Reply With Quote
Obama is dangerous to have running the country and that comment of his really sums it up. It's the mentality in this country now. Nanny state full steam ahead.
Obama is dangerous to have running the country and that comment of his really sums it up. It's the mentality in this country now. Nanny state full steam ahead.
LOL!
What was it that he said which was untrue and so offensive?
"If you have a successful business, you didn't build that someone else did."
-Barrack Obama
Oh you mean the part where he is talking about the infrastructure that business owners take advantage of that they didn't build?
oh you mean the infrastructure that the government built using the money from the people he is reffering too?
but i forgot, the goverment roads built that computer...forgive me.
You are exactly right, the entirety of the speech is about how the rich need to pay some more / give back, because despite them thinking that they did it all on their own, they did not and so the rewards should, in part, go back to finance future infrastructure improvements, etc. for future business owners.
i.e. don't benefit from the golden goose then kill it once you get yours.
Here is the actual cogent part of the speech.
For what it's worth, he mentions government (research) once in the whole speech, but he mentions "we" and "each other" many times. He is trying to say that we all stand on each other's shoulders. It's not that hard to read this.The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together
i know what he said, and i dont agree with it...then again, im a selfish business owner who didnt build my business myself right?
We give plenty back to society...and not only does he WANT more of what we earned, he also doesnt want us to take credit for it.
That is fine, I am not going to argue how much you have utilized the help/advice of others as well as the business environment built by those before you and the socialist programs like roads and bridges. I really don't care (and I wasn't there to observe), but in this particular speech, to take that quote and make it seem like he said that business owners didn't build their business (as opposed to the infrastructure/systems/etc that he is referring to) is ridiculous.
/thread
Government spending is almost always inefficient spending. Whenever people are operating on government money they have no incentive to be wise with it. They work less hard, take more short cuts than if it was their own business. Recipients of government money do crooked stuff to get even more govt money, for instance schools. When I was in high school, the last month of school we did nothing but had to be there just so the school could get more money. It was a waste of time and added no value to society. Take a dollar, and that same dollar goes a lot further in the private sector than in the public sector because people act differently whenever it's YOUR money.
Government stands to perform certain core functions to society, and anything outside of that is waste and overkill. It's just plain bad for the economy. The commies owned everything in Russia and it failed. China would have already developed by now if they weren't being held back. Governments only stand to serve the people, we don't stand to serve our governments.
You are correct when you say /thread.
/thread
The statement that you quoted for your post captures exactly the essence of what the prez was trying to say.
we dont need more taxes, we need smaller government
damn right. there's already too much government...dont need them between me and my doctor either.
You YOURSELF said that we can't afford austerity at the moment.
government should be 1/10 its current size but trimming the government size would mean more people being employed because in 49 of the 50 states, the government is the biggest employer within the boundary of the state.
the fact is the bigger your government is, the more problems you have and then, you need to expand the government & add a few more governmental branches designated to solve these problems, which might not look too bad as a short-term measures but will certainly making things worse in the long term. and that's the way the government's been functioning for the past decades... Rome ain't built in one day tbh
when did they do this? or is this just a one off statement from nowhere.
the iceberg can't be thawed in one day imho
Yeah later on down the road after a recovery I would like to see a reduction in spending and start downsizing the govt, but we can't afford it right now in the midst of this mess. I'd like to cut spending in areas like militarizing the police with drones, and spending tons on big data warehouses and high tech fusion centers so that people over at the NSA can use our tax dollars to spy on us. We waste so much ing money on this bloated government. The pointless needs to go, especially the ing TSA. We don't need our weiners groped and children molested in the name of the terrorist boogeyman, thanks. Just stop arming training and funding them as well as allowing 9/11 to happen and we'll be alright. If our people were competent, 9/11 wouldn't have happened with the measures we already had in place.
Oh and FWIW I would completely support the denial of all future overtime for government employees as a common sense way to save some money. A buddy of mine did an internship at the VA and one of the staff there refused to use a computer (used a typewriter). She ended up taking far far longer to do anything than her coworkers and therefore racked up a lot of overtime so that she could complete her work. She made more from overtime than her base pay annually. This is apparently more common than we would like to think and is exactly the kind of thing you were talking about (M<S) when you said private business is more efficient.
If an 8 year old gets it surely you guys can
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
