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

[Charles Kozierok]

Line up here for your very own personal attack! First come, first served! Get it right here!

I think you give up the right to complain about personal attacks once you accuse someone of being eager to perform analingus on the president. Just sayin'.

 

[Bowfinger]

All aboard! All aboard the diversion train! Can't have Obama's ignorant words that offended and alienated a huge portion of potential voters being discussed anymore. Must divert thread.

Line up here for your very own personal attack! First come, first served! Get it right here!

Get over yourself. The only people "offended" by these words are the same intractable haters that spent the last three years being OUTRAGED!!!!, on cue, at everything their puppet masters told them to. You weren't going to vote for Obama under any circumstances anyway, so you're non-factors. More reasoned people who can grasp more than one sentence at a time are looking at this as perhaps a poor choice of words, but otherwise completely obvious and uncontroversial. "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." One doesn't have to be a National Merit Scholar to understand that ... just honest and open minded.

But hey, for all of you who keep insisting that one sentence plucked out of context tells you the whole story, just remember Romney said he doesn't care about the poor. Spin that, hypocrites.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The only people "offended" by these words are the same intractable haters that spent the last three years being OUTRAGED!!!!, on cue, at everything their puppet masters told them to. You weren't going to vote for Obama under any circumstances anyway, so you're non-factors. More reasoned people who can grasp more than one sentence at a time are looking at this as perhaps a poor choice of words, but otherwise completely obvious and uncontroversial.

Exactly.

This is a point I keep making to the breathless Obama haters and they just don't seem to get it: they're preaching to the choir. They've spent so much time and money and energy over the last five years appealing to the Obama hatred crowd that they've exhausted it. Everyone who was interested in hating Obama already does; everyone else has tuned them out. Yet they continue to be so self-delusional that they really think the next "gotcha" will be the one that "wakes up" everyone else so 100% of the nation will hate him.

Not. Going. To. Happen. Obama's favorability is actually quite good; Romney is the one with the problem there. And his "vetting" has not been going on for five years -- the fun has just started.

 

[Bowfinger]

Dude, whatever scholarship you think you qualified for, it wasn't a National Merit Scholarship. Merely scoring in the top 1% of the PSAT doesn't get you one.
[ ... ]
About 50.000 students each year qualify to compete to become a Semi-Finalist by dint of their PSAT scores, as you apparently did. This does not qualify any of them for a scholarship. It just qualifies them to compete for one.

Of these, only about 16,000 make it to the semi-finals.

In the end, only about 8,000 students nationwide qualify for Merit Scholarship awards. You weren't one of them. They're only a couple of thousand bucks,not the full scholarship you claimed you qualified for even though you never even got as far as the finals, anyway. There are some additional corporate scholarships and such, from big corporations. I sincerely doubt your Dad's body shop was a sponsor. In any even, not even most of these scarce college, corporate and special regional scholarships are full boat anyway.

I know all this because I earned one. ...

Congratulations Perk. That's an exceptional honor. I was also a finalist, many years ago, but didn't make the cut for a scholarship.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Get over yourself. The only people "offended" by these words are the same intractable haters that spent the last three years being OUTRAGED!!!!, on cue, at everything their puppet masters told them to. You weren't going to vote for Obama under any circumstances anyway, so you're non-factors. More reasoned people who can grasp more than one sentence at a time are looking at this as perhaps a poor choice of words, but otherwise completely obvious and uncontroversial. "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." One doesn't have to be a National Merit Scholar to understand that ... just honest and open minded.

But hey, for all of you who keep insisting that one sentence plucked out of context tells you the whole story, just remember Romney said he doesn't care about the poor. Spin that, hypocrites.

I found the "You didn't build that" line to be quite antagonistic. IMO it's worse than Romney's "I don't care about poor people" because it was directly addressed to people and sounded like an attack. At least when the Republican's say the poor are responsible for their problem's they use the third person. If it was just a poor choice of words he should issue a statement clarifying his remarks.

On the substance of Obama's statement, there is obviously a spectrum of beliefs between rugged individualism and complete interdependence, it's not binary. I think it's pretty clear that Obama falls closer to the interdependence side than the average American.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I found the "You didn't build that" line to be quite antagonistic.

Did you watch the video? Do so and you'll see what "that" really refers to.

 

[michal1980]

Just to be clear, we are all on the same page on agreeing with the ideas that the people defending Obama's speech think he meant, right? That is, whatever you think Obama meant, we can agree with the following basic idea:

Hard work, talent, and some luck are necessary to succeed in life in any field (give or take a few Paris Hiltons and trust fund babies), but they're not enough by themselves to succeed. You also won't succeed without services provided by the government - education for your workers, police and firefighters, roads to carry goods and bring in customers, military to protect the larger nation, regulation to keep anti-competitive trusts from warping the free market, etc. Government services won't ever be solely responsible for your success, or even primarily responsible - they're not sufficient by themselves. But you can't get by without them. As such, we pay taxes as a way of giving back to the society that gives us the possibility of succeeding on our own merits.
The government can definitely do some things poorly, and we should be watchful of whether it's using our tax dollars efficiently and to the maximum benefit of society. Still, no one does it all by himself, and paying taxes is legitimate, in principle.


Or is that itself contentious? I know there are plenty of "starve the beast no taxes ever" types out there, I'm just making sure that's not what we're talking about here.

Because if it comes down to "He meant X," "No he meant Y," there's not a lot to be said really, since anyone not convinced by the other side's reading at this point is probably not going to be. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

The government services you listed are available to all Americans.

Therefor the ones that do succeed do so mainly due to their own actions not those of others.

Reality is that hard work and intelligence alone are not guaranties of success. However if you are a dumb slacker, your odds of success are zero.

Obama believes in the collective first, then individual second. and stated that in his speech.

And he is wrong. No matter how much context the left wants to add in to his speech.

 

[michal1980]

Did you watch the video? Do so and you'll see what "that" really refers to.

I watched the video.

Only Obama puppets somehow are able to spin what he said into something different.

Up next, Obama puppets say water is dry.

 

[fskimospy]

On the substance of Obama's statement, there is obviously a spectrum of beliefs between rugged individualism and complete interdependence, it's not binary. I think it's pretty clear that Obama falls closer to the interdependence side than the average American.

What are you basing that on?

If you look at polling the average American believes that our tax system should be vastly more redistributive than it is, wants vastly greater government investment in a whole host of issues, polls have shown on a number of occasions that a majority of Americans want an entirely socialized health care system through medicare for all, etc.

Then of course if you ask them if they are individualists they always say yes and that they want smaller government. Bottom line is that I don't think it's at all clear that Obama falls closer to the interdependence side than the average person. I wish he did, but unfortunately Obama is extremely moderate.

 

[Bowfinger]

The government services you listed are available to all Americans.

Therefor the ones that do succeed do so mainly due to their own actions not those of others.

Reality is that hard work and intelligence alone are not guaranties of success. However if you are a dumb slacker, your odds of success are zero.

Obama believes in the collective first, then individual second. and stated that in his speech.

And he is wrong. No matter how much context the left wants to add in to his speech.

Another intractable hater weighs in, demonstrating through blatant dishonesty why he does not matter.

 

[Paul98]

How exactly does this not extend beyond small business, but to any endeavor which requires earning? If it can be said that you didn't really build a business you started, how can it be said that you really earned anything that required earning?

I've been studying for a Microsoft certification. If I get it, can it be said that I didn't earn it on the basis that I didn't create Microsoft? Or the computer? Or electrical current necessary to run the computers?

The point is that you don't live in a bubble. As it's not that you didn't earn it, but you didn't earn it by yourself, on your own with no help.

Just like the rest of these republican talking points, it has nothing to do with reality and the actual argument being made. But instead attacking an argument that isn't being made.

 

[Paul98]

I find it really sad that so many people take this out of context quote at face value. I guess it's just showing how stupid people are. If you look at what he actually said it's perfectly correct, well I guess unless you are a road builder lol.

Those who are complaining about what he said, did you build the roads and bridges?

 

[Incorruptible]

barrack hussien obama really has no class at all when he pulls crap like this and its just another reason the US must remove him from the WhiteHouse

 

[Paul98]

barrack hussien obama really has no class at all when he pulls crap like this and its just another reason the US must remove him from the WhiteHouse

Like what?? seems that telling the truth is the right thing to do?

 

[boomerang]

Get over yourself. The only people "offended" by these words are the same intractable haters that spent the last three years being OUTRAGED!!!!, on cue, at everything their puppet masters told them to. You weren't going to vote for Obama under any circumstances anyway, so you're non-factors. More reasoned people who can grasp more than one sentence at a time are looking at this as perhaps a poor choice of words, but otherwise completely obvious and uncontroversial. "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." One doesn't have to be a National Merit Scholar to understand that ... just honest and open minded.

But hey, for all of you who keep insisting that one sentence plucked out of context tells you the whole story, just remember Romney said he doesn't care about the poor. Spin that, hypocrites.

Man, you've got your panties in a really big knot. That's not good for you. Go outside and enjoy the day!

 

[berzerker60]

The government services you listed are available to all Americans.

Therefor the ones that do succeed do so mainly due to their own actions not those of others.

Reality is that hard work and intelligence alone are not guaranties of success. However if you are a dumb slacker, your odds of success are zero.

Yeah, that's pretty much a rephrasing of what I just said. I guess we're in agreement? Those who succeed do it mostly on their own actions, and that success is made possible by the government services available to all Americans.

(One difference: your odds of success as a dumb slacker aren't zero, they're about the same as your odds of being born into the very rich. It's incredibly easier for someone who grows up rich, entry into the best schools bought for him, networking with the other power elite since childhood, huge trust fund for capital if he wants to start a business or just travel or whatever. All because of which womb he came out of, not because he worked for it. Yet God forbid that Republicans, the "party of personal responsibility" and "equal opportunity not equal results" support any methods to even the playing field)

Obama believes in the collective first, then individual second. and stated that in his speech.

And he is wrong. No matter how much context the left wants to add in to his speech.

Uh, okay. I don't see any reason to think either of those statements are true, but feel free to believe what you want, I guess.

 

[michal1980]

Yeah, that's pretty much a rephrasing of what I just said. I guess we're in agreement? Those who succeed do it mostly on their own actions, and that success is made possible by the government services available to all Americans.

(One difference: your odds of success as a dumb slacker aren't zero, they're about the same as your odds of being born into the very rich. It's incredibly easier for someone who grows up rich, entry into the best schools bought for him, networking with the other power elite since childhood, huge trust fund for capital if he wants to start a business or just travel or whatever. All because of which womb he came out of, not because he worked for it. Yet God forbid that Republicans, the "party of personal responsibility" and "equal opportunity not equal results" support any methods to even the playing field)
.

The playing field is generally even.

Are you going to start genetically engineering people so were all the same?

Or your left socialist/Marxist utopian dream.

Just take that rich guys money, all/most of it, and give it to everyone you feel is worthy, because...
its just not fair.

 

[PokerGuy]

All because of which womb he came out of, not because he worked for it. Yet God forbid that Republicans, the "party of personal responsibility" and "equal opportunity not equal results" support any methods to even the playing field)

When parents work hard to provide their kids with the best options, is that a bad thing or a good thing? Why should we punish those who do the right things for their children by making sure their children are unable to benefit from their hard work?

Parents A read to their kids, push them to get a good education, work with them as much as possible, and help make them well rounded citizens. Parents B don't do much of anything. "Hey! No fair to the kids of parent A, it's not an even playing field for the kids of parent B! We must even the playing field!".

Just what viable methods would you propose to "even the playing field"? Genetic engineering?

 

[MonkeyK]

I found the "You didn't build that" line to be quite antagonistic.

I think it's awesome. Especially when it's on pictures of things people built.

It's the perfect parody. Cons think they are pointing out the stupidity of what they think he said, Libs should see it as making fun of how stupid the misinterpretation can be.

 

[werepossum]

Just to be clear, we are all on the same page on agreeing with the ideas that the people defending Obama's speech think he meant, right? That is, whatever you think Obama meant, we can agree with the following basic idea:

Hard work, talent, and some luck are necessary to succeed in life in any field (give or take a few Paris Hiltons and trust fund babies), but they're not enough by themselves to succeed. You also won't succeed without services provided by the government - education for your workers, police and firefighters, roads to carry goods and bring in customers, military to protect the larger nation, regulation to keep anti-competitive trusts from warping the free market, etc. Government services won't ever be solely responsible for your success, or even primarily responsible - they're not sufficient by themselves. But you can't get by without them. As such, we pay taxes as a way of giving back to the society that gives us the possibility of succeeding on our own merits.
The government can definitely do some things poorly, and we should be watchful of whether it's using our tax dollars efficiently and to the maximum benefit of society. Still, no one does it all by himself, and paying taxes is legitimate, in principle.


Or is that itself contentious? I know there are plenty of "starve the beast no taxes ever" types out there, I'm just making sure that's not what we're talking about here.

Because if it comes down to "He meant X," "No he meant Y," there's not a lot to be said really, since anyone not convinced by the other side's reading at this point is probably not going to be. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

I'd say whether or not you can succeed is up to you and luck, but the level of your success is greatly influenced by government and the infrastructure it provides. There are people who succeed in Somalia, where government is still literally feudal, but at that level it's impossible to build a Microsoft or Apple; success might be a chain of falafal stands or general merchandise stores. The only way to get mega-wealthy in such a society is to BE the government, because no matter how sound and well-executed are your ideas, the society simply doesn't generate enough wealth to support an ultra-rich segment beyond the rulers. On the other hand, in even the most egalitarian Socialist paradise or Western European socialist democracy, most people are not going to be successful by any measure supporting Obama's point that the high earners need to "give back". Most of us don't even aspire to that.

So I'd say that government doesn't necessarily help you to succeed, but it can certainly make success easier and more likely, and it can certainly make success possible at a greater level.

 

[berzerker60]

When parents work hard to provide their kids with the best options, is that a bad thing or a good thing? Why should we punish those who do the right things for their children by making sure their children are unable to benefit from their hard work?

Parents A read to their kids, push them to get a good education, work with them as much as possible, and help make them well rounded citizens. Parents B don't do much of anything. "Hey! No fair to the kids of parent A, it's not an even playing field for the kids of parent B! We must even the playing field!".

Just what viable methods would you propose to "even the playing field"? Genetic engineering?

It's a great thing. Of course parents should already do what they can for their kids, including buying better education if they can, etc. When I say "even the playing field," I'm basically talking about a high estate tax used to pay for merit scholarships for the poor, and general progressive taxes used to pay for good public education even in poor areas (and I'm not strongly against giving voucher-based charter schools a try too, though they don't seem to have done a great deal YET) as well as other programs to give people opportunities.

There will always be a somewhat 'uneven field,' in the sense of genetics, bad luck, and whatever else. We can't and shouldn't try to control ALL of those. But there are serious institutional factors in the way of hard working, smart, good people getting ahead in this country, and to the extent that it's possible (and it's not always possible) we should use government at all of its levels to make things more meritocratic. No parts of the country where there's only failing schools for miles around. No cases where people live with treatable or preventable illnesses their entire lives because they can't afford to see a doctor. No cities where the only place within a hour's travel by foot or public transit that sells food is the bodega that has shitty snack food (ie food deserts), so poor kids grow up on junk food and don't get the nutrition needed to do as well as they can in school. Have clear methods in place for people to report discrimination by race/gender/sexual orientation/whatever, and take those seriously.

Lots of things we can do together to give everyone a better chance to succeed (or fail) on their merits, in a world that is nowhere near a level playing field right now. (And it never will be precisely because utopias don't exist, but we have to keep working on improving things anyway)

 

[PokerGuy]

When I say "even the playing field," I'm basically talking about a high estate tax used to pay for merit scholarships for the poor

Sooooo... the parent work hard, then their money goes to estate taxes (instead of their children), so that other people can enjoy the fruits of their labor. That sounds like a great idea!

we should use government at all of its levels to make things more meritocratic.

I get very weary when people talk about government making things more "meritocratic", because inevitably the government will then get into the process of deciding what/who has more "merit", which then becomes a political grab bag. We don't need even more government involvement in redistribution of wealth.

Lots of things we can do together to give everyone a better chance to succeed (or fail) on their merits, in a world that is nowhere near a level playing field right now. (And it never will be precisely because utopias don't exist, but we have to keep working on improving things anyway)

I completely agree with you on this, including that there are big issues that make the playing field uneven. The problem is coming up with ways to tackle those issues without resorting to big giant government redistribution and attempting to create equality of outcomes rather than opportunity.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sooooo... the parent work hard, then their money goes to estate taxes (instead of their children), so that other people can enjoy the fruits of their labor. That sounds like a great idea!

That would be a valid objection if estate taxes were 100% with no exemptions. Which, of course, they are not.

But many conservatives want them to be 0%.

You cannot be in favor of no estate taxes and also claim to value meritocracy.

I watched the video.

I didn't ask you -- I already know what to expect from your type.

The emphasis on the word "that" in the sentence makes clear that the word doesn't refer to the business someone built. It's flatly obvious, and if you won't or can't admit it, that's just evidence of your own mental limitations.

 

[PokerGuy]

That would be a valid objection if estate taxes were 100% with no exemptions. Which, of course, they are not.

So what if it's 50%? 75%? Whatever that rate is, the higher you make it, the more you take money away from those who worked for it to hand it over to someone else. Why should people work hard to create something of value if they can't hand it to their children?

You cannot be in favor of no estate taxes and also claim to value meritocracy.

Conversely, you can't be in favor of estate taxes and also claim to value freedom. If someone makes money and leaves it to their kids, their kids benefit from their parents hard work. Nothing wrong with that, each person should decide who they want to benefit from their labor. The fruits of my labor should not go to the government to decide who should benefit from my work.

Everyone already gets taxed on the money they earn. It doesn't need to be taxed again when the person turns around and leaves it to their children.

The concept of people succeeding based on merit is fine and all, but not at the expense of taking it away from the people who earn it to give to those who didn't.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So what if it's 50%? 75%? Whatever that rate is, the higher you make it, the more you take money away from those who worked for it to hand it over to someone else. Why should people work hard to create something of value if they can't hand it to their children?

I'm not saying you can't make this argument. I'm saying you can't make this argument and also claim to value meritocracy or say (with a straight face) that everyone starts out with a level playing field.

I believe current estate tax exemptions are $5,000,000. That's a heck of a nice little nest egg for someone to start out with. And they still get to keep, what, half of what is above that? Are you seriously going to claim that it's a "hardship" if a billionnaire's kids "only" start out with a few million in the bank?

Conversely, you can't be in favor of estate taxes and also claim to value freedom.

Sorry, that doesn't follow. You can use the "not valuing freedom" argument against any tax generically, so it isn't convincing. Estate taxes are among the least freedom-impinging of taxes, because they apply only after death and don't directly impact the one who earned the money.

If you really think people should be rewarded based on what they do, and not who they are, you cannot support a system that lets kids start out life as billionnaires. It's just not intellectually consistent.

Everyone already gets taxed on the money they earn. It doesn't need to be taxed again when the person turns around and leaves it to their children.

There's nothing special going on here.. all money is taxed repeatedly as it flows from one person or company to another. I get taxed on my income, I use it to buy something at the store and it gets taxed again, it's used to pay someone's salary and it gets taxed again.. that's how it works.

The concept of people succeeding based on merit is fine and all, but not at the expense of taking it away from the people who earn it to give to those who didn't.

Laughing... read the sentence again and maybe, just maybe, you'll realize how ridiculous it is.... because the kids didn't earn it either.