You didn build that !

Obama said in a speech yesterday that business is indebted to government for the infrastructure the government provides. Since the government produces nothing and thus cannot create its own revenue, just who does Obama think PAID for that infrastructure. Should he not be saying thank you and feel indebted to us? Arrogance.

In the famous words of Hillary Clinton....."It takes a village"!

apparently in your world you call eating your share then leaving before paying for your share of the bill buying lunch for the group?

Your logic is not logical and your statement of fact
"the government produces nothing" is not fact and therefore not useful as start of logical arguement. Our government produces a large portion of the goods and services consumed in our economy each year. It does this at the direction of our elected officals. That is reality.

It is part of Obama's take credit for everything and blame for nothing campaign. You need to adjust your way of seeing things to understand. If you don't get it you are a blocker, and or a racist. Once you come around it will all be clear, you will know just how to vote in November, America will become Utopia and we can all sing Kum Ba YA!

Here my comments are specifically in response to those who think they owe nothing to support the government that they take from, and in this case are down right angry for it to even be suggested that they might in fact owe for the benefit they have derived.   

In general I do feel we all owe more than we are currently paying because the current rates are not enough to cover what we are spending much less enough to pay back what we have already spent.

My overall tax rate between various income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax.. at all levels is right around 43% (it would be 50% if I didnt take full advantage of the 401k tax loophole) of what I make a year, if warren buffet and mitt romney are paying less than 20% a year, if GE is paying nothing then they are all not paying thier fair share.

I dont know why you are feeling so guilty about your rate?

You are never going to get me to agree that we should all be paying equal dollar amounts and not equal rates as apple certainly derives much more benefit from the government than I do and income is as good an indicator of that benefit as any and better than most.

Call me crazy but I would rather start paying back the money we all owe than to keep running up the credit card. When we arent even willing to tax at the rate required to keep up with what we have already spent then we will never pay down that debt.

That wouldnt be a bad idea at all, the second we passed a balanced budget amendment that is. Until then you might as well just write a check to the nearest billionaire.

I do hold you slightly more responsible for the national debt than me.. as you have been old enough to vote for longer.

It all evens out Joe,for example here in Illinois you still get to vote after your gone thus making up for when you were too young

Waldo wrote: The 1979 Ski Nautique is probably my favorite boat. What do you guys think? Waldo

Ahh, not to old, not to new, you must be a moderate. Every read the book "Great Moderates In History"..... It will never be written.

JoeinNY wrote: In general I do feel we all owe more than we are currently paying because the current rates are not enough to cover what we are spending much less enough to pay back what we have already spent.

Joe, If you think that will solve our problem maybe we should start giving more liquor to alcoholics and More fatty foods to the morbidly obese. We have a spending and entitlement problem. In the 1950's we had 15 people in the private sector for every 1 on the government payroll(government employees and those living on entitlements). Today it is 1.2 private sector employes for every 1 government supported. That is not sustainable. There is no evidence that giving the government more money leads to a reduced deficit, in fact studies have proven that government spending increases faster that the income increase. To give the government an extra cent without first getting spending reduced and a balanced budget agreement is just shooting ourselves in the foot. To claim anything else is sheer denial, and just a justification for those that think the government can spend our money better than we can.

JoeinNY wrote: Call me crazy but I would rather start paying back the money we all owe than to keep running up the credit card. When we arent even willing to tax at the rate required to keep up with what we have already spent then we will never pay down that debt.

Call me crazy but I would rather tear up the credit card and live on a realistic budget. When we are not required to live within our means we will never pay down the debt.

Ok guys limit of two posts in a row.


Waldo

OverMyHead wrote: Joe, If you think that will solve our problem maybe we should start giving more liquor to alcoholics and More fatty foods to the morbidly obese. We have a spending and entitlement problem. In the 1950's we had 15 people in the private sector for every 1 on the government payroll(government employees and those living on entitlements). Today it is 1.2 private sector employes for every 1 government supported. That is not sustainable. There is no evidence that giving the government more money leads to a reduced deficit, in fact studies have proven that government spending increases faster that the income increase. To give the government an extra cent without first getting spending reduced and a balanced budget agreement is just shooting ourselves in the foot. To claim anything else is sheer denial, and just a justification for those that think the government can spend our money better than we can.

Your comparision of my thinking is kind of silly.. my thought would be much closer to saying someone who is obese should both look to do more exercise and limit thier calorie intake and yours is more along the lines of saying screw exercise they should just stop eating all together. The results to the country would be the same as to the person if they were to follow your plans btw. To compare your offered solution to anything else is a stretch to say that I am suggesting to throw them more fatty food is a farce. I do admire how you conservative types like to get all folksy with this made up allegorical stuff but come on..

Not only do you refuse to take the responsibility for the government you have helped create... further you continue to provide statistics as facts that are not in fact factual. The worst kind of debater is one that talks of mythical studies and provides numbers that support your premise but are just made up or wildly stretched cases. You have allowed yourself to become a habitual offender by parroting right wing talking points as facts.

A high side figure for government employment vs private at this point would be 1 for 4, not 1 for 1.2... a more realistic way to express it would be 17 percent or 1 out of 5 people employed in the us. Your views are reasonable if your reality is 1 for 1.2, but your reality is made up.

These studies that show tax increases dont effect the deficit are nonsense ... reagan lowered taxes and ran deficits.. the debt went up. Before he left office he found a more middle ground and deficits leveled off, Bush and Clinton further tweaked up tax rates and produced a set of rates that ultimately produced surpluses. There is your evidence!!!

Bush the second lowered them it provided no economic benefit and increased the debt. Any study that says different ignores the facts... spending will always increase.. the country gets bigger every year if you want to only look at spending and not look at revenue then you can look at it anyway you want but it leads to the decline of america and not growth.

Statistics from the 50's are useless unless you are willing to go back to the results of the 50's. Which in 1959 included poverty level for those below 18 at 27% vs 20% now (16% before bush the 2nd), and those above 65 at 35% vs 8.9%... while you’re at it you need to take back the 10 year average increase in life expectancy since the 50’s.   Maybe you dont care about old and young people, thats fine but you still need to give back the more than 40 percent increase in inflation adjusted average income since the end of the 50's. If you are unwilling to accept that as the price of your limited government… then your numbers of what it should take to provide the proper environment for America to thrive shouldn’t come from the 50’s. If you are willing to accept those rates as the necessary price of liberty then you are drastically out of the mainstream of America.

In the dave method of arguement I can safely say that as for the list of moderates that made positive changes in history it is by definition infinitely larger than conservatives that made positive changes... and I would be a lot closer to fact than any of the crap statistics and studies quoted above.

no frickin government helped me build our business.
Nobody but my wife and I did it....

THIS MORON IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY...

all I have seen with him are empty promises.... highest debt(said he was going to cut it in half), high unemployment, high gas prices, I just heard 1/3 of the population depends on some kind of government hand out. And on and on we go...

until ALL politicians decide its time to balance the budget,(read CUT THE BUDGET/SPENDING) we will continue to have problems...

JoeinNY wrote: Your comparision of my thinking is kind of silly.. my thought would be much closer to saying someone who is obese should both look to do more exercise and limit thier calorie intake and yours is more along the lines of saying screw exercise they should just stop eating all together. The results to the country would be the same as to the person if they were to follow your plans btw. To compare your offered solution to anything else is a stretch to say that I am suggesting to throw them more fatty food is a farce. I do admire how you conservative types like to get all folksy with this made up allegorical stuff but come on..

Joe, I never said we shaould have no government or no taxes, that is a stretch that you made. I like your folksy analogy of diet and exercise. For one it is the closet you have ever come to acknowleging that there may be excess in government. What I stated is that we should not raise taxes until we have a plan to balance the budget.(I did not say end all taxes) this would be the same as saying lets not blindly INCREASE the obese persons calorie intake, lets make a diet and exercise plan and see what the intake needs to be. Only conservatives take this aproach. You on the other hand are suggesting that more consumtion is the solution.

JoeinNY wrote: Not only do you refuse to take the responsibility for the government you have helped create... further you continue to provide statistics as facts that are not in fact factual. The worst kind of debater is one that talks of mythical studies and provides numbers that support your premise but are just made up or wildly stretched cases. You have allowed yourself to become a habitual offender by parroting right wing talking points as facts. A high side figure for government employment vs private at this point would be 1 for 4, not 1 for 1.2... a more realistic way to express it would be 17 percent or 1 out of 5 people employed in the us. Your views are reasonable if your reality is 1 for 1.2, but your reality is made up.

I did not quote government employment , I quoted government employment + those living on entitlements ( unemployed, welfare, etc..... combined that is 1.2 private to 1 government funded)

JoeinNY wrote: These studies that show tax increases dont effect the deficit are nonsense ... reagan lowered taxes and ran deficits.. the debt went up. Before he left office he found a more middle ground and deficits leveled off, Bush and Clinton further tweaked up tax rates and produced a set of rates that ultimately produced surpluses. There is your evidence!!!

Lots more going on here, Regan slashed taxes and cut government spending creating a major boom,he created 7 million jobs moving millions from net recieviers from the government to tax payers. Only then was he able to increase taxes marginally and reap the benefits. Clinton benefited from Gingriches contract with America and begrudginly instituted welfare reform moving more from welfare to tax payer roles. this made a balance budget far easier.

JoeinNY wrote: spending will always increase.. the country gets bigger every year if you want to only look at spending and not look at revenue then you can look at it anyway you want but it leads to the decline of america and not growth.

I dont take that spending must always increase as a given. Certainly not as an excuse to spend as much as possible.

JoeinNY wrote: Statistics from the 50's are useless unless you are willing to go back to the results of the 50's. Which in 1959 included poverty level for those below 18 at 27% vs 20% now (16% before bush the 2nd), and those above 65 at 35% vs 8.9%... while you’re at it you need to take back the 10 year average increase in life expectancy since the 50’s.   Maybe you dont care about old and young people, thats fine but you still need to give back the more than 40 percent increase in inflation adjusted average income since the end of the 50's. If you are unwilling to accept that as the price of your limited government… then your numbers of what it should take to provide the proper environment for America to thrive shouldn’t come from the 50’s. If you are willing to accept those rates as the necessary price of liberty then you are drastically out of the mainstream of America.

Yes things have changed since the 50's, we have far fewer people working, as compared to those not. And yet we are adding bennefits to those not working, when logic would say we might need to tigheten things up if fewer a going to pay for more. Or we can just continue to deficit spend ourselves off of the finacisl cliff.

ononewheel wrote: Ok, just so you know the real story, here is what Obama said,     I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.     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. 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.     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. So no, you didn't do it all by yourself and blindly following the (r) or (d), you'll only hear what they want you to hear. Anybody can take a sentence out of a speech and use it to support the argument they wish. You'd think in this day we could move beyond this crap slinging, lies, half truths, and 3 second sound bits.

Yep thats the speech I heard. I still find it offensive. Again the government administrates, in some cases it helps, in others businesses have made it despite the best efforts of government to stop them. Private companies have been sued by the government for doing background checks, checking immigration status and even for asking for a high school diploma. They have also been shut down for hiring illegal immigrants and been sued for not doing background checks. Everything the government does is paid for by individuales and businesses. Government research may have played a role helping Al Gore create the internet , but who's taxes paid for that research? Who's gas taxes paid for the roads and bridges? Who's property taxes paid for the teachers? Take away taxes and how long does our government keep doing these great things? Answer,they dont. This speech was about how thankfull we are supposed to be for what the government has done for us, but it was a slap in the face to all those that have done for the government saying we did not do it.

ononewheel wrote: Yeah Dave, sure. How far would you get if you had to build your own roads, secure your own drinking water, educate your kids, establish your own communication, secure you and your family from criminals.... So in the above speech, instead of "SOMEBODY", he used taxpayer, would that make it agreeable? The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. That to me is the essence of the whole argument and what we have forgotten, not in the day to day life, but in elected office and where politics are involved.

It is not the somebody line that was offensive. look at the title of the thread.