• 191 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#101 Edited by XChairmanDrekX (280 posts) -

I find it funny that some people are thinking the government actually helps businesses, in any way shape or form. The only thing it's good at in that regard is getting in the way. A person may not build a business on their own, but the government sure as hell didn't do jack shit. The government's job should be to tax all businesses fairly and not pile on ridiculous regulations everywhere. It obviously can't do that. What Obama said here was utterly asinine.

#102 Posted by Jace (1092 posts) -

@Mushir: Anyone who agrees with what he says is essentially anti-capitalist. Certainly no business owner would agree with his bullshit. Everything about what he said is flat-out wrong, and extremely socialist. It's fucking disgusting, and I'm glad there are enough corporate lobbyists who would never let Obama's drivel be written into law.

Elections are coming up, let's appeal to the majority of the population. Not producing anything for society? Are you mad at people who do? You should be. They didn't earn it.

Fuck you.

#103 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

@Jace said:

Elections are coming up, let's appeal to the majority of the population.

White People 2012

#104 Posted by Jace (1092 posts) -

@sissylion said:

@Jace said:

Elections are coming up, let's appeal to the majority of the population.

White People 2012

Middle/Lower class 2012.

#105 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

@Jace: I'm not going to debate politics on a video game forum because of course the fuck I won't, but I will say that as long as the electoral college exists, appealing to the "majority of the population" will never be a campaign strategy for any presidential hopeful. Electoral college is dumb, yo.

#106 Posted by salad10203 (654 posts) -

I am glad he said it, he basically got Romney elected with one sentence.

#107 Posted by Liquidus (946 posts) -

Wow, kinda amazed that a modern politician said something I totally agree with even if the way he said was poorly.

#108 Posted by Turambar (6677 posts) -

I think the specific point he wanted to make was that there are specific institutional advantages afforded to big business and big bank accounts.

#109 Posted by MAGZine (436 posts) -

@mlarrabee said:

Two people, with identical taxes for identical public services, should have identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness. This is why lobbyists have no place in a properly functioning and truly just government.

????????????????????????????????????????

If one guy has $20,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, and another guy has $20,000,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, you're trying to say they will have "identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness"?

@raphaa00 said:

Higher taxes will not turn rich into poor from day to night, but will certainly ruin their capacity of investment and wealth creating, something, againg, that only the market does.

Right. Don't hurt our precious job creators.

@jakob187 said:

@troll93 said:

@GreggD: @jakob187: They way that I would interoperate it, is that one company can't do it all themselves. Let's use car manufacturing as an example. Yes, the have the ability to make the components and assemble them, but the US imports large amounts of the raw materials need for it to work. So, the government built that initial port that allowed for the ships to come into the country, a huge investment that would be hard for a lot of companies to make. The materials are then transported on either roads or train, again both generally done by the government. The point is that if the smartest, most hardworking man in the world was to move into the middle of the desert, with no roads, infrastructure ect, they would be unable to create a successful company.:

1. The federal government does not handle any of the local roads and streets. That is the city and state. The federal governement's ONLY job when it comes to "road and infrastructure" is the interstate highways and helping to offer regulations on how roads should be constructed. Otherwise, they aren't doing shit in terms of roads and infrastructure. Obama is taking credit for shit that isn't his to take credit for and talking out of his ass yet again...like always.

2. Before there were even roads, people were able to have successful businesses. The same exists today. If anything, the federal government is taking more from businesses while allowing larger businesses to continue stomping out local business by offering tax breaks to them for location as well as expansion. The same would not be afforded to our business.

3. No one is building a business in the desert except Las Vegas...and they seem to be doing pretty fucking well. Nonetheless, most people aren't going to say "hey, there's a road out to this desert - let's go to that business" unless it's where they live or it's a through trip. EVEN THEN, it doesn't mean there would HAVE to be roads. People used to use horses and many other modes of transportation without roads, and in turn, those people adapt to their conditions in order to get where they need.

4. The federal government is barely even a government anymore. If you look at every one of the decisions that has been passed through Congress or the President's desk in the last 12 - 20 years, they've become a corporation. Hell, they have their own security overseas making sure that the Strait of Hormuz doesn't get shut down because Iran having efficient fuel sources like nuclear facilities (which it still amazes me that we and Japan and many others are allowed to have them but Iran can't because of some bullshit belief that they want to build a missile to kill us all when U.S. reports AND the Ayatollah have both said that they are not interested in building nuclear weaponry!) would mean no oil and no big money.

In the end, as someone who sees what these taxes do to small businesses and can see what Obama would be doing to small businesses because of the things he'd want to do, maybe it puts me in a different position than many of you to say "no, it'll fuck small businesses over pretty hard". Small business owners aren't these big-time moneymakers that everyone thinks they are.

Whhhhatttt is going oonnnnnnnnnn.

1) State funding to federal governments doesn't count? Not earmarked grants or formula grants, such as those offered by the DoT? Infrastructure is also so much more than roads (which are incredibly important, esp. interstate). pipelines, electricity and power transmission (and any green-based incentives), etc, etc.

2) And before there was even internet, people were able to have successful businesses. Don't delude yourself into thinking that because something was previously possible, it is still possible. This is so incredibly wrong. If you want to build your business somewhere that isn't in any municipality, not connected to any government-funded roads or infrastructure (inc. running water, electricity)--well, go ahead and do so. Tell me how you make out. See how many people go and visit you.

3) Don't take an exception to the rule, and try to prove something with it. Yes. There is a city in a desert. That is also retarded, and the only reason it continues to grow is because of what is currently there. How many other major desert cities inside of America can you think of? Cities are built from towns, which were built from Villages, which were there thanks to settlers. The area had population and demanded roads, so they got roads. If the only way to get to Vegas today was 4x4 or horse and buggy through the desert, do you really think it would still be as popular as it is today.

4) I agree with part of this. I think that the Strait of Hormuz is more important for reasons outside of oil. As an American, the largest provider of oil is Canada, not Iraq. Sure, closing the straight would be a PITA for oil supply, but what about other things, such as imports (food, things manufactured overseas). Do remember that container ships are the leading way of moving things overseas. Nuclear missiles are a different topic.

5) I'm not sure that Obama is coming across clearly to you. He's not trying to stamp out small business. He is trying to tax top-earners and possibly close tax-evasion holes. Small business owners aren't top-earners, generally. This is why tax credits are available to small-business owners. I'm not entirely sure why the business you spoke of in your earlier post didn't take advantage of these refunds.

6) You also earlier blamed Obama for having to match your employee's taxes. I'm not entirely sure that this is a policy that Obama founded, although you seem to place blame like it was him...

#110 Posted by Dagbiker (6939 posts) -

@Jace said:

@Mushir: Anyone who agrees with what he says is essentially anti-capitalist. Certainly no business owner would agree with his bullshit. Everything about what he said is flat-out wrong, and extremely socialist. It's fucking disgusting, and I'm glad there are enough corporate lobbyists who would never let Obama's drivel be written into law.

Elections are coming up, let's appeal to the majority of the population. Not producing anything for society? Are you mad at people who do? You should be. They didn't earn it.

Fuck you.

Lets not revert to mud slingling.

#111 Edited by Kidavenger (3511 posts) -

@MAGZine said:

@mlarrabee said:

Two people, with identical taxes for identical public services, should have identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness. This is why lobbyists have no place in a properly functioning and truly just government.

????????????????????????????????????????

If one guy has $20,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, and another guy has $20,000,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, you're trying to say they will have "identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness"?

Taxes aren't based on how much money you have in the bank, it's what you do with that money.

Sure the company with 20 million has greater potential to make money than the company with 20 thousand, but you are completely deluded if you think they are both paying the same amount of tax, taxes are a percentage of income, you make more you pay more that's how it is now and how it's always been.

Obama said something that didn't need to be said, he stirring up shit and it's going to backfire on him hard.

Online
#112 Posted by addictedtopinescent (3645 posts) -

Mostly a good statement, but the way he said it was perfect for republicans, fox news & co to be able to twist it and make some fake controversy out of it.

#113 Posted by Jace (1092 posts) -

@sissylion said:

@Jace: I'm not going to debate politics on a video game forum because of course the fuck I won't, but I will say that as long as the electoral college exists, appealing to the "majority of the population" will never be a campaign strategy for any presidential hopeful. Electoral college is dumb, yo.

And how do you think the electoral college chooses its votes?

#114 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7054 posts) -
@salad10203

I am glad he said it, he basically got Romney elected with one sentence.

That's the funniest shit I've ever read.
#115 Edited by MAGZine (436 posts) -

@Kidavenger:

Don't take that as an insult, it's not meant to be. Allow me explain myself more clearly.

The point I was trying to make is that the low-income person--being taxed the same as the high-income person--does not have "identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness". The person with more money has far more opportunity as he has more resources to play with. I don't want OP to think that if given the exact same business plan, the person low-income person would do just as well as the high-income person 'through industriousness'. Don't be ridiculous.

#116 Edited by Dagbiker (6939 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

@MAGZine said:

@mlarrabee said:

Two people, with identical taxes for identical public services, should have identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness. This is why lobbyists have no place in a properly functioning and truly just government.

????????????????????????????????????????

If one guy has $20,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, and another guy has $20,000,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, you're trying to say they will have "identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness"?

Taxes are based on how much money you have in the bank? How stupid are you?

Lets keep this civil. He was giving an example.

#117 Posted by Kidavenger (3511 posts) -

@Dagbiker: it was a terrible example in a terrible thread, anyway, I fixed my bad...

Online
#118 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

@Jace said:

@sissylion said:

@Jace: I'm not going to debate politics on a video game forum because of course the fuck I won't, but I will say that as long as the electoral college exists, appealing to the "majority of the population" will never be a campaign strategy for any presidential hopeful. Electoral college is dumb, yo.

And how do you think the electoral college chooses its votes?

Through representatives who hold votes based on state populations. In allowing the electoral college to continue, the federal government is essentially saying that one vote is less significant than another if their have contrasting geographies. We can tally votes instantaneously and transport them through satellite across the entirety of the world in mere moments. There's no reason for electors in this day and age.

#119 Posted by MAGZine (436 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

@MAGZine said:

@mlarrabee said:

Two people, with identical taxes for identical public services, should have identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness. This is why lobbyists have no place in a properly functioning and truly just government.

????????????????????????????????????????

If one guy has $20,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, and another guy has $20,000,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, you're trying to say they will have "identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness"?

Sure the company with 20 million has greater potential to make money than the company with 20 thousand, but you are completely deluded if you think they are both paying the same amount of tax, taxes are a percentage of income, you make more you pay more that's how it is now and how it's always been.

-shrug- don't tell me that. Tell that to the guy I was responding to, because we're making the same point (see my post above w/ the picture)

#120 Posted by EXTomar (4507 posts) -

There is nothing good or bad about the electoral college. The nice thing about it is that it gives additional weight to smaller states which isn't automatically a bad thing. If Presidential elections where based on straight popular vote, national elections would concentrate in a few places and really favor one party.

#121 Edited by Kidavenger (3511 posts) -

@MAGZine:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#Federal_tax_rates

According to your example

$20 thousand would pay $3,000

$20 million would pay $7,000,000

So what were you getting at exactly????

---------------------------------------

Federal tax rates

For regular income tax purposes, a system of graduated marginal tax rates is applied to all taxable income, including capital gains. Through 2011, the marginal tax rates on a corporation's taxable income are as follows:

Taxable Income ($)
0 to 50,00015%
50,000 to 75,000$7,500 + 25% Of the amount over 50,000
75,000 to 100,000$13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000
100,000 to 335,000$22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000
335,000 to 10,000,000$113,900 + 34% Of the amount over 335,000
10,000,000 to 15,000,000$3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over 10,000,000
15,000,000 to 18,333,333$5,150,000 + 38% Of the amount over 15,000,000
18,333,333 and up35%

Online
#122 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -

People are so stupid these days.  Why cant they think on their own?  Why do they have to depend on television commercials and biased television programs?  Fuck, political debates are so fucking stupid.  Especially on YouTube comments.  Ugh, and I hate how people dissect a small portion of what others say just to prove a point.  Americans, you need to check yo self 

#123 Edited by No0b0rAmA (1490 posts) -

@Kidavenger: Wait, according to that chart, if you earn 350k a year, you get taxed over a third of your income? That sounds super fucked up, but at least there's a lot more tax brackets then Canada.

#124 Posted by MrKlorox (11208 posts) -

"Conservatives" are controlled by the news networks and blogs, which are in turn controlled by billionaires' agendas. The poor mindless pawns that are the republican citizens are unknowingly carrying out their own demise. It's incredibly sad.

#125 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1735 posts) -

Obama needs to leave the Populist talk to people like Elizabeth Warren.

#126 Posted by yoshisaur (2661 posts) -

@Mushir: It's common sense that people who make more should owe more. I've never understood the mentality that the rich should be held to the same tax level as the rest of us. You are asking a person who makes 9/10 dollars an hour to give up 21% of their pay check, which is substantial when it comes to having a family and just plain living. If you ask Mr. CEO $400,000 a year big shot to take 21%, he is still more than capable of making every single end meet in his or her life.

We need to do more than tax the rich substantially, but destroy this entitlement that America has that they deserve low taxes and to make every end meet completely. One of the reasons companies can rake in the bills is that they are over seas to escape American taxes. We need to start forcing those companies back into our states, which will cause the rates of everyday items to rise. This will hurt for a while, but in the end the economy will balance out the differences.

Also, the only real "people" against taxing the rich are the rich. There will never be a sane person who makes $20,000-$100,000 a year that believe differently. Much like every other type of political discussion we have, it's the conglomerates seeding in these contradictory thoughts into their employees minds. I do not think that a minimum wage job should be able to create enough money for an HDTV, Cable Internet, and any other frivolous grandiose purchases, but should in fact allow a person to provide for his family the way he should and allow for at least a chance to set aside money for savings to better their children's future.

#127 Posted by Kidavenger (3511 posts) -

@No0b0rAmA: Those are corporate tax rates and they are only federal, there is state tax on top of that for most states; but the personal rate in the US appears to be pretty much the same.

Online
#128 Posted by Gonmog (580 posts) -

This is one of the things i love about the current pres. He has stuck to his guns saying what he thinks is right. Even when so many people aiming right for him.

He is right.And cause he is right...he may just lose...and UGH is all i can say to that with what the other runner brings us.

#129 Posted by Milkman (16535 posts) -

A lot of people are angry about that because a lot of people are imbeciles.

#130 Edited by selbie (1846 posts) -

"The internet didn't get invented on its own!"

Sorry, Al Gore. You've been told.

#131 Posted by Karkarov (3000 posts) -

When I got promoted at work I earned it, not my fifth grade math teacher, not my supervisor, not my co worker. Trust me when I say no one at the company I work for is interested in giving anyone who doesn't work their ass off any sort of helping hand. No one in the real world is going to be a good Samaritan and help you just to be a nice person. You had to do something to earn their help first.

I used to work for a guy who ran his own small business. Sure he had employees, sure he convinced some group of suits to give him money, but it was his business. He sold those suits on the idea of giving him the money, all they did after writing the check was play golf. He made the business plan, he hired the employees, he did the leg work, he rented the office space, he set up the computers, etc etc. To say he wasn't a "self made" business man is simply insulting. You can play the "he would be nothing without his emplyoyee/customer/invstor" card all you want but that goes both ways. Without him his employees would be looking for a job, his customers wouldn't have the services he offered, and his investors would not be making money from his work.

#132 Posted by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

When I got promoted at work I earned it, not my fifth grade math teacher, not my supervisor, not my co worker. Trust me when I say no one at the company I work for is interested in giving anyone who doesn't work their ass off any sort of helping hand. No one in the real world is going to be a good Samaritan and help you just to be a nice person. You had to do something to earn their help first.

I used to work for a guy who ran his own small business. Sure he had employees, sure he convinced some group of suits to give him money, but it was his business. He sold those suits on the idea of giving him the money, all they did after writing the check was play golf. He made the business plan, he hired the employees, he did the leg work, he rented the office space, he set up the computers, etc etc. To say he wasn't a "self made" business man is simply insulting. You can play the "he would be nothing without his emplyoyee/customer/invstor" card all you want but that goes both ways. Without him his employees would be looking for a job, his customers wouldn't have the services he offered, and his investors would not be making money from his work.

I think you've missed the point entirely.

#133 Posted by Karkarov (3000 posts) -

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I think you've missed the point entirely.

No, not really. Obama is an idiot and a politician is the last person who needs to give a speech about people taking credit for others work.

#134 Posted by Slag (4035 posts) -

It's funny how people's biases really color how they view things like this.

Personally I that was one of the dumber things the president has ever said (and that's after watching it in context).

I get what his point was and it's completely true that businesses benefit from gov''t investment in roads, safety protection etc., but the way he said was really insulting the intelligence of people who risk their entire financial lives for the chance of running their own business. Most new business owners, it should be noted, fail and lose everything. The risk is not insignificant and the ones that do succeed often put insane hours into their businesses.

Successful business owners that I've met are generally not stupid people, they have to already know they didn't build the roads or bridges or fight wars or put out fires etc. They know you have to customers, mentors and employees to be successful, if they didn't they would likely have never succeeded in their business in the first place!

So why would the President speak so condescending to business owners who I would hope he thinks are helpful people to have around?. If his obvious anger was at the publicly listed major corporations than he should darn well said so, instead of throwing every business owner in America under the same bus and demeaning the effort I hope he knows they put into their livelihood. There are many better ways to convey what he was trying to than the way he chose to do it.

I guess in this day and age any verbal gaffe someone like the President makes ends up on camera anyway, so it's hard to be too upset about it when you consider probably most of his predecessors made ones just as bad if not worse. But even without the lies Fox put out there I felt the speech was insulting to people who didn't deserve that sneering lecture.

And people wonder why I register as independent. All these guys suck, if you think any of these guys are on your side the joke's on you.

And a special screw you to Fox "News" for deliberately distorting the truth as they always do.

#135 Edited by mlarrabee (2886 posts) -

@MAGZine said:

@mlarrabee said:

Two people, with identical taxes for identical public services, should have identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness. This is why lobbyists have no place in a properly functioning and truly just government.

????????????????????????????????????????

If one guy has $20,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, and another guy has $20,000,000 to his name and pays $2,000 in taxes, you're trying to say they will have "identical opportunity for advancement through innovation and industriousness"?

My example was of two people starting from the same point in education and finances, though I didn't make that clear. Jobs and Wozniak, for example, started with the same opportunities as everyone else, yet they took a decent American lifestyle and poured it into a garage, and emerged with the Apple-1.

You drive the same public roads Jobs did. You have access to the same pubic water, public water treatment, and public electric grid. You rely on the same public judicial system, the same public police force, the same public fire department. The only difference is that Apple Inc., along with every other corporation, has lobbyists buying public favor, via elected politicians. Do away with political pandering and you end up with two groups of people receiving the same services from their government and paying two very different prices. Imagine a company charging Hispanics more than they charge Whites; there would be justified outrage. A service or product is worth its cost regardless of the recipient, whether in the private or public sector.

#136 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -
@Karkarov said:

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I think you've missed the point entirely.

No, not really. Obama is an idiot and a politician is the last person who needs to give a speech about people taking credit for others work.

Yep, you missed the point entirely.  
#137 Edited by MAGZine (436 posts) -

@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

@Karkarov said:

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I think you've missed the point entirely.

No, not really. Obama is an idiot and a politician is the last person who needs to give a speech about people taking credit for others work.

Yep, you missed the point entirely.

Not only did he miss the point entirely, but he wrote off everyone except himself as responsible for a promotion. Not his math teachers, or those who taught him to read and write. Not anyone even remotely responsible for his current good health or wellbeing. Not the farmers who grew his food, the people at the plants who processed it, the roads it was transported by. Not the people paving those roads. Not the electricity for powering every step of the way, including preparing the food. All him. Also all him for all of the clientele that his company services, or his fellow colleagues. Nobody to thank but him. He doesn't owe anyone anything. And Obama is at fault for all problems.

(I like food as example because of how heavily subsidized it is, without people even knowing it. People would be abhorred at the cost of food if it wasn't as heavily subsidized as it is today. And that's just the food itself, nevermind any intermediary functions.)

#138 Edited by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
#139 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2779 posts) -

I like how the people with real control are getting the majority riled up against each other with HOW MUCH taxes is right to pay.

The real question is what is being done with such taxes. Not enough is done to call out the devils in Capitol Hill about the bureaucratic wastefulness.

#140 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@Lunar_Aura said:

I like how the people with real control are getting the majority riled up against each other with HOW MUCH taxes is right to pay.

The real question is what is being done with such taxes. Not enough is done to call out the devils in Capitol Hill about the bureaucratic wastefulness.

Taxes? What taxes?

#141 Posted by TheHT (10906 posts) -

@MrKlorox said:

"Conservatives" are controlled by the news networks and blogs, which are in turn controlled by billionaires' agendas. The poor mindless pawns that are the republican citizens are unknowingly carrying out their own demise. It's incredibly sad.

What's sad is that the rational republicans who could help make their country better are ostracized by all of those misguided who've been used to essentially hijack the GOP.

#142 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@ck1nd said:

@Mushir: It's common sense that people who make more should owe more. I've never understood the mentality that the rich should be held to the same tax level as the rest of us. You are asking a person who makes 9/10 dollars an hour to give up 21% of their pay check, which is substantial when it comes to having a family and just plain living. If you ask Mr. CEO $400,000 a year big shot to take 21%, he is still more than capable of making every single end meet in his or her life.

We need to do more than tax the rich substantially, but destroy this entitlement that America has that they deserve low taxes and to make every end meet completely. One of the reasons companies can rake in the bills is that they are over seas to escape American taxes. We need to start forcing those companies back into our states, which will cause the rates of everyday items to rise. This will hurt for a while, but in the end the economy will balance out the differences.

Also, the only real "people" against taxing the rich are the rich. There will never be a sane person who makes $20,000-$100,000 a year that believe differently. Much like every other type of political discussion we have, it's the conglomerates seeding in these contradictory thoughts into their employees minds. I do not think that a minimum wage job should be able to create enough money for an HDTV, Cable Internet, and any other frivolous grandiose purchases, but should in fact allow a person to provide for his family the way he should and allow for at least a chance to set aside money for savings to better their children's future.

Some of what you proposed would destroy any incentive to do business in our country whatsoever, which will damage the economy. What we really need to do is revise the tax code and close the many loopholes that corporations use to avoid paying what they owe. It's a balancing act, you don't want to tax the rich into oblivion because they make up the majority of the wealth and investments of the US economy. We also need to stop providing corporations with tax funded bail out checks. Just because they made shitty business decisions doesn't mean they get a free pass on the backs of the tax payers.

#143 Posted by yoshisaur (2661 posts) -

@TheHT said:

@MrKlorox said:

"Conservatives" are controlled by the news networks and blogs, which are in turn controlled by billionaires' agendas. The poor mindless pawns that are the republican citizens are unknowingly carrying out their own demise. It's incredibly sad.

What's sad is that the rational republicans who could help make their country better are ostracized by all of those misguided who've been used to essentially hijack the GOP.

Wait, you mean to tell me that the Democratic and Republican party are made of the same type of people who are equally abused to further the gain of their invisible masters?

Huh.

#144 Posted by Humanity (8834 posts) -

@MAGZine said:

@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

@Karkarov said:

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I think you've missed the point entirely.

No, not really. Obama is an idiot and a politician is the last person who needs to give a speech about people taking credit for others work.

Yep, you missed the point entirely.

Not only did he miss the point entirely, but he wrote off everyone except himself as responsible for a promotion. Not his math teachers, or those who taught him to read and write. Not anyone even remotely responsible for his current good health or wellbeing. Not the farmers who grew his food, the people at the plants who processed it, the roads it was transported by. Not the people paving those roads. Not the electricity for powering every step of the way, including preparing the food. All him. Also all him for all of the clientele that his company services, or his fellow colleagues. Nobody to thank but him. He doesn't owe anyone anything. And Obama is at fault for all problems.

(I like food as example because of how heavily subsidized it is, without people even knowing it. People would be abhorred at the cost of food if it wasn't as heavily subsidized as it is today. And that's just the food itself, nevermind any intermediary functions.)

You can't seriously trickle it down like that with a straight face. When you get that promotion at work you're not going to seek out the 30 construction workers that paved the road in front of your house which allowed you to get to work on time and thank each and every one of them for helping you out. I don't want to speak for but I think it's understood what Obama meant. Yes, all those things you mentioned such as farmers and whatnot make up the ecosystem in America. While I don't necessarily agree that Obama is an idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about, I do agree this is political jargon thats just used to incite voters and was not used very well. The phrasing of his message was erronous to the point of being somewhat insulting to the self made business' that thrived on their own. There is a difference between seeking help with your business by getting a government grant or loan from a bank, and Joe Shmoe selling you a cup of coffee every morning.

If you're going to disagree with someone don't be obnoxious about it by saying "huh you missed the point entirely" and thats it. Elaborate on how your view, which you think is correct, differs from the other person. Theres nothing worse than just saying someone is wrong in a demeaning fashion and then walking away from the discussion.

#145 Posted by TheHT (10906 posts) -

@ck1nd: That isn't a rephrasing of my comment at all.

#146 Edited by mnzy (2911 posts) -

I think what's crazy here is that they are allowed to take that sentence out of its context and use it in the media against him. He clearly meant the "roads and bridges" from his last sentence with "you didn't build that". If you can do something like that, this whole part of the media is totally worthless, it makes him sound like he hates business people, which he clearly doesn't. 
Can he only use simple oneliners from now on, or what? Didn't somebody just find out that the level of speech in crongress is lower high school level? 

Atleast your politics are entertaining, mostly because of its stupidity, though. 
Not that Europe is really better, just different...

#147 Posted by KingBroly (1645 posts) -

Everything's taken out of context in regards to politics for personal gain. If you haven't realized that by now, I have to ask where you've been. Politics is as dirty as it gets in this world.

#148 Posted by yoshisaur (2661 posts) -

@TheHT: I was remodeling both your comment, and the person who you were replying to. I was making a sly observation, not making a cut at you. Too many times do I see "Democrats do this" or "Republicans are that" and it's comical.

#149 Posted by Loafsmooch (311 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@Loafsmooch said:

I don't understand how some people think..

Taxes should always be a % of your income. It's fair. Easy as pie.

but but rich people deserve to have more money because

yeah I know.. I admit it, rich people are better than the rest of us :|

#150 Posted by MAGZine (436 posts) -

@Humanity said:

@MAGZine said:

@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

@Karkarov said:

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I think you've missed the point entirely.

No, not really. Obama is an idiot and a politician is the last person who needs to give a speech about people taking credit for others work.

Yep, you missed the point entirely.

Not only did he miss the point entirely, but he wrote off everyone except himself as responsible for a promotion. Not his math teachers, or those who taught him to read and write. Not anyone even remotely responsible for his current good health or wellbeing. Not the farmers who grew his food, the people at the plants who processed it, the roads it was transported by. Not the people paving those roads. Not the electricity for powering every step of the way, including preparing the food. All him. Also all him for all of the clientele that his company services, or his fellow colleagues. Nobody to thank but him. He doesn't owe anyone anything. And Obama is at fault for all problems.

(I like food as example because of how heavily subsidized it is, without people even knowing it. People would be abhorred at the cost of food if it wasn't as heavily subsidized as it is today. And that's just the food itself, nevermind any intermediary functions.)

You can't seriously trickle it down like that with a straight face. When you get that promotion at work you're not going to seek out the 30 construction workers that paved the road in front of your house which allowed you to get to work on time and thank each and every one of them for helping you out. I don't want to speak for but I think it's understood what Obama meant. Yes, all those things you mentioned such as farmers and whatnot make up the ecosystem in America. While I don't necessarily agree that Obama is an idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about, I do agree this is political jargon thats just used to incite voters and was not used very well. The phrasing of his message was erronous to the point of being somewhat insulting to the self made business' that thrived on their own. There is a difference between seeking help with your business by getting a government grant or loan from a bank, and Joe Shmoe selling you a cup of coffee every morning.

If you're going to disagree with someone don't be obnoxious about it by saying "huh you missed the point entirely" and thats it. Elaborate on how your view, which you think is correct, differs from the other person. Theres nothing worse than just saying someone is wrong in a demeaning fashion and then walking away from the discussion.

I'm not saying you should thank the people who build your roads and whatever else. Well, I mean, you should, but... yeah. The point I was trying to make is that it's impossible to say "yep, I did it all and fuck the government and their taxes, we'd be better off without them" without scrutiny. Granted, that isn't what he said, but the point stands. Karkarov may have been the driving force in getting his Promotion, but all things considered, the opportunity was afforded to him thanks to the taxes paid by others, and the services that those taxes provided, like construction workers, food subsidies and teachers.

I don't think that Obama's most pointed words were for small business owners, but for large (or at least larger) business owners who felt taxation was unfair. Obama wasn't reading off a script, and without proofreaders and copyeditors going over his text, sometimes the wrong thing can end up coming out. I could pick apart his argument, but it's too late and I'm too tired. It's got some fairly obvious flaws, though, and, as stated, misses the point. Nobody is denying that someone who build a business is a "self made business man," as Karkarov suggests. Obama is just suggesting that it's important to remember that your success as a business person is likely due to the prior successes of the economic ecosystem as a whole, and the public funding that made it happen.

@SeriouslyNow: I'm from Canada, and I'm exceptionally proud of our healthcare system and it's founder, Tommy Douglas. I believe in helping those who need it, and providing essential services affordably. I do not believe that corporations are capable of handing our most integral functions, since profit is always a factor. Socialist is perhaps a bit far, but I certainly have no issue paying taxes for the good of the country.