O-Trap;1232475 wrote:Given the rest of my post, I hope you don't think I disagree.

His point -- that success is dependent on governmental services -- is still incorrect to the degree that he was stating it. However, he wasn't saying people don't do anything to accomplish their own successes. Hell, what would that say for his Nobel Peace Prize?

How is it incorrect?

If I have a restaurant or factory I didn't build the roads and schools that allow me to ship/receive my products and have educated employees. He was talking about the roads not their businesses when he said "you didn't build that".

I Wear Pants;1232486 wrote:How is it incorrect?

If I have a restaurant or factory I didn't build the roads and schools that allow me to ship/receive my products and have educated employees. He was talking about the roads not their businesses when he said "you didn't build that".

Mofo Those that own business, pay taxes and are productive citizen built that road via tax money.. goverment runs on taxes yours and mine and business.... roads where built from my personal success .... as a business man and a prodiuctive citizen

I Wear Pants;1232486 wrote:How is it incorrect?

If I have a restaurant or factory I didn't build the roads and schools that allow me to ship/receive my products and have educated employees. He was talking about the roads not their businesses when he said "you didn't build that".

That was actually my point in saying that we need not build strawmen. The whole thing is bordering on a meme, but Obama was not saying that someone didn't build their own business.

I didn't build the roads, but I could have easily paid a private company a toll if they did. I didn't build the school that taught me. I am paying that (private) school for my education.

Becoming successful, like starting a business, is going to require some cost for things you cannot do yourself. The beauty of much of that is that I can either pay for a good/service/access or I can refrain from paying for it, either in search of my own alternative.

Being forced to pay for something that I subsequently use to build my success removes my ability to leverage my patronage to the provider with the best value. After I become successful, the entity which forced me to use their service ought not claim to have aided in my success, since I would have still succeeded if their service had been opened up to competition, and I probably would have reached the same place faster, given the potential for a better value.

It's like the little kid saying he helped his mom with "Shake 'n Bake." Maybe he did something, but it would have just as easily gotten done without him ... possibly better.

Quaker has once again established his "birther" credentials. You're probably really pissed that Trump quit the race, aren't you?

What's really sad about this whole race is that the White House was ripe for the taking and the R's are jeopardizing their chances with such a lame candidate. For all of the f***-ups you folks accuse Obama of, it's pretty much neck-and-neck right now. Is this (Romney) the best you can do? And you have to resort to the tired old "he's not American" crap?

stlouiedipalma;1232511 wrote:Quaker has once again established his "birther" credentials. You're probably really pissed that Trump quit the race, aren't you?

What's really sad about this whole race is that the White House was ripe for the taking and the R's are jeopardizing their chances with such a lame candidate. For all of the f***-ups you folks accuse Obama of, it's pretty much neck-and-neck right now. Is this (Romney) the best you can do? And you have to resort to the tired old "he's not American" crap?

What the he!! are you talking about --"birther credentials". I am not saying he wasn't born here (although that is indeed questionable); I am saying his actions, rhetoric, and policy agenda is essentially un-American with respect to the capitalist economy that our nation was founded upon. What is in his core beliefs is in direct conflict with the principles that made this nation the greatest economic engine in world history.

And then you bash the republican candidate --- a self-made man who knows how to create wealth and prosperity - and did it on his own in the private sector without confiscating your money, one who is true to his commitments, and one who would do an infinitely better job than the current WH occupier. What the heck more do you want.

QuakerOats;1232567 wrote:... one who would do an infinitely better job than the current WH occupier ...

I'm betting against that number, Archimedes.

QuakerOats;1232567 wrote:
And then you bash the republican candidate --- a self-made man

He's about as much a self-made man as Donald Trump or Jaden Smith.

I Wear Pants;1232486 wrote:He was talking about the roads not their businesses when he said "you didn't build that".

Which has communist undertones. The implication is that everyone owes their individual success to the govt, because the govt built the roads (eventhough they did it with tax dollars, to which the wealthy contribute more). It's a mentality that anyone with above-average income is allowed to keep only what the govt decides, i.e it's not "your money" because it's some sort of ill-gotten gain from the public welfare.

And the same implication is evident again in Obama's comment about "lots of people are smart....lots of people work hard". This is true, but hard work and brains do not guarantee wealth. It appears to ignore talent and creativity and attribute success of the 1-2%, perhaps 10%, to luck rather than skill. It's a not unexpected philosophy from a liberal who's never had to earn anything on merit.

That whole speech just wreaks of "if you have more, that's not yours it's only because of the govt and luck"

O-Trap;1232502 wrote: Being forced to pay for something that I subsequently use to build my success removes my ability to leverage my patronage to the provider with the best value. After I become successful, the entity which forced me to use their service ought not claim to have aided in my success, since I would have still succeeded if their service had been opened up to competition, and I probably would have reached the same place faster, given the potential for a better value.

Pretty well sums it up.

Belly35;1232407 wrote:What 98% in 2008 of Black America hears from Obama is color everything else is a blind agenda and many still can't see what Obama is and the Democat Party repesents to the Black Community and America in general.

1964 Malcolm X predicted Black America belief both then and now

[video=youtube;7BYVv4LY_KQ][/video]

Monkey see, monkey do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDIjGsBEP8&feature=youtu.be

Great ad, Mr. Brown. Good luck in your campaign to defeat the radical you are running against.

jhay78;1232040 wrote:This is what drives me crazy about Obama and most libs. All we hear are comments about the rich paying their "fair share . . . fair share . . . fair share", but it's always open-ended and undefined. Nobody steps out and says, "I want the top marginal rate to be 45%, or 55%".

mainstream liberals have defined it as 39.6% in any and all proposals worth a shot which is of course lower than what Ronald Reagan seemed to think was the "fair share" but carry on.

BoatShoes;1232817 wrote:mainstream liberals have defined it as 39.6% in any and all proposals worth a shot which is of course lower than what Ronald Reagan seemed to think was the "fair share" but carry on.

I haven't heard a mainstream politician define the top rate as 39.6% or anything other than "fair share".

Considering the top rates were 70% in '81 and 28% in '88, I don't recall Reagan seeming to think they should be higher than 39.6%. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

O-Trap;1232175 wrote:I think you over-estimate the favorability of Mittens.



I agree with this, the obvious difference of course being that church is optional.

I don't really see how it's relevant that church is non-obligatory. I used it because no pro-business/religious conservatives run around accusing pastors, etc. of being unabashed liberals/socialists. And, that's the point. This one poorly worded sentence is a non-story. Notice Believer calling a very similar statement by Romney "apples to oranges" when individual achievement and success in business or athletics are readily analogous on the general them of whether or not you "got there totally on your own."

jhay78;1232829 wrote:I haven't heard a mainstream politician define the top rate as 39.6% or anything other than "fair share".

Considering the top rates were 70% in '81 and 28% in '88, I don't recall Reagan seeming to think they should be higher than 39.6%. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Democrats use the word "Fair Share" because it's a "word that works" in promoting liberal policy goals in the same way that republicans use the words "freedom" and "liberty", etc.

No one has "defined" fair share...but no mainstream democrat with influence has sought anything higher than 39.6%

The rate was way higher than 39.6% for almost the entirety of Reagan's presidency and he had the opportunity to veto the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 if he thought a rate lower than 29.6% was justified but he was satisfied with 50%; that is to say, that he must have thought it morally permissible that, at the margin paid a 50% rate in tax.

The Liberal Caucus has put forth a budget around that rate but their budget would get no play from BHO.

believer;1232185 wrote:apples to oranges



Nice reach though.

Not really.

BoatShoes;1232830 wrote:I don't really see how it's relevant that church is non-obligatory.

Actually, it's the crux of the difference. While you have the option of either giving or refraining to give in one case, you are obliged to give, by force if necessary, in the other case. One demonstrates raising finances via voluntary giving. Another does so via authoritative force.

That's a fairly substantial difference, philosophically.

BoatShoes;1232830 wrote:I used it because no pro-business/religious conservatives run around accusing pastors, etc. of being unabashed liberals/socialists.

Because the difference I mentioned above is the distinction between Socialism and charity. Churches don't demand money by threat of force, all the while holding a historical origin grounded largely in personal liberty.

More succinctly, a church asks for money (akin to the man on the corner with a sign on cardboard) while a government extracts it with or without consent (akin to a bully stealing lunch money in a school with no repercussions).

BoatShoes;1232830 wrote:And, that's the point. This one poorly worded sentence is a non-story.

I agree, at least in the sense that it is used.

BoatShoes;1232830 wrote:Notice Believer calling a very similar statement by Romney "apples to oranges" when individual achievement and success in business or athletics are readily analogous on the general them of whether or not you "got there totally on your own."

So long as Romney wasn't implying a forced requirement of giving of oneself (monetarily or otherwise), I see the difference. However, I hardly think Romney differs from Obama much in this sentiment.

BoatShoes;1232834 wrote:Democrats use the word "Fair Share" because it's a "word that works" in promoting liberal policy goals in the same way that republicans use the words "freedom" and "liberty", etc.

No one has "defined" fair share...but no mainstream democrat with influence has sought anything higher than 39.6%

The rate was way higher than 39.6% for almost the entirety of Reagan's presidency and he had the opportunity to veto the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 if he thought a rate lower than 29.6% was justified but he was satisfied with 50%; that is to say, that he must have thought it morally permissible that, at the margin paid a 50% rate in tax.

The Liberal Caucus has put forth a budget around that rate but their budget would get no play from BHO.

I could not locate "fair share" in the founding documents. I did see references to "freedom" and "liberty".

39.6% today, 45% tomorrow, 60% next year. Similar to the original 1% corporate income tax, which has ballooned 35-fold over the years in order to fund bloated, failed, inefficient government.

Mr. Reagan not only reduced marginal rates by wondrous amounts, he added investment tax credits, and accelerated depreciation which, as you know, deferred taxes further, all to spur perhaps the greatest economic renaissance ever. And beyond that, of course, he inspried confidence, as opposed to the current WH occupier who champions division like no other.

I continue to marvel at those who still attempt to defend the indefensible.

QuakerOats;1232861 wrote:... all to spur perhaps the greatest economic renaissance ever.

Eh ... maybe in the last 50 years.

O-Trap;1232872 wrote:Eh ... maybe in the last 50 years.

Arguably in American history at least...but I digress.

But we're just talking federal income tax. By the time you add in state/local income and property taxes, the top bracket is already paying over 50% of their income in taxes. I think it's criminal to have to work over 6 months just to pay Uncle Sam for the right to make a living.

gut;1232903 wrote:But we're just talking federal income tax. By the time you add in state/local income and property taxes, the top bracket is already paying over 50% of their income in taxes. I think it's criminal to have to work over 6 months just to pay Uncle Sam for the right to make a living.

and sales tax, no less. Indeed it is criminal; many of us have drawn a line in the sand.

O-Trap;1232845 wrote:Actually, it's the crux of the difference. While you have the option of either giving or refraining to give in one case, you are obliged to give, by force if necessary, in the other case. One demonstrates raising finances via voluntary giving. Another does so via authoritative force.

That's a fairly substantial difference, philosophically.

I understand the point you're making but let me explain why I don't think the point you're making in this particular debate matters much.

If Barack Obama were saying in the normative sense, "You didn't get their on your own therefore we ought to pass laws that tax the successful more" and those laws come to pass...I agree it is different because it is obligatory whereas a pastor saying "you didn't get there on your own therefore we ought to tithe more or support a government of the people, by the people and for the people that redistributes more wealth to the poor as an efficient way to follow what Christ commanded" is not.

I'm saying that difference doesn't matter in this particular debate surrounding Barry's quote because it's not about the normative proposition really.

This debate is about how Barry has shown himself to be sufficiently anti-capitalist allegedly simply because he got grandiose in his suggestion that successful people don't earn their success totally and wholly on their own.

I'm saying that people use this type of language all the time, particularly pastors as one example (since a lot of conservatives wouldn't call their pastor an anti-capitalist) and yet that doesn't mean they're anti-capitalist/free-enterprize/success or whatever.

I agree with what you're saying but to me the pastor example was just used to show that people who believe in this grander scope of success or whatever aren't considered anti-capitalism.

QuakerOats;1232861 wrote:I could not locate "fair share" in the founding documents. I did see references to "freedom" and "liberty".

39.6% today, 45% tomorrow, 60% next year. Similar to the original 1% corporate income tax, which has ballooned 35-fold over the years in order to fund bloated, failed, inefficient government.

Mr. Reagan not only reduced marginal rates by wondrous amounts, he added investment tax credits, and accelerated depreciation which, as you know, deferred taxes further, all to spur perhaps the greatest economic renaissance ever. And beyond that, of course, he inspried confidence, as opposed to the current WH occupier who champions division like no other.

I continue to marvel at those who still attempt to defend the indefensible.

Imagine QuakerOats' Rage if Barack Obama proposed the same repeal of accelerated depreciation deductions and reducing the basis for investment tax credits that Ronald Reagan signed into law with Tax "EQUITY" (Read "fairness") and fiscal Responsibility act of 1982!

LOL!

And, did we hear a word of praise from QuakerOats about the wealth of accommodation for depreciation schedules and investment credits in BHO's porkulous sammich? No of course not and we also don't hear a word about Reagan's very same policies adding to the deficit.

Credit to Reagan though for back tracking a bit in 1982 and realizing that with interest rates being so high that was the time to enact some kind of fiscal discipline (although not enough...as David Stockman points out, most spending cuts didn't materialize do to resistance from the administration) because Paul Volcker had plenty of tools to offset any contractionary effects (unlike now of course).

The key point of course again...is that QuakerOats would rage about Obama's hate for capitalism if he enacted any of these bills.