President claims that no one built a business on their own

[JJ Husker]

I would be interested in knowing what costs the American taxpayer more - the welfare system or the lost revenue from the trillions of dollars kept in offshore accounts by people like Mitt Romney.

I don't believe it is a simple, cut and dried, matter of comparing dollar amounts. For me anyway, it is more of a fairness issue. The person collecting welfare didn't/doesn't earn those dollars. Other people earn it and it gets transferred to them via taxes. The fat cats hiding money in offshore accounts earned their money, although in many cases maybe not completely fairly. Granted, it is not fair that some people hide their income from taxation when others of us do not /can not but it does seem to me, on some fundemental level, to be more unfair to take what was earned and give it to those who did nothing for it. That is not to say I do not believe in charity but, I have a completely different feeling about freely giving to charity and having big brother take it from me. However, I also do not like the fact that many/most of the rich/ultra rich pay a lower effective percentage in taxes. That is extremely unfair also. I don't think we can ever count on politicians correcting that situation because it will affect their campaign funding.

 

The main problem is that they all, R's & D's, get elected by promising things to their favored special interest groups be that the poor, big business, gay rights, right wing Christians, illegal aliens, whoever. The only special interest group they should cater to is the American people, as a whole. Period. The only possible solution I see is to make it illegal for them to collect ANY funding for their campaigns and eliminate campaigning totally. Not sure how that would work but it sure isn't working now.

[JJ Husker]

I find it somewhat amusing that so many desire separation of church and state yet so many of those same people expect Christians to align their politics with WWJD. Personally, I think it is 2 different issues. I give to the poor and disadvantaged through my church and various charities. I resist doing it through our government for a variety of reasons, chief among those is the governments propensity for waste, inefficiency, and caatering to voting blocks. I guess others can think that opposed to real Christian principles but I sure don't. Every dollar the government takes from me is a dollar that I can never give to charity. Not saying every dollar would go to charity but I think you get the point. If you're hung up on that apparent dichotomy, my question to you is; how and why do you trust our government to do a better job than the people themselves can do? When have they ever earned that level of trust from the people?

[knapplc]

I find it somewhat amusing that so many desire separation of church and state yet so many of those same people expect Christians to align their politics with WWJD. Personally, I think it is 2 different issues. I give to the poor and disadvantaged through my church and various charities. I resist doing it through our government for a variety of reasons, chief among those is the governments propensity for waste, inefficiency, and caatering to voting blocks. I guess others can think that opposed to real Christian principles but I sure don't. Every dollar the government takes from me is a dollar that I can never give to charity. Not saying every dollar would go to charity but I think you get the point. If you're hung up on that apparent dichotomy, my question to you is; how and why do you trust our government to do a better job than the people themselves can do? When have they ever earned that level of trust from the people?

 

 

Which people are you talking about? Which people are trying to "do a better job?"

 

Your answer is basically "Government is corrupt, therefore I can vote how I please." But do you really think that's gonna wash with God?

 

Do we really have to go through the whole explanation of police, military, roads, public education, etc? Do we really have to explain that none of this would exist without government, which is simply "the people themselves" pooling their resources?

[tschu]

I clicked on this thread and am already mentally exhausted

 

Of course nobody built a business on their own. Nobody does anything on their own anymore really, besides maybe an old hermit in the mountains of Montana with no social security number who hunts all of his own food and built his house out of lumber he cut himself. But even this guy had to get the gun and the axe somewhere; doubt he forged one by himself.

[knapplc]

The star of Mitt Romney's attack ad going after Obama's statement didn't even do it on his own, despite his insistence:

 

Obama said, "If you are 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.

 

 

However, Romney's campaign and national Republicans seized on Obama's "build that" comment, arguing it represents a philosophy of big government in the Oval Office.

 

Jack Gilchrist, in the commercial, said it was his family who deserves credit for the developing the business.

 

"My father's hands didn't build this company? My hands didn't build this company? Through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it? It's time we had somebody who believes in us, someone who believes that achievement should be rewarded, not punished," he said.

 

Gilchrist told the Union Leader that his argument is not "compromised" by the fact that he received the bonds and added that his legal fees for the bonds amounted to $12,000.

 

"It was a loser and I wish I had never done it," he told the paper. "I bought some equipment with it."

 

In addition, he said that his company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling "somewhere south of" $500,000 in the late 1980s, according to the Union Leader.

 

LINK

[JJ Husker]

I find it somewhat amusing that so many desire separation of church and state yet so many of those same people expect Christians to align their politics with WWJD. Personally, I think it is 2 different issues. I give to the poor and disadvantaged through my church and various charities. I resist doing it through our government for a variety of reasons, chief among those is the governments propensity for waste, inefficiency, and caatering to voting blocks. I guess others can think that opposed to real Christian principles but I sure don't. Every dollar the government takes from me is a dollar that I can never give to charity. Not saying every dollar would go to charity but I think you get the point. If you're hung up on that apparent dichotomy, my question to you is; how and why do you trust our government to do a better job than the people themselves can do? When have they ever earned that level of trust from the people?

 

 

Which people are you talking about? Which people are trying to "do a better job?"

 

Your answer is basically "Government is corrupt, therefore I can vote how I please." But do you really think that's gonna wash with God?

 

Do we really have to go through the whole explanation of police, military, roads, public education, etc? Do we really have to explain that none of this would exist without government, which is simply "the people themselves" pooling their resources?

Either I missed what you were trying to say or you missed what I was saying cuz I'm not understanding your reply. But I can clarify that my answer is not that "Government is corrupt, therefore I can vote how I please." My point was that when it comes to spending my money, I can do a much better job of it than the government can. In effect, if I give a dollar to the charity of my choice, it will have a bigger intended impact than if the government takes that same dollar and redirects it towards the exact same end.

 

I'm not saying that there is no place for taxation or government entities providing for common infrastructure and services. We would not have an interstate road system if it were not for the government. But, we also wouldn't have it if it were not for the people paying taxes and providing the labor. We need both sides of the equation in many cases however, I'm not convinced that having the government as the facilitator is the best possible solution in some cases.

 

Neither side can claim the higher moral ground or to be more aligned with Christian principles. I can find just as many "Christian" reasons to not vote for somebody as you can find to vote for them. My point was that it is inconsistent to ask people to keep their religion out of public policy and then condemn them for not applying their religious principles to public policy issues. It is just as conflicted to state that many republicans tend to ignore social welfare issues and therefore are not operating on Christian principles as it is to state that many democrats ignore the issue of abortion and not hold them to the same "Christian" belief standard. I feel like I'm rambling here but it seemed like you didn't really get what I was trying to convey.

['SkersRule]

Both want to increase taxes. The disagreement is over who should bear that burden.

 

And yet it never seems to occur to anyone in government that they could cut spending.

[sd'sker]

The star of Mitt Romney's attack ad going after Obama's statement didn't even do it on his own, despite his insistence:

 

Obama said, "If you are 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.

 

 

However, Romney's campaign and national Republicans seized on Obama's "build that" comment, arguing it represents a philosophy of big government in the Oval Office.

 

Jack Gilchrist, in the commercial, said it was his family who deserves credit for the developing the business.

 

"My father's hands didn't build this company? My hands didn't build this company? Through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it? It's time we had somebody who believes in us, someone who believes that achievement should be rewarded, not punished," he said.

 

Gilchrist told the Union Leader that his argument is not "compromised" by the fact that he received the bonds and added that his legal fees for the bonds amounted to $12,000.

 

"It was a loser and I wish I had never done it," he told the paper. "I bought some equipment with it."

 

In addition, he said that his company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling "somewhere south of" $500,000 in the late 1980s, according to the Union Leader.

 

LINK

i think i posted something about that as well, but you do not have to dig deep to see the irony in his claim. he owns the business his *dad* built. we all do not have dads that hand us our business and jobs. the message is that we did not build anything on our own. he continues to run that business and i am sure it is hard work, but it was on the back of someone else's work.

 

the retort to obama's claim that no one built anything on his/her own is lead by a guy who was given (or bought, or whatever) a business that was built before him, by someone else. that is the point. not everyone has that advantage and a fairer tax structure would level the playing field by funding opportunities for others (like the one's he also enjoyed).

[knapplc]

Once again, let me remind everyone that this is not the place to discuss other members. Discuss the topic, but do not offer critiques of your fellow HuskerBoarders.

 

If you feel the need to vent about someone, do it in the Shed.

 

The rules are HERE, and if you cannot follow them in this forum, it's best not to participate in the conversation.

[carlfense]

Both want to increase taxes. The disagreement is over who should bear that burden.

 

And yet it never seems to occur to anyone in government that they could cut spending.

I think that's been discussed quite a bit, actually.

[carlfense]

The star of Mitt Romney's attack ad going after Obama's statement didn't even do it on his own, despite his insistence:

 

Obama said, "If you are 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.

 

 

However, Romney's campaign and national Republicans seized on Obama's "build that" comment, arguing it represents a philosophy of big government in the Oval Office.

 

Jack Gilchrist, in the commercial, said it was his family who deserves credit for the developing the business.

 

"My father's hands didn't build this company? My hands didn't build this company? Through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it? It's time we had somebody who believes in us, someone who believes that achievement should be rewarded, not punished," he said.

 

Gilchrist told the Union Leader that his argument is not "compromised" by the fact that he received the bonds and added that his legal fees for the bonds amounted to $12,000.

 

"It was a loser and I wish I had never done it," he told the paper. "I bought some equipment with it."

 

In addition, he said that his company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling "somewhere south of" $500,000 in the late 1980s, according to the Union Leader.

 

LINK

i think i posted something about that as well, but you do not have to dig deep to see the irony in his claim. he owns the business his *dad* built. we all do not have dads that hand us our business and jobs. the message is that we did not build anything on our own. he continues to run that business and i am sure it is hard work, but it was on the back of someone else's work.

 

the retort to obama's claim that no one built anything on his/her own is lead by a guy who was given (or bought, or whatever) a business that was built before him, by someone else. that is the point. not everyone has that advantage and a fairer tax structure would level the playing field by funding opportunities for others (like the one's he also enjoyed).

That's true . . . but it's not quite as damning as complaining about Obama saying that business owners benefit from the government . . . when that very person accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in government bonds and loans.

 

But, hey. Kudos to Romney for finding a small business that completely proves Obama's point.

[knapplc]

But, hey. Kudos to Romney for finding a small business that completely proves Obama's point.

 

I have a feeling this is an indicator of what we can expect from Romney 2012. Those debates are going to be a bloodbath. More $10,000 bets and gaffes galore. No amount of ANNO money is going to make a silk purse out of this candidate.

[sd'sker]

But, hey. Kudos to Romney for finding a small business that completely proves Obama's point.

 

I have a feeling this is an indicator of what we can expect from Romney 2012. Those debates are going to be a bloodbath. More $10,000 bets and gaffes galore. No amount of ANNO money is going to make a silk purse out of this candidate.

the crazy thing about romney is that he seemed like such a promising candidate before the 2008 election. a moderate conservative (he somehow was governor of massachusetts) who created a very pragmatic (dare i say, even conservative) solution to the serious healthcare problem in his state that was wildly popular. he seemed to have charisma and was likable enough. however, now he is just so lost in his campaign it is hard to comprehend.

 

although, that did happen with mccain. he was awesome during the 2000 election, but come 2008 he was a different man. primaries force republican candidates to become so extreme that by the time the general election rolls around there is no going back.

[carlfense]

But, hey. Kudos to Romney for finding a small business that completely proves Obama's point.

 

I have a feeling this is an indicator of what we can expect from Romney 2012. Those debates are going to be a bloodbath. More $10,000 bets and gaffes galore. No amount of ANNO money is going to make a silk purse out of this candidate.

the crazy thing about romney is that he seemed like such a promising candidate before the 2008 election. a moderate conservative (he somehow was governor of massachusetts) who created a very pragmatic (dare i say, even conservative) solution to the serious healthcare problem in his state that was wildly popular. he seemed to have charisma and was likable enough. however, now he is just so lost in his campaign it is hard to comprehend.

 

although, that did happen with mccain. he was awesome during the 2000 election, but come 2008 he was a different man. primaries force republican candidates to become so extreme that by the time the general election rolls around there is no going back.

I would argue that the Republican Party has changed a bit over time as well. Romney is trying to reflect that change . . . and it's a difficult proposition for a man who want to be everything to everyone.

 

It reminds me of the old Romney joke: A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar. The bartender says "Hi, Mitt."

 

 

 

It really highlights Obama's vulnerability that this thing is so close.

[carlfense]

But, hey. Kudos to Romney for finding a small business that completely proves Obama's point.

 

I have a feeling this is an indicator of what we can expect from Romney 2012. Those debates are going to be a bloodbath. More $10,000 bets and gaffes galore. No amount of ANNO money is going to make a silk purse out of this candidate.

I don't really know what to expect other than I do expect this thing to be extremely close through the election.

 

I think that Obama voters are more likely to become disillusioned and flip to Romney than Romney voters flipping to Obama. The Obama hatred is a powerful thing. I don't know that there is a parallell Romney hatred. I won't be voting for Romney . . . but I don't hate him either. I just disagree with his proposed policies. (Recently anyways . . . if we go back to Romney V.1 or Romney V.2 I can find quite a bit to agree with.)