"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
I can't believe that an American president said this.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8161/7590307918_4781db8db7.jpg)
This is the sentiment President Obama is attempting to cultivate. The war on the individual starts with disarming him of the responsibility achievement and reward that comes with it.
How do you feel about this?
At the heart of western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man ... is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and abiding practice of any western society. – Robert F. Kennedy
I'm sure Bill Harley, William, Arthur, & Walter Davidson are all spinning in their graves. Our country was founded on and is defined by rugged individualism, innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship not food stamps, welfare, and unemployment benefits.
When did POTUS Obama start taking his talking points from crazy Uncle Joe? Of course, what should we expect from the president who touts an all time high in food stamp recipients amongst his crowning achievements.
Show some context?
Here's the full context of what he said:
"We've already made a trillion dollars' worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don't work, and make government work more efficiently...We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more...
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President - because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 17, 2012, 09:55:18 AM
Here's the full context of what he said:
"We've already made a trillion dollars' worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don't work, and make government work more efficiently...We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more...
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President - because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together."
And you think that helps?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 09:59:52 AM
And you think that helps?
Yes it does. Most people don't pay for their own education when they are six, we all pay for the six year old to go to first grade. I didn't build the highway that gets me to my job everyday, I don't own the bus I take on days that I don't drive. I don't own a personal army to keep me safe and I don't have a fire hydrant on my property in case I have a fire.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 09:59:52 AM
And you think that helps?
And what is truly sad is that you don't! Even guido has begrudgingly conceded he was not just one guy working alone.
You are working for some guy right now - did he actually do it all by himself?? If so, then that literally means he has only hired you as a 'welfare statement' since your contribution really didn't mean that that much to the effort to build the company.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
I'm sure Bill Harley, William, Arthur, & Walter Davidson are all spinning in their graves. Our country was founded on and is defined by rugged individualism, innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship not food stamps, welfare, and unemployment benefits.
The country was NOT founded on those things - it was founded on a strong effort by MANY people to break loose from Britain and work together to build a country. Come on, Conan... don't go all Bill O'Reilly on us...
You picked probably the worst example you could have chosen - right there in your example, you have proven that there is no truly substantial "rugged individualism" - your example shows the effort starting with those FOUR guys! Not an individual. Followed immediately by a network of dealers, mechanics, sales people, and a whole host of what, by your claim, were superfluous people with no real value. Another one of those "welfare statements"?
Here is a timeline. William and Arthur made the first bike in 1903. William AND Arthur. Two years later they started hiring people - probably mostly worthless in the "rugged individualist" mode, but for some reason, they did it anyway. Can't imagine C.H. Lang having much effect on the overall rugged individualist effort, but he opened a dealership in Chicago anyway...1904. He did sell one of the first 3 bikes made...
http://www.harley-davidson.com/wcm/Content/Pages/H-D_History/history_1900s.jsp?locale=en_US
And we have an early dealership here in town - Myers-Duren. Been around since about '14, if memory serves.
What little regard I have for Gaspar has faded into obscurity if he truly does not understand the context and the principles outlined in Obama's text. Truly American principles and well expressed.
But Conan? You should have seen thru this ruse. Even the quote 'spar used was ham fisted and twisted.
You're not getting it, or worse, you are getting it.
We all are reliant on some degree of infrastructure, and as a society, we choose how that is supported. The infrastructure, and workforce is dependent on the innovators, entrepreneurs, and creative spirit of individuals, not the other way around.
To say that Steve Jobs or Henry Ford owes all of their success to the government and social mechanisms around them is disgusting. To say that I owe my success to my employer is disgusting, and knowing him, he would feel the same way, otherwise I would not work for him.
Successful innovators give far more to society than society gives to them. They are inspiration, and motivation to everyone around them. They are income and security to those who work with them, and they are the support for the communities, governments and schools that surround them. To say "That's not yours" is collectivist and fraudulent.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 10:28:20 AM
You're not getting it, or worse, you are getting it.
We all are reliant on some degree of infrastructure, and as a society, we choose how that is supported. The infrastructure, and workforce is dependent on the innovators, entrepreneurs, and creative spirit of individuals, not the other way around.
To say that Steve Jobs or Henry Ford owes all of their success to the government and social mechanisms around them is disgusting. To say that I owe my success to my employer is disgusting, and knowing him, he would feel the same way, otherwise I would not work for him.
Successful innovators give far more to society than society gives to them. They are inspiration, and motivation to everyone around them. They are income and security to those who work with them, and they are the support for the communities, governments and schools that surround them. To say "That's not yours" is collectivist and fraudulent.
Go to a lot of motivational seminars, do you?
Nice collection of non-sequitors, straw men and posterisms.
What about the lowly workforce member who finds a better way to accomplish what their nutjob employers task them to do? Do they automatically get boosted to innovator status? Not likely. They're probably written up for it or fired.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 10:28:20 AM
To say that Steve Jobs or Henry Ford owes all of their success to the government and social mechanisms around them is disgusting.
To say that I owe my success to my employer is disgusting, and knowing him, he would feel the same way, otherwise I would not work for him.
How do you read these things and understand them in directly the opposite meaning? (dyslexia?)
Nobody has said Jobs or Ford owe their success to the government... they DO however ow all their success to the people who came before them that they "stole" their main ideas from and made work better. Again, NOT a "rugged individualist" effort.
And no one said you owe your success to your employer. What I DID say was that your employer was NOT a rugged individualist who did it all on his own, but who owes HIS success to you and all the other people working at his company. Kind of like exactly the opposite of what you seem to understand...
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 10:33:58 AM
Go to a lot of motivational seminars, do you?
Nice collection of non-sequitors, straw men and posterisms.
What about the lowly workforce member who finds a better way to accomplish what their nutjob employers task them to do? Do they automatically get boosted to innovator status? Not likely. They're probably written up for it or fired.
Huh?
First of all, you immediately qualified someone as "lowly." You then qualified the employer as "nutjob." You make it very clear where you stand.
People who discover innovative ways of accomplishing things, typically do not get fired for it, and if they are, that type of person will likely succeed regardless. It is those who believe they have no opportunity that have no opportunity.
Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. – Albert Einstein
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 10:33:58 AM
What about the lowly workforce member who finds a better way to accomplish what their nutjob employers task them to do? Do they automatically get boosted to innovator status? Not likely. They're probably written up for it or fired.
The last two steps of every project....
Punishment of the innocent.
Rewards for the non-participants.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 10:28:20 AM
You're not getting it, or worse, you are getting it.
We all are reliant on some degree of infrastructure, and as a society, we choose how that is supported. The infrastructure, and workforce is dependent on the innovators, entrepreneurs, and creative spirit of individuals, not the other way around.
To say that Steve Jobs or Henry Ford owes all of their success to the government and social mechanisms around them is disgusting. To say that I owe my success to my employer is disgusting, and knowing him, he would feel the same way, otherwise I would not work for him.
Successful innovators give far more to society than society gives to them. They are inspiration, and motivation to everyone around them. They are income and security to those who work with them, and they are the support for the communities, governments and schools that surround them. To say "That's not yours" is collectivist and fraudulent.
I have owned my own business. I could not have been successful without the people that worked for me, that worked hard for me with a sense of urgency and an eye on the customer and their needs. I was not alone, I did not do it all by myself.
Now I work for a giant corporation and my corporation has seen millions of dollars in new revenue, millions in cost avoidance and milliions in recovered revenue due to my efforts. The corporation and the CEO didn't due these things...I did them without provocation. We are in it together.
It seems to me that I remember a statement attributed to Bhudda. "When the student arrives, the teaching begins". The problem is, 'spar thinks he's the Bhudda!
Concentrate on putting your stuff on posters and bumper stickers till you start to get a feel for reality. You can make loads from the idiocracy that love that stuff.
Good God! You people forge your own chains.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 17, 2012, 10:42:35 AM
I have owned my own business. I could not have been successful without the people that worked for me, that worked hard for me with a sense of urgency and an eye on the customer and their needs. I was not alone, I did not do it all by myself.
Now I work for a giant corporation and my corporation has seen millions of dollars in new revenue, millions in cost avoidance and milliions in recovered revenue due to my efforts. The corporation and the CEO didn't due these things...I did them without provocation. We are in it together.
Then you should see a great deal of advancement for your efforts, or I assume you will move on.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2012, 10:27:01 AM
The country was NOT founded on those things - it was founded on a strong effort by MANY people to break loose from Britain and work together to build a country. Come on, Conan... don't go all Bill O'Reilly on us...
You picked probably the worst example you could have chosen - right there in your example, you have proven that there is no truly substantial "rugged individualism" - your example shows the effort starting with those FOUR guys! Not an individual. Followed immediately by a network of dealers, mechanics, sales people, and a whole host of what, by your claim, were superfluous people with no real value. Another one of those "welfare statements"?
Here is a timeline. William and Arthur made the first bike in 1903. William AND Arthur. Two years later they started hiring people - probably mostly worthless in the "rugged individualist" mode, but for some reason, they did it anyway. Can't imagine C.H. Lang having much effect on the overall rugged individualist effort, but he opened a dealership in Chicago anyway...1904. He did sell one of the first 3 bikes made...
http://www.harley-davidson.com/wcm/Content/Pages/H-D_History/history_1900s.jsp?locale=en_US
And we have an early dealership here in town - Myers-Duren. Been around since about '14, if memory serves.
Trust me, I'm quite well versed in the history of Harley-Davidson, I have a library of books and original factory documents which would make your head spin. I made a living doing nut and bolt correct restorations for four years and have a side business dealing in vintage parts to this day.
Were it not for the innovation of the Davidson brothers and Bill Harley, H-D would have never gotten off the ground and there would not have been an opportunity for all those dealers. The dealer network came about by the founders criss-crossing the country on their motorcycles signing up anyone they could to sell their motorcycles. There's most certainly a network of things which contributed to the success of H-D in light of the fact there were a few hundred motorcycle companies which came and went prior to WWII and H-D stood alone in the big twin market after 1953.
Obama makes a completely vacuous point in trying to justify why the wealthiest in this country owe something to the rest of us.
Our government owes it to us to curtail it's growth, cut it's waste, and quit doing paybacks on the backs of the tax payer rather than needing to raise tax rates.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 11:05:06 AM
Obama makes a completely vacuous point in trying to justify why the wealthiest in this country owe something to the rest of us.
Our government owes it to us to curtail it's growth, cut it's waste, and quit doing paybacks on the backs of the tax payer rather than needing to raise tax rates.
Everybody owes everybody in this country. And quite possibly, in many other points around the world.
And yes, the govt. does owe it to us to curtail it's growth - and regardless of all the other issues I have with Obama, that growth has slowed to the lowest in modern history, the excess of what is taken in versus what is spent is half - just pretty much according to what he said it would/should be, and the sad reality is the the tax rates before Bush cuts were still the best bargains in the world and they were NOT giving us the massive increases in debt we enjoy today. At some time, even the most irrational among us must come to the realization that these cuts are a large part of the problems we have today and will disappear unless we want to be Greece. And there is no way to "spending cut" ourselves out of that debt.
What vintage? Shovels, or just older?
You guys are hopeless.
Ideas (innovation) are the culmination of forces occurring all over the world at the same time. Where they intersect and at what time determines what innovation occurs. You can't give one person all the credit. I guess you can if it suits your politics but its foolhardy. Didn't you ever watch NOVA? They have a wonderful series that ran a few years back that showed how different revelations at different times were all linked to each other to produce today's "inventions". If you think for a moment that the computer would never have appeared without the rugged individualism, creative genius, entrepreneurial skills, and spirit of one person or even one group...you are delusional.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2012, 11:34:02 AM
Everybody owes everybody in this country. And quite possibly, in many other points around the world.
And yes, the govt. does owe it to us to curtail it's growth - and regardless of all the other issues I have with Obama, that growth has slowed to the lowest in modern history, the excess of what is taken in versus what is spent is half - just pretty much according to what he said it would/should be, and the sad reality is the the tax rates before Bush cuts were still the best bargains in the world and they were NOT giving us the massive increases in debt we enjoy today. At some time, even the most irrational among us must come to the realization that these cuts are a large part of the problems we have today and will disappear unless we want to be Greece. And there is no way to "spending cut" ourselves out of that debt.
What vintage? Shovels, or just older?
Knuckle, Pan, & Flat primarily 1936 to 1965, though I've dealt in JD and FD models as early as WWI. The current project I'm culling parts for is a 1948 125S two-stroke. My dream acquisition is one of the opposed sport twins from the late teens/early 20's.
The President's ultimate goal by making statements like this is to make success a defensible action. He is facing a tough election against a candidate who has been successful in business. Further more, the President is pushing a tax plan that will affect successful business owners. His rhetoric must push forward the idea that his track record of failure is as much his fault as a successful person's track record of success. He must make the people believe that they are suffering, not because his policies have staved off recovery, but because successful people have "stolen" the fruits of others' labor. As he moves in this direction, it makes it easier to point at people like Romney and say "Yeah, like that guy!"
He's shoring up his foundations.
The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, capable not only of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting 100 impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations. – Adam Smith
Or
its time to roll back the Tax cuts and pay for what we borrowed. We need to pay for the wars we have been waging for 10 years.
I think you are making this stuff up for fun. No one could believe such preposterous gibberish.
Here, let me try....
"Romney wants to create a bifurcated economy that resembles a feudal system of gentry who only owe allegiance to the oligarchy offset by a subjugated working class that must be domesticated by use of Soma type anti-depressants that are fed through local restaurants and bars. Drones may be used to spray Soma in hard to access areas. To do this he must remove all belief in upward mobility to a middle class or an upper class by creating a series of secure, walled off communities that require photo id's for admittance thus limiting interface between the two classes. He of course has said as much by insisting that corporations are human, money donations to upper class political campaigns and tax returns are invisible to the lower class and the utterance of the word socialism will be punished by internment at McDonalds at the fry station for a period of years."
The best response to the president's words I've seen so far.
The President recently suggested that a central government – not individuals – deserves the credit for building successful businesses. This sentiment makes for terrible economics, but also reveals a confused morality.
In a free community, everyone co-operates by voluntarily offering unique gifts: some invent, some invest, others labor, or sell while customers reward the best producers and providers by buying their products and services. Government has a critical role to play in this process: establishing rules that enable open competition and securing peace and order with courts, defense forces, first responders, teachers, infrastructure, and a safety net for the most vulnerable.
Government helps create the space for innovation and prosperity, but government does not fill that space – and it should not try to, as the last few years have shown us. Only free citizens create things that improve our lives. A free economy and strong communities are the best means to reward effort with justice, to promote upward mobility, and to build solidarity among citizens. The President's vision of a government-centered society – reflected in both his rhetoric and his failed policies – belittles fair rewards for labor and enterprise. To renew prosperity and rebuild our communities, we must recommit to the American Idea of freedom and justice for all.--Rep. Paul Ryan
Dang. There's two of you. Must be a conspiracy or a movement of some kind. How'd I miss this...Are you like a Representative in the alternative real republic government? A senator?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
The President's ultimate goal by making statements like this is to make success a defensible action. He is facing a tough election against a candidate who has been successful in business. Further more, the President is pushing a tax plan that will affect successful business owners. His rhetoric must push forward the idea that his track record of failure is as much his fault as a successful person's track record of success. He must make the people believe that they are suffering, not because his policies have staved off recovery, but because successful people have "stolen" the fruits of others' labor. As he moves in this direction, it makes it easier to point at people like Romney and say "Yeah, like that guy!"
He's shoring up his foundations.
Sound bites galore. Here is "The Script" all rolled up into one...with no elaboration, explanation, or even just a touch of reality to go along with.
Would that it were that simple. Tiny little nibbles with no substance. All concocted with the intent to distort and mislead.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
not because his policies have staved off recovery, but because successful people have "stolen" the fruits of others' labor.
I'm glad you don't think that government policy is the only thing holding back recovery. That would clearly be delusional.
However, Romney and his ilk do steal the fruits of others' labor when they borrow unsustainably large amounts of money in the name of the companies they have purchased to pay themselves large dividends, thus forcing the company into bankruptcy and leaving the creditors unpaid. Funny how it's good business when Romney's targets were made unable to pay their bills, but if a person gets in over their head it's some kind of moral failing. The double standard is...disturbing at best.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2012, 01:27:36 PM
I'm glad you don't think that government policy is the only thing holding back recovery. That would clearly be delusional.
However, Romney and his ilk do steal the fruits of others' labor when they borrow unsustainably large amounts of money in the name of the companies they have purchased to pay themselves large dividends, thus forcing the company into bankruptcy and leaving the creditors unpaid. Funny how it's good business when Romney's targets were made unable to pay their bills, but if a person gets in over their head it's some kind of moral failing. The double standard is...disturbing at best.
That's why bankruptcy laws were changed to make it easier for corporations to discharge their debts, while they made it harder for individuals to do same.
God, I've missed you, Gassy. I've missed all of you, honestly, but I've especially missed a certain someone's articulation of the whackiest craziness this side of the Pecos. (And I'm not even ON that side of the pecos any more!)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
The President's ultimate goal by making statements like this is to make success a defensible action. He is facing a tough election against a candidate who has been successful in business. Further more, the President is pushing a tax plan that will affect successful business owners. His rhetoric must push forward the idea that his track record of failure is as much his fault as a successful person's track record of success. He must make the people believe that they are suffering, not because his policies have staved off recovery, but because successful people have "stolen" the fruits of others' labor. As he moves in this direction, it makes it easier to point at people like Romney and say "Yeah, like that guy!"
The President's ultimate goal by making statements like this is to do what liberals, centrists, and even moderate Republicans have failed to do very vocally over the last decade or so, and that is defend the idea of government. Now, it's true that Obama's efforts are far too little and probably way too late, and it's also true that he's a lonely relatively sane voice in a howlingly insane wilderness, but at least he's trying. Because if you decide to read the transcript of his speech -- and do it for comprehension this time, rather than for confirmation bias -- you might see that his position is eminently reasonable. In a nutshell: success in business comes from individual initiative, and it also comes from differing degrees of background collective action (varying decisions to fund education, roads and the internet, as well as firefighters and the army). Steve Jobs -- as successful as he was -- did not also build the roads to and from the Apple Campus. He did not pay for his future engineers and marketers and overpierced Apple Store Employees to go to preschool or primary school. He did not construct the internet, without which his entire slate of niche-breaking products would be mere easy-on-the-eye bricks. Etc. I mean, Carlton's already talked about this beautifully at the beginning of the thread but you keep insisting that providing us with infrastructure and quality of life amounts to slavery. And that, frankly, just doesn't scan. It's actually kind of warped to think that the benefits of doing things together as a group might somehow make you less human. That sort of formulation is so retrograde -- so shockingly anticivilization -- that it's almost not worth trying to seriously argue with. It's as if you're looking at a basic piece of human culture and saying, "Use of language exists only to sap you of your dignity." Or, "Tool use will destroy your sense of yourself as a man." I mean . . . what?
How about listening to the snarky, arrogant, and condescending tone he actually delivered this in rather than poring over the transcript. That's what has so many people pissed off at him right now.
I like We vs us's post. It's bejeweled.
;D
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tumblr_m7bd89DL9q1r5hmxwo1_400.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
How about listening to the snarky, arrogant, and condescending tone he actually delivered this in rather than poring over the transcript. That's what has so many people pissed off at him right now.
Better than the whiny 'apologize or else' from Myth Romney.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2012, 09:20:21 AM
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
I can't believe that an American president said this.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8161/7590307918_4781db8db7.jpg)
This is the sentiment President Obama is attempting to cultivate. The war on the individual starts with disarming him of the responsibility achievement and reward that comes with it.
How do you feel about this?
At the heart of western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man ... is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and abiding practice of any western society. – Robert F. Kennedy
Daniel 4:30 "The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?"
John 4:37 "And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth. (38) I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours."
Hypocrites do not help carry the burdens with one finger, nor acknowledge what will happen after they are long gone: the others are cooperators toward reasonable ends.
Quote from: Breadburner on July 17, 2012, 04:28:22 PM
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tumblr_m7bd89DL9q1r5hmxwo1_400.jpg)
If that's Henry Ford...why no, he didn't. There were cars built years before Ford. He simply used someone else's concept of interchangeable parts (Winchester or Remington I believe) and someone else's concept of assembly line production, then took the concept of vehicles the French had made years earlier and changed the power plant to a smelly, noisy, less powerful gasoline driven motor that, yes...someone else had invented.
Not a very good example the Republican's put together so quickly.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 05:58:57 PM
If that's Henry Ford...why no, he didn't. There were cars built years before Ford. He simply used someone else's concept of interchangeable parts (Winchester or Remington I believe) and someone else's concept of assembly line production, then took the concept of vehicles the French had made years earlier and changed the power plant to a smelly, noisy, less powerful gasoline driven motor that, yes...someone else had invented.
So Henry gets NO credit for putting the pieces of the puzzle together?
We all have access to roads, school thru high school, some college. We all could have had access to the beginnings of DOS (if you are old enough). If our house catches fire, the FD will come (I hope). We all have as much police protection as pretty much anyone else. Most of us aren't fabulously rich.
I guess Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett ... got it all so now we have to take some back. Steve Jobs won't miss his. Let's take his first.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2012, 03:27:13 PM
That's why bankruptcy laws were changed to make it easier for corporations to discharge their debts, while they made it harder for individuals to do same.
That's why corporations were classified as persons. You can go after them if you want to make sure they don't get away with anything.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
How about listening to the snarky, arrogant, and condescending tone he actually delivered this in rather than poring over the transcript.
He's always sounded that way to me. I don't understand why so many people think he relates so well to the regular people. He acts like he's their daddy and will take care of all their problems.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2012, 01:27:36 PM
Romney and his ilk do steal the fruits of others' labor when they borrow unsustainably large amounts of money in the name of the companies they have purchased to pay themselves large dividends, thus forcing the company into bankruptcy and leaving the creditors unpaid.
The creditors were all rich people, why do you care if some of them got taxed by a private entity rather than the government?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 06:21:57 PM
So Henry gets NO credit for putting the pieces of the puzzle together?
Gas thinks he gets all the credit. That's the point. Ford was a genius! An innovator! An entrepreneur! blah, blah, blah. He was a successful businessman who put the pieces together in the right country with the right government, but many were working on the same designs at the same time all over the world. The elements were converging. Why didn't they become geniuses? Little support available for most of them. At the time Ford, Edison and other so called geniuses were busy stealing their employees and others' truly innovative ideas and claiming them as their own (Tesla comes to mind).
I often relate the story of the man who designed the ratchet. He did it on his own time in his own garage and Sears paid him $15 for the idea and turned it into an industry standard tool. The guy would have died destitute had the taxpayer not funded government, that provided courts that decided in his favor and forced Sears to pay him for his hard work. Would he have been a genius had he failed in court?
Would Ford be a genius had the government not subsidized railroads, highways, oil drilling etc? Would the entrepreneur, innovator, fellow who developed Granola be a genius had he sold the rights to General Foods instead of marketing them himself and watching in horror as GF copied his product? They succeeded or failed based on the support they gathered from many people all over the world.
No one does it all alone. Not even Ford and he would be the first to admit it. Edison not so much.
To follow his logic, when an idea fails for lack of timing, location, lack of governmental support, and a host of other critical elements, then that person must be a dolt, a loser, a business failure. That just doesn't wash.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 07:41:39 PM
The creditors were all rich people, why do you care if some of them got taxed by a private entity rather than the government?
I guess you're not aware of joint stock companies. Welcome to the 17th century.
And just to be clear, I care about fraud being prosecuted no matter who is on the receiving end of it.
Or this may better fit your notions: Theft from a thief is still theft.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 05:58:57 PM
If that's Henry Ford...why no, he didn't. There were cars built years before Ford. He simply used someone else's concept of interchangeable parts (Winchester or Remington I believe) and someone else's concept of assembly line production, then took the concept of vehicles the French had made years earlier and changed the power plant to a smelly, noisy, less powerful gasoline driven motor that, yes...someone else had invented.
Not a very good example the Republican's put together so quickly.
Eli Whitney.
Quote from: Hoss on July 17, 2012, 05:19:58 PM
Better than the whiny 'apologize or else' from Myth Romney.
I don't suppose you've heard the pathetic cries of: "The RNC, Romney, etc" needs to repudiate Limpbag's latest hoof-in-mouth moment" have you?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 07:44:36 PM
lack of governmental support
Let's call a spade a spade and say "the active hostility of government." (for those who are not showered with tax breaks, anyway)
That's the silliest part about all our argument here. Both sides agree that government is hostile to one group or another. The disagreement is about what should be done about that. Some folks want more of the same, other folks want something different. Both think that their way is "different" and the other's is "more of the same." Go figure. Seems like some reading ought to sort all this out.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 07:44:36 PM
Gas thinks he gets all the credit. That's the point. Ford was a genius! An innovator! An entrepreneur! blah, blah, blah. He was a successful businessman who put the pieces together in the right country with the right government, but many were working on the same designs at the same time all over the world. The elements were converging. Why didn't they become geniuses? Little support available for most of them. At the time Ford, Edison and other so called geniuses were busy stealing their employees and others' truly innovative ideas and claiming them as their own (Tesla comes to mind).
I often relate the story of the man who designed the ratchet. He did it on his own time in his own garage and Sears paid him $15 for the idea and turned it into an industry standard tool. The guy would have died destitute had the taxpayer not funded government, that provided courts that decided in his favor and forced Sears to pay him for his hard work. Would he have been a genius had he failed in court? Would Ford be a genius had the government not subsidized railroads, highways, oil drilling etc? Would the entrepreneur, innovator, fellow who developed Granola be a genius had he sold the rights to General Foods instead of marketing them himself and watching in horror as GF copied his product? They succeeded or failed based on the support they gathered from many people all over the world.
No one does it all alone. Not even Ford and he would be the first to admit it. Edison not so much.
To follow his logic, when an idea fails for lack of timing, location, lack of governmental support, and a host of other critical elements, then that person must be a dolt, a loser, a business failure. That just doesn't wash.
Nice mash up on the verifiable legacy of success which Henry Ford created.
You know why Obama is viewed as such an abject failure by those who DO create jobs and those who DO innovate in this country? It's got nothing to do with him being a Democrat or being black. Many of those people who view Obama with disdain and suspicion enjoyed great success under Bill Clinton and look at the Clinton years as being a time of great prosperity.
Clinton managed to get tax increases through without framing it as some sort of "duty" or "patriotism" or that building wealth was somehow evil. Clinton attempts to carry that tone today in saying that criticizing Bain and people like Romney for their success is wrong.
Clinton, like Obama had a very, very short resume in the private sector. However, Clinton had a great respect for the private sector and it's importance to the American way of life. Obama doesn't get it, he thinks creating resentment by making it look as if the wealthiest only got there on the broken backs of the minions is a winning strategy.
I've never seen a leader so adept at blaming everyone else for his failures and claiming other's hard work as his own, while managing to further polarize the American Republic. It's truly sick.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 07:44:36 PM
Gas thinks he gets all the credit.
The impression I get from many of "you" is that there is no personal talent, work ethic, intelligence, or anything but support from everyone else in the world and good luck involved in financial success. It's all a throw of the dice.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 08:11:31 PM
I've never seen a leader so adept at blaming everyone else for his failures and claiming other's hard work as his own, while managing to further polarize the American Republic. It's truly sick.
Funny how you seem to have gotten nuttier after removing yourself from the Republican party. If you took a moment to understand what he's saying, you'd realize it's about one group of people acquiring enough influence over government to get favor after favor while pushing all the cost onto everyone else. It's not about private enterprise being a problem, it's again about a certain group of people redefining the very meaning of private enterprise to include bailouts, subsidies, and tax dodges. The economy is in the smile because our largest corporations now find it effectively impossible to create real economic value because of the sick system we have.
The problem is that for all their crowing about deregulation this and tax cut that, what the Republicans actually do is just more of the same stuff that's killing us. More tax loopholes, more excessive deregulation, more hostility toward law enforcement (as long as it's the kind of law enforcement that might ensnare the rich, that is). Basically the same smile over again. At least Obama is willing to talk about the problem. Your outrage should be directed at those who created the system, not the person who is telling you about the system. Not that Obama has done anything more than talk on this particular issue.
You might want to rethink your opinion on Clinton, though. He's been singing much the same tune since the financial crisis.
RA, you can only think that if you don't read what we write.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2012, 07:52:17 PM
I guess you're not aware of joint stock companies. Welcome to the 17th century.
I am actually aware that through mutual funds, 401K and other instruments that the mildly wealthy can also be affected. The little guy (99%) can barely live from paycheck to paycheck and will have no excess to invest in anything except the basic necessities like food and clothing.
QuoteAnd just to be clear, I care about fraud being prosecuted no matter who is on the receiving end of it.
I hope so but I sometimes think your bias leans toward wealthy Republicans, believing that no one else is capable of such activities.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2012, 08:26:53 PM
RA, you can only think that if you don't read what we write.
I see an attitude in the writing as much as the words.
Someone this AM quoted Simon and Garfunkle (from the Boxer) about a man seeing what he wants to see. I see the left seeing only what they want to see in the writing of the right too. Since that's all that's seen (perhaps by everyone) they don't see that they aren't seeing the whole picture.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 08:27:02 PM
I am actually aware that through mutual funds, 401K and other instruments that the mildly wealthy can also be affected. The little guy (99%) can barely live from paycheck to paycheck and will have no excess to invest in anything except the basic necessities like food and clothing.
Well, given that it takes over $506,000 a year in annual income to be in the top 1% of income among married people (who file jointly), I dare say that many of the "little guys" are impacted by this.
Also, I'm quite aware that others are capable of fraud. It happens all the time. They're just already usually prosecuted under the current regime.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2012, 08:43:49 PM
Well, given that it takes over $506,000 a year in annual income to be in the top 1% of income among married people (who file jointly), I dare say that many of the "little guys" are impacted by this.
Also, I'm quite aware that others are capable of fraud. It happens all the time. They're just already usually prosecuted under the current regime.
You're not really a little guy unless you are starving or at best living from paycheck to paycheck, regardless of the arbitrary number of 99%.
I also get tired of hearing about people that make over $250,000
but only if you are married filing jointly, much less if you are singlebeing the dividing line of being rich as though it applies to everyone.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
You're not really a little guy unless you are starving or at best living from paycheck to paycheck, regardless of the arbitrary number of 99%.
Feel free to use whatever definition of a phrase you like and to keep changing it as often as you like. It's not like we're going to reach any grand understanding here anyway.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 08:11:31 PM
Nice mash up on the verifiable legacy of success which Henry Ford created.
You know why Obama is viewed as such an abject failure by those who DO create jobs and those who DO innovate in this country? It's got nothing to do with him being a Democrat or being black. Many of those people who view Obama with disdain and suspicion enjoyed great success under Bill Clinton and look at the Clinton years as being a time of great prosperity.
Clinton managed to get tax increases through without framing it as some sort of "duty" or "patriotism" or that building wealth was somehow evil. Clinton attempts to carry that tone today in saying that criticizing Bain and people like Romney for their success is wrong.
Clinton, like Obama had a very, very short resume in the private sector. However, Clinton had a great respect for the private sector and it's importance to the American way of life. Obama doesn't get it, he thinks creating resentment by making it look as if the wealthiest only got there on the broken backs of the minions is a winning strategy.
I've never seen a leader so adept at blaming everyone else for his failures and claiming other's hard work as his own, while managing to further polarize the American Republic. It's truly sick.
Well, I was operating from memory of having read books about the time period and from excerpts from people who lived through those times. If you still think Ford did it all on his own you are wrong. You would have hated him. He paid the highest wages of any manufacturer at the time. He said he thought his workers ought to be able to afford the cars they were assembling. You do know he didn't assemble them all himself, right?
Thanks, Heiro. Although one of the gun manufacturers did pioneer interchangeability didn't they?
Oh, yeah. The rest of your post is bunk Conan. Keep trying to tilt at that windmill.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2012, 09:18:20 PM
Feel free to use whatever definition of a phrase you like and to keep changing it as often as you like.
Next week it will be 89% ;D
QuoteIt's not like we're going to reach any grand understanding here anyway.
You are probably right on that count. No one here really listens to anyone else anyway.
Back to the quote from the "Boxer"
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 09:27:44 PM
If you still think Ford did it all on his own you are wrong.
To listen to our President, Henry Ford had nothing to do with the success of his motor company. It was all done for him, not by him.
QuoteYou do know he didn't assemble them all himself, right?
Didn't you see the restored film showing Henry himself putting parts on cars on the assembly line with no one else but the film crew present? It was really impressive.
Edit:
I believe Henry Ford had some social and certainly political views that would be unacceptable today.
Paying his workers a wage to be able to buy the cars they assembled was probably as clever business-wise as benevolent. More volume gets the fixed costs down and the employees were buying cars with the money he paid them. He got some money back and kept the production line busy. I wonder, did he pay the workers in the Mercury and Lincoln plants enough to buy those products when they came along?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 08:21:40 PM
The impression I get from many of "you" is that there is no personal talent, work ethic, intelligence, or anything but support from everyone else in the world and good luck involved in financial success. It's all a throw of the dice.
Your impression is incorrect. And its curious as to how you arrived at it. Though, hard work, talent, intelligence and luck will beat hard work, talent, and intelligence alone anyday.
How in the world do you sell cars if the taxpayer, through government efforts doesn't build roads, subsidize petroleum, provide regulation, policing, etc? Without that railroads or street cars dominate. My experience in the real world of business is that some dolts stumble into massive success, some lie, cheat and steal their way into it and as long as they keep making other people money their reputation as successful entrepreneurs will stay intact. Soon as they get caught they become Bernie Madoff. Very few make it to the top being intelligent, talented and hardworking though they all believe they are. Others experience may differ.
This is either a team effort by Americans or guys like Trump are demigods who deserve all credit. Gas goes with the latter because it fits his political theories. Truth is, this is merely an effort to pull attention from Romney's mishandling of the Bain and Tax issues.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 09:27:44 PM
Well, I was operating from memory of having read books about the time period and from excerpts from people who lived through those times. If you still think Ford did it all on his own you are wrong. You would have hated him. He paid the highest wages of any manufacturer at the time. He said he thought his workers ought to be able to afford the cars they were assembling. You do know he didn't assemble them all himself, right?
Thanks, Heiro. Although one of the gun manufacturers did pioneer interchangeability didn't they?
Oh, yeah. The rest of your post is bunk Conan. Keep trying to tilt at that windmill.
Did you ever hear this sort of inane claptrap escape the lips of Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or either Bush? Of course not.
Your posts show you entirely miss the contempt Obama is trying to foment toward the creators, innovators, and those who have created opportunities for the rest of us, but I read it in your posts when you reference your own employment history, missed opportunities, and people who, in your mind have held you back.
No one in their right mind believes Henry Ford created his car company alone. However, the assembly line workers, the machinists, engineers, and even those whose designs he may have copied is NOT what Obama is referring to in saying he didn't do it alone. The message our misguided president is trying to clumsily cobble together is that the rich owe everyone else for their success and must pay heavier as a result.
I resent the idea that the government can carelessly piss away trillions of dollars un-checked on wars, campaign pay-backs, worthless entitlements, wars on it's own citizens (war on drugs), and simply expect the wealthiest to pay for such recklessness, because it's assumed they can afford it.
You apparently must be one of those he seeks to appeal to in his attempt at making those who believe they would be wealthy and/or successful if it weren't for the devious and evil oligarchs who keep them down.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 09:53:58 PM
Your impression is incorrect.
Good. Now all you have to do is correct that impression.
It is true that some luck into success. I am thinking of marketing gimmicks like the pet rock or inventing something that just happened to be the right product at the right time. Some people work hard and don't have success. Wrong product, wrong timing, wrong location, possibly they are not capable of doing what is required regardless of how hard they work. It's good I didn't really want to be an artist or musician. I know I could work very hard in either of those endeavors and not be successful. (I spent the money my mom gave me for music lessons on flying lessons. ;D)
The successful business people I have known (a few but not gazillions) have all done their time as a "starving artist".
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 10:14:57 PM
Good. Now all you have to do is correct that impression.
It is true that some luck into success. I am thinking of marketing gimmicks like the pet rock or inventing something that just happened to be the right product at the right time. Some people work hard and don't have success. Wrong product, wrong timing, wrong location, possibly they are not capable of doing what is required regardless of how hard they work. It's good I didn't really want to be an artist or musician. I know I could work very hard in either of those endeavors and not be successful. (I spent the money my mom gave me for music lessons on flying lessons. ;D)
The successful business people I have known (a few but not gazillions) have all done their time as a "starving artist".
How is it I have to correct your wrong impression?
I know engineering is hard work that requires years of education, training and experience to do well. You better know your stuff when you talk with an engineer about math and science. Yet, everyone considers themselves an expert on business. I called on hundreds of businesses in sales, consulting and startups and have been approached by just as many trying to get my business. I got the business college degree, trained in a major oil company, in newspaper, in retail, hard labor, fast food and construction. Hustled a living in advertising, tourism, real estate, and sales. I worked hard at all of them, was talented at some of them and downright genious with at least one. and still feel like it was all a wasted effort. I'm telling you no one, no one makes it to the top with just their own talent, brains, hard work and spirit. They all need a network of support and a lot of luck. The ones who insist they did or know someone who did are as credible to me as UFO's are to engineers. This stuff Gas, Limbo, Rmoney and Sununu are peddling is crazy stuff. Zig Ziglar stuff.
Note: Hah!http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/utah-man-confessional-obituary-owns-life-pranks-180934687.html Read the third and fourth paragraphs. He took advantage of luck and didn't admit it till his obituary!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 10:06:09 PM
Did you ever hear this sort of inane claptrap escape the lips of Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or either Bush? Of course not.
Your posts show you entirely miss the contempt Obama is trying to foment toward the creators, innovators, and those who have created opportunities for the rest of us, but I read it in your posts when you reference your own employment history, missed opportunities, and people who, in your mind have held you back.
No one in their right mind believes Henry Ford created his car company alone. However, the assembly line workers, the machinists, engineers, and even those whose designs he may have copied is NOT what Obama is referring to in saying he didn't do it alone. The message our misguided president is trying to clumsily cobble together is that the rich owe everyone else for their success and must pay heavier as a result.
I resent the idea that the government can carelessly piss away trillions of dollars un-checked on wars, campaign pay-backs, worthless entitlements, wars on it's own citizens (war on drugs), and simply expect the wealthiest to pay for such recklessness, because it's assumed they can afford it.
You apparently must be one of those he seeks to appeal to in his attempt at making those who believe they would be wealthy and/or successful if it weren't for the devious and evil oligarchs who keep them down.
The contempt you hear in his speech is a reflection of the contempt you feel for him and perhaps for me. Nothing more. The speech I heard was pretty insightful and intelligent. I was surprised that he was that aware and it actually played well with everyone I've spoken to but this forum. The conclusions you have drawn from the speech are wire thin. Really, Obama doesn't revere successful people? Obama doesn't believe in rewarding hard work and innovation? The rich owe the rest of us for their success? Yeh, that is about as believable as any of the other conspiracies you and Gas have cooked up lately. And certainly as believable as the NRA's fast and furious conspiracy theories.
This recycling of old phrases like "rugged individualism" and stories about Henry Ford and other titans from the gilded age are not being used lightly. That is the period that a lot of conservative Republicans would like to recreate. Cheap labor, well defined classes, no taxes and a weak government.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 10:35:04 PM
How is it I have to correct your wrong impression?
Stop appearing to follow the apparent attitude of the President that hard work, talent... have no part in success. He may not mean it either but the words he is using convey that message.
QuoteI know engineering is hard work that requires years of education, training and experience to do well. You better know your stuff when you talk with an engineer about math and science. Yet, everyone considers themselves an expert on business.
I know what you mean. Everyone who has ever nailed two boards together thinks they are a mechanical engineer. OK, maybe a bit exaggerated but more people think they know more than they do with mechanical stuff. Heiron chose a better path in that regard. Electricity scares almost everyone because they can't see it. Those who aren't afraid quickly learn to respect it.
Quote
I called on hundreds of businesses in sales, consulting and startups and have been approached by just as many trying to get my business. I got the business college degree, trained in a major oil company, in newspaper, in retail, hard labor, fast food and construction. Hustled a living in advertising, tourism, real estate, and sales. I worked hard at all of them, was talented at some of them and downright genious with at least one. and still feel like it was all a wasted effort. I'm telling you no one, no one makes it to the top with just their own talent, brains, hard work and spirit. They all need a network of support and a lot of luck. The ones who insist they did or know someone who did are as credible to me as UFO's are to engineers. This stuff Gas, Limbo, Rmoney and Sununu are peddling is crazy stuff. Zig Ziglar stuff.
I hate to say it but I mean it when I say that perhaps you present a negative attitude which does you no favors. We don't know each other personally so I'm guessing but think about it.
You may have never found your niche. As I wrote earlier, I know of several possible careers in which I would have NOT been successful. I am sorry you have such a bitter outlook on life. I am guessing that your water business was your favorite. Maybe you would have been more successful with that in another location. Sometimes there is just not enough market in a particular area. I doubt I would have been successful as an engineer in Buffalo, OK (in the panhandle, I just chose a small circle at random). Being a farmer in NYC probably also has limited opportunities.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 10:35:04 PM
Note: Hah!http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/utah-man-confessional-obituary-owns-life-pranks-180934687.html Read the third and fourth paragraphs. He took advantage of luck and didn't admit it till his obituary!
Wow! A statistical sample of one. How many people are there in the USA?
You are so intent on proving that no one can be successful without luck that it makes you look desperate.
I seldom comment on this drek that is out of context KRMG crud. So funny to watch the righties struggling to make issues by taking a soundbite and blowing it up.
Don't be baited by ditto heads.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 11:02:11 PM
Being a farmer in NYC probably also has limited opportunities.
The thing is that everyone's opportunities are being limited by our insistence on subsidizing the already wealthy and the large corporations they control. It's a lot harder to make it when much of your tax dollar is being spent to support your competitors.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2012, 11:07:58 PM
The thing is that everyone's opportunities are being limited by our insistence on subsidizing the already wealthy and the large corporations they control. It's a lot harder to make it when much of your tax dollar is being spent to support your competitors.
So you think that someone should be able to buy property in NYC, bring in some cows and chickens, grow some tomatoes and corn and be competitive with a farmer in Iowa?
You also appear to believe that only the rich have access to the infrastructure (roads, bridges) that makes it possible for exceedingly lucky to be successful. People who receive direct assistance are not being subsidized? Parents of kids going to public school are not being subsidized? Take your blinders off, please.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 17, 2012, 11:05:30 PM
I seldom comment on this drek that is out of context KRMG crud. So funny to watch the righties struggling to make issues by taking a soundbite and blowing it up.
Don't be baited by ditto heads.
You forgot FOX.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2012, 11:17:58 PM
So you think that someone should be able to buy property in NYC, bring in some cows and chickens, grow some tomatoes and corn and be competitive with a farmer in Iowa?
You also appear to believe that only the rich have access to the infrastructure (roads, bridges) that makes it possible for exceedingly lucky to be successful. People who receive direct assistance are not being subsidized? Parents of kids going to public school are not being subsidized? Take your blinders off, please.
No, that would be absurd. But the family farmer does get to contend with the extra subsidy the big agribusiness gets that he doesn't. The local movie theater that's been in business for 80 years ends up paying for the new theater in the development on the edge of town.
My blinders are off. Everyone gets some subsidy or benefit or whatever. Some people, however, get that and a small country's GDP more. Perhaps the relative size of the subsidy might clue you in as to why I focus on one and not the other.
Opportunities and creativity for new products have been long developed by adapting and creating new things based on an existing thing. My ex-brother in law has been developing a tattoo gun, that came from the cosmetic surgery field, and is evolving into mainstream use, and it has taken since 1996 to evolve, and he has done this without any gov't help. He was presented with an idea to create something new based on what was already existing, without any copyright or patent infrigement, and created a new device. Yes he created it with the help of people that needed something, but it was his design that made it work. And he had no help from the Fed or State gov't to do his work. He worked from an idea, and developed his business on his own.
http://www.taptatdaddio.com/ (http://www.taptatdaddio.com/)
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2012, 05:58:57 PM
If that's Henry Ford...why no, he didn't. There were cars built years before Ford. He simply used someone else's concept of interchangeable parts (Winchester or Remington I believe) and someone else's concept of assembly line production, then took the concept of vehicles the French had made years earlier and changed the power plant to a smelly, noisy, less powerful gasoline driven motor that, yes...someone else had invented.
Not a very good example the Republican's put together so quickly.
Innovation is not invention. Invention is the spark, innovation is the engine. Invention takes place all the time and most people don't become successful from it because it requires innovation to work, and that's hard work. Henry Ford was an innovator, not an inventor. To look at what he did and say "no big deal" or otherwise belittle the achievement is exactly the problem we are pointing out.
You are of the exact same mindset of the president. Your envy and hatred of success make you perceive people such a Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, or Mitt Romney as somehow gaming the system, or just getting lucky. It must be a horrible way to live life with that leviathan on your back.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2012, 07:07:00 AM
Innovation is not invention. Invention is the spark, innovation is the engine. Invention takes place all the time and most people don't become successful from it because it requires innovation to work, and that's hard work. Henry Ford was an innovated, not an inventor. To look at what he did and say "no big deal" or otherwise belittle the achievement is exactly the problem we are pointing out.
You are of the exact same mindset of the president. Your envy and hatred of success make you perceive people such a Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, or Mitt Romney as somehow gaming the system, or just getting lucky. It must be a horrible way to live life with that leviathan on your back.
Wow. You're just shy of the deep end now.
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 07:39:30 AM
Wow. You're just shy of the deep end now.
Leaving Mitt out because of the obvious politics, are you saying that you agree that what Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Hewlett and Packard ... did is no big deal?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 18, 2012, 07:48:52 AM
Leaving Mitt out because of the obvious politics, are you saying that you agree that what Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Hewlett and Packard ... did is no big deal?
Keep trying. I'm not discounting those guys at all because I know what they did. But the ODS from Gas is starting to approach Gweed-proportions.
This is entertaining. Neil Boortz has crafted a letter to the president.
Dear Ruler:
First, let me say how thrilled I am that you went off-teleprompter last week. This "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" thing was just wonderful. Now I know how Chris Matthews felt.
Oh .. I know. Your handlers weren't all that thrilled with your amazing screw-up, and, frankly, they have been worried this day was coming for a long time. They know how you feel about the private sector. They know of your antipathy toward free enterprise and those evil small businessmen out there who are not likely to support your move to a government centrally-controlled economy. They had hoped to keep your true feelings in check with those teleprompters ... but nooooooooo ... you just had to improvise, didn't you? You just had to wander off the tightly-controlled rhetorical reservation. Well, thank you. You certainly didn't gain any significant voter support with that asinine utterance, but you most certainly did lose some.
Now we're having fun watching and listening to your sycophants trying to defend your "somebody else made that happen" line. Somehow they have to make your blunder sound marginally reasonable. Apparently they've had a meeting somewhere, because they're all running with pretty much the same message. It was the government that built the roads those trucks travel on to bring stuff to your business for you to sell. It was the government that built those utility systems that keep your offices cool and the water clean. They really love that quote from Henry Ford about not being able to build his cars if the government had not built those roads.
Well guess what, Dear Ruler. We built that stuff too. Not government --- the private sector – America's evil private businesses.
Get in Marine One, Obama, and fly off to visit a road construction project. Look at those graders, rollers and the machines that lay the asphalt. See those logos on the doors? Those logos are for private construction firms. Those workers in yellow vests? Their paychecks and benefits are coming from private businesses – many of them the very small businesses you want to hit with tax increases.
Next you can fly off to take a look at a utility project somewhere. Maybe you can find a sewer line being laid, or some electrical transmission lines being strung. Again – those are private companies doing that work with private sector workers.
You see, there's a document out there that, frankly, I doubt you have ever read. It's called The Declaration of Independence. I'm sure there's a copy around your office somewhere. But I do want to save you a bit of trouble here -- knowing you busy you are fundamentally transforming American and all -- so I'll provide you with a little excerpt from that document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
There! Do you see that? That government you're so enamored of ... that government you credit with Americas greatness ... well, to paraphrase one of our presidents, "You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." That's right, Dear Ruler, somebody else made that government happen .. and that somebody else is US. The government is OURS. We built it. We hire the people to run it. We have regular meetings every two years or so to decide whether we want to keep those managers or get rid of them to find better talent. Those roads .. our national infrastructure? We HIRED the government to build those things for us, just as we hire contractors to build our business locations and to design and manufacture the equipment we will use in the course of our businesses. We created this government – the government did not create us – and we contract with this government to do things for us on a grand scale because we recognize the inefficiencies of trying to do those things for ourselves. Government is just another contractor we hire to get our private business done.
But hold on a minute, Ruler Obama. There's something else I want you to read before you put this letter down. You see, I didn't include the whole quote from The Declaration of Independence above. I left something off ... and here it is ...
---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion that when our elected leaders become so enamored of themselves, and of the government we have hired them to manage, they become a grave danger to those unalienable rights set forth in The Declaration – you know, the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration says we may "pursue" happiness. It does not guarantee it. You and the party you represent seem to think that happiness is a right, and have created a government that has now become destructive of the very ends it was designed to support.
There's more than one way to alter or abolish at government, Ruler Obama. We'll give one of them a good old college try in November.
Again .. thanks for your incursion into extemporaneous speech. We've learned a lot from and about you in the last week.
With all DUE Respect.
Neal Boortz.
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/531580_401219753270344_1825043250_n.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2012, 07:56:03 AM
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/531580_401219753270344_1825043250_n.jpg)
Proving my point...
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 07:56:33 AM
Proving my point...
No one ever has a clear understanding of your "point," but you're welcome.
;D
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2012, 08:08:37 AM
No one ever has a clear understanding of your "point," but you're welcome.
;D
You've made your point clear over the last 3.5 years.
And I'm glad you know how everyone on here thinks about my 'point'. Maybe you should seek employment as a clairvoyant.
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 08:13:17 AM
You've made your point clear over the last 3.5 years.
And I'm glad you know how everyone on here thinks about my 'point'. Maybe you should seek employment as a clairvoyant.
Join the network. I'll give you your first call free!
(http://images37.concordmusicgroup.com/artists/fullsize/Dionne_Warwick_2.jpg)
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 07:52:33 AM
Keep trying. I'm not discounting those guys at all because I know what they did.
I will always keep trying to understand what you post. Sometimes it is more difficult than others.
Quote"If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen"
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why no previous president has ever uttered such nonsense and how that doesn't come off as offensive to people who built their own business.
He's not making a point that employees or customers made this happen. He's making a blatant statement that if you've been successful you owe the government and everyone else for that success because, ostensibly, government and society get to take credit for your success and hard work.
Taking the whole speech into consideration, that is the clumsiest plea for raising taxes I've seen in my 46 years.
Instead of crafting a message of class envy or trying to guilt the successful, how about simply saying: "We are in deep trouble with debt and deficits. We have to raise revenue and we need everyone to sacrifice a little. Everyone needs to depend a little less on government and everyone needs to chip in a little more to help turn this around."
In retrospect, I take back the statement this was clumsy. He knows damn well what he's doing, he's going back to the 1%'er bogeyman and thinks he can create resentment for Romney's success and wealth as a carefully laid strategy to reclaim the White House. It's obvious from the whisper campaigns about Romney being a tax cheat and felon they will even delve into slander and libel to meet their ends.
Typical Chicago sleaze.
Absolutely hopeless. Weird philosophies defended as though they make sense. Redefining words, speeches and speaking to fit political dogma. Total lack of communication and empathy. You guys have it all and anyone who sees otherwise is the problem.
I once heard a biologist explain evolution as chaotic and without logic. She said it is not so much change based on survivability as much as it is random. But the change itself is inevitable.
You guys are Tulsa. And Tulsa is in deep Guido.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2012, 09:00:17 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why no previous president has ever uttered such nonsense and how that doesn't come off as offensive to people who built their own business.
He's not making a point that employees or customers made this happen. He's making a blatant statement that if you've been successful you owe the government and everyone else for that success because, ostensibly, government and society get to take credit for your success and hard work.
Taking the whole speech into consideration, that is the clumsiest plea for raising taxes I've seen in my 46 years.
Instead of crafting a message of class envy or trying to guilt the successful, how about simply saying: "We are in deep trouble with debt and deficits. We have to raise revenue and we need everyone to sacrifice a little. Everyone needs to depend a little less on government and everyone needs to chip in a little more to help turn this around."
In retrospect, I take back the statement this was clumsy. He knows damn well what he's doing, he's going back to the 1%'er bogeyman and thinks he can create resentment for Romney's success and wealth as a carefully laid strategy to reclaim the White House. It's obvious from the whisper campaigns about Romney being a tax cheat and felon they will even delve into slander and libel to meet their ends.
Typical Chicago sleaze.
When we look back at President Carter we feel an awkward pang at hearing his words in the famed Malaise Speech because they represented the first time a president ever turned blame for his own failure on the american people. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that it was an embarrassing moment for this country, and an important lesson.
At this point, I can't even count how many speeches President Obama has given that represent embarrassment, or how many weeks of spin and qualification other democrats and the media has toiled over to rescue him from his own statements. Democrats defended Carter too and tried to qualify his behavior, but now in retrospect the truth of the that moment is undebatable.
It is obvious now that in the years to come President Obama's words will serve to set back the progressive movement just as Carter's did. Every time he goes off prompter and express his own unscripted position, he does damage to the Democrat party. They have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, and thousands of hours in PR initiatives to defend or re-defign his meaning. Each attempt more awkward and clumsy than the last.
This weeks network news has been hilarious. Full of "What he meant was. . .", and "What the president was trying to say was. . .", and "I think where the president was going was. . ."
Jimmy Carter must be ecstatic! The "You Didn't Build That" speech is now a part of American history, and it too teaches a valuable lesson.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 18, 2012, 09:13:00 AM
Absolutely hopeless. Weird philosophies defended as though they make sense. Redefining words, speeches and speaking to fit political dogma. Total lack of communication and empathy. You guys have it all and anyone who sees otherwise is the problem.
I once heard a biologist explain evolution as chaotic and without logic. She said it is not so much change based on survivability as much as it is random. But the change itself is inevitable.
You guys are Tulsa. And Tulsa is in deep Guido.
Now come on Aqua, there is always hope. The world if full of opportunity.
. . .and don't hate Tulsa people so much.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 18, 2012, 09:13:00 AM
Weird philosophies defended as though they make sense. Redefining words, speeches and speaking to fit political dogma. Total lack of communication and empathy.
I thought you supported the Obama Administration. Change your mind?
Gas, you're weird. Sort of an educated version of Sauer. No offense, just noting.
You don't have to hate Tulsa to know that with the conversations displayed here, we are in deep trouble. But if you look a little farther West you can confirm our miasma. OKC may be redneck and plain but they know how to get things done without relying on or perhaps in spite of, political dogma. It is paralyzing here.
My personal optimism is at a 10 year high actually. I have much to be thankful for and only wish I could share like Kaiser, Zarrow, Warrens et al. But I was not blessed with that type of success so I try to help everyone personally that I can with what I have learned. The Tulsans I know and love personally, think I am a positive, well informed, humorous, generous person but they will likely never make it onto this forum.
But enough about me. You're weird.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 18, 2012, 09:43:10 AM
Gas, you're weird. Sort of an educated version of Sauer. No offense, just noting.
You don't have to hate Tulsa to know that with the conversations displayed here, we are in deep trouble. But if you look a little farther West you can confirm our miasma. OKC may be redneck and plain but they know how to get things done without relying on or perhaps in spite of, political dogma. It is paralyzing here.
My personal optimism is at a 10 year high actually. I have much to be thankful for and only wish I could share like Kaiser, Zarrow, Warrens et al. But I was not blessed with that type of success so I try to help everyone personally that I can with what I have learned. The Tulsans I know and love personally, think I am a positive, well informed, humorous, generous person but they will likely never make it onto this forum.
But enough about me. You're weird.
I accept that. It is, after all, our differences that make us beautiful.
Live long and prosper. . . and remember, whatever your accomplish, you didn't build that!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jWzGIGeD9bI/UAX2dU82rHI/AAAAAAAAzUg/SEUDHtQYQVA/s1600/120717-build-030c.jpg)
Quote from: AquaMan on July 18, 2012, 09:13:00 AM
Absolutely hopeless. Weird philosophies defended as though they make sense. Redefining words, speeches and speaking to fit political dogma. Total lack of communication and empathy. You guys have it all and anyone who sees otherwise is the problem.
I once heard a biologist explain evolution as chaotic and without logic. She said it is not so much change based on survivability as much as it is random. But the change itself is inevitable.
You guys are Tulsa. And Tulsa is in deep Guido.
Now, this is good.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2012, 09:00:17 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why no previous president has ever uttered such nonsense and how that doesn't come off as offensive to people who built their own business.
Because he clearly meant "you didn't build that alone," but the pantywaists are all in a tizzy anyway. As you were telling someone else, watch the speech, don't read the transcript. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on July 18, 2012, 01:07:21 PM
Because he clearly meant "you didn't build that alone," but the pantywaists are all in a tizzy anyway. As you were telling someone else, watch the speech, don't read the transcript. ::)
+1
Not unlike "spread the wealth around"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/18/fact-check-obama-said-he-would-spread-his-wealth-around/
QuoteObama explained his tax plan during the roughly five-minute exchange - telling Wurzelbacher that the tax rate on the portion of his income that was more than $250,000 would be increased from 36 percent to 39 percent. But he also mentioned that his plan includes a 50 percent small-business tax credit for health care and a proposal to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses that increase in value. Obama said his tax plan, which he said focuses on bigger breaks for people making lower incomes, would be good for the economy. "If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you," he said. "Right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on July 18, 2012, 02:32:42 PM
+1
Not unlike "spread the wealth around"
Reality is not a big thing when you are drunk on "The Script"....
"I don't care about the very poor"
Mitt Romney 2012
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 18, 2012, 03:22:27 PM
"I don't care about the very poor"
Mitt Romney 2012
That was a spiritual reading, I believe. :-*
All you have done is taken what Obama said out of context. That isn't fair.
It also wasn't fair to take Romney's quote out of context.
In Obama's and Romney's words, these were both probably just Freudian slips.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 18, 2012, 03:24:59 PM
All you have done is taken what Obama said out of context. That isn't fair.
It also wasn't fair to take Romney's quote out of context.
In Obama's and Romney's words, these were both probably just Freudian slips.
No, let's be clear. Romney hates the poor. And dogs.
John Sinunu
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/romney-surrogate-gov-john-sununu-takes-turns-insulting-msnbc-anchors/
RMoney campain's bringing out the deadwood....
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2012, 03:36:10 PM
No, let's be clear. Romney hates the poor. And dogs.
No Conan...he doesn't "hate" the poor...how can you hate something you do not know. He DOES NOT CARE about the poor.
Big diff.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 18, 2012, 03:24:59 PM
All you have done is taken what Obama said out of context. That isn't fair.
It also wasn't fair to take Romney's quote out of context.
In Obama's and Romney's words, these were both probably just Freudian slips.
You need to respect the president for his words in context:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
He said that. You can spend the whole day trying to qualify what he meant, or what he was implying, but it does not change what he said. In context, his goal was to illustrate how collective endeavor is more important than individual initiative. Noting more. Nothing less. He was not praising innovators, industrialists or successful entrepreneurs. He was marginalizing their efforts in the shadow of government.
He was off prompter and spoke from his heart. In context his words have the exact meaning he intended them to have.
People are poor because they want to be... Obama continues to make it a life-style....
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2012, 03:45:13 PM
You need to respect the president for his words in context:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
He said that. You can spend the whole day trying to qualify what he meant, or what he was implying, but it does not change what he said. In context, his goal was to illustrate how collective endeavor is more important than individual initiative. Noting more. Nothing less. He was not praising innovators, industrialists or successful entrepreneurs. He was marginalizing their efforts in the shadow of government.
He was off prompter and spoke from his heart. In context his words have the exact meaning he intended them to have.
Once again, I give you Gaspar the Prognosticator. Got lottery numbers too?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2012, 03:45:13 PM
He said that. You can spend the whole day trying to qualify what he meant, or what he was implying, but it does not change what he said. In context, his goal was to illustrate how collective endeavor is more important than individual initiative. Noting more. Nothing less. He was not praising innovators, industrialists or successful entrepreneurs. He was marginalizing their efforts in the shadow of government.
Yet an equally reasonable interpretation is that he was merely that the collective efforts of society, helps people to find themselves in a position where their hard work and ingenuity will lead to a successful outcome. You hear what you want to hear. Given all the tax breaks that have been passed and other help the small business people and inventors have gotten since he took office, I don't think your interpretation is at all reasonable.
What I find very odd is that you insist that you know what goes through other people's heads when they speak. It may reflect upon you that you insist on giving Republicans a charitable reading and conversely insist on giving Democrats a very uncharitable reading. Weren't you making excuses for the comment about the goal of Congressional Republicans being to defeat the President?
Quote from: Breadburner on July 18, 2012, 03:47:00 PM
People are poor because they want to be... Obama continues to make it a life-style....
and poor thinkers?
Romney Agrees With Obama: Government Does 'Help You In A Business'
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/18/543131/romney-agrees-with-obama-government-does-help-you-in-a-business/
another etch a sketch moment.
You sure you want a leader like this?
Quote from: nathanm on July 18, 2012, 03:49:51 PM
Yet an equally reasonable interpretation is that he was merely that the collective efforts of society, helps people to find themselves in a position where their hard work and ingenuity will lead to a successful outcome. You hear what you want to hear.
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 03:48:46 PM
Once again, I give you Gaspar the Prognosticator. Got lottery numbers too?
Quote
You need to respect the president for his words in context:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
He said that. You can spend the whole day trying to qualify what he meant, or what he was implying, but it does not change what he said. In context, his goal was to illustrate how collective endeavor is more important than individual initiative. Noting more. Nothing less. He was not praising innovators, industrialists or successful entrepreneurs. He was marginalizing their efforts in the shadow of government.
He was off prompter and spoke from his heart. In context his words have the exact meaning he intended them to have.
Where is the prediction in talking about something that already happened?
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 07:10:22 PM
Now THAT'S funny.... :D
You have a weird sense of "funny".
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 18, 2012, 07:11:41 PM
You have a weird sense of "funny".
You just have a weird sense...
He agreed with the President! LOL.
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 07:20:36 PM
You just have a weird sense...
You just have a weird...
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 18, 2012, 08:10:18 PM
You just have a weird...
Gas, you wanna get in on this? You're the clairvoyant. What's the next word?
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
Gas, you wanna get in on this? You're the clairvoyant. What's the next word?
No, no, no.. Your response was supposed to be:
"You just have"
Then I was going to respond with:
"You"
You started dropping words so I continued the process. I was going to get the last word.
You're no fun. :D
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 18, 2012, 08:32:21 PM
No, no, no.. Your response was supposed to be:
"You just have"
Then I was going to respond with:
"You"
You started dropping words so I continued the process. I was going to get the last word.
You're no fun. :D
I actually did know that. But I foiled your plot!
:D
Quote from: Hoss on July 18, 2012, 08:33:38 PM
I actually did know that. But I foiled your plot!
:D
Curse you Snydley Whiplash!
Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but it was inevitable.
http://didntbuildthat.com/
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7d0eyQ2wh1rbxfido1_500.jpg)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7b9j7dcjH1rbxfido1_500.jpg)
And a question; does Hoss live in this forum?
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2012, 08:34:52 AM
Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but it was inevitable.
http://didntbuildthat.com/
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7d0eyQ2wh1rbxfido1_500.jpg)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7b9j7dcjH1rbxfido1_500.jpg)
And a question; does Hoss live in this forum?
Someone say something? Wait, what?
There ya go...
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2012, 09:20:13 AM
There ya go...
Remind me who has 1600 more posts than I?
Quote from: Hoss on July 19, 2012, 09:31:43 AM
Remind me who has 1600 more posts than I?
And there you go padding your total...
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2012, 09:45:16 AM
And there you go padding your total...
I've got to catch up to him! I might in a year or so...
;D
On one of the LED billboards on the northwest corner of the IDL the Sonic Drive-In ad reads:
"We built it!" with a picture of one of their burgers.
No idea if it was meant to be topical in light of this bruhaha but it made me smile.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2012, 02:01:35 PM
On one of the LED billboards on the northwest corner of the IDL the Sonic Drive-In ad reads:
"We built it!" with a picture of one of their burgers.
No idea if it was meant to be topical in light of this bruhaha but it made me smile.
Weber's built it first! (if you believe the Bilby's)
Quote from: AquaMan on July 20, 2012, 02:45:48 PM
Weber's built it first! (if you believe the Bilby's)
Yeah, but I bet 'ol Oscar didn't build it by himself.
I wonder if the extra cost of the diesel tax is enough to pay for a couple hundred times the road damage caused by that dump truck compared to a passenger car or even large SUV. ;)
Also, I hope you're not planning to vote for Romney, who believes that government provides infrastructure and services necessary for business to thrive.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 08:36:20 PM
I wonder if the extra cost of the diesel tax is enough to pay for a couple hundred times the road damage caused by that dump truck compared to a passenger car or even large SUV. ;)
Have you never seen the signs on trucks about the annual tax they pay?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 20, 2012, 09:09:37 PM
Have you never seen the signs on trucks about the annual tax they pay?
No, but unless I drastically underestimate the fuel they use, they're paying about 5c a mile more than I am in fuel tax.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 09:55:26 PM
No, but unless I drastically underestimate the fuel they use, they're paying about 5c a mile more than I am in fuel tax.
I believe these taxes are above and beyond fuel tax. I know I have seen multiple state license tags on big rigs. Whether or not they pay for the actual damage is another question but they definitely pay a bunch more than you or I do.
A number I have heard for the big rigs is about 5 mpg, but that's been a few years ago.
A Missouri permanent trailer tag is about $55 all in. The registration on the tractor is about $105 yearly. I cite Missouri because I've been told they have the lowest rates in the region, and it's trivial to register your vehicles and trailers in any state you like as a trucking company. It does require renting an office, but that's not a very high bar.
Thank you for posting that Gaspar. It gives much insight into your thought process.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 11:19:38 PM
A Missouri permanent trailer tag is about $55 all in. The registration on the tractor is about $105 yearly. I cite Missouri because I've been told they have the lowest rates in the region, and it's trivial to register your vehicles and trailers in any state you like as a trucking company. It does require renting an office, but that's not a very high bar.
I remember seeing signs on big rigs that stated "This vehicle pays more than $X,XXX in taxes each year". Frequently that number was something like $6,000 and that was 15 to 20 years ago when $6000 meant something. I don't know if that included the fuel tax or was above and beyond fuel tax.
Heiron,
You've driven the big stuff. What about the taxes?
Maybe they're including the tax on the driver's income?
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
Maybe they're including the tax on the driver's income?
Unlikely
Stop everything. Obama said this is a "bogus issue". Time to move on now.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/23/12904508-romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own?lite
Guess what Olympians? You didn't do that!
LOL.
Quote from: Hoss on July 24, 2012, 12:35:02 AM
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/23/12904508-romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own?lite
Guess what Olympians? You didn't do that!
LOL.
^^^^
LOL is right. Here's the retort to this dumb and desperate comparison. It really didn't have to be written since Romney's words were so vastly different. Still, I love the part where a R strategist asked for the whereabouts of "Julia" when he read it thinking it came from Obama and not NBC...
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/23/ugh-nbc-trying-to-manufacture-a-you-didnt-build-that-moment-for-mitt-romney/
Here ya go. You've earned them...
(http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/OneStepAhead/22041_1?$productZoom$&wid=400&hei=400&fit=fit,1)
Quote from: guido911 on July 24, 2012, 01:05:08 AM
^^^^
LOL is right. Here's the retort to this dumb and desperate comparison. It really didn't have to be written since Romney's words were so vastly different. Still, I love the part where a R strategist asked for the whereabouts of "Julia" when he read it thinking it came from Obama and not NBC...
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/23/ugh-nbc-trying-to-manufacture-a-you-didnt-build-that-moment-for-mitt-romney/
Here ya go. You've earned them...
(http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/OneStepAhead/22041_1?$productZoom$&wid=400&hei=400&fit=fit,1)
Problem is, NBC didn't manufacture it. It was in NBC's archives. Someone just found it. Didn't come from the Obama campaign.
Point is, quotes taken out of context are just that. Out of context. Oh, but maybe only for you guys on the right....
Despite guido deciding there is a difference, I disagree.
What Romney said about Olympians succeeding because of friends, family and facilities is exactly the same as Obama saying that business people succeeded because of teachers, roads, etc.
I think it's weird that we seem to have suddenly decided that the foundation isn't part of a structure. The denial of the teamwork that makes our country work at its most fundamental level is stupefying. It's like Republicans think our business leaders are such prima donnas they can't hear that others contributed to their grand project without somehow believing that their contribution is being dismissed as irrelevant.
Star of Romney 'My Hands Didn't Build This' Ad Received Millions in Government Loans and Contracts
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=16839838
QuoteIn a new TV ad, Romney features an offended New Hampshire businessman, saying, "My father's hands didn't build this company? My hands didn't build this company? My son's hands aren't building this company?"
The New Hampshire Union Leader's John DiStato today reports that in 1999 the business in question, Gilchrist Metal, "received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority 'to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment'..." In addition, in 2011, Gilchrist Metal "received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008..."
The businessman, Jack Gilchrist, also acknowledged that in the 1980s the company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling "somewhere south of" $500,000, and matching funds from the federally-funded New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center.
"I'm not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government," Gilchrest said. "As far as I'm concerned, I'm getting some of my tax money back. I'm not stupid, I'm not going to say 'no.' Shame on me if I didn't use what's available."
Quote from: nathanm on July 24, 2012, 02:17:25 PM
I think it's weird that we seem to have suddenly decided that the foundation isn't part of a structure. The denial of the teamwork that makes our country work at its most fundamental level is stupefying. It's like Republicans think our business leaders are such prima donnas they can't hear that others contributed to their grand project without somehow believing that their contribution is being dismissed as irrelevant.
Nobody (I've heard) is claiming to have been left naked in a cave as a pre-teen by their parents to fend for themselves. The disrespect for individual effort by some is disappointing and it is there if you turn your government supplied hearing aid up.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 24, 2012, 08:32:11 PM
The disrespect for individual effort by some is disappointing and it is there if you turn your government supplied hearing aid up.
This must be one of those eye of the beholder things, because, as I said, talking about the good of collective effort does not in any way disrespect or demean individual effort. As far as I can tell, you're hearing what you think some hippies said back in the 60s.
Quote from: nathanm on July 24, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
This must be one of those eye of the beholder things, because, as I said, talking about the good of collective effort does not in any way disrespect or demean individual effort.
It must be because I definitely see disrespect, not a complete disregard though.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 24, 2012, 09:08:05 PM
It must be because I definitely see disrespect, not a complete disregard though.
Well, in the case of the comment that started this thread, I think this should have cleared it up immediately:
QuoteThe point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
That seems very much like respect, not disrespect.
The President hasn't revealed any bizarre conspiracy. He has only given us a clearer picture of his philosophy towards achievement, a philosophy that many on this forum are 100% in agreement with. Sure, we can accomplish great things together, but none of that is possible without the spectacular achievements of the individual that reach far above and beyond their collective responsibility.
What should the president of The United States promote?
Is it more important for Americans to embrace initiative and recognize individual achievement, or collective endeavor?
Is it important for a government saddled with skyrocketing entitlement expense to promote independence as a value, or to market the expansion of a dependent society?
Should our goal be to encourage people to acquire the tools they need to succeed and promote the courage to take risk, or provide security in exchange for unenterprising mediocrity?
It's been over two weeks of the minions continually attempting to redesign and qualify what the president said, but his message is clear, and he has not veered from it. For some it is sharp and insulting, for others it is comforting. Either way, it is no shock that President Obama values collective effort and distributive achievement over individual initiative and success. It is what he is about, but it is not what this country is about.
The smallest and weakest minority is the individual, who's rights and freedoms must be protected. Individual achievement must be recognized and promoted.
Individuals provide role-models, groups only provide roles.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 25, 2012, 06:51:09 AM
Either way, it is no shock that President Obama values collective effort and distributive achievement over individual initiative and success.
If you get all that from one sentence taken out of context, then surely you must believe that Romney thinks that only cares about the rich when he said," I'm not concerned about the very poor."
What should the President care about?
Is it more important for the President to embrace the richest 1% or the collective masses?
Either way, it is no shock that you can't seem to write a single sentence about your candidate and spend day after day trying to explain what Obama really means when he says something. Somehow, your translation is always wrong.
Quote from: nathanm on July 24, 2012, 11:42:07 PM
Well, in the case of the comment that started this thread, I think this should have cleared it up immediately:
That seems very much like respect, not disrespect.
One aw-crap wipes out 100 atta-boy. Therefore, one atta-boy does not wipe out many aw-craps. If you cannot see an attitude of collectivism at the expense of individual effort, so be it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 07:16:29 AM
If you get all that from one sentence taken out of context, then surely you must believe that Romney thinks that only cares about the rich when he said," I'm not concerned about the very poor."
Which has been pretty much been part of the get Romney campaign. Your use of it here is no different than the right's use of "You didn't do it".
I am guilty. But in fairness, I have also tried to portray Romney as a school bully and an animal abuser.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 07:53:20 AM
I am guilty. But in fairness, I have also tried to portray Romney as a school bully and an animal abuser.
True, you try to leave no tern unstoned.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 25, 2012, 07:53:59 AM
True, you try to leave no tern unstoned.
If the shoe fits...
Quote from: Gaspar on July 25, 2012, 06:51:09 AM
The President hasn't revealed any bizarre conspiracy. He has only given us a clearer picture of his philosophy towards achievement, a philosophy that many on this forum are 100% in agreement with. Sure, we can accomplish great things together, but none of that is possible without the spectacular achievements of the individual that reach far above and beyond their collective responsibility.
What should the president of The United States promote?
Is it more important for Americans to embrace initiative and recognize individual achievement, or collective endeavor?
Is it important for a government saddled with skyrocketing entitlement expense to promote independence as a value, or to market the expansion of a dependent society?
Should our goal be to encourage people to acquire the tools they need to succeed and promote the courage to take risk, or provide security in exchange for unenterprising mediocrity?
It's been over two weeks of the minions continually attempting to redesign and qualify what the president said, but his message is clear, and he has not veered from it. For some it is sharp and insulting, for others it is comforting. Either way, it is no shock that President Obama values collective effort and distributive achievement over individual initiative and success. It is what he is about, but it is not what this country is about.
The smallest and weakest minority is the individual, who's rights and freedoms must be protected. Individual achievement must be recognized and promoted.
Individuals provide role-models, groups only provide roles.
^Shadows as a young man. Better word control, same weak message.
Quote from: Hoss on July 25, 2012, 08:16:02 AM
If the shoe fits...
The shoe fits RM just fine.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 07:16:29 AM
If you get all that from one sentence taken out of context, then surely you must believe that Romney thinks that only cares about the rich when he said," I'm not concerned about the very poor."
A few things. . .
I am taking the president's comments in context, as stated before including my previous posting of the president's entire off-prompter remarks.
What should the President care about?
His job, which is primarily executive decisions related to ensuring the integrity of the union. At this time that should be a "laser like focus" on promoting policies that stimulate economic growth.
Is it more important for the President to embrace the richest 1% or the collective masses?
Neither. It is most important that he promote policies that encourage economic growth (see above). Without the opportunity of jobs, the "collective masses" will continue to suffer. Engaging in additional class warfare activities may serve to strengthen his relationship with his voting base, but will do little to aid the economy. That has been his primary stumbling block for the past three years.
Either way, it is no shock that you can't seem to write a single sentence about your candidate and spend day after day trying to explain what Obama really means when he says something. Somehow, your translation is always wrong.
I have written several. I have done little to "explain what the president means." He has done that himself. It is his own sympathetic media that has spent (and continues to spend) the last couple of weeks attempting to soften or alter his message.
I have made no translation to what the president said. In fact, I shall post it again in video so there is no confusion:
Please keep arguing with the English language. It makes for very amusing reading. And yes, he did explain what he meant in that video you posted, yet you still take away something else from it because you just can't bring yourself to believe he's not some Kenyan muslim socialist. It's freakin' ridiculous.
Quote from: nathanm on July 25, 2012, 07:00:25 PM
Please keep arguing with the English language. It makes for very amusing reading. And yes, he did explain what he meant in that video you posted, yet you still take away something else from it because you just can't bring yourself to believe he's not some Kenyan muslim socialist. It's freakin' ridiculous.
Actually, it's more hilarious. He's like TNF's version of the carnival barker.
As usual, Jon Stewart knocks it well out of the ballpark.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-25-2012/democalypse-2012---do-we-look-stupid--don-t-answer-that-edition---grammatical-gaffes
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2012, 11:56:22 AM
I remember seeing signs on big rigs that stated "This vehicle pays more than $X,XXX in taxes each year". Frequently that number was something like $6,000 and that was 15 to 20 years ago when $6000 meant something. I don't know if that included the fuel tax or was above and beyond fuel tax.
Heiron,
You've driven the big stuff. What about the taxes?
Sorry so slow responding - VERY limited internet where I am and the cold is numbing my brain. Well, the "cool" actually - it's 51 right now - degrees F.
Not sure - was only a company driver. When I have talked to tax people about it, got the "it depends" scenario. Tag for a box trailer - 53' - was reasonable here - can't remember exact numbers since it has been about 8 years since I asked about it.
Beyond just the truck, there is the IFTA fuel tax arrangement. That is very strange setup that I'm glad I never had to deal with directly. You buy fuel, with tax at the pump, then afterwards, resolve it to where you were, what the tax rates are and presto-change-o, you might owe more or less.
Cargo seems to change the amount, too. Just one more barrier to entry....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 28, 2012, 01:42:50 PM
Beyond just the truck, there is the IFTA fuel tax arrangement. That is very strange setup that I'm glad I never had to deal with directly. You buy fuel, with tax at the pump, then afterwards, resolve it to where you were, what the tax rates are and presto-change-o, you might owe more or less.
So if you filled up in Joplin, MO, drove I-44 to I-40 to Shamrock, TX, would most of the fuel tax would be adjusted to Oklahoma rates? Would Oklahoma get the money?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 28, 2012, 01:51:02 PM
So if you filled up in Joplin, MO, drove I-44 to I-40 to Shamrock, TX, would most of the fuel tax would be adjusted to Oklahoma rates? Would Oklahoma get the money?
That's my understanding. Not sure it is quite that straightforward, but basically that is how it was explained to me. I don't think many drivers understand it very well - they just let their accountant take care of it.
I thought that was only the case for states like Oregon that have a weight-mile tax. You pay your money at the pump, do some paperwork later and find out if you owe more or get a partial refund.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney/putting-mitt-romneys-attacks-you-didnt-build-truth/
Verdict: false
Once again, the righties on here decide to ignore the context of the whole speech. It's like conservative ADD.
Of course, I'm guessing our resident carnival barker will just put his fingers in his ears all the while going 'lalalalalala...I can't hear you....lalalalala'. ;D
Quote from: Hoss on July 28, 2012, 09:51:39 PM
Once again, the righties on here decide to ignore the context of the whole speech. It's like conservative ADD.
I think the most infuriating part is their insistence that we give Romney and other right wingers the benefit of the doubt. If you're going to believe out of context sound bites, at least be consistent about it!
Quote from: nathanm on July 28, 2012, 10:30:56 PM
I think the most infuriating part is their insistence that we give Romney and other right wingers the benefit of the doubt. If you're going to believe out of context sound bites, at least be consistent about it!
Yawn, politics. Spin that around to the other side.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 28, 2012, 11:11:18 PM
Yawn, politics. Spin that around to the other side.
I would, if they were doing it with anything near the frequency or loudness.
Quote from: nathanm on July 28, 2012, 11:39:30 PM
I would, if they were doing it with anything near the frequency or loudness.
That's a matter of opinion.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 28, 2012, 01:42:50 PM
Well, the "cool" actually - it's 51 right now - degrees F.
Enjoy the 51 deg. It was about 105 here today.
I was going to say twice 51 but the scale is arbitrary and really 51 should be 51+459.67 = 510.67 deg R.
105 F = 564.67 R
So, the ratio is really only 1.11:1
It's still hot.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 28, 2012, 11:59:43 PM
That's a matter of opinion.
Well timed.
So was politifart's "ruling" on the context of the speech. I don't think it takes a hatred of Obama, nor even an allegiance to Romney or GOP ideals for someone to take Obama's remarks as condescending, smug, and belittling to job creators. He's got a track record of saying the rich get too many breaks on the backs of the poor and need to be soaked because they don't do their fair share for the rest of us. I don't think it's ever dawned on him who creates most of the jobs in this country- the wealthy. Naw, they don't do near enough for the rest of us.
QuoteOur ruling
In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning.
The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses.
Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
By leaving out the "individual initiative" reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 11:24:57 AM
I don't think it takes a hatred of Obama, nor even an allegiance to Romney or GOP ideals for someone to take Obama's remarks as condescending, smug, and belittling to job creators.
It takes a pretty obstinate reading of "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." to think anything of the sort. Must the job creators be worshiped like gods to please you? Must no mention be made of the contributions of others lest we belittle the job creators' hard work and sacrifice by the mere mention of others?
I think you're joshing. I would take it more seriously if you weren't using a Luntz word.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 11:40:43 AM
It takes a pretty obstinate reading of "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." to think anything of the sort. Must the job creators be worshiped like gods to please you? Must no mention be made of the contributions of others lest we belittle the job creators' hard work and sacrifice by the mere mention of others?
I think you're joshing. I would take it more seriously if you weren't using a Luntz word.
I don't follow Luntz, so not a clue which word you are referring to. Why doesn't he simply come out and clarify it himself, instead of a media group grope trying to posit what he meant? If close to 1/2 the people in this country interpreted it in a negative light, I'd think it a good idea to do some self-clarifying.
I never heard Clinton or Carter spew off such collectivism nonsense. Of course, Clinton will probably be remembered for being one of the better Republican presidents ever. ;D
Job creators. From his mouth to Roger Ailes' ear to the marching orders to the Fox News hosts, and on into your own ears.
It's no wonder 51% of Americans think that he said something wrong. Most of them heard this, at best:
Continue listening (posted as a bare URL because the forum kills the time code in youtube embeds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzf4yjphgf8#t=2064s
Listen to at least 35:00 (or preferably to 35:37 or more) and tell me with a straight face he's disparaging business owners or being divisive. "We're all in this together" is not divisive. Unfortunately, that's not the part they play on Fox News, despite it being less than 60 seconds removed in the speech and important to understand the context.
If you want to keep blatantly contorting his words to assign some secret meaning to them as if there was some 5 second slip of the tongue that shines a light so deep into his soul you can know what he was thinking, or you can not contort all logic and reason and accept that this is not actually evidence of Obama being some pinko commie who wants to nationalize all the businesseseses.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 12:12:48 PM
Job creators. From his mouth to Roger Ailes' ear to the marching orders to the Fox News hosts, and on into your own ears.
It's no wonder 51% of Americans think that he said something wrong. Most of them heard this, at best:
Continue listening (posted as a bare URL because the forum kills the time code in youtube embeds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzf4yjphgf8#t=2064s
Listen to at least 35:00 (or preferably to 35:37 or more) and tell me with a straight face he's disparaging business owners or being divisive. "We're all in this together" is not divisive. Unfortunately, that's not the part they play on Fox News, despite it being less than 60 seconds removed in the speech and important to understand the context.
If you want to keep blatantly contorting his words to assign some secret meaning to them as if there was some 5 second slip of the tongue that shines a light so deep into his soul you can know what he was thinking, or you can not contort all logic and reason and accept that this is not actually evidence of Obama being some pinko commie who wants to nationalize all the businesseseses.
Except I don't listen to Fox.
Again, if he's so eloquent and so intelligent, why not simply issue a clarifying statement instead of leaving it up to media or individual interpretation? It was clumsy at best and I don't understand why you can't simply admit it was clumsily stated.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 12:16:57 PM
Except I don't listen to Fox.
Everyone cut it off after "you didn't build that."
Quote
Again, if he's so eloquent and so intelligent, why not simply issue a clarifying statement instead of leaving it up to media or individual interpretation? It was clumsy at best and I don't understand why you can't simply admit it was clumsily stated.
He did. Not surprised you didn't hear about it. There was some unclear wording, but context the meaning of the language he was using quite plain. Personally, I think those who quoted him out of context should apologize to Obama. That's not really an ethical thing to do. It's not surprising, coming from our news media, but we should demand better. I think we both agree the election should be about the issues, not about ridiculous out of context quotes, even if we disagree on those issues.
If Obama thinks people who own a business didn't build it (or buy it, as the case may be), then Romney doesn't care about poor people. At all. They'll be fine. More likely, Obama doesn't think that people who own businesses built the roads and bridges and Romney thinks that our existing welfare systems are sufficient for poor people to get by on until we get the middle class back on its feet.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 12:30:50 PM
Everyone cut it off after "you didn't build that."
He did. Not surprised you didn't hear about it. There was some unclear wording, but context the meaning of the language he was using quite plain. Personally, I think those who quoted him out of context should apologize to Obama. That's not really an ethical thing to do. It's not surprising, coming from our news media, but we should demand better. I think we both agree the election should be about the issues, not about ridiculous out of context quotes, even if we disagree on those issues.
If Obama thinks people who own a business didn't build it (or buy it, as the case may be), then Romney doesn't care about poor people. At all. They'll be fine. More likely, Obama doesn't think that people who own businesses built the roads and bridges and Romney thinks that our existing welfare systems are sufficient for poor people to get by on until we get the middle class back on its feet.
Romney doesn't care about poor people. He hates dogs too. It's a known fact.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 12:39:20 PM
Romney doesn't care about poor people. He hates dogs too. It's a known fact.
Please post this more often. You could even be like guido and use these phrases to start new threads.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 11:24:57 AM
I don't think it's ever dawned on him who creates most of the jobs in this country- the wealthy. Naw, they don't do near enough for the rest of us.
I disagree. I think he knows exactly where jobs come from. I think, however, that the creation of jobs is not his goal. The perception of working on economic growth is his goal but not any real action. As long has he can say things that make people believe he is a champion of the poor, or the economically disadvantaged, it matters little whether he actually produces anything. For him and his political affiliates, intensions are far more important than results.
Do even the smallest degree of analysis on his actions, and you will find this to be irrefutable.
Each new crisis is followed with a speech and the commissioning of a panel, commission, or some other study or action group. Every issue is acted upon with a speech and the promise of a "plan." So, with all of these new commissions, panels, and studies, what have been the deliverables?
Simpson-Bowels - The goal was to avoid the inevitability of a prolonged or double dip recession. The result was a report based on bi-partisan research that posed a complete economic plan for recovery and repair. It was painful to both Republicans (cutting defense spending), and Democrats (emphasizing tax relief, before tax increases), but many members of both parties agreed it was indeed the proper course.
It was dismissed and treated as if it never happened. No action. No results.
President's Economic Framework(s)? - This was the second year in a row that the president presented a "framework" that he claimed would cut the deficit by trillions, only to find that after difficult CBO analysis (because he likes to use generalizations) it would actually expand the deficit by trillions, and his second attempt couldn't even register a single (not one) Democrat vote in Congress. Why? Because it was ridiculous.
Since that time, every new spending bill introduced by Democrats in congress has been called a "Jobs act" however most contain far more new spending than anything related reduction in uncertainty or economic/regulatory advantage to the small business owner. No results.
Council on Jobs and Competitiveness - Early 2012 the president responds again to pressure for some direction in changing the currently economic climate of uncertainty. In a speech he invokes the creation of his Jobs Council headed by the former CEO of GE, Jeffrey "Too big to fail" Immelt. An award I suppose for being the recipient of $139 billion in bailout cash. The commission never meets, or produces a single recommendation except for the presentation of a very well constructed set of broad generalizations that were cut and pasted from several of the president's speeches to the Jobs Commission website with very little editing. Basically their website serves as nothing more than another campaign PR dribble for the President filled with great intensions. Beyond the electronic campaign brochure, they have issued no statements or research to congress, or even sat around a table together with the President. No results.
This was the platform he ran on in 2008. Whether you agree with it or disagree, what has he accomplished? . . .and what part of this list is designed to stimulate or grow the US economy by building (or recovering) our small businesses? What here is designed to reduce uncertainty and encourage investors to take the risk necessary to build economic growth?
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050... and in the process create 5 million jobs.
Put one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015.
Close GITMO.
Stop the rendition and torture of prisoners of war. - He actually made great strives in stopping this by just vaporizing them and anyone around them. No prisoner, no problem!
Ensure 10% of our electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2012.
Impose windfall profit tax on oil companies... and, from that revenue, provide an immediate $500 relief to individuals and $1000 to married couples.
Regulate energy speculation.
Provide US automakers with $4 billion in tax credits and loans to build fuel efficient cars in the US.
Mandate all new vehicles to be Flexible Fuel or Biofuel Vehicles.
Develop and deploy clean coal technology.
Develop safe and secure nuclear technology.
Cut taxes for 95% of workers and families and (quote:) "no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase."
Provide a $500 tax cut for workers and $1000 for working couples.
Pay a refundable $4,000 American Opportunity Tax Credit for college.
Provide a Universal 10% mortgage interest tax credit.
Eliminate Income Taxes for seniors making less than $50,000.
Introduce health care tax credits.
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Increase benefits for child care.
Simplify the tax system.
Eliminate capital gains taxes on entrepreneurs and investors in small businesses.
Cut corporate tax rates for companies creating jobs in US.
Offer a small business health care tax credit.
Make the R&D tax credit permanent.
Make international tax havens less accessible.
Broaden the corporate tax base and eliminate special preferences.
Generally increase income taxes from the 2008 tax brackets of 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
Increase capital gains tax to 20% for families making more than $250,000.
Reinstate pay-as-you-go budgeting rules (i.e., new spending has to be offset with other spending cuts).
Cut pork barrel spending.
Make government spending more accountable and efficient.
Health care: Lower health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family.
Troop withdrawal from Iraq: Phased withdrawal of 1-2 brigades per month leading to full withdrawal by Summer of 2010.
Again, whether you agree, disagree, believe he has delivered or failed to deliver, his platform was a social platform, not an economic one. He was not equipped, or even interested in economic issues. He paid them lip service, but nothing more. If people still agree with President Obama's plans to fundamentally change this country, then perhaps the best course of action for them is not to vote for him. He has neither demonstrated an aptitude or interest in economic matters. Perhaps we need a leader that can fix the economy and then, when we are back on firm ground with solid economic growth, we can play around. He could choose to postpone his second term until after someone like Romney or H. Clinton fixes the problems. Then, after that, he could run for another four years on his social platform.
Just a thought.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 30, 2012, 02:26:18 PM
I disagree. I think he knows exactly where jobs come from. I think, however, that the creation of jobs is not his goal. The perception of working on economic growth is his goal but not any real action. As long has he can say things that make people believe he is a champion of the poor, or the economically disadvantaged, it matters little whether he actually produces anything. For him and his political affiliates, intensions are far more important than results.
Do even the smallest degree of analysis on his actions, and you will find this to be irrefutable.
Each new crisis is followed with a speech and the commissioning of a panel, commission, or some other study or action group. Every issue is acted upon with a speech and the promise of a "plan." So, with all of these new commissions, panels, and studies, what have been the deliverables?
Simpson-Bowels - The goal was to avoid the inevitability of a prolonged or double dip recession. The result was a report based on bi-partisan research that posed a complete economic plan for recovery and repair. It was painful to both Republicans (cutting defense spending), and Democrats (emphasizing tax relief, before tax increases), but many members of both parties agreed it was indeed the proper course.
It was dismissed and treated as if it never happened. No action. No results.
President's Economic Framework(s)? - This was the second year in a row that the president presented a "framework" that he claimed would cut the deficit by trillions, only to find that after difficult CBO analysis (because he likes to use generalizations) it would actually expand the deficit by trillions, and his second attempt couldn't even register a single (not one) Democrat vote in Congress. Why? Because it was ridiculous.
Since that time, every new spending bill introduced by Democrats in congress has been called a "Jobs act" however most contain far more new spending than anything related reduction in uncertainty or economic/regulatory advantage to the small business owner. No results.
Council on Jobs and Competitiveness - Early 2012 the president responds again to pressure for some direction in changing the currently economic climate of uncertainty. In a speech he invokes the creation of his Jobs Council headed by the former CEO of GE, Jeffrey "Too big to fail" Immelt. An award I suppose for being the recipient of $139 billion in bailout cash. The commission never meets, or produces a single recommendation except for the presentation of a very well constructed set of broad generalizations that were cut and pasted from several of the president's speeches to the Jobs Commission website with very little editing. Basically their website serves as nothing more than another campaign PR dribble for the President filled with great intensions. Beyond the electronic campaign brochure, they have issued no statements or research to congress, or even sat around a table together with the President. No results.
This was the platform he ran on in 2008. Whether you agree with it or disagree, what has he accomplished? . . .and what part of this list is designed to stimulate or grow the US economy by building (or recovering) our small businesses? What here is designed to reduce uncertainty and encourage investors to take the risk necessary to build economic growth?
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050... and in the process create 5 million jobs.
Put one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015.
Close GITMO.
Stop the rendition and torture of prisoners of war. - He actually made great strives in stopping this by just vaporizing them and anyone around them. No prisoner, no problem!
Ensure 10% of our electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2012.
Impose windfall profit tax on oil companies... and, from that revenue, provide an immediate $500 relief to individuals and $1000 to married couples.
Regulate energy speculation.
Provide US automakers with $4 billion in tax credits and loans to build fuel efficient cars in the US.
Mandate all new vehicles to be Flexible Fuel or Biofuel Vehicles.
Develop and deploy clean coal technology.
Develop safe and secure nuclear technology.
Cut taxes for 95% of workers and families and (quote:) "no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase."
Provide a $500 tax cut for workers and $1000 for working couples.
Pay a refundable $4,000 American Opportunity Tax Credit for college.
Provide a Universal 10% mortgage interest tax credit.
Eliminate Income Taxes for seniors making less than $50,000.
Introduce health care tax credits.
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Increase benefits for child care.
Simplify the tax system.
Eliminate capital gains taxes on entrepreneurs and investors in small businesses.
Cut corporate tax rates for companies creating jobs in US.
Offer a small business health care tax credit.
Make the R&D tax credit permanent.
Make international tax havens less accessible.
Broaden the corporate tax base and eliminate special preferences.
Generally increase income taxes from the 2008 tax brackets of 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
Increase capital gains tax to 20% for families making more than $250,000.
Reinstate pay-as-you-go budgeting rules (i.e., new spending has to be offset with other spending cuts).
Cut pork barrel spending.
Make government spending more accountable and efficient.
Health care: Lower health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family.
Troop withdrawal from Iraq: Phased withdrawal of 1-2 brigades per month leading to full withdrawal by Summer of 2010.
Again, whether you agree, disagree, believe he has delivered or failed to deliver, his platform was a social platform, not an economic one. He was not equipped, or even interested in economic issues. He paid them lip service, but nothing more. If people still agree with President Obama's plans to fundamentally change this country, then perhaps the best course of action for them is not to vote for him. He has neither demonstrated an aptitude or interest in economic matters. Perhaps we need a leader that can fix the economy and then, when we are back on firm ground with solid economic growth, we can play around. He could choose to postpone his second term until after someone like Romney or H. Clinton fixes the problems. Then, after that, he could run for another four years on his social platform.
Just a thought.
Kinda tough to do all those things when the express objective of the opposing parties was 'to vote him out at all costs'. Especially without a filibuster-proof senate when the filibusters reached record proportions before AND after the midterms.
But go ahead and continue with your ODS and blue font...
Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 02:30:17 PM
Kinda tough to do all those things when the express objective of the opposing parties was 'to vote him out at all costs'. Especially without a filibuster-proof senate when the filibusters reached record proportions before AND after the midterms.
But go ahead and continue with your ODS and blue font...
How can you summarily dismiss Obama's failures and complete disregard for issues which really mattered to the economy, and most every day Americans? Filibusters didn't keep any of his agenda in check in '09 and '10, if that were true, the ACA would have never passed. That's simply another excuse and another place to affix blame for his own failures. They simply used reconciliation instead of an up or down vote to sidestep opposition to the ACA.
I would grant anyone who stepped into office that you wouldn't simply fix the economy over night and would have been surprised at any point less than two years of a significant turn-around. However, we are now 3 1/2 years into his term and the only thing anyone can point to as success are the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act, which we now find out will cover fewer people at a higher cost than originally promised (no surprise there) and OBL is dead.
What has either event done to help the economy? I know there's been some serious reach-arounds trying to explain what could have happened to the economy if OBL had succeeded in another terrorist attack on US soil. Let's face it, he was marginalized. I'm glad that SOB is dead, and I thank the president for authorizing the mission. That's a moral success for Americans, yet it doesn't do a tangible thing for the economy.
As Gaspar pointed out, he's repeatedly ignored the advice of his blue ribbon panels and that of business leaders of what needs to be done to cut deficits and create jobs. Instead, he coddles those who really believe their misfortune or lack of success is the result of someone else's success.
That's not how you rebuild an economy.
Take a look at President Clinton's actions as he sought to help the economy recover after the recession of '91. There's simply no comparison in the approach of these two presidents in economic issues. Look whose policies appear to have helped stimulate growth and whose have not.
No one is ignoring the fact that this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. However, Obama isn't even trying to mimic a single page out of any other president's playbook who has helped guide the economy out of a funk.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 03:41:41 PM
How can you summarily dismiss Obama's failures and complete disregard for issues which really mattered to the economy, and most every day Americans? Filibusters didn't keep any of his agenda in check in '09 and '10, if that were true, the ACA would have never passed. That's simply another excuse and another place to affix blame for his own failures. They simply used reconciliation instead of an up or down vote to sidestep opposition to the ACA.
I would grant anyone who stepped into office that you wouldn't simply fix the economy over night and would have been surprised at any point less than two years of a significant turn-around. However, we are now 3 1/2 years into his term and the only thing anyone can point to as success are the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act, which we now find out will cover fewer people at a higher cost than originally promised (no surprise there) and OBL is dead.
What has either event done to help the economy? I know there's been some serious reach-arounds trying to explain what could have happened to the economy if OBL had succeeded in another terrorist attack on US soil. Let's face it, he was marginalized. I'm glad that SOB is dead, and I thank the president for authorizing the mission. That's a moral success for Americans, yet it doesn't do a tangible thing for the economy.
As Gaspar pointed out, he's repeatedly ignored the advice of his blue ribbon panels and that of business leaders of what needs to be done to cut deficits and create jobs. Instead, he coddles those who really believe their misfortune or lack of success is the result of someone else's success.
That's not how you rebuild an economy.
Take a look at President Clinton's actions as he sought to help the economy recover after the recession of '91. There's simply no comparison in the approach of these two presidents in economic issues. Look whose policies appear to have helped stimulate growth and whose have not.
No one is ignoring the fact that this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. However, Obama isn't even trying to mimic a single page out of any other president's playbook who has helped guide the economy out of a funk.
If you remember, ACA didn't get the 60/40 vote (remember all the hullaballoo about reconciliation?).
And just because I'm defending him on this, doesn't mean I'm thrilled with his job sofar. But the Republicans (are you sure you haven't reverted?) made it VERY clear their number ONE objective was making sure this president didn't get a second term. Nothing about stimulating the economy, or working across party aisles to help the American people. How can you summarily dismiss THAT?
Whenever he was for something they previously were for, they made sure to rail against it. Both parties are to blame, but the filibustering and sniping and attacking each other needs to come to and end.
Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 02:30:17 PM
Kinda tough to do all those things when the express objective of the opposing parties was 'to vote him out at all costs'. Especially without a filibuster-proof senate when the filibusters reached record proportions before AND after the midterms.
But go ahead and continue with your ODS and blue font...
I wasn't debating his ability to do what he promised as campaign promises above, nor was I commenting on his inability to work toward the achievement of those endeavors, nor was I commenting on any obstacles or opposition he may or may not have. My observation and questions were related to social issues vs economic ones.
He ran on a platform of social issues. He continues to peruse social issues. The country was, and continues to be consumed with economic problems that outweigh, in importance, most other issues. For instance, 10% renewable energy makes very little impact on a family of four with both parents unemployed. A million plug-in cars (that cost $42,000 each) are of little value to a 22 year old with a marketing degree who has to work at McDonalds because no one else is hiring. A broadening of the corporate tax, and elimination of the Bush Tax cuts will certainly get cheers from liberals, but will not be pivotal in encouraging an industrial motor maker to hire more employees.
I have no doubt that he ran on a very popular liberal agenda. It's up to you to determine whether he achieved or did not achieve his initiatives. It's also up to you to distribute the praise or blame as you see fit. The fact remains however that his choice of policies had very little to do with economic growth, and his action/reaction to the course of events that followed, showed absolutely no interest in economic recovery, if that recovery or those actions posed a threat to any of his social agenda. In the eyes of a liberal, he may be a fine president, but if you are to simply employ logic, his course of action did not fit the goal of economic recovery.
My car has a flat tire. I blame my old mechanic for over-inflating it. So I go to a new mechanic, and he attempts to fix my AC, tries to adjust the transmission, re-welds the muffler, and changes the spark timing. He continues to say he's working on my tire, but it's still flat, and my bill is 15 times the cost of a new tire already. Finally when I threaten him about going to another mechanic, he tells me about how proud he is, and how happy I should be because of all of the other things he has tried to fix on my car. He says that fixing my tire was a bigger job than he expected, and that if I give him more time, he will get it done. He says my old mechanic really screwed up that tire and made it hard to fix. He says that all of the other people in his garage are preventing him from fixing the tire, and the weather was bad, and other mechanics are hiding his tools. I would think about giving him another chance, but without skipping a breath, he begins to talk about replacing a dome light, adjusting the breaks, and changing the fuel filter. I think it's time for a new mechanic.
Gaspar, that motor manufacturer isn't going to be motivated by tax cuts, either. His or her taxes are already at or near historic lows, he or she has already received quite a few tax credits in an effort to get them moving. Unfortunately, lack of demand has proven to be the major issue.
Perhaps the best take IMO on "You did not do that" from Sarcastic Jefferson:
"Of course roads and bridges built businesses. Just like the English language and a pen wrote the collected works of Shakespeare."
Quote from: guido911 on July 30, 2012, 11:20:11 PM
Perhaps the best take IMO on "You did not do that" from Sarcastic Jefferson:
"Of course roads and bridges built businesses. Just like the English language and a pen wrote the collected works of Shakespeare."
I saw a Shakespeare play (I forget which one) done in German language while in Germany in 1995.
Quote from: guido911 on July 30, 2012, 11:20:11 PM
Perhaps the best take IMO on "You did not do that" from Sarcastic Jefferson:
"Of course roads and bridges built businesses. Just like the English language and a pen wrote the collected works of Shakespeare."
Wow, that's even more nonsensical than the Fox interpretation.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 12:24:13 AM
Enjoy the 51 deg. It was about 105 here today.
I was going to say twice 51 but the scale is arbitrary and really 51 should be 51+459.67 = 510.67 deg R.
105 F = 564.67 R
So, the ratio is really only 1.11:1
It's still hot.
I did. Am back now - 111 on the thermometer. 60 degree swing in two days. Yuck.
But I did get sneezed on by a humpback whale, so it's all good. Nothing like a little whale snot to make the day....
Quote from: nathanm on July 28, 2012, 08:12:53 PM
I thought that was only the case for states like Oregon that have a weight-mile tax. You pay your money at the pump, do some paperwork later and find out if you owe more or get a partial refund.
That's probably it. I was gonna let the accountant handle it and just tell me what happened.
Oh, and if anyone is out there thinking that driving a truck as an owner operator is a great way to make a living - well, that's part right. It's a great way to TRY to make a living, but the actual "make" part can be elusive - just like any business. Can make plenty per year, but it will be 3,500 to 4,000 hours per year rather than about 2,000 hours per year of a "regular" job.
Lucky drivers can almost get minimum wage rate. "Lucky" because they will be driving all those hours and lucky to not get tagged too much for log violations, because they WILL be breaking the law to do it.
Man, 13 pages based on taking a comment out of context. ???
:-[
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2012, 11:53:30 PM
Man, 13 pages based on (purposely) taking a comment out of context. ???
:-[
Their candidate allows them so little else to talk about.
What....they can't talk about his Chevy Chase European Vacation can they?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 31, 2012, 08:22:49 AM
Their candidate allows them so little else to talk about.
What....they can't talk about his Chevy Chase European Vacation can they?
"Look, Parliament! Big Ben! Parliament! Big Ben!"
You know that when he says the superior Israeli culture is the reason for the economic difference between them and the Palestinians, that in his mind he is also inferring that the American culture is superior to the rest of the world. I doubt that was lost on anyone. "...and everyone knows that."
This was released yesterday. Very interesting depending on how you read it. If you read from top to bottom (at lead the top 8 ), you see a representation of candidate Romney's platform. If you read from the bottom up (the bottom 5) you see a representation of President Obama's platform. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156347/Americans-Next-President-Prioritize-Jobs-Corruption.aspx
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/f43bj94grkwuh8v3yu6olq.gif)
So, as I indicated above, many liberals agree with the presidents current platform and choose not to fault him for his performance because they have admiration for his intentions. That does not change the fact that his important issues are out of line with the important issues that the American public puts priority in. According to the electorate, his primary focus should still be (just as in 2008) jobs & the economy, but just like in 2008, he is choosing to run on his social platform.
Now, he has chosen Bill Clinton to travel around and talk about the economy, hopefully to bolster his shortcomings in this arena, but I perceive grave damage from that because he has never subscribed to Clinton economic policy and continues to refuse the Clintonian model to this day. Bill will only serve to remind President Obama's constituency that "He's no Bill Clinton." Plus, Bill Clinton has never edited his views on President Obama's economic policies, so when the question comes up, you can be assured that Mr. Clinton will provide additional sound-bytes to be used by the opposition. Bill is not a very good second-fiddler.
I assume that it was not the Obama campaign that sought out Bill Clinton, but rather the other way around. It's an excellent opportunity for the Clinton team to marginalize through faint praise, and set the stage for Hillary's 2016 run. Like Superman, Bill swoops down to try and save a failed presidency. No matter wether he succeeds or fails, he sets the stage for Hillary.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 09:12:21 AM
No matter wether he succeeds or fails, he sets the stage for Hillary.
So we're looking at at least 12 more years of Democratic presidency? I'm not surprised.
It takes a village to govern, Gassy. Especially when it's idiot is in charge. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
It takes a village to govern, Gassy. Especially when it's idiot is in charge. ;D
Romney's village hasn't done very well by him so far.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
It takes a village to govern, Gassy. Especially when it's idiot is in charge. ;D
I don't think President Obama is an idiot. He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues. The problem with this is that without an economic engine, social movements do not move.
The idiots are the ones that believe believe him. You can sine up the car, polish the windows, and hang a pine-scented air freshener, but if you don't fix the engine, you're not going anywhere.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 09:41:53 AM
I don't think President Obama is an idiot. He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues. The problem with this is that without an economic engine, social movements do not move.
The idiots are the ones that believe believe him. You can sine up the car, polish the windows, and hang a pine-scented air freshener, but if you don't fix the engine, you're not going anywhere.
Come on, give me my props, that was quick-witted ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 09:41:53 AM
He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues.
Conservatives aren't pushing for social change?
Quote from: Townsend on July 31, 2012, 09:46:15 AM
Conservatives aren't pushing for social change?
DERP.
Abortion reform.
Christian Nation.
I can go on, but I have to train people to do my job....
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 09:12:21 AM
This was released yesterday. Very interesting depending on how you read it. If you read from top to bottom (at lead the top 8 ), you see a representation of candidate Romney's platform. If you read from the bottom up (the bottom 5) you see a representation of President Obama's platform. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156347/Americans-Next-President-Prioritize-Jobs-Corruption.aspx
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/f43bj94grkwuh8v3yu6olq.gif)
So, as I indicated above, many liberals agree with the presidents current platform and choose not to fault him for his performance because they have admiration for his intentions. That does not change the fact that his important issues are out of line with the important issues that the American public puts priority in. According to the electorate, his primary focus should still be (just as in 2008) jobs & the economy, but just like in 2008, he is choosing to run on his social platform.
Now, he has chosen Bill Clinton to travel around and talk about the economy, hopefully to bolster his shortcomings in this arena, but I perceive grave damage from that because he has never subscribed to Clinton economic policy and continues to refuse the Clintonian model to this day. Bill will only serve to remind President Obama's constituency that "He's no Bill Clinton." Plus, Bill Clinton has never edited his views on President Obama's economic policies, so when the question comes up, you can be assured that Mr. Clinton will provide additional sound-bytes to be used by the opposition. Bill is not a very good second-fiddler.
I assume that it was not the Obama campaign that sought out Bill Clinton, but rather the other way around. It's an excellent opportunity for the Clinton team to marginalize through faint praise, and set the stage for Hillary's 2016 run. Like Superman, Bill swoops down to try and save a failed presidency. No matter wether he succeeds or fails, he sets the stage for Hillary.
Huh? Are you saying that President Obama doesn't care as much about Jobs, Social Security Security or Public Schools as Candidate Romney does?
Quote from: carltonplace on July 31, 2012, 10:35:05 AM
Huh? Are you saying that President Obama doesn't care as much about Jobs, Social Security Security or Public Schools as Candidate Romney does?
You're joking right? You're asking that question of Gas? :o
Quote from: Hoss on July 31, 2012, 10:36:16 AM
You're joking right? You're asking that question of Gas? :o
Right?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 09:41:53 AM
I don't think President Obama is an idiot. He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues. The problem with this is that without an economic engine, social movements do not move.
The idiots are the ones that believe believe him. You can sine up the car, polish the windows, and hang a pine-scented air freshener, but if you don't fix the engine, you're not going anywhere.
You're so strange when you make remarks like that. Assuming others motives and ascribing false history to support your assertions. Then demeaning those who don't fit your little screenplay.
Where exactly was the economic engine during the French Revolution? Tremendous social movement occurred even though the economy, similar to ours, was top loaded. Haves....everyone else.
Or, during our own Revolution when the economic engine was functioning pretty badly for us, but great for the British. Seems there was pretty awesome social movement.
Or, when the depression hit in 1929 and change began to sweep the country. Social Security, repeal of prohibition, NRA (the other one, national recovery act), Union growth, and scads of other social movement when the economic engine was shut down that you seem to have missed.
On the other hand, during the tremendous growth of the economy in the 1950s social movement was blunted. Status quo and conformity ruled. Once the economy stumbled, and Kennedy was elected social movement resumed. It flourished during the growth of the sixties primarily as a reaction to the repressive conservative regimes of the the 1950s. Perhaps that is where your history lessons started.
Quote from: Townsend on July 31, 2012, 09:46:15 AM
Conservatives aren't pushing for social change?
Social issues are always. . .issues, but they currently carry less weight than economic issues. The difference of opinion on social issues is vast, but both philosophies should understand that without jobs, and a vibrant and growing economy, social initiatives gain little traction, and in most cases actually suffer.
For instance, green energy is the president's #1 panacea for all ills. No one believes that renewable energy is a bad thing, but with 12% real unemployment, massive underemployment, and slow growth, the purchase of electric cars, and the very expensive investment in wind and solar cannot occur without a very high probability of failure. That failure in turn causes renewed stigma against additional investment in those technologies.
Until the economy is addressed, each social issue acted upon by the president will cause a negative net affect, because they can only be driven by debt, and in most cases result in failure.
Yes, conservatives have a social agenda. All political philosophies have a social component, but the presumed candidate, Romney, is not pushing social issues as primary issues. In fact, it upsets some Republicans that he seems detached from many of their pet social issues. His primary focus remains economic recovery and he proposes achieving that result through typical monetarist policy. In fact, he's proposing many of the same policies as Clinton, and Reagan. The simple approaches of lessing government burdens. Decreasing energy costs, and lifting trade barriers both foreign and domestic. Basically opening up the valves and allowing the engine to run.
QuoteFor instance, green energy is the president's #1 panacea for all ills.
How so?
QuoteIn fact, he's proposing many of the same policies as Clinton, and Reagan.
Which ones?
QuoteHis primary focus remains economic recovery and he proposes achieving that result through typical monetarist policy
Monetarist - "An economist who holds the strong belief that the economy's performance is determined almost entirely by changes in the money supply."
How's he wanting to change the money supply?
Quote from: Townsend on July 31, 2012, 12:04:00 PM
How so?
The stimulus focused significant spending in green energy. Sure, some of those deals were just to give kick-backs to donors, but some were legitimate and important investments in real wind, solar, and bio-fuel endeavors, but because he was unwilling to address the bigger economic problem first, most failed spectacularly. Since that time, with each speech, and each campaign appearance, the president has continued to push this agenda. I'm surprised you've missed his dedication to renewable energy. It's by far his strongest theme.
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Obama-Volt1.jpg)
Which ones?
The echo's are defining. A reduction in taxes, simplification of the tax code, loosening of trade regulations. Heck, about 1 year ago today, Bill Clinton himself made a desperate plea for the president to take up a more common sense economic policy and was basically b!tch-slaped by the administration for being so bold. Sure, he's a Democrat, and a liberal, but he knows that you don't raise taxes during contracted economic periods. It's sad too, because he was only trying to help the American people. http://roblorinov.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/clinton-proposes-recovery-plan-for-america/
Monetarist - "An economist who holds the strong belief that the economy's performance is determined almost entirely by changes in the money supply."
How's he wanting to change the money supply?
Ah, you've chosen a simple definition, and I appreciate that. For a more concise understanding you have to understand how the money supply can be changed or administrated, and the direction that Romney proposes is to stop the wild spending, and in turn the necessity for monitory expansion. While we continue to "ease" we only kick the can down the road, and avoid the job of actually fixing anything. It has become late in the game, but much of our debt is currently unspent, and we can at least partially reverse the path we are on. We can't continue to ignore the problem to focus on trivial issues. Perhaps "Reverse." would be a good theme for Romney?
[/size]
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 01:16:07 PM
You know, Gassy, you might show a little respect. For the first time since the early Reagan years we're not losing manufacturing jobs relative to total employment. Your idol didn't manage to do that. Neither did the guy you claim is swooping in to save Obama. Neither did the guy before that. The one before that managed it for 2 years out of his 8 year presidency. The ones before that, all the way back to WWII, presided over a declining manufacturing base. You can love right off with your lies and bullshit.
Come back when you have some actual facts to bring to bear rather than your inane speculation and retarded insinuations.
</trollfood>
Interesting response. I'll take that to heart. It seems you are having a off day, and I am sorry for that.
QuoteThe stimulus focused significant spending in green energy.
His Panacea?
QuoteA reduction in taxes, simplification of the tax code, loosening of trade regulations.
Reduction in some taxes, simplification of some codes, and loosening of some trade regs? I bet you could guess who those would favor.
QuoteAh, you've chosen a simple definition
Of course I have. It's the definition. The more you add meanings to a word the less it means what it originally did. Like adding pork to a jobs bill.
Wow, Gaspar. I didn't see the monetarist bit. It's pretty hard to be both Keynesian and monetarist, but apparently Obama has managed to figure it out. :o
And speaking of free trade, how's that working out for us?
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 02:46:04 PM
Wow, Gaspar. I didn't see the monetarist bit. It's pretty hard to be both Keynesian and monetarist, but apparently Obama has managed to figure it out. :o
And speaking of free trade, how's that working out for us?
Actually most economic policies are blended strategies.
I tend to fall on the Austrian/Monetarist side of the fence. Parts of each philosophy help to describe different challenges.
We've had the discussion of free trade and free markets before. I understand where you stand, and don't wish to open that can of hash again.
You write as if I have something against free trade. I don't. I have a problem with "free trade," like what we have with China.
You can't be both a Keynesian and a monetarist. You can be willing to use the tools of either camp. Keynesian economics largely discounts the effects of monetary policy. Monetarism almost completely discounts the effects of fiscal policy. Both are wrong when used rigidly. The first because it places too little emphasis on supply. The latter because it's even more rigid and pretends demand is a function of supply. (I think some folks took the phrase "supply and demand" too literally)
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 03:03:28 PM
You write as if I have something against free trade. I don't. I have a problem with "free trade," like what we have with China.
You can't be both a Keynesian and a monetarist. You can be willing to use the tools of either camp. Keynesian economics largely discounts the effects of monetary policy. Monetarism almost completely discounts the effects of fiscal policy. Both are wrong when used rigidly. The first because it places too little emphasis on supply. The latter because it's even more rigid and pretends demand is a function of supply. (I think some folks took the phrase "supply and demand" too literally)
Consumption, Investment & Government (spending) rule the Keynesian model. For the most part the theories are at odds, and the worst part of the Keynesian model is that it simply assumes that all economic downturns are caused by decrease in demand. It also ignores the aggregate effects of it's own tinkering as well as the psychological or human components in investing. The concept of "uncertainty" is absent to a Keynesian or at best infuriating. Where you are wrong is that Keynesian economics employs a good deal of Monetary tinkering or what the economist community calls "Monetary activism" as part of it's prescription for economic downturn (along with "Fiscal Activism"). It's consistent failure is in it's inability to predict the outcome of it's actions when employed as anything more than a diagnostic tool.
Additionally, I believe that the application of Keynes' prescription for economic downturn causes long term damage to a market because it creates artificial demand (bubbles) and then has no mechanism to recognize them. I guess this is because I admire the organic simplicity of the free market and see any intrusion, even if for noble purpose, to have random and unanticipated consequences. Within the framework of the free market, failure is as important as success. The concept of "too big to fail" is ridiculous because it offers no lessons to it's benefactors (or victims).
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
Consumption, Investment & Government (spending) rule the Keynesian model. For the most part the theories are at odds, and the worst part of the Keynesian model is that it simply assumes that all economic downturns are caused by decrease in demand. It also ignores the aggregate effects of it's own tinkering as well as the psychological or human components in investing. The concept of "uncertainty" is absent to a Keynesian or at best infuriating. Where you are wrong is that Keynesian economics employs a good deal of Monetary tinkering or what the economist community calls "Monetary activism" as part of it's prescription for economic downturn (along with "Fiscal Activism"). It's consistent failure is in it's inability to predict the outcome of it's actions when employed as anything more than a diagnostic tool.
Not only is the first bolded part wrong, but it is at odds with the second bolded part. The third bolded part applies more so to straight monetarist thinking, as evidenced by monetary policy's failure in all the major economies at this point in our present crisis. They got it right(ish) once in the 70s and 80s. They've been consistently wrong since, but somehow believe that the model is more real than reality. The failure is not surprising since the issue isn't too little money (although it is an issue, as cash hoarding acts like a decrease in the money supply), but too little demand. If this were not a demand driven stagnation, the massive increase in the monetary base would have had an effect on inflation. When all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Since 2009, almost all of the world's efforts have been focused on a monetarist solution, even here in this supposed hotbed of Keynesianism. (although that's due to Republican obstructionism, not any intentional policy). It has thus far proven to be a failure.
Quote
Additionally, I believe that the application of Keynes' prescription for economic downturn causes long term damage to a market because it creates artificial demand (bubbles) and then has no mechanism to recognize them. I guess this is because I admire the organic simplicity of the free market and see any intrusion, even if for noble purpose, to have random and unanticipated consequences.
I'm glad to know you would like to return to the pre-central banking era. I have a nice book on the Panic of 1907, it might give you some idea of what to expect in an economy with no outside intervention to keep the monetary base at an appropriate level and no appreciable fiscal stimulus to soften the downturns.
Quote
Within the framework of the free market, failure is as important as success. The concept of "too big to fail" is ridiculous because it offers no lessons to it's benefactors (or victims).
On this we agree. Shocking, I know. The banks should be broken up so one or more of them can fail without taking the entire economy with them. Jefferson and Roosevelt would approve.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 11:57:23 AM
No one believes that renewable energy is a bad thing, but with 12% real unemployment, massive underemployment, and slow growth, the purchase of electric cars, and the very expensive investment in wind and solar cannot occur without a very high probability of failure.
That failure in turn causes renewed stigma against additional investment in those technologies.
Except Republicans - they still believe it is a bad thing.
And alternative cars have failed? I guess that is just the Fox news spin for ya. Since Prius is number 3 in sales in the world... I would absolutely LOVE to have that kind of "failure". And I bet if you would tell the truth about it, you would too...wouldn't you like to be at least number 3 in sales in your industry worldwide??
And the expensive investment in wind and solar has already been made. It did NOT fail. And have become a very successful technology, not only here, but in much of the rest of the world. That non-failure is why solar is now THE solution of choice if compared to nukular. And is becoming very competitive with the other current choices. Geez....script kiddie against reality!
This is why you really just gotta get out more and start paying attention to what is going on in the real world. Get out of the mushroom farm once in a while!!
One of the things we should be doing RIGHT NOW is to sell a trillion dollars worth of treasuries earmarked for infrastructure improvements in this country - EVERYTHING from fixing the interstates, to rail, to ports/harbors, to water/sewer. Spend it over the next 5 or 10 years doing ALL the things that we have ignored for the last 50 years. It would literally send GOOD tremors through our economy!!
The reason is that we will likely never have the low interest costs that we have today. Plus the fact that we need it badly. When you can get loans for under 1% and the real inflation rate is 3%, then you have the situation where you are actually "charging" someone to get them to loan you money!! What insanity is it that makes Congress NOT understand this and make this happen before now?? (Rhetorical - I know the answer.)
And if the banks were worth $1.25 trillion in bailouts, building the infrastructure back in this country is worth more than 10 times that....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 31, 2012, 04:24:54 PM
Except Republicans - they still believe it is a bad thing.
And alternative cars have failed? I guess that is just the Fox news spin for ya. Since Prius is number 3 in sales in the world... I would absolutely LOVE to have that kind of "failure". And I bet if you would tell the truth about it, you would too...wouldn't you like to be at least number 3 in sales in your industry worldwide??
And the expensive investment in wind and solar has already been made. It did NOT fail. And have become a very successful technology, not only here, but in much of the rest of the world. That non-failure is why solar is now THE solution of choice if compared to nukular. And is becoming very competitive with the other current choices. Geez....script kiddie against reality!
This is why you really just gotta get out more and start paying attention to what is going on in the real world. Get out of the mushroom farm once in a while!!
That's odd. According to Forbes.
Corolla 1.2mil
Elantra 1.1mil
Sunshine (Chinese) 943K
Focus 919K
Rio 815k
Fiesta 781K
Jetta 745K
Camry 726K
Cruze 691K
Prius didn't make the list, but according to the numbers I can find they are somewhere between 200K and 400K.
As for your convulsions about solar power and wind, as I said before, they are very important technologies, but OUR investment in them has not been successful. Many of OUR wind and solar companies have ceased to exist as a result of investment in a recession and the vulnerability that causes for them to compete in an international market.
Perhaps you were simply mistaken.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 04:46:00 PM
Many of OUR wind and solar companies have ceased to exist as a result of investment in a recession and the vulnerability that causes for them to compete in an international market.
I don't know about failed wind companies, but in general our issues with solar have more to do with Chinese dumping than anything else. There's a reason why there's now a tariff on panels imported from China. (Yet strangely not on panels imported from elsewhere, if you believe it's solely protectionism)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 04:46:00 PM
That's odd. According to Forbes.
Corolla 1.2mil
Elantra 1.1mil
Sunshine (Chinese) 943K
Focus 919K
Rio 815k
Fiesta 781K
Jetta 745K
Camry 726K
Cruze 691K
Prius didn't make the list, but according to the numbers I can find they are somewhere between 200K and 400K.
As for your convulsions about solar power and wind, as I said before, they are very important technologies, but OUR investment in them has not been successful. Many of OUR wind and solar companies have ceased to exist as a result of investment in a recession and the vulnerability that causes for them to compete in an international market.
Perhaps you were simply mistaken.
Number 3 in US (this is latest quarter) - 247,000.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/05/30/toyotas-prius-glides-into-top-3-of-global-sales.html
Globally for this year...
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/toyota-prius-ranked-worlds-third-best-selling-car-so-far-this-year.html
OUR investment in wind and solar was made 40 years ago - proof of concept stuff. And then when you know who (big oil) got wind (<-pun alert) of it, suddenly Reagan had the solar cells removed from the White House, setting the tone for US "commercialization" efforts. And that, kiddie's, is why we are buying all the main components from other countries and they are making good money on a stable, proven technology that is part of an almost mature market. (Goes hand in hand with the whole concept of "outsourcing" - as in outsource our success to China....)
So, yes, our investment was very successful, as far as it went. We just had to give up too soon, so the "economic stability" of the oil industry would not be disturbed.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 31, 2012, 05:03:35 PM
Number 3 in US (this is latest quarter) - 247,000.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/05/30/toyotas-prius-glides-into-top-3-of-global-sales.html
Globally for this year...
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/toyota-prius-ranked-worlds-third-best-selling-car-so-far-this-year.html
Hey look...linky's
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 31, 2012, 05:03:35 PM
We just had to give up too soon, so the "economic stability" of the oil industry would not be disturbed.
"It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 31, 2012, 05:03:35 PM
Number 3 in US (this is latest quarter) - 247,000.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/05/30/toyotas-prius-glides-into-top-3-of-global-sales.html
Globally for this year...
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/toyota-prius-ranked-worlds-third-best-selling-car-so-far-this-year.html
OUR investment in wind and solar was made 40 years ago - proof of concept stuff. And then when you know who (big oil) got wind (<-pun alert) of it, suddenly Reagan had the solar cells removed from the White House, setting the tone for US "commercialization" efforts. And that, kiddie's, is why we are buying all the main components from other countries and they are making good money on a stable, proven technology that is part of an almost mature market. (Goes hand in hand with the whole concept of "outsourcing" - as in outsource our success to China....)
So, yes, our investment was very successful, as far as it went. We just had to give up too soon, so the "economic stability" of the oil industry would not be disturbed.
I'll concede to that. Looks like Prius is having an excellent quarter. I was reviewing the rankings from 2011 total for the year, because there are no complete numbers for 2012 yet.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2011/12/25/the-worlds-most-popular-cars-are-changing/
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkk45ekfi/ford-fiesta-in-shanghai-by-night/#gallerycontent
Be aware that your article states, the sales increases of Prius is is mostly fueled by the increase in demand in Japan, not the US with 175,080 of the 247,230 units sold to that market alone fueled by rebates. This has caused Japanese sales numbers to triple since last year.
It seems that in both the US and Japanese market the these cars fit an important niche, but without rebates and incentives, they do not perform as well as conventional vehicles. Government market manipulation has caused an increase in demand for these vehicles.
I will concede that government (mostly in Japan) investment in tax and rebate programs has increased the sales of these vehicles. You are correct.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 01, 2012, 07:49:59 AM
It seems that in both the US and Japanese market the these cars fit an important niche, but without rebates and incentives, they do not perform as well as conventional vehicles. Government market manipulation has caused an increase in demand for these vehicles.
I will concede that government (mostly in Japan) investment in tax and rebate programs has increased the sales of these vehicles. You are correct.
The US tax credits ended October 1, 2007. That's 5 years ago. Toyota is currently selling at about a 250,000 per year rate here in the US. Without tax credits - an increase every year since it was introduced. So actual government manipulation in the US has not been a factor in any way for an eternity in the automotive world.
I have a close relative who has two Prius' and is rabid in their advocacy. And another who has had a string of Camry's and Corolla's and just traded about a year ago for a Prius (Likes all 3 models). Cost comparison between the Prius and Corolla (most similar) show that the Prius will never catch up to a similar Corolla in terms of cost per mile over 100,000 miles. And if you take it out to 250,000 miles, with a warranty replacement of batteries in the Prius, they seem to come very close, but no compelling reason to buy a Prius over a similar Corolla, except the 'political' reasons. But if you have to BUY a set of batteries (have heard estimates of $1,800 to 4,000 - who knows...??) then the Prius lags again.
Look and feel?? Well, that is why some people buy BMW and some buy a pickup truck. The Prius is so close to the Corolla in both areas that I can't really differentiate between them - they feel the same to me, except for some engine noise (very low in Corolla) and like all cars today, they look like a variation on the jelly bean.
But then, I wouldn't waste the money on a Lexus, BMW, or Cadillac, either.
I love the ride in my Cadillac.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 01, 2012, 09:32:03 AM
I love the ride in my Cadillac.
Want a '99 DeVille?? Reasonable. Very small anti-freeze leak. (People familiar with NorthStar carp engines will know what that means.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 09:24:56 AM
The US tax credits ended October 1, 2007. That's 5 years ago. Toyota is currently selling at about a 250,000 per year rate here in the US. Without tax credits - an increase every year since it was introduced. So actual government manipulation in the US has not been a factor in any way for an eternity in the automotive world.
I have a close relative who has two Prius' and is rabid in their advocacy. And another who has had a string of Camry's and Corolla's and just traded about a year ago for a Prius (Likes all 3 models). Cost comparison between the Prius and Corolla (most similar) show that the Prius will never catch up to a similar Corolla in terms of cost per mile over 100,000 miles. And if you take it out to 250,000 miles, with a warranty replacement of batteries in the Prius, they seem to come very close, but no compelling reason to buy a Prius over a similar Corolla, except the 'political' reasons. But if you have to BUY a set of batteries (have heard estimates of $1,800 to 4,000 - who knows...??) then the Prius lags again.
Look and feel?? Well, that is why some people buy BMW and some buy a pickup truck. The Prius is so close to the Corolla in both areas that I can't really differentiate between them - they feel the same to me, except for some engine noise (very low in Corolla) and like all cars today, they look like a variation on the jelly bean.
But then, I wouldn't waste the money on a Lexus, BMW, or Cadillac, either.
Picture I snapped in Pueblo last year
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/NotCheap.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2012, 11:02:24 AM
Picture I snapped in Pueblo last year
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/NotCheap.jpg)
Haven't done the math lately. How long do you have to drive one now to make up for the additional cost compared to a typical Honda CR-V, Scion, or a VW Jetta?
Corolla gets about 31 to 34 mpg (that's what I get driving one). Prius I am told gets 42 by one owner and 40 to 42 by the other. So, let's say 10 mpg better. At $3.50 per gallon, that's about 0.10 cents per mile for Corolla. And 0.083 cents per mile for Prius. Saves 3.47 cents per mile.
Cost is about 13,000 more for Prius ($29,000 versus $16,000) as numbers they have both given me based on their purchases. I calculate 374,639 to break even - not even getting ahead...
Who (other than me) keeps a vehicle to 200,000 miles let alone 374,000??? Suppose you do go to 200,000 - then the extra 174,000 is the extra cost for Prius, or $6037 more to own the Prius just on equipment plus fuel cost for that life. (I have no valid info about maintenance, but the tires, batteries, etc should not be much different between the two.)
As contrast, my old diesel pickup - $9,000 to buy, 250,000 miles of ownership by me (bought used, of course).
The truck cost has been 0.036 cents per mile. Added fuel cost for 200,000 miles - to keep it similar to cars - 0.1875 cents per mile, or about 10 cents per mile more than Corolla. Or about $20,000 more than driving a Corolla in 200k miles. Subtract the difference in cost (16,000 versus 9,000) and it cost me about 13,000 more to drive the truck. And now, I still have an engine that is good for about another 300,000+ miles (there are almost 300,000 miles on it now), and I don't have to spend another $16,000 for each 200,000 miles, so total, I am likely to SAVE about $19,000 over the life of one truck versus the lives of 3 Corollas. And it is much higher savings if buying Prius - around $35,000. Yeah, the instantaneous thrill of putting $100 of fuel in the tank each time I fill up can be exciting, but the I look at the long term and would rather keep that extra $19k...or $35k...!!
That bumper sticker is propaganda and sounds nice, but when one actually does the numbers, it just doesn't work. And yes, the Corolla and Prius can both be bought used, like I did with the truck, but the results may actually get worse, 'cause the resale is so high for a car with even as much as 100k miles, there is gonna be a "squeeze" effect on price versus miles achieved before replacement is done.
Plus, I can tow a ton of weight - about 6 tons actually - and hook up to my 'home' and go visit anywhere in the continental US I decide to go, and have "my stuff" with me all the time. And no, I don't help anyone move!
Good reason for me to buy another one of those trucks for SWMBO to drive.
That's a good analysis but it ignores the more practical aspects for most city drivers. Things like parking your dually(?) diesel in a hospital parking garage and backing up the line while doing so. Things like skidding around on slick streets unless you're 4wd or loaded up with weight in the back. Things like taking friends out for a night on the town or travelling to OKC for a family visit. Or pulling up for a job interview.
Then consider that the rest of the vehicle does not age as well as the power plant in those trucks. The upholstery, accessories, plastics all tend to be designed for a lot less than the 300,000 miles the engine lasts. Transmission work is quite costly too.
IOW, for your lifestyle you may find it perfectly suitable and certainly more economical. But cosmetically, aesthetically and for use in everyday tasks it may seem overkill for most city dwellers. I don't blame anyone for desiring the quiet acceleration, the novelty and the "look at me" qualities of a Prius. I also prefer the Corolla or Camry but different strokes.
To only use the economic determinants in buying transportation would probably put us all in diesel vehicles and seriously depress auto dealerships.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 01, 2012, 01:30:35 PM
don't blame anyone for desiring the quiet acceleration, the novelty and the "look at me" qualities of a Prius. I also prefer the Corolla or Camry but different strokes.
.
Insert South Park reference.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 01:10:56 PM
Corolla gets about 31 to 34 mpg (that's what I get driving one). Prius I am told gets 42 by one owner and 40 to 42 by the other. So, let's say 10 mpg better. At $3.50 per gallon, that's about 0.10 cents per mile for Corolla. And 0.083 cents per mile for Prius. Saves 3.47 cents per mile.
Your methodology is correct, but your numbers are flawed.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31767&id=32181
The 2012 Toyota Prius Hybrid is rated 51 MPG city. The 2012 Toyota Corolla is rated 26 MPG.
The difference is 25 MPG. According to the website, the annual fuel cost for the Prius is $1,050 and for the Corolla is $1,800. That is $750 a year or around $15 a week.
At Jim Norton Toyota, the Prius sells for $25,000 and the Corolla sells for $18,000.
$7,000 difference and the savings are $7,500.
The Corolla is the better deal on paper unless keep the car for 9+ years. Resell value is not part of this formula.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 01, 2012, 01:30:35 PM
That's a good analysis but it ignores the more practical aspects for most city drivers. Things like parking your dually(?) diesel in a hospital parking garage and backing up the line while doing so. Things like skidding around on slick streets unless you're 4wd or loaded up with weight in the back. Things like taking friends out for a night on the town or travelling to OKC for a family visit. Or pulling up for a job interview.
Then consider that the rest of the vehicle does not age as well as the power plant in those trucks. The upholstery, accessories, plastics all tend to be designed for a lot less than the 300,000 miles the engine lasts. Transmission work is quite costly too.
IOW, for your lifestyle you may find it perfectly suitable and certainly more economical. But cosmetically, aesthetically and for use in everyday tasks it may seem overkill for most city dwellers. I don't blame anyone for desiring the quiet acceleration, the novelty and the "look at me" qualities of a Prius. I also prefer the Corolla or Camry but different strokes.
To only use the economic determinants in buying transportation would probably put us all in diesel vehicles and seriously depress auto dealerships.
Non-dually - no reason to have it, other than a very slight increase in stability in high wind conditions. And it decreases the actual traction available at the road contact point for the back axle. (Twice the tire surface area means half the friction). I always back into parking places, even when driving the car - always best way to park. Can get tight. 7,000 lbs split equally front to rear means I skid less than a car - more pounds pressure per square inch on each tire than my car (or a Corolla).
Friends get to ride in back seat - kind of like getting into a two door coupe, but with more room. Job interview? Well, if they don't like what I drive - you know what they can do...
Transmission was done about 50,000 miles ago - it's Dodge, so what can ya say - but this was done well, and I expect it to go for the duration at this point. Transmission Clinics in Broken Arrow did the work. Excellent. Blumenthal's in OKC is also exceptional. I should get at least 600,000 miles on the engine before rebuild. Then let Blumenthals at it, and it would be good for another half million...
Rest of car is Dodge, so yeah, trim stuff is normal Big 3 Detroit carp. And as it ages, it gets harder to find the parts, since they are idiots. I feel about them a whole lot like I feel about Whirlpool (from previous posts). When I have to buy a part, I buy two - or 3 if they are cheap. Takes some planning and forethought to keep Detroit carp going these days. Example - right now, am looking for a radio speaker that is obsolete, and the hole it fits in doesn't quite match the aftermarket speakers available. Which gives me a project to fit it in that I don't really need now.
Cosmetically, when the paint gets bad enough, I will spend the money to repaint. Given the current condition, that will be about another 5 to 7 years. One comment about maintenance - over my entire life of car ownership, I have always mentally "allocated" about $100 per month to maintenance - oil, filters, tires, transmissions, front end replacement, engine rebuild, etc. And never in 45 years or so have I averaged even close to that - haven't calculated exactly, but would be surprised if it is much over $60 a month. Transmission example - $2,000 to rebuild - have driven almost 2 years on it now, so $100 per month is about "expired". Since I will get another 250,000 miles or more on it, that covers the next 10 years at $0 per month. So, the tranny really is costing about - 120 months (next 10 yr) plus last 24 or 144 months - $13.88 per month. Tires are the biggest expense - they run probably $25 per month, since I use a pretty good tire (Michelin LTX - 70,000 mile)
New car payment is what - about $500 per month?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 01, 2012, 01:36:22 PM
Your methodology is correct, but your numbers are flawed.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31767&id=32181
The 2012 Toyota Prius Hybrid is rated 51 MPG city. The 2012 Toyota Corolla is rated 26 MPG.
The difference is 25 MPG. According to the website, the annual fuel cost for the Prius is $1,050 and for the Corolla is $1,800. That is $750 a year or around $15 a week.
At Jim Norton Toyota, the Prius sells for $25,000 and the Corolla sells for $18,000.
$7,000 difference and the savings are $7,500.
The Corolla is the better deal on paper unless keep the car for 9+ years. Resell value is not part of this formula.
Ratings are a bunch of smoke and mirrors, so I just use what the family has paid for the cars they own - 2007, 2008 and 2011 Prius' (somewhat dependent on trim levels, too I suspect), and I accept the Prius mileage one of those people told me about, since she drives about like I do. And I get 30 to 32 driving a Corolla (calculated over about 12,000 miles total driving on 3 different Corollas.)
I keep hearing others I talk to who own Prius about how they get much better than the government guesstimates, but I don't believe them any more than I believe the 51 mpg rating. And the 2010 Corolla got much better than 26 when I drove it - 30 to 32. Also, I rented a Camry 4 cyl for a week back in the spring and was astonished when I got 30 mpg on that thing! The Camry's the family had before were V6 and the best I could ever do with that was about 23! They are just too uncomfortable for me to sit in. Contrast to the Chevy Impala 2011 I rented - even MORE uncomfortable somehow - and city was around 18 mpg. Highway I could get 22 to 23. Rating estimates say town should be worse, but highway better. Go figure....
None of these people have kept a car more than about 4 - 5 years in their life (except for the one who still has his 71 Honda Civic), so don't know about the end game of driving it forever....I would expect to get 250 to 300k miles on a Corolla if I were driving it.
I can tell you from experience that the cars I've driven (and the one my SO owns) with the Toyota V6 consume almost precisely the amount of fuel the EPA says they should. I don't remember the Camry doing over about 26 in town with the 4 cylinder, but it's been a couple of years since I've driven one. By contrast, the Lincoln MKZ with the V6 (not sure if it was a 3.0 or 3.5, whatever they put in the 2012) got about 19mpg combined while I had it for about 16 hours.
I vaguely remember the 4 cylinder 2012 RAV4 got around 27 combined when I borrowed one from Jim Norton for a few days earlier this year.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/406371_10151062055128058_18323544_n.jpg)
I drove a 2008 Corolla about 30,000 miles one year doing lab deliveries. I drove it hard in a combination of city and highway driving. It routinely got 28-30mpg no matter how hard I drove or how much the anemic little air conditioner had to work.
People just loved to see me coming and often waved their crooked little fingers at me.
I see someone's been hitting the sauce a little heavy today.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 01, 2012, 01:30:35 PM
To only use the economic determinants in buying transportation would probably put us all in diesel vehicles and seriously depress auto dealerships.
Diesel cars are available. I believe VW has at least one but I don't know the price. There are also BMW, Mercedes, and probably Audi but their initial price would not fit the examples being discussed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 01, 2012, 07:05:40 PM
Diesel cars are available. I believe VW has at least one but I don't know the price. There are also BMW, Mercedes, and probably Audi but their initial price would not fit the examples being discussed.
A little over a decade ago when I was looking at a diesel Jetta the the mid-range model was going for about $25,000. They quit selling them in 2002 or so. I believe they restarted production of the Diesel Jetta in 2009 or 2010.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2012, 06:18:12 PM
I see someone's been hitting the sauce a little heavy today.
Okay, a little rum and coke. But just enough to clear my head.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 01, 2012, 07:42:50 PM
Okay, a little rum and coke. But just enough to clear my head.
I'd tell you to look up, but nobody should have to see that.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 01, 2012, 07:42:50 PM
Okay, a little rum and coke.
OK, that explains:
QuoteI like to think I am one of the logical liberals
I'll be so happy when the political season is over. So we can get back to whatever it was we found so compelling before the political season.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 01, 2012, 08:27:17 PM
I'll be so happy when the political season is over. So we can get back to whatever it was we found so compelling before the political season.
If I remember correctly, I think it was "Marshalls"....
VW is not that great in the diesel world. They are having some chronic electrical problems in Beetle, and the Jetta is horrendous to ride any length of time (another week long rental).
I am ready to buy when Subaru starts bringing their diesel. Or Toyota. Have an ex family member who spent quite a bit of time driving Toyota diesel in southeast Asia and he had excellent results. Mercedes is ok, but who wants to put that kind of money on a public street?? Insane.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 08:58:59 PM
Mercedes is ok, but who wants to put that kind of money on a public street?? Insane.
Avis and Hertz. ;)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 08:58:59 PM
...and the Jetta is horrendous to ride any length of time (another week long rental).
Just curious, uncomfortable seat or what? I rented and rode in some Chrysler products of the late 90s and early 00s that destroyed my back in less than an hour. I had to put my jacket (fortunately it was winter) between the small of my back and the seat after only about 1/2 hr in (I think it was) a Sebring. The car drove OK but the seat killed me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 01, 2012, 09:04:49 PM
Just curious, uncomfortable seat or what? I rented and rode in some Chrysler products of the late 90s and early 00s that destroyed my back in less than an hour. I had to put my jacket (fortunately it was winter) between the small of my back and the seat after only about 1/2 hr in (I think it was) a Sebring. The car drove OK but the seat killed me.
The seat was uncomfortable. The seat position is wrong for me. The front edge of the seat is too far "up" at the front for the relative position front to back. The seat has those little "wings" on each side that hold you in place so you can drive like a race car driver...I hate that because it limits the sideways movement. Don't really like the console going through the middle of the seats. The foam used in recent years is a trade off between durability and comfort, and they lost on that deal.
Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey are both pretty decent, while the Kia Sedona would be my preferred minivan - I liked it a lot - with a decent seat, which it doesn't have. Chevy Minivan - meh... other, much larger problems than just seating.
Ford Fusion was a very pleasant surprise to drive. Subaru Legacy in the past was the most comfortable small car I have driven, but that was about 8 years ago. Don't know how they are now.
Old VW beetle was good, in spite of the suspension limitations (maybe I just liked not having to clutch after first gear...?) and the new Beetle is pretty weak, like so many of the new tiny cars.
When I talk ride, it is almost never about the stiffness of the suspension...I drive a Dodge Ram - almost as good as a deuce and a half for suspension. Don't mind the log truck aspect of the ride - but the seat must be comfortable. I tend to put a lot of miles on vehicles I drive and if I am gonna drive from here to Seattle (or Poland Spring, Maine), I want to be able to walk after the trip without a short hospital stay.
Air ride in a big truck is sweet! Want that in the Dodge, or the Toyotas. But not likely to happen.
I think this guy has taken Obama out of context again... ::)
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/gaster.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 02, 2012, 01:00:34 PM
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/gaster.jpg)
QuoteI want to use this sign to urge other businesspeople to stand up and say 'Mr. President, you're wrong. I built my business,'" he told FoxNews.com. "I represent the majority of business owners in my belief."
I wonder who represents the other business owners in his belief.
Quote from: Townsend on August 02, 2012, 01:04:34 PM
I wonder who represents the other business owners in his belief.
Hmm...only one or two letters difference...let me see....
Quote from: guido911 on August 02, 2012, 01:00:34 PM
I think this guy has taken Obama out of context again... ::)
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/gaster.jpg)
B, buh, but... He built that business right on a public thoroughfare that the government paid for
with tax dollars paid by businesses and individuals
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 01:40:14 PM
with tax dollars paid by businesses and individuals
Wasn't that the point?
Quote from: Townsend on August 02, 2012, 01:04:34 PM
I wonder who represents the other business owners in his belief.
I share that same belief, and I have more solid ground. I do fairly well working from the guest room in my house.
Quote from: Townsend on August 02, 2012, 01:46:07 PM
Wasn't that the point?
No, the government would like you to believe those dollars came from their benevolent fund.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 01:58:33 PM
No, the government would like you to believe those dollars came from their benevolent fund.
The whole government? Well Inhofe can jump and go spank himself for that reason too.
Quote from: Townsend on August 02, 2012, 02:13:07 PM
Well Inhofe can jump and go spank himself for that reason too.
Okay, that's conjuring really uncomfortable leather man images. Must be my intolerance for teh gheys.
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120520185040/southpark/images/a/a6/Big_Gay_Al.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 02:33:20 PM
Okay, that's conjuring really uncomfortable leather man images. Must be my intolerance for teh gheys.
It's Inhofe fantasy.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HuegrK2s-SA/SqBZ7qqKkkI/AAAAAAAABiI/cpn6i1l1pHE/s400/Inhofe_Stupid.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 02, 2012, 01:00:34 PM
I think this guy has taken Obama out of context again... ::)
I'm not surprised. If everyone you talk to says Obama said this thing, you'd probably believe it even if he didn't actually say that. Oh wait, you do!
What Ray Gaster doesn't get is that Wal-Mart, Cabela's and Bass Pro did not build their business without government help. They get lots of government help in redistributing the costs of government onto people like Ray. So yeah, I understand why he's upset, but he's mad at the sideshow keeping him distracted from the reality of redistribution in this country, not what's actually happening.
BTW guido, have you seen the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Romney's tax proposals? Looks like you get to take it in the shorts with the rest of us poor schlubs this time around. Sorry.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2012, 03:11:01 PM
have you seen the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Romney's tax proposals? Looks like you get to take it in the shorts with the rest of us poor schlubs this time around. Sorry.
You see how the GOP has done an about face? They supported TPC until this and are now are saying they lean towards Obama.
Quote from: Townsend on August 02, 2012, 03:20:28 PM
You see how the GOP has done an about face? They supported TPC until this and are now are saying they lean towards Obama.
Not really any different than the AGW skeptic who managed to convince himself through actual science(!) that the temperature record is in fact correct who suddenly was never a "real" skeptic. If someone doesn't agree with the conservative point of view it's because they're a godless liberal, never because they looked at the facts and came to an unfavorable conclusion.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 02:33:20 PM
Okay, that's conjuring really uncomfortable leather man images. Must be my intolerance for teh gheys.
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120520185040/southpark/images/a/a6/Big_Gay_Al.jpg)
That does it. You get to spend five hours at Chick Fil-A tomorrow mister. Not sure if the leather or self-spanking will be going on, but we can hope!!!!
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 01:40:14 PM
B, buh, but... He built that business right on a public thoroughfare that the government paid for with tax dollars paid by businesses and individuals
Nah, he's off to the side of the thoroughfare.
(http://campaigntrailreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rnc-cake.jpeg)
And BB probably didn't make that. ;)
I'll keep the party going:
(http://i.imgur.com/4GD4T.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on August 06, 2012, 10:04:26 AM
I'll keep the party going:
(http://i.imgur.com/4GD4T.jpg)
The liberal view of the world.
By the grace of Government all blessings flow.We choose to see things in a very different way.
Government is a product of the people, it is not the other way around.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7261/7726795648_abb842d14a_o.jpg)
The true test will be, can we teach our children to see things as Mr. Gaster here does, or are they too be doomed to a world where they believe that their providence is government issued?
Townsend, do you dream to someday build something of your own, or do you intend to sit around and see what others have in store for you?
Mr. Gaster had to take risk, and make sacrifices. He probably failed once or twice. Perhaps he's failing now? He could probably blame his failures on other people, perhaps he could blame the government? Perhaps he could blame the competition, or the weather, or the economy? He could blame the crisis in Europe, or he could even blame his customers. Chances are though, that Mr. Gaster probably takes as much responsibility for his successes as he does for his failures, and he uses both to better HIMSELF and his business. The government is not doing his purchasing, or inventory, or sales. They are not managing his payroll, or the constant maintenance on his equipment or building, and Mr. Gaster is not waiting for them to.
QuoteTownsend, do you dream to someday build something of your own, or do you intend to sit around and see what others have in store for you?
I don't live in a dream world and think that everything happens due to only things I accomplish.
QuoteMr. Gaster had to take risk, and make sacrifices. He probably failed once or twice. Perhaps he's failing now? He could probably blame his failures on other people, perhaps he could blame the government? Perhaps he could blame the competition, or the weather, or the economy? He could blame the crisis in Europe, or he could even blame his customers. Chances are though, that Mr. Gaster probably takes as much responsibility for his successes as he does for his failures, and he uses both to better HIMSELF and his business. The government is not doing his purchasing, or inventory, or sales. They are not managing his payroll, or the constant maintenance on his equipment or building, and Mr. Gaster is not waiting for them to.
How do you know any of that?
Take the blinders off Gas. Its both government and private enterprise that get things done. Nature and nurture. When you believe that its one or the other its just stupid. Speaking of stupid, I know of no liberals who think government alone creates business. I do however know many conservatives who think government has little or no role in prospering businesses.
I just spent three days of training with people who think like you. It was humorous because I could step back and listen to their insanity without having to carry the load it creates. They were primarily engineers, technicians and small town/rural citizens. They ranted some. Climate change, frack drilling, housing shortages, etc. Not so much educated in these areas as they were informed and indoctrinated. Oil companies do that to you.
For example, one presumed to be an expert on global warning because she had "done some research" on the topic. Its all natural stuff to her. Nothing to be concerned about. Another said he didn't care about earthquakes from fracking because to stop it would cost 345,000 jobs overnight.
So anyway, unless you can just make up your side of the discussion a la Gaspar, reason holds that you succeed with hard work and using resources made available to you by others.
A successful person, in the United States, is not an island.
Quote from: Townsend on August 06, 2012, 01:19:45 PM
So anyway, unless you can just make up your side of the discussion a la Gaspar, reason holds that you succeed with hard work and using resources made available to you by others.
A successful person, in the United States, is not an island.
A successful person is never an island, unless he lives on an island, however the sacrifices, hard work, investment, initiative, innovation, and ingenuity of that individual far outweigh (by factors of magnitude) the role the GOV plays in their endeavors. Furthermore, it is the DUTY of our leaders to recognize the contributions of the individual. The absence of this is tyranny.
When a government attempts to inject itself into the success of a free citizen, is when the slow slouch towards tyranny is most visible. It is expected from low-level government officials who wish to feel somehow more empowered by laying claim to the industries they regulate or the individuals they police, but not from a president, who should be the representative of American ideals. It's just shameful, disrespectful, and serves no one. It is government attempting to defeat the very instrument of it's creation, the people.
When freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the source of the natural improvement of the human condition. – Brian S. Wesbury
Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock
People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. – Joseph Sobran
No communication happening here Townsend. Just a valve from some obscure dogma pipeline opening and closing randomly.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 01:59:46 PM
No communication happening here Townsend. Just a valve from some obscure dogma pipeline opening and closing randomly.
I've recognized the issue.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 01:59:46 PM
No communication happening here Townsend. Just a valve from some obscure dogma pipeline opening and closing randomly.
Sorry if my words are blasphemy to you. Just trying to disinfect. Not that I expect it to work. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 02:07:08 PM
Sorry if my words are blasphemy to you. Just trying to disinfect. (deflect and distract) Not that I expect it to work. ;)
Gassious, pathetic ad ....Fred Davis?
Novel idea for Gaspar...and anyone else who wants to play...start with the actual text and context of what Obama said instead of the RWRE stillbirth from Murdoch and Company...
Quote;
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
This that's wrong, huh? Well, so much for reality in RW world....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 10, 2012, 09:07:00 PM
Novel idea for Gaspar...and anyone else who wants to play...start with the actual text and context of what Obama said instead of the RWRE stillbirth from Murdoch and Company...
Quote;
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
I looked around several grammar sites for proper use of pronouns. Relative pronouns (such as "that") are used to tie phrases and clauses together. I didn't see any examples of relative pronouns crossing to another sentence. The antecedent for the relative pronoun "that" (in "you didn't build that") really should be in the same sentence.
President Obama is a lawyer. I have always thought that lawyers were trained to use language clearly, or at least to their benefit. That is obviously not the case here. (Intentional ambiguity.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 10, 2012, 11:30:51 PM
I looked around several grammar sites for proper use of pronouns. Relative pronouns (such as "that") are used to tie phrases and clauses together. I didn't see any examples of relative pronouns crossing to another sentence. The antecedent for the relative pronoun "that" (in "you didn't build that") really should be in the same sentence.
President Obama is a lawyer. I have always thought that lawyers were trained to use language clearly, or at least to their benefit. That is obviously not the case here. (Intentional ambiguity.)
He misspoke.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:47:29 AM
He misspoke.
In other words, he said what he really thought.
I've read what he actually said in context, and it really doesn't make me feel all that much better about it.
Quote from: erfalf on September 11, 2012, 08:00:06 AM
In other words, he said what he really thought.
I've read what he actually said in context, and it really doesn't make me feel all that much better about it.
Kinda like the way RMoney likes 'to fire people'?
Quote from: Hoss on September 11, 2012, 08:15:18 AM
Kinda like the way RMoney likes 'to fire people'?
Yep ::)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jan/11/context-does-mitt-romney-firing-people/
Quote from: Hoss on September 11, 2012, 08:15:18 AM
Kinda like the way RMoney likes 'to fire people'?
He likes to lick their sweet sweet tears from their cheeks. It keeps his hair swooped real nice.
Quote from: Townsend on September 11, 2012, 08:44:19 AM
He likes to lick their sweet sweet tears from their cheeks. It keeps his hair swooped real nice.
Very nice.
Quote from: erfalf on September 11, 2012, 08:24:48 AM
Yep ::)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jan/11/context-does-mitt-romney-firing-people/
Out-of-context quotes can be a grumble, eh?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 10, 2012, 11:30:51 PM
I looked around several grammar sites for proper use of pronouns. Relative pronouns (such as "that") are used to tie phrases and clauses together. I didn't see any examples of relative pronouns crossing to another sentence. The antecedent for the relative pronoun "that" (in "you didn't build that") really should be in the same sentence.
President Obama is a lawyer. I have always thought that lawyers were trained to use language clearly, or at least to their benefit. That is obviously not the case here. (Intentional ambiguity.)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
When did POTUS Obama start taking his talking points from crazy Uncle Joe?
Ol' Uncle Joe at it again.
Quote"Everyone knows, everyone in this room knows that President Obama has increased the benefits available to people on Medicare by the action he took," Biden said. "You are now able to go get a wellness exam, and guys, if you conclude you need a colonoscopy because of the feeling you had or you need a breast health examination, you don't have to pay a co-pay for that."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-promotes-free-colonoscopies-to-seniors-in-florida/article/2509330#.UGY2_FF42So
That "feeling" I am having is largely from hearing Mr. High IQ running his mouth again. But I guess coming from a guy who's head is up his @ss so long we should expect he knows a thing or two about colons...