The sad part really is.

[erdawiro]

in all fairness that isn't what obama said when he said if we succeed, we didn't do it alone.

and today they tax the risk takers so again, talking out both sides of his mouth.

I directly quoted Obama, so that is what he said.

[erdawiro]

Thanks.

Disingenuously enough, he's conflating services with personal and private business, which are two different animals really.
You'll notice he does't at all mention those personal/private business that expanded without government intervention, like grocery and hardware stores that started small and went national. Privately owned airlines, etc.

Services are a product and return on tax dollars, not a benediction by a generous entity known as gub'ment.

He not combining them, he's saying there is a role for both and that the relationship can be one that benefits private business. He contrasts that view with the plan endorsed by Romney to cute undoing for things like publically funded research and transportation infrastructure.

Obama would agree with you that those things are returns on taxpayer dollars. His argument is that he thinks those returns play a more important role in American prosperity and quality of life than Romney does.

[erdawiro]

and that is exactly the "difference" i was trying to get from edwardo. i paid my taxes to live in a country that by means allows us to provide for ourselves.

now we didn't do it without the government so we need to pay?

again?

good god obama, make your dems pay taxes and we'll fix this right up.

You've got the argument wrong. It's not that "we have succeeded with the government so now we need to pay...again". It's that "we have succeeded with the government, so it's important to continue adequately funding those things which helped us get to where we are".

[VTA]

He not combining them, he's saying there is a role for both and that the relationship can be one that benefits private business. He contrasts that view with the plan endorsed by Romney to cute undoing for things like publically funded research and transportation infrastructure.

Obama would agree with you that those things are returns on taxpayer dollars. His argument is that he thinks those returns play a more important role in American prosperity and quality of life than Romney does.

Firstly, who is that speech addressed to? I'm going to bet he's modulating his language based on his audience,


Secondly, His saying this thing is what? A revelation? A new concept? A benediction? Private business has benefitted from the normal non-intrusive relationship it has with it's own society since before this current awful crop of politicians was born. What new concept is being introduced that 'the relationship can be one that benefits business'??


This argument suggests that there was a systemic problem that needs fixing and this new fangled concept, which for sure isn't socialism, will fix.


The initial article is his speech concerning the nations deficit and his view on how it can be trimmed. This country's economic downslide is not a product of lack of oversight on business, it's a product of lack of oversight on government. What he's suggesting, really is a bail-out. "We've taken copious amounts of tax dollars and squandered them, now you, Mr. Business have to bail us out".


He can trim the deficit a lot quicker than simply sacking his own country's workers; he can defund a lot of the foreign horse shit and domestic garbage. And before we start lamenting 'medicare and welfare and whatever' we can start with 'media for African American studies'. Funding to watch apes have sex and the God knows how many absolutely ridiculous projects being funded with our money for specious reasons.


As well as stop funding failure industries like electric cars and solar panels. Let the free market test those waters and succeed and fail on their own merits, not my dollar.

[iceberg]

You've got the argument wrong. It's not that "we have succeeded with the government so now we need to pay...again". It's that "we have succeeded with the government, so it's important to continue adequately funding those things which helped us get to where we are".

you should see my taxes dude. i pay plenty.

if this is all he's saying i'm back to DUH! but it more and more like you cant succeed without government intervention.

sorry but i think i have the argument right. since day 1 obama has been finding ways to lay claim to my money. until they can learn how to spend it wisely, i see no need to give them a raise for poor performance.

[ThaBigP]

You've got the argument wrong. It's not that "we have succeeded with the government so now we need to pay...again". It's that "we have succeeded with the government, so it's important to continue adequately funding those things which helped us get to where we are".

This is a classic strawman (Obama, not necessarily you): funding roads/bridges/fire departments/police, etc is not why we have to pay more ... in fact, if we were to cut government to its (truly) Constitutional limits and fund only the essentials at the local, state, and federal level everybody could probably get a massive tax *cut*, if not at least stop the noise about how small a slice of the economic strata can be squeezed for everything they have to get all the golden eggs the rest of us need (better start squeezing ... you need about $15T on top of current spending). Current tax revenue pays for all of the duties of government (government-promised pensions notwithstanding, that's a different issue). The rest (ahem: borrowed)? Entitlements. Granny's Social Security check, Jimbo's Medicare reimbursements, Johny's SNAP foodstamp EBT card, Thelma's AFDC payments, Louise's housing assistance, on-and-on-and-on does not help the Jefferson Cleaners down the road by providing any essential services. And don't give me this nonsense about "b...b...but, SS and Medicare are *insurance* programs! Those people paid *premiums* for their *insurance*!". If the government had run those things as if they were insurance companies, then they would not have spent the money, every penny of it, as it came in and stuffed drawers full of IOUs, paying present claims out of present revenue, the rest going to make the deficit look "smaller" by spending it on ... well, in their own words, "the general use of the government". Further, ala Obamacare, the government would not have gone in front of the Supreme Court and argued (and won on that argument) that those were not dues, no no... those were *taxes!* ... for the general use of the government! And citizens have no legal claim to those payments/reimbursements.

As for the pensions, they sorta pulled a SS trick there too. Public-sector unions (which never should be allowed to be) sit down with politicians and negotiate how much of everybody else's money they're going to spend. Everybody else who *must* cough it up or go to prison and have their assets seized. Much different than private unions, in which management is negotiating away the company's money ... who cannot pull out a gun and force customers to pay under penalty of imprisonment and asset forfeiture. For the trick, they pissed away the taxpayer money that was supposed to fund those pensions. They'll make up the difference ... later. In the meantime, they can't put IOUs in there (at the state/local level at least), but they can ... drumroll please ... "project!" Project rediculous returns on the money already in there... "hey, if we just assume a 15% annualized return, we don't have to fund this thing ever! Let's go shopping!". As you can imagine, their "projections" came in a bit ... short. As did their "projected" tax revenue.