Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xFPzVp3MvFg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Out of context, yes. However if you read the full text of the speech, it doesn't do much to improve the arrogance of the sound bite. I get it - businesses benefit from things like education and infrastructure. However, to totally discredit the intelligent businesspeople out there with that line is downright insulting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...build_that_someone_else_made_that_happen.html

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. (Applause.)

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.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xFPzVp3MvFg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Out of context, yes. However if you read the full text of the speech, it doesn't do much to improve the arrogance of the sound bite.

Ouch! I'd call it ill-advised to run off to the left of the Socialist Party vote at this point in the game. Smarten up, Barry.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...build_that_someone_else_made_that_happen.html

.

Mountain out of a molehill.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Sorry, but I voted for Obama in 2008, and that line disgusts me. My dad built a non-profit company of group homes for developmentally disabled adults, he fought many ignorant, bigoted people in the early-to-mid 80s over the issue of deinstitutionalization, and in the last decade has battled deep cuts to state mental health budgets keep his business afloat. To brush away all of that with a broad stroke of the brush as the President did, and effectively say that all businesspeople are just lucky to have government support and never made difficult decisions on their own, is total bullshit.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Sorry, but I voted for Obama in 2008, and that line disgusts me. My dad built a non-profit company of group homes for developmentally disabled adults, he fought many ignorant, bigoted people in the early-to-mid 80s over the issue of deinstitutionalization, and in the last decade has battled deep cuts to state mental health budgets keep his business afloat. To brush away all of that with a broad stroke of the brush as the President did, and effectively say that all businesspeople are just lucky to have government support and never made difficult decisions on their own, is total bullshit.

So...he didn't get there by himself? How dare the president say that!

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

So...he didn't get there by himself? How dare the president say that!

That's not what I said at all. I don't object to all government spending, I object to the President's statement that the government is solely responsible for all successful businesses, and that successful business owners have done nothing on their own.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

If income inequality it the only issue we need to solve, give every american earning below the average of $48k, the difference.

We can whine about companies or people utilizing legal deductions or offsets, why not get real mad about those who just don't payat all?

Hope you're not talking about me...never said its the 'only issue we need to solve'. I said 'challenges come from income inequality' and the country could be better positioned...and that it was difficult to implement because its important we continue to reward those generating huge value to society.

Your solution is an example where the remedy is faar worse than the disease.

...I object to the President's statement that the government is solely responsible for all successful businesses, and that successful business owners have done nothing on their own.

Assuming you're thinking that Obama was saying that business owners didn't build their own businesses, I think you've very much misinterpreting it. Let's take another look at the key passage:

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.

I interpet as 'somebody invested in roads and bridges...if you've got a business...you didn't build 'that' (roads and bridges). Somebody else made that (roads and bridges) happen. The internet didn't get invented on its own'. The whole passage is about infrastructure.

If you interpret 'that' as your business...then the passage goes from refering to roads and bridges (infrastructure) to 'that' (your business which is changing the topic) to the internet (changing it back to infrastructure again). In the latter case, the passage is inconsistent and makes no sense.

In fact, change the punctuation which was written by some reporter to: Somebody invested in roads and bridges...if you’ve got a business...you didn’t build that.

So I don't know why someone would infer that this statement is gramatically inconsistent not once but twice, makes no sense and is quite bizarre rather than an obvious, accurate and logical statement?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I suppose the $$$ the government used to build the roads and bridges just materialized out of thin air, eh? Or perhaps the government only has the money it does because businesses are paying taxes on the profits they generate and hiring workers who pay income taxes? To suggest that because the government built a road means that the taxpayers didn't fund it is completely asinine.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

To suggest that because the government built a road means that the taxpayers didn't fund it is completely asinine.

Trying to find where Obama said this or even how he 'suggested this'. Nope, he didn't.

In fact, Obama summarizes his point by calling it...well, his point:

'The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.'

Indeed, the country is built on a partnership of citizens, the private sector and the public sector. The passage is accurate, makes total sense and is actually quite important.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I was going to put something in about that. I read that line and winced, because I knew it was an open invitation for many to stop reading right there.

I also question his use of data to implicate the debt ceiling fight for jobs numbers being tepid last summer; correlation does not equal causation (jobs numbers aren't good this summer either, yet there is no debt ceiling battle being waged - perhaps the numbers dip and rise at random - nah, that couldn't possibly be it).

Blaming the credit downgrade on that fight and the subsequent lack of action on the deficit is fine since that one was clearly caused by Congress and cited by the agencies downgrading the US (not that the downgrade mattered in the grand scheme of things - investors continue snapping up our debt like it's crack cocaine, so interest rates remain in the basement).

 

[walrus]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Ouch! I'd call it ill-advised to run off to the left of the Socialist Party vote at this point in the game. Smarten up, Barry.

At this point? Nothings changed, he has been at that point for quite awhile

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

That's not what I said at all. I don't object to all government spending, I object to the President's statement that the government is solely responsible for all successful businesses, and that successful business owners have done nothing on their own.

If you want to be pizzed off about something you think the president said when he didn't actually say it, that's your prerogative.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Trying to find where Obama said this or even how he 'suggested this'. Nope, he didn't.

Trying to find where I said that Obama was the one suggesting it. Nope, I didn't.

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Romney won't win unless there's a return to recession by November, so I don't know why Dems even care at this point. I sure as **** don't.

What's far more interesting is what happens to Congress.

You answered your own question. A lot of conventional wisdom out of the usual idiots is that this will be a closer election than 2008. Yes, it could be. It could also go to The Mittster under the right circumstances or he could suffer a McCain type drubbing. The only state Obama is a cinch not to win again is Indiana. Paint Romney as an out of touch elitist buffoon and winning Congress gets a lot easier. A strong top of the ticket showing in Virginia for example helps the Senate race and maybe a House race or two. Same in Florida. On the flip side of Obama starts losing Ohio or Wisconsin maybe those seats go the other way.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Romney won't win unless there's a return to recession by November, so I don't know why Dems even care at this point. I sure as **** don't.

What's far more interesting is what happens to Congress.

Romney will win because he has all the answers.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Even in the fairly unlikely event that the GOP loses the House, they'll still have 40+ in the Senate and will stop anything they don't like in that chamber.

In the end, nothing much changes (unless a conservative supreme court justice retires - but given the highly charged environment we're in, I think only death would lead to that if Obama secures re-election).

This issue with Romney will not register in November - we will have moved on to other things, such as the state of the economy, whether or not Iran is doing something stupid, and whether or not the Euro is back to imploding. The idea this issue is needed to paint him as an out of touch elitist is a bit comical - he was already that before this came up, wasn't he?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

The idea this issue is needed to paint him as an out of touch elitist is a bit comical - he was already that before this came up, wasn't he?

Not for those that don't know who he is yet. Obama is trying to define him before he introduces himself at the convention and in the debates.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Not for those that don't know who he is yet. Obama is trying to define him before he introduces himself at the convention and in the debates.

In other words, it's the way campaigns are run. The Republicans got a jump on Dukakis and Kerry, framing them before they could define themselves. The Republicans somehow blew it with Obama (that was to me the biggest surprise of the 2008 campaign -- the GOP usually runs circles around the Dems when it comes to "contrast" ads). This is Obama doing it to Romney, and so far doing it very well.

Liberals got destroyed for twenty years by campaigning like Oxford dons while conservatives were campaigning like mafia dons. The liberals finally remembered they are in politics, and now conservatives are clutching their pearls.

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

The idea this issue is needed to paint him as an out of touch elitist is a bit comical - he was already that before this came up, wasn't he?

So was Bush II and that didn't stop people from voting for him. I'm thinking the point is to reinforce to people that Romney has no idea what regular people deal with in their daily lives as he's always been elite and wealthy, unlike say Obama, McCain, Clinton, Dole or Reagan to name some past nominees & winners.

Regarding the House, its 25 seats. The Republicans didn't add many seats in redistricting, they basically adopted a strategy of shoring up what they already had in places like Ohio and Virginia and had to comply with Voting Rights laws in other places like Texas forcing a 2-2 split in the 4 new seats there. With Dems expecting to win a bunch of seats in both CA and IL Romney can't afford to get blown out and be a drag on the dozens of freshman lawmakers out there. Not saying at all than Dems are favored to retake the House. What I am saying is if The Mittster loses on a level approaching McCain's drubbing The Boner's grip on the Speakership isn't as "firm" as some would like to think....

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Even in the fairly unlikely event that the GOP loses the House, they'll still have 40+ in the Senate and will stop anything they don't like in that chamber.

Unless the Dems grow a pair and remove the 60 requirement for cloture. It's just a procedural rule the Senate votes on at the beginning of each session, passed by simple majority. IIRC it used to be 67. There is absolutely no reason is can't be a simple majority.

The same is true for anonymous holds, which are abused by members of both parties. They could simply remove that from the Senate rules at the beginning of the session.

There is nothing systemically wrong with the Senate that a simple majority of the Senate could not fix on one vote.

The majority has never done it before, but the minority has never issued such a flagrant provocation before. The closest we've come was on nominee appointments, but now the minority is doing it on all Senate business, and that has to end, regardless of which party controls the body.