27
   

We Built This?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 03:13 pm
@farmerman,
Considering how well it's working, describing it as "lame" seems more like wish fulfillment than accurate analysis.

It works because even if it was taken out of context and he was referring to bridges and roads, it reflects his thinking.

The disdain he has for the builders of businesses was demonstrated by his sneering mockery of such people's claim that their success is based on their talent and willingness to work hard.

Obama like most of hardcore supporters don't believe that the successful among us are truly responsible for their success. Other people, they believe, have had significant responsibility for that success, and only luck or malfeasance have separated the successful from those who are talented and willing to work hard, but who are not successful.

This has to be the way of the world or how else can increasing confiscation of the rewards of their success be justified?

People understand that Obama, regardless of what he claims for political reasons, is not a big proponent of capitalism, and the only good businessperson is one who agrees with him that they need to give more of their rewards to the government so it can redistribute them to the honest, talented, hardworking folks who just can't catch a break, and are not willing to bend the rules...and, of course, who will vote for him.

It's quite telling that as much as Obama like to tell us that Warren Buffet agrees that the rich need to pay more taxes, Buffet didn't take it upon himself to do so, and George Soros, instead of giving his millions directly to the working class uses them to advance a political agenda that is as much based on the holding of power as any the big bad Koch Brothers could conceive.

It's working because it encapsulates the Obama ideology in a simple phrase of his own: "You didn't build that!" and encapsulates an ideological rejoinder, that resonates with people.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 03:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

It works because even if it was taken out of context and he was referring to bridges and roads, it reflects his thinking.


It only 'works' with people who thought that this was his thinking to begin with. I've seen no evidence that it 'works' with anyone who didn't already buy into that delusion.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 03:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Duly noted.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 03:43 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Have you seen any evidence it's effective? I sure haven't. I doubt most Americans would agree with you that Obama deplores Capitalism and wants to transition us to a Socialist paradise.

Hell, his proposals - to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy - are widely supported in polling, to the tune of 65%+ agreement - consistently. Even something like 40% of self-described Republicans agree with him. Do you acknowledge that your views of the man on these issues are in fact far outside the mainstream?

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 04:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
People like Finn doesn't understand what "socialism" is; it's government control and ownership of the economy.

From my observation point, 99.9% of commerce is owned by private citizens in this country.

Not only that, but there's no move by our government to start taking over any business. Most of Europe is also capitalistic, not socialistic, and their governments don't own and control their businesses either.

Even China is changing into capitalism. Surprise! Even back in 2008, it was estimated that private ownership of businesses in China exceeded 70%.

What is Finn talking about when he says Obama is a socialist?

edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 04:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That's just a buzzword that has no real meaning. One they use to connotate the taking of freedom because they can't provide real examples of the taking.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 05:54 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
First, it directly challenges something Obama said


As usual it was a complete misrepreentation of what Obama actually said


True. But I was only trying to explain Republican thinking on why the slogan was useful.

I'm sure there are tons of attack ads on the way that will thoroughly take Obama's words out of context, so there will be fertile ground for the slogan to make a lot of sense for potential voters.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  6  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 08:22 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Obama like most of hardcore supporters don't believe that the successful among us are truly responsible for their success. Other people, they believe, have had significant responsibility for that success, and only luck or malfeasance have separated the successful from those who are talented and willing to work hard, but who are not successful.

Indeed, Romney is a self-made man, starting with his precociously shrewd choice of parents.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 09:53 pm
From Bob Roberts--the movie



Rap
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 07:43 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
It's quite telling that as much as Obama like to tell us that Warren Buffet agrees that the rich need to pay more taxes, Buffet didn't take it upon himself to do so,


One person paying more in taxes will not fix the problem we currently have of unequal sacrifice caused by our current tax laws. These tax laws have hurt our economy because they have created a big gap between the rich and the middle class. If the middle class does not thrive, they won't be spending money. Not only that it creates deficits because not enough revenue is in the treasury to sustain the government and you can't just keep cutting programs and expect the deficit to go away unless you want to have a third world country.


Quote:
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.




Read the whole article here
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 09:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
George Soros, instead of giving his millions directly to the working class uses them to advance a political agenda


Democracy! oh no! oh no! not democracy!
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 10:17 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Indeed, Romney is a self-made man, starting with his precociously shrewd choice of parents.
And that's why the convention is at Tampa, in a building which was built in 1996 as the 'Ice Palace' with 62% government fund ...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 10:33 pm
@joefromchicago,
Apparently you are not aware of or chose to ignore that he gave away his inheritance.

Now I know, you're going to argue that his parents put him through school, but I've heard Obama say that someone put him through school too...just not his parents.

I guess it's somehow a noble to put through school by anonymous benefactors but not by one's parents.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 10:36 pm
@revelette,
Your right that one person paying more in taxes will not fix our problems, but then neither will millions more doing so.

That wasn't my point.

If Warren felt he should pay more taxes he could easily do so.

He could instruct his army of tax lawyers to not seek out and employ so many loopholes.

I have a problem with people insisting that others do something that they are not prepared to do unless the government makes them.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 10:38 pm
@ehBeth,
If you believe Soros is a soldier for democracy, there's an oil well near by that I would like to sell you.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 11:04 pm
Jon Stewart's transcript on the 'We built it, we built it' chant.

Let me address the convention. Um, let me see if I can address the people there, and see if I can get into this theme. All right. Ready?

A convention theme and a political campaign, cynically based around something the President never actually said.
RNC AUDIENCE: We built it! We built it! We built it!

Yes, you did build that! No one can take it away from you. All right, let me try another one.

A party-wide persecution complex, where any reference to the collective good is somehow taken as a denigration of an individual's achievement.
RNC AUDIENCE: We built it! We built it!

You did build that too! You're very busy. All right, let me try another one.

A moral code that equates parental financial assistance with moxie and entrepreneurship, while equating government financial assistance with lack of character and way-of-life-destroying dependency.

RNC AUDIENCE: We built it! We built it!

(in voice of adult talking to a baby) Yes you did! Yes you did!
(audience cheering and applause)

All right, I got one. Hold on, I got one. I got one!

The convention center you're sitting in!
RNC AUDIENCE: We built it! We built it!

That's factually inaccurate. Actually, that was taxpayer money and union workers. Let me try again.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 11:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
The Clovis point and saber tooth by standard dating schemes are something like 10K - 20K years ago. Assuming that like the Cro Magnons the Clovis people were not the same people as the familiar Bible antediluvians, I'd put them somewhere between 8K and 20K years back.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 03:29 am
Again, that's how far back you need to go to find a stupider political statement than Bork Obunga's "You didn't build that".
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 03:32 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
A convention theme and a political campaign, cynically based around something the President never actually said....


Trying to adopt the big-lie principle or something?? The guy said it, the whole world has heard it by now, get used to it.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 03:38 am
@gungasnake,
First, you'd have to cynically misstate the statement and then hope that people aren't able to read the quote in its entirety.

Damn that ability to find facts when you want.

How far would you have to go back in order to something stupider than this Republican talking point?

Huh,
Not so far.

Joe(Lyin' Ryan's speech)Nation
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » We Built This?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2019 at 07:36:38