Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • BGFalcons82
    In Massachusetts, the great Native American Elizabeth Warren has been spouting this garbage for months. But the NE statists eat that shit up, so she gets a thumbs up from them.
  • I Wear Pants
    BGFalcons82;1226053 wrote:In Massachusetts, the great Native American Elizabeth Warren has been spouting this garbage for months. But the NE statists eat that shit up, so she gets a thumbs up from them.
    But they're both correct at least in what they were attempting to describe, which is the basic foundations of a modern society. If your business uses roads, employees, electrical grids, etc, etc then you've benefited from the results of taxes. It's cherry picking to think they were saying anything else (at least in the Warren instance, I'm not sure what the context was of what Obama was saying but I'd be surprised if it wasn't far more reasonable than that clip made it out to look).
  • BGFalcons82
    I Wear Pants;1226055 wrote:But they're both correct at least in what they were attempting to describe, which is the basic foundations of a modern society. If your business uses roads, employees, electrical grids, etc, etc then you've benefited from the results of taxes. It's cherry picking to think they were saying anything else (at least in the Warren instance, I'm not sure what the context was of what Obama was saying but I'd be surprised if it wasn't far more reasonable than that clip made it out to look).
    To claim that roads, bridges, public education, etc. make small businesses what they are is ludicrous if not a form of brainwashing the uneducated. These things are wonderful to have, but they DO NOT make small businesses what they are.

    Regarding "modern society", how in the hell did Ford get his car company off the ground without any of this wonderful government aid? The Wright Brothers were working on a government entitlement program 110 years ago? Where was their electricity, sidewalks, public roads, etc? How in the hell did we ever live through the first 2 centuries of this country without government intrusion? I'm not picking on you, but the idea that the government is directly responsible for successful businesses is unfathomable. Yet, here we are discussing it as Warren and Soetoro have said it is so.
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;1226072 wrote:To claim that roads, bridges, public education, etc. make small businesses what they are is ludicrous if not a form of brainwashing the uneducated. These things are wonderful to have, but they DO NOT make small businesses what they are.

    Regarding "modern society", how in the hell did Ford get his car company off the ground without any of this wonderful government aid? The Wright Brothers were working on a government entitlement program 110 years ago? Where was their electricity, sidewalks, public roads, etc? How in the hell did we ever live through the first 2 centuries of this country without government intrusion? I'm not picking on you, but the idea that the government is directly responsible for successful businesses is unfathomable. Yet, here we are discussing it as Warren and Soetoro have said it is so.
    True. In fact businesses usually fare much better when the government gets the hell out of the way.

    The statists continue to enjoy the prosperity and conveniences of private sector capitalism while insisting that government is responsible for those benefits. Blows my mind.
  • Footwedge
    BGFalcons82;1226072 wrote:Regarding "modern society", how in the hell did Ford get his car company off the ground without any of this wonderful government aid?
    Henry's car factory wasn't doing very well in the first decade. Then he doubled the salaries of the rank and file, and found tens of thousands of new customers. Amazing what happens when you have a middle class.
  • BGFalcons82
    Footwedge;1226134 wrote:Henry's car factory wasn't doing very well in the first decade. Then he doubled the salaries of the rank and file, and found tens of thousands of new customers. Amazing what happens when you have a middle class.
    No No No

    What did the government infrastructure do to take credit for Henry Ford's cars? Don't change the point. Barry claims businesses were built by government and not individuals. All success is due to government. I ask again, how in the Sam hell did we survive for 2 centuries without governmental intrusion? Pure f*cking luck? Lucky sperm society? Tell us, please.
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;1226146 wrote:What did the government infrastructure do to take credit for Henry Ford's cars? Don't change the point. Barry claims businesses were built by government and not individuals. All success is due to government. I ask again, how in the Sam hell did we survive for 2 centuries without governmental intrusion? Pure f*cking luck? Lucky sperm society? Tell us, please.
    C'mon. Big Labor, the New Deal, the Great Society, and now Obamacare are all responsible for our survival. Without these benevolent institutions, businesses and semi-free enterprise in general would never have been successful.

    Unfortunately the eeeevil warmongering neo-cons have all but destroyed middle class Amerika.
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;1226055 wrote:But they're both correct at least in what they were attempting to describe, which is the basic foundations of a modern society. If your business uses roads, employees, electrical grids, etc, etc then you've benefited from the results of taxes. It's cherry picking to think they were saying anything else (at least in the Warren instance, I'm not sure what the context was of what Obama was saying but I'd be surprised if it wasn't far more reasonable than that clip made it out to look).
    Come on IWP, you can't be serious. Since said small business already pays the highest tax rates (if they are successful) than any other person, I'd say they have WELL PAID for the use of roads, etc.

    Also, since they pay their electric bill on a monthly basis, they have well paid for their use of the electric grid.

    Since they have paid their employees an agreed apon wage, they have well paid for their employees.

    They paid for all of these out of their own money and created a product or service that people wanted to spend money on from their own engenuity and hard work.

    I can at least tolerate and "understand" where most liberal ideas are coming from, but that BS is just plain retarded.
  • Con_Alma
    Footwedge;1226134 wrote:Henry's car factory wasn't doing very well in the first decade. Then he doubled the salaries of the rank and file, and found tens of thousands of new customers. Amazing what happens when you have a middle class.
    ???

    ????

    the largest wage increase he ever put in place across the board was going from $5 per day to $7 and it was after he had is largest total profit in a single year.
  • Footwedge
    Con_Alma;1226185 wrote:???

    ????

    the largest wage increase he ever put in place across the board was going from $5 per day to $7 and it was after he had is largest total profit in a single year.
    This web site begs to differ...

    "In 1914, Henry Ford started an industrial revolution by more than doubling wages to $5 a day—a move that helped build the U.S. middle class and the modern economy."

    http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day
  • Footwedge
    And Con...let me add. Ford hated unions...and any form of collective bargaining. This is an example of why I get so pissed off at the guy with 3 degrees....who thinks human labor is nothing more than an expense on a balance sheet.

    Wall Street initially hated old Henry.

    American business models have absolutely no allegiance to the American worker....but instead their allegiances ally with pillaging the third world countries.

    You want to know why our economy is tanked? There's no demand whenever the dispodable income has shrunk the way it has.


    We reap what we sew.
  • Con_Alma
    Footwedge;1226198 wrote:This web site begs to differ...

    "In 1914, Henry Ford started an industrial revolution by more than doubling wages to $5 a day—a move that helped build the U.S. middle class and the modern economy."

    http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day
    You might look at the profits before such wage increases.
  • Con_Alma
    Footwedge;1226203 wrote:And Con...let me add. Ford hated unions...and any form of collective bargaining. This is an example of why I get so pissed off at the guy with 3 degrees....who thinks human labor is nothing more than an expense on a balance sheet.

    Wall Street initially hated old Henry.

    American business models have absolutely no allegiance to the American worker....but instead their allegiances ally with pillaging the third world countries.

    You want to know why our economy is tanked? There's no demand whenever the dispodable income has shrunk the way it has.


    We reap what we sew.
    Henry Ford didn't have a world economy and sales opportunity world wide. We do. He slowly created a greater market for himself. It is the early 20th century anymore. The demand isn't in the US. The demand is in the emerging Chinese economy. As it continues to develop our companies will either be able to participate or they will fail due to the size of Chinese companies producing at much lower rates.

    US business can thrive no matter the demand here in the US. Our economy isn't poor because of lack of US demand. demand isn't measured by the US's needs.

    When labor becomes anything more than an expense we will have already lost. If labor can be provided at a greater value by someone else and we don't utilize it we will eventually lose.
  • Footwedge
    Con_Alma;1226269 wrote:Henry Ford didn't have a world economy and sales opportunity world wide. We do. He slowly created a greater market for himself. It is the early 20th century anymore. The demand isn't in the US. The demand is in the emerging Chinese economy. As it continues to develop our companies will either be able to participate or they will fail due to the size of Chinese companies producing at much lower rates.

    US business can thrive no matter the demand here in the US. Our economy isn't poor because of lack of US demand. demand isn't measured by the US's needs.

    When labor becomes anything more than an expense we will have already lost. If labor can be provided at a greater value by someone else and we don't utilize it we will eventually lose.
    2 things. Your definition of labor differs greatly from mine. My definition of labor encompasses many more things than just grenbacks.And secondly, you are apparently A-OK with having an extremely high employment rate in our country. I'm different in how I view the world. I am far from a statist......but I also think that we have completely lost out way in how opportunity here is being thrown away.

    I won't have to deal with it. Because I was fortunate to get mine. It is Jordo's generation that will feel the ultimate wrath of globalization.
  • Footwedge
    Con_Alma;1226259 wrote:You might look at the profits before such wage increases.
    What does that have to do with it? I made a claim, you called me out on it...and I linked a proof source supporting my statement...and showing that you were wrong.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    Footwedge;1226198 wrote:This web site begs to differ...

    "In 1914, Henry Ford started an industrial revolution by more than doubling wages to $5 a day—a move that helped build the U.S. middle class and the modern economy."

    http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day
    "While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition"

    In other words, market forces, not some of socialist experiment. Isadore = Footwedge = Sleeper. I'm calling it now. Any bets?
  • Con_Alma
    Footwedge;1226338 wrote:What does that have to do with it? I made a claim, you called me out on it...and I linked a proof source supporting my statement...and showing that you were wrong.
    I didn't call you out on anything. What it has to do with it, is that Henry Ford was paying his people after he made tons of profit. He wasn't taking a risk and over paying them in hopes he could stay a float until they became the market he needed to survive. He had a market and sought to expand it. The pay was a result of the companies success.
  • Con_Alma
    Footwedge;1226337 wrote:2 things. Your definition of labor differs greatly from mine. My definition of labor encompasses many more things than just grenbacks.And secondly, you are apparently A-OK with having an extremely high employment rate in our country. I'm different in how I view the world. I am far from a statist......but I also think that we have completely lost out way in how opportunity here is being thrown away.

    I won't have to deal with it. Because I was fortunate to get mine. It is Jordo's generation that will feel the ultimate wrath of globalization.
    I haven't defined labor. Why do you say our definitions are completely different. I guess a simple definition would be people who provide either physical or mental services for the employer. Does that leave anyone out?

    I am neither O.K. nor concerned with extremely high, I think you meant "un"employment, rate. It's nothing more than a result of our actions in the market place. I do, however, believe that the pure numbers in China are soon going to change everything including business opportunity and labor pool.
  • QuakerOats
    believer;1225990 wrote:Good grief....really? http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/

    [video=youtube;6j8XhQfvpW8][/video]

    I simply cannot believe it. I think he has just gone right past being a socialist and is an avowed communist, just like his dad. And his arrogance is just plain disgusting.

    November '12 ---- our final chance to save the republic.
  • Belly35
    Obama what the fuck have you ever built that has any substance? What I have built, attended to build or failed to build your happy ass could never ever do. What I have done in my life you couldn't survive. Now you're telling me and all the entrepreneurs of America business that my and their accomplishment is because of people like you, politician assholes and government incompetency ....fuck off
  • thePITman
    [video=youtube;mSYy3ZYOfgQ][/video]
  • ptown_trojans_1
    BGFalcons82;1225488 wrote:I'm not buyin your explanation, ptown. jhay78 nailed it with his statement that R's are guilty if they compromise and become bipartisan buddies and they are also to blame should they stand their ground and want to cut programs. Heaven forbid they shut down the government!! Since compromising and "being the party of no" means they are to blame, I'll ask the follow-up: What should R's do in order to be "blameless"?
    Compromise further. Give up on the idea to never raise taxes, as it is ludicrous. Come up with a real plan to cut debt that touches the big problems, Medicare and Medicaid. Come to the table with long term ideas that goes beyond the BS political slogans of "ohhh, evil this, or dictator that."

    That said, the liberals need to do the same thing, give up on the idea of continued spending and social welfare reform. We can't help everyone. See, it is a total team effort.

    If we are really serious about the debt and long term reform, we need serious in-depth solutions from our leaders. Shutting down the Government solves nothing. Especially, if it over a small portion of the debt.

    What else would you call a person that picks and chooses what laws to enforce?
    What else would you call a person that writes his own legislation via Executive Order and changes the welfare requirements LAW?
    What else would you call a person that acts as policeman, judge, juror and executioner as he sends drones across the planet to execute Americans, terrorists, and anyone else standing in his way?
    What else would you call a person that authorizes a governmental agency to sexually grope grandmas and children?
    What else would you call a person that refuses to enforce the Defense Of Marriage Act because he doesn't like it?
    What else would you call someone that magically turns ILLEGAL citizens into legal ones with a stroke of a pen?
    What else would you call a person that gives OUR TAXPAYER money (note- not HIS money) to people who funded his election and punishes those that did not?
    What else do you call someone that allows his election donors to be granted waivers from his new healthkare law?

    Yeah, you're right, he wasn't elected dictator. He's just performing like one.

    I'd call that every President since FDR. Every President simply picks and chooses which laws they want to follow. It is the reality of the modern President, and the growth of Executive power. Now, I'll admit, the President came in saying he would change, and he hasn't. He has fell in love with the Executive Power like every other President.

    Go back through history and you can find Executive Orders and statements where Presidents go against Congress all the time. Reagan has his moments, towards Iran, tax issues, military spending, Afghanistan, etc. Clinton has his. Going back, Truman had his, China policy, Korea.

    It's not unique to this President. If you want to call it dictator like, fine, then rail against the Presidential power. Also, if Romney does the same thing, which I am sure he will, you cannot come back with this argument at all.

    Furthermore, to a larger point. Using loaded language like Dictator solves nothing. It leads to poor discourse and dialogue on the real problems we face.
    The President is not in the same company as Stalin, Hitler, Mao or any other Dictator. Using the word is just a poor excuse and a simple out to saying you don't like his policies. Just say that, in a more analytical way.
    believer;1225507 wrote:It is certainly a flagrant and obvious abuse of executive powers if not dictatorial. In all fairness all presidents have used executive orders to circumvent the law to one degree or another. It seems, however, that the Bammer is abusing it to an arrogant and even scary extreme. He did promise to fundamentally transform Amerika so......




    One thing is certain...if the Kool Aid drinkers, fence riders, and the Pauliban are successful in handing Barry 4 more years to continue these policies, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
    Actually, if you go back, GWB and Clinton used it far more. Also, Presidents during the Cold War used it far more frequently than ones today.
  • Con_Alma
    ptown_trojans_1;1226529 wrote:... Also, if Romney does the same thing, which I am sure he will, you cannot come back with this argument at all.

    ....
    ??? Of course we can...and I hope we will.

    I will oblige you, however. I don't like his policies and I don't like the manner that executive privilege is used.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1226529 wrote:Compromise further. Give up on the idea to never raise taxes, as it is ludicrous. Come up with a real plan to cut debt that touches the big problems, Medicare and Medicaid. Come to the table with long term ideas that goes beyond the BS political slogans of "ohhh, evil this, or dictator that."
    We did.

    Mr. Bush attempted to address Social Security, and was villified by the Left.

    Mr. Ryan has attempted to address Medicare, and the budget as a whole, and has been villified by the Left.

    It is becoming more apparent that compromise is defined as occurring only when republicans bow down to the wishes of the democrats. I have yet to see the mainstream media suggest that compromise ever be achieved through democrat acquiescence; instead they merely label republicans as the 'party of no', and the masses soak it up.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1226584 wrote:We did.

    Mr. Bush attempted to address Social Security, and was villified by the Left.

    Mr. Ryan has attempted to address Medicare, and the budget as a whole, and has been villified by the Left.

    It is becoming more apparent that compromise is defined as occurring only when republicans bow down to the wishes of the democrats. I have yet to see the mainstream media suggest that compromise ever be achieved through democrat acquiescence; instead they merely label republicans as the 'party of no', and the masses soak it up.
    The W attempt in 2005 was destroyed by all sides, not just the left. Hell, the party leadership in 2005 did not want anything to do with it. It never even got off the ground. So, both sides failed at that.

    The Ryan plan is a start, and was incorrectly vilified by the left, agreed. But, it is just a start. It was a half measure, that was just one view from the right, but did not attempt to take anything the left would ever agree to. Plus, it didn't address Medicaid issues. Still, huge props for Ryan. We need more of that, just more in-depth, changes to taxes here and there, and one where everyone gives up a sacred cow.

    I would agree on your last point, and in my post, I made clear the left needs to give up on their issuses as well, including social programs and spending.