President claims that no one built a business on their own

[carlfense]

1. Compared to Obama...I'm almost a rocket scientist. Take a look at rigorous state run economies: Cuba, North Korea, etc and what do you see? People are poor and starving. Well not those in government, they're remarkably well fed and wealthy. Government does not, has not, and will never create jobs and prosperity. Only the private sector can do that. And it while people like Obama spew their class warfare bullsh** the simple truth is that if people on the very bottom rung of our economic ladder hope to benefit then those at the top must also benefit. For example, I'm a billionaire investor and I want to invest in carlfense's widget company. Why would I invest in your company if I think I'm going to lose money? However, if I think I'll make money I'll invest. That will give you a company, you will hire people, they will pay taxes, and hopefully have discretionary spending money. Then the waitress makes more because more people have extra money to eat out. Then the waitress spends her extra money and it helps out others. Cutting taxes and regulations creates a positive upward economy while raising taxes and increasing regulations causes a depressed economy, high umemployment--which is exactly what we're seeing with the Obama administration.

What?

 

2. The deficit. http://www.usgovernm...federal_deficit. Notice in the graph under deficit charts what the deficit was in 2007, the last year under Bush and what it has ballooned to since your "savior" and the rest of the liberal agenda took office.

 

 

Please note the deficit after 2008...but I'm "sure" the bailouts had nothing to do with it.

Seriously . . . slow down and read more carefully. That way it will be less embarrassing when you learn such things as . . . oh, I don't know . . . who signed the 2009 federal budget.

 

3. Republicans are not blameless. They are, in many respects, no better than Democrats when it comes to spending. And in terms of GOP policies, if we're taking about true Barry Goldwater type of GOP policies then those are the policies that work and help make a country prosperous. But if we're talking about the absurd neo-con psuedo "gop" policies then pardon me while I puke.

And where are those guys? I wouldn't hesitate to vote for some GOP politicians of yesteryear.

[carlfense]

I suppose Newt Gingrinch might be considered the closest although even he has had more than enough moments of liberal spending.

Gingrich? The moon bases and individual mandate Gingrich?

[zoogs]

Well, for someone who has made it where he has because of affirmative action and white guilt, I can understand how this guy could believe that. But that's not the way things happen. If he had ever started up a business, he would know. Maybe he should ask his billionaire, tax-dodging friend Warren Buffett about that.

 

The problem with this country right now is not that we have ideological differences, it's that we not only allow ourselves to be led by the nose of those who would exaggerate those differences for their own gain, but we revel in it, and willingly, eagerly regurgitate it.

 

The Democrats call those "talking points."

 

See, do you see how much this post misses the point? I bolded the point for emphasis.

 

Question about the bailouts. They were initiated by the Bush administration, no? To some degree even they felt it was a necessity. I am not familiar with the economics at play here. Would letting those big banks and big auto fail have done anything other than be enormously satisfying to the many, many of us who hate to see rich mess-ups stay rich?

[sd'sker]

Well, he did say a bit more than simply "no one built a business on their own." Basically, he's saying saying that successful businessmen can thank those who educated them and built the infrastructure that made their businesses possible. Which I agree with. But I don't agree with his comment that "Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." If the gov't had realized the potential of the Internet back in its infancy the gov't would've taken control, regulated it, and taxed it. And if the gov't controlled the Internet we would still be using 300 baud dial up modems.

nuance, this is absolutely true. the government has funded most important research and then privatizes it for nothing in exchange. it is one of the many ways private citizens fund large corporations only to be fleeced by them for a second time down the road.

 

the internet was created by the department of defense: http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/internet-51/history-internet/brief-history-internet-related-networks

[Moiraine]

I wonder if he's even found the Husker football forum yet.

 

You've ruined everything

[krill]

1. Compared to Obama...I'm almost a rocket scientist. Take a look at rigorous state run economies: Cuba, North Korea, etc and what do you see? People are poor and starving. Well not those in government, they're remarkably well fed and wealthy. Government does not, has not, and will never create jobs and prosperity.

 

What about countries like Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway that have done a lot better than us through the economic downturn? What about Japan in the 70's and 80's, and now China kicking our tail in competitiveness because the government partners with private industry to give targeted industries an edge with financing, research, and tax advantages? Why does this argument always go strait to basket cases like North Korea and Cuba?

 

Only the private sector can do that. And it while people like Obama spew their class warfare bullsh** the simple truth is that if people on the very bottom rung of our economic ladder hope to benefit then those at the top must also benefit.

 

So, when does the trickling down start? We've been subjected to this theory since Reagan and yet wages for the bottom half have been stagnant or declining, while in the past 10 years almost all of the new wealth created has gone to the very top.

 

For example, I'm a billionaire investor and I want to invest in carlfense's widget company. Why would I invest in your company if I think I'm going to lose money? However, if I think I'll make money I'll invest. That will give you a company, you will hire people, they will pay taxes, and hopefully have discretionary spending money. Then the waitress makes more because more people have extra money to eat out. Then the waitress spends her extra money and it helps out others. Cutting taxes and regulations creates a positive upward economy while raising taxes and increasing regulations causes a depressed economy, high umemployment--which is exactly what we're seeing with the Obama administration.

 

Maybe I have a weird understanding of economics, but before anyone starts a business there needs to be demand for the product, and a big part of demand is if consumers can afford it. Is it really a moonbat theory to think that if the middle class had higher incomes and more disposable income, they would buy more products, and there would be more jobs making / transporting / selling those products?

 

2. The deficit. http://www.usgovernm...federal_deficit. Notice in the graph under deficit charts what the deficit was in 2007, the last year under Bush and what it has ballooned to since your "savior" and the rest of the liberal agenda took office.

 

 

Please note the deficit after 2008...but I'm "sure" the bailouts had nothing to do with it.

 

The FY 2008 and 2009 budgets were also Bush's, although it's not really fair to call them Bush's budgets, or that congress's budgets because everyone basically had a gun to their head with the FY 2009 spending. Maybe you missed the part after Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns failed where Bush's treasury secretary huddled everyone into a room and said if you don't do something to backstop banks loaded with "toxic assets", there will not be an economy tomorrow. I don't suspect that many people here are very well read on the topics of the Great Depression and 19th century panics though. Maybe we should have let it ride and endured a long period of 30,40,50% unemployment to prove a point.

 

Republicans are not blameless. They are, in many respects, no better than Democrats when it comes to spending. And in terms of GOP policies, if we're taking about true Barry Goldwater type of GOP policies then those are the policies that work and help make a country prosperous. But if we're talking about the absurd neo-con psuedo "gop" policies then pardon me while I puke.

 

Best of luck selling your philosophy to people who want to retire. The last time Nebraska voted Democratic was 64', heck, maybe we could do it again if the Republicans were smart enough to nominate someone cast in the mold of Goldwater.

[sd'sker]

1. Compared to Obama...I'm almost a rocket scientist. Take a look at rigorous state run economies: Cuba, North Korea, etc and what do you see? People are poor and starving. Well not those in government, they're remarkably well fed and wealthy. Government does not, has not, and will never create jobs and prosperity.

 

What about countries like Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway that have done a lot better than us through the economic downturn? What about Japan in the 70's and 80's, and now China kicking our tail in competitiveness because the government partners with private industry to give targeted industries an edge with financing, research, and tax advantages? Why does this argument always go strait to basket cases like North Korea and Cuba?

 

exactly. and what about the other extreme? somalia has a limited government with no regulations? is that what conservatives want? is that worth lower taxes?

 

the point is not to destroy capitalism, but the problem is that multi-national corporations have all the leverage. there was a time when i am sure the us government was the greatest threat to liberty and freedom, but now it is the multi-national corps. and only the government is strong enough to give the people a fair bargaining balance. i do think certain industries should be nationalized (banks, insurance, health care), but not all (car companies). but for the non-nationalized industries, the gov't has a responsibility to protect the citizens and keep them in check. the gov't is accountable, private corps. are not. that's the point.

[Yossarian]

It was the President who said that if he didn't set things right, his would be a one-term presidency. Has he set things right?

 

Rather irrelevant question since his opponent hasn't got a prayer of defeating him, don't you think?

 

Then wonder why in the heck he said that...I mean, he's never said anything that was not relevant before. Right?

[lo country]

For those who think that Bush was the reason for our current woes and Obama is simply cleaning up the mess, here you go. A rather long read, but worth it.

 

http://www.npr.org/2...vs-bush-on-debt

 

Here is a list of all the "deserving" businesses that got bail out money and how much they still owe. This does not include pet projects.

 

http://projects.prop...rg/bailout/list

http://www.stimuluspackagedetails.com/total.html (3 Trillion between Bush and Obama. I am sure we (TAXPAYERS will never see any of this back)

 

One thing that kills me is if you bought a house in the past 7 yrs, you are underwater. Where is my mortgage assistance? Where is cash for my dependable car?

 

Perhaps the banking industry needed to be shored up, but IIRC it was Clinton in 1997 who signed into law a program to forcing banks to give high risk loans that initiated the housing collapse. It was also the current administration who again sued lenders who went back to tighter control after the bailouts and previous collapse.

 

http://www.openmarke...nancial-crisis/

[carlfense]

For those who think that Bush was the reason for our current woes and Obama is simply cleaning up the mess, here you go. A rather long read, but worth it.

http://www.npr.org/2...vs-bush-on-debt

You're moving on to your next talking point without acknowledging that you were trying to blame Obama for George W. Bush's 2008 and 2009 deficits?

 

Perhaps the banking industry needed to be shored up, but IIRC it was Clinton in 1997 who signed into law a program to forcing banks to give high risk loans that initiated the housing collapse.

No offense . . . but that's simply not true. The subprime originator's made money hand over fist and immediately bundled and resold the securities. It had nothing to do with being ordered to give high risk loans and everything to do with reckless greed.

 

Let's rehash: Obama is responsible for our current economic situation. He shouldn't try to blame Bush. Also, the 8 years of W. never actually happened and it's all Clinton's fault.

 

 

One thing that kills me is if you bought a house in the past 7 yrs, you are underwater. Where is my mortgage assistance? Where is cash for my dependable car?

I trust that you're just trying to make a point and aren't actually calling for the government to bail you out . . . because that would look a bit hypocritical.

[zoogs]

Meh, I never bought into the idea that one man has the power to control the economic landscape. Although it is much easier to lay it at one man's feet than at a whole gajumble of complex factors. This went for the Bush days when people were (surprise) still complaining about the economy. I felt that was unfair.

 

Here is another open ended question. I wonder where exactly Obama was going with his statement on how nobody built a business on their own, and they had help. Really, where was he going. I'm struggling to understand. Is the media take on this unfair? out of context? If so, how?

[carlfense]

Meh, I never bought into the idea that one man has the power to control the economic landscape.

I agree.

 

Here is another open ended question. I wonder where exactly Obama was going with his statement on how nobody built a business on their own, and they had help. Really, where was he going. I'm struggling to understand. Is the media take on this unfair? out of context? If so, how?

His point was about how we all are in it together. Someone who built his own business had the assistance of government provided utilities, roads, bridges, national security, etc.

 

The larger context was this:

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.

It's awkwardly phrased but the point isn't that you didn't build your business . . . it's that you didn't build your business alone. The "that" in the "you didn't build that" doesn't refer to your business . . . but rather to the American environment that assisted you in building that business.

[krill]

Perhaps the banking industry needed to be shored up, but IIRC it was Clinton in 1997 who signed into law a program to forcing banks to give high risk loans that initiated the housing collapse. It was also the current administration who again sued lenders who went back to tighter control after the bailouts and previous collapse.

 

I cannot adequately* express how angry it makes me that people actually hold the view that understanding the housing mess is really this simple.

 

http://prospect.org/...ub-prime-crisis

http://www.newameric...prime-mess-3210

 

A couple articles to carefully ignore. Your "augment" also ignores all aspects of speculation (nearly 1/4 of homes were investment properties), the nearly 300% increase in non-CRA subprime loans, the truckloads of money the financial services industry was making on those loans, general deterioration of lending practices, the colossal mess investment banks created with mortgage securitization and credit derivatives, the complete failure of credit rating agencies, ham-handed regulation, whistle blowers being ignored, a general consensus that increased home ownership was desirable politically and economically, and monetary policy. All of these points are strait from Wikipedia, because Lord knows it's too hard to spend 5 minutes making a feigned attempt to research an opinion.

[sd'sker]

Meh, I never bought into the idea that one man has the power to control the economic landscape.

I agree.

 

Here is another open ended question. I wonder where exactly Obama was going with his statement on how nobody built a business on their own, and they had help. Really, where was he going. I'm struggling to understand. Is the media take on this unfair? out of context? If so, how?

His point was about how we all are in it together. Someone who built his own business had the assistance of government provided utilities, roads, bridges, national security, etc.

 

The larger context was this:

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.

It's awkwardly phrased but the point isn't that you didn't build your business . . . it's that you didn't build your business alone. The "that" in the "you didn't build that" doesn't refer to your business . . . but rather to the American environment that assisted you in building that business.

also, the subtext would be that we all helped those who are successful. i know i have received a lot of help to get me where i am (supportive family, good education, good communities), but now i am in a position to help others succeed and as such i have a responsibility to do so.

[lo country]

Perhaps the banking industry needed to be shored up, but IIRC it was Clinton in 1997 who signed into law a program to forcing banks to give high risk loans that initiated the housing collapse. It was also the current administration who again sued lenders who went back to tighter control after the bailouts and previous collapse.

 

I cannot aquatically express how angry it makes me that people actually hold the view that understanding the housing mess is really this simple.

 

http://prospect.org/...ub-prime-crisis

http://www.newameric...prime-mess-3210

 

A couple articles to carefully ignore. Your "augment" also ignores all aspects of speculation (nearly 1/4 of homes were investment properties), the nearly 300% increase in non-CRA subprime loans, the truckloads of money the financial services industry was making on those loans, general deterioration of lending practices, the colossal mess investment banks created with mortgage securitization and credit derivatives, the complete failure of credit rating agencies, ham-handed regulation, whistle blowers being ignored, a general consensus that increased home ownership was desirable politically and economically, and monetary policy. All of these points are strait from Wikipedia, because Lord knows it's too hard to spend 5 minutes making a feigned attempt to research an opinion.

 

Point counter point.