of the Cold War, atomic power, DARPA, computers (IBM put them on ships during WWII), the microwave, etc. All those things were derived by people and businesses working with the Government. Without a combination and a relationship, they probably would not have happened.

Was it a good quote? Hell no. He completely screwed it up. But, bigger picture, he is mostly right. I said mostly. It is still the very idea of the private individual that creates and starts things. It is just the Government can chip in and make it better and come to fruition. (Ideally)

I guess working in the Private Defense sector, I see this relationship every day.

believer;1228334 wrote:

Yeah, the Government......

Manhattan Buckeye;1226342 wrote:"While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition"

In other words, market forces, not some of socialist experiment. Isadore = Footwedge = Sleeper. I'm calling it now. Any bets?

SMH. What exactly are you trying to prove with this little snippet? I mean really. You want to debate the subject then debate it. Your post here as as pathetic as I have ever seen on this board. Never any substance..at all. And this little pile you dumped on the grass proves it.

Listen up, pal. Ford improved his business because he was able to create a demand. His ingeneous plan helped Americans develop into a middle class. There are no Henry Fords today. There are Mitt Romneys and others that would rather shit on the entire country, hide their money overseas, and then blame the political party in office. These political boards should be educational for those that occasionally frequent here...as they get a birdseye view on the mindset of some really sleezy and unpatriotic Americans. Ford didn't view human labor simply as a cost on a balance sheet....as many radical right wingers "businessmen" do including Rmoney. Where do you fall, slick?

ptown_trojans_1;1228374 wrote:I don't see it as an either-or thing. You cannot have one without the other. The car, plans, and light bulbs came first, but without infrastructure and investment by the Government, they would not have panned out. It is a combination of both, the private and the Government, that contributes to what is great in the society. Saying one can live without the other ignores the history of Government R&D and the private sector.

Think of the Cold War, atomic power, DARPA, computers (IBM put them on ships during WWII), the microwave, etc. All those things were derived by people and businesses working with the Government. Without a combination and a relationship, they probably would not have happened.

Was it a good quote? Hell no. He completely screwed it up. But, bigger picture, he is mostly right. I said mostly. It is still the very idea of the private individual that creates and starts things. It is just the Government can chip in and make it better and come to fruition. (Ideally)

I guess working in the Private Defense sector, I see this relationship every day.

I can agree with most of this. But my two main points are: 1) he's using this argument to call for higher taxes on wealthy Americans, who already foot a larger percentage of all revenues to the government and most of whom are real economy-stimulators and job-creators. 2) Paying the already higher percentage in income/corporate taxes means they paid for more of that bridge/road/government project than anyone else. Using this reasoning as an argument to tax them more is maddeningly idiotic.

The fact that he echoed what Elizabeth Warren said a few months ago tells me he's desperate. When you're desperate you go to your tried-and-true playbook, which is Marxism.