Personal property taxes on my business due by September 14th and

[berzerker60]

Obama said what he said.

The fact the left has to spin so much must mean its true.

Most/all people have the same roads, same schools, same fire figthers. Yet only some start succesfull business.

Is luck envoled? Of course. But for luck to happen to have to be there working to take advantage of it.

Well, it's just not true that all people have the same schools, or anything close to that.

But basically I don't think anyone's disagreeing with your main point, including Obama. Of course it takes hard work and sacrifice to succeed in life, and you should absolutely be rewarded for that. Of course you should get profits and personal wealth, as well as respect. Just don't think that 100% of the financial gain should go just to you, since your success is to some degree made possible by the society around it. As such, a percentage of your financial gain also goes back to society in the form of taxes. As an added bonus, if those taxes go to programs that help other hard working people get out of poverty, they can become new customers and/or employees of yours, making you even richer.

 

[michal1980]

Well, it's just not true that all people have the same schools, or anything close to that.

But basically I don't think anyone's disagreeing with your main point, including Obama. Of course it takes hard work and sacrifice to succeed in life, and you should absolutely be rewarded for that. Of course you should get profits and personal wealth, as well as respect. Just don't think that 100% of the financial gain should go just to you, since your success is to some degree made possible by the society around it. As such, a percentage of your financial gain also goes back to society in the form of taxes. As an added bonus, if those taxes go to programs that help other hard working people get out of poverty, they can become new customers and/or employees of yours, making you even richer.

all american citizens have access to public schools.

Obama does disagree with my point. He himself said that your not responsible for you own success.

 

[berzerker60]

all american citizens have access to public schools.

Obama does disagree with my point. He himself said that your not responsible for you own success.

And those public schools vary wildly in quality, usually strongly correlated to how rich the surrounding community is who are paying the property taxes to fund the schools. A kid growing up in DC public schools is much much worse off than someone in Orange County, CA.

Obama said you're not solely responsible for your own success. That's the same thing we both just said. "When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative"

 

[Matt1970]

And Mr. President, you don't need to tell me anything, I know exatly were the money came from to build those roads and bridges and hire those teachers. Half of it came from the top 10% of America. 20% of it came from the top 1%.

 

[Matt1970]

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So, I'll adopt this policy if you're willing. What would work for me is no replies by myself to you personally or anything you post here if you do the same.

Sorry, I'm not going to do that. I won't handcuff myself by promising not to respond to your posts, nor would I ask you to do that with mine. I also don't get being upset because I "answered for" someone else -- it's a group discussion. Private conversations are for PMs.

That said, I appreciate the gesture on your part, and I'm happy to dial back the belligerence if you do the same. I think I got particularly annoyed in this case because, again, my position here is identical to one that I expressed when it was someone on the other side being misrepresented. I believe that is evidence of fairness, not "salad tossing".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Obama said you're not solely responsible for your own success. That's the same thing we both just said. "When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative"

They just don't seem capable of understanding this distinction.

It's like you had twins separated at birth. Both had strong sports aptitudes, but one kid ended up with well-to-do, functional, devoted parents who sent her to the best schools, got up at 5 am every day to drive her to practices, made sure she ate right and stayed healthy, and she ended up at the Olympics. The other kid's parents were dysfunctional, poor and inattentive -- and that kid probably didn't end up at the Olympics.

Is the Olympian responsible for her success? Of course -- she put in the work, made the sacrifices, dealt with the stress and the potential for failure. Was she solely responsible for her success? Not even close.

PS Matt1970, every time you repeat that quote out of context, you might as well be posting "I fail at reading comprehension". You're doing little to disabuse anyone of the rather obvious notion that you're not quite right upstairs.

 

[michal1980]

They just don't seem capable of understanding this distinction.

It's like you had twins separated at birth. Both had strong sports aptitudes, but one kid ended up with well-to-do, functional, devoted parents who sent her to the best schools, got up at 5 am every day to drive her to practices, made sure she ate right and stayed healthy, and she ended up at the Olympics. The other kid's parents were dysfunctional, poor and inattentive -- and that kid probably didn't end up at the Olympics.

Is the Olympian responsible for her success? Of course -- she put in the work, made the sacrifices, dealt with the stress and the potential for failure. Was she solely responsible for her success? Not even close.

PS Matt1970, every time you repeat that quote out of context, you might as well be posting "I fail at reading comprehension". You're doing little to disabuse anyone of the rather obvious notion that you're not quite right upstairs.

he never used the word solely.

now you liberals are re-writting history.

he said - you did not build that.

the spin machine is hitting a new level

 

[Bowfinger]

That analysis is good, and I won't say you're wrong, but I also won't say you're right. As someone who parses language for a living (statutory analysis) the paragraph in question is clearly ambiguous. Your interpretation is a possible one, but there are counterpoints as well.

For example, the statement in question is one sentence: "If you've got a business- you didn't build that." Given a plan-language reading it clearly implies that someone with a business didn't build the business.

However, we can't do just a plain-language reading of a statement out of context, we have to read it on the whole. "That" is a singular term which can't refer to "roads and bridges" since they're plural or "great teacher" since you can't build a teacher. It could refer to the "unbelievable American system" since that is both singular and buildable. There are two problems with that interpretation:
1) It's too far removed from the generic pronoun "that" to effectively communicate the idea that "that" is the "unbelievable American system"; and
2) To say "you didn't build that" impliedly states that you had no hand at all in the construction, which is incorrect as businessowners have been monumental in crafting the "unbelievable American society" both through their business actions and politically through lobbying efforts.
The conclusion then is that "that" likely doesn't refer to the "unbelievable American system".

You went on to contend that "that" referred to "infrastructure"; that contention also has problems:
1) Infrastructure was never explicitly mentioned, and certainly not in any context that would make the "that" statement readily apparent as the reference.
2) To say "you didn't build that" impliedly states that you had no hand at all in the construction, which is incorrect as businessowners have been monumental in crafting the American infrastructure both through their business actions and politically through lobbying efforts.

The President uses more imprecise language at the end of that same paragraph when he states "Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." Again, there are two possible meanings:
1) Government research created the internet and allowed open access which is something that private research might/would not have done; or
2) Government created the internet for the sole purpose of creating an electronic vehicle by which all companies could profit.

#1 is much more likely the intended meaning than #2, but it doesn't counter the fact that both #1 and #2 are potential plausible interpretations of the statement.

It's the same with the "you didn't create that" statement; your analysis might be correct in his intention but given the imprecise language, atrocious grammar, and lack of good context the other interpretation is certainly plausible.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, by the way. Though I do believe Obama's intent was quite clear based on the overall context, I also agree he worded it poorly. It would have been so much more difficult to twist had he simply added a word like "system" or "infrastructure" to that sentence. Unfortunately, that's what happens when one makes extemporaneous comments, and it is a great example of why politicians' handlers so dearly wish their boys would stick to the script.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Well, it's just not true that all people have the same schools, or anything close to that.

But basically I don't think anyone's disagreeing with your main point, including Obama. Of course it takes hard work and sacrifice to succeed in life, and you should absolutely be rewarded for that. Of course you should get profits and personal wealth, as well as respect. Just don't think that 100% of the financial gain should go just to you, since your success is to some degree made possible by the society around it. As such, a percentage of your financial gain also goes back to society in the form of taxes. As an added bonus, if those taxes go to programs that help other hard working people get out of poverty, they can become new customers and/or employees of yours, making you even richer.

But that's not what he said. He chose to phrase it differently either because he honestly views it differently, because he misspoke, or because he thought it was better politically. Everyone has to decide for themselves why he said it the way he said it.

Either way I think it's huge mistake politically for Obama to have said what he said. He seems to believe that the US is not longer a center-right country which is incorrect in my view. Bill Clinton understood that you have to speak like a Conservative even when supporting Progressive policies because American's believe in free enterprise and self reliance as core values, even if they support Progressive policies when issues are framed in a more narrow way.

The simple rule is that you can broadly attack big government but not broadly attack capitalism. On the other hand, you can't actually attack specific programs because people like them, but you can criticize specific industries or practices in the private sector.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

he never used the word solely.

He didn't need to. He specifically said that success was a combination of individual and group effort.

he said - you did not build that.

Yes, and Romney said "I like to fire people". In both cases, reasonable people will look at the context and see what the speaker really meant, and partisan assholes will quote out of context for political purposes.

 

[Bowfinger]

He didn't need to. He specifically said that success was a combination of individual and group effort.

Yes, and Romney said "I like to fire people". In both cases, reasonable people will look at the context and see what the speaker really meant, and partisan assholes will quote out of context for political purposes.

And maybe that's the best tactic to take with these tools. Just grab a bunch of quotes from Romney, Bush, etc. For example, I believe another Romney quote was, "I’m not concerned about the very poor." Look, Romney hates poor people! Those are his words!! You Repuglitards are rewriting history!!! We know what he really thinks!!!!!!!!! Blah, blah, blah.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Here's the FULL picture, for you. There's also a link to the CBO report, so that you can verify the "talking points" as actual facts.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.html



Which "progressive one" would you like to target, specifically?

Thanks for the pointless facts about....wait for it...federal income tax, a progressive tax!

But wait! Whats that behind the curtain....why its sales tax, property tax, various state, county, and city fees....is that payroll taxes stuck to the window sill?

Why a whole collection of non-progressive taxes!

 

[PokerGuy]

They just don't seem capable of understanding this distinction.

That's because the distinction was never made. The president didn't say "solely". You're adding the "solely" part or desperately trying to spin because you don't like what he actually said and would rather believe he meant something else.

Clearly, he meant what he said, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Funny to see all the spinners continue to spin to try to alter the irrefutable reality of what our dear leader said.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's because the distinction was never made. The president didn't say "solely".

And Mitt Romney never said "I like being able to fire people who provide me with services", so people twisted it around into pretending that he meant by it that he liked to fire people who were employed in his companies.

You correctly objected to that by saying that the guy who posted the thread about it was an "idiot", that there was "nothing wrong" with what Romney said and that people "tried to take it out of context."

Yet here you are doing the exact same thing to Obama's quote. You do realize that this makes you either too dishonest to deal fairly, or too stupid to recognize your own hypocrisy?

You're adding the "solely" part or desperately trying to spin because you don't like what he actually said and would rather believe he meant something else.

There's no spin. The context is clear and obvious in the speech. He said "when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

You're ignoring that because, again, you're either dishonest or stupid. There are no other options.

Funny to see all the spinners continue to spin to try to alter the irrefutable reality of what our dear leader said.

Typical partisan hack -- when your guy gets quoted out of context you complain, but then you do the same thing yourself.

 

[PokerGuy]

And Mitt Romney never said "I like being able to fire people who provide me with services", so people twisted it around into pretending that he meant by it that he liked to fire people who were employed in his companies.

Actually, Mitt said "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me". That's very straight forward, no spin needed, and he's absolutely right, and indeed idiots tried to take it out of context.

Yet here you are doing the exact same thing to Obama's quote.

No, I'm not doing the same thing to his quote. I'm not taking it out of context, he said exactly what he means, the statement is in context. The whole point of his speech was that essentially all successful people largely owe what they've accomplished to the government, and thus should pay more (aka "fair share"). The quote is fully in context and accurate.

There's no spin. The context is clear and obvious in the speech.

Indeed, it is clear and obvious, it's just not what you want it to mean, it's exactly what he said. "You did not build that". He didn't say "you didn't build that alone" or "you had help building that"..... he said "you did not build that".

 

[fskimospy]

lol, PokerGuy you are amazing. I truly believe you made your last post without intending any irony whatsoever. This thread is an amazing example of Colbert like right wing parody.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I remember noticing this happen before the last election.
The right on this board become more stupid and bloodthirsty before elections.
It's like Faux has a little dial it turns up and the believers obey

 

[michal1980]

Whats really amazing is the depths of denial by the left.

and then they come out and claim its the right that is lonely.

 

[dank69]

Actually, Mitt said "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me". That's very straight forward, no spin needed, and he's absolutely right, and indeed idiots tried to take it out of context.



No, I'm not doing the same thing to his quote. I'm not taking it out of context, he said exactly what he means, the statement is in context. The whole point of his speech was that essentially all successful people largely owe what they've accomplished to the government, and thus should pay more (aka "fair share"). The quote is fully in context and accurate.



Indeed, it is clear and obvious, it's just not what you want it to mean, it's exactly what he said. "You did not build that". He didn't say "you didn't build that alone" or "you had help building that"..... he said "you did not build that".

So when people add the word 'solely' it is spin but when you add add the word 'largely' it is what, exactly?

 

[Incorruptible]

Just another reason not to vote for this idiot

 

[First]

lol, PokerGuy you are amazing. I truly believe you made your last post without intending any irony whatsoever. This thread is an amazing example of Colbert like right wing parody.

It really is wonderfully entertaining. Thank god these guys have virtually no chance of ruining this country with their horrible ideas.

 

[werepossum]

Again with the logic and reading comprehension fail? At this point, I'm forced to take your inability to understand what Obama said seriously.

He DID NOT blandly assert that the successful are successful solely because of government, as you assert.

You really must have bombed on the verbal part of your SAT's. Did that keep you from college? Is that why you might have never taken a logic course and so can't understand the concepts of "necessary and sufficient" even when they're layed out in detail for you?

What Obama did say was that he was struck by the fact that some successful business people blandly assert that their intelligence and hard work are the only reasons for their business success, that they never mention that additional and necessary condition of the support provided by our American infrastructure.

If you truly can't understand the difference between what you assert he said and what he did say, even when it is patiently and repeatedly broken down and explained to you, maybe you really are that dense.

If you just won't admit this easly grasped difference, then you're a troll.

Either way kind of sucks. I've seen you do much, much better.

Never took the SAT because Tennessee used the ACT, but I did take the PSAT. Placed top 1/2% in the nation on both sections, good enough to get in the 1979 Who's Who in American High School Students.

Probably because I could properly evaluate what something says instead of what I need it to say.

 

[PokerGuy]

So when people add the word 'solely' it is spin but when you add add the word 'largely' it is what, exactly?

Adding "solely" or "largely" is spin. That's why I quote his specific unaltered words so there's no confusion. He said what he meant, he meant what he said: "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Sorry guys, it's hard to spin a direct quote from the dear leader clearly stating his position.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actually, Mitt said "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me".

You're right; I'll concede that point.

No, I'm not doing the same thing to his quote. I'm not taking it out of context, he said exactly what he means, the statement is in context.

No, you're not doing the same exact thing in Obama's case. Yes, you are taking it out of context. By deliberately omitting the sentences before and after the one you focus on, you are distorting the meaning of the sentence quoted. That is quoting out of context.

The quote is fully in context and accurate.

Again, you're either a liar or an idiot. Those are the only options when someone cherry-picks a single sentence out of a speech and claims it is "fully in context" -- you either lack the simple intelligence to understand what "fully in context" means, or you're too dishonest to have a rational discussion with.

Either way, you nicely encapsulate the current right wing in American politics.