"You Didn't Build That"
Quote: EvenBobso what he running on. That he's the incumbent,
thats all he's got.
You ran a bar, so you're qualified to be President.
You can fix the economy.
Go to it.
Quote: rxwineYou can fix the economy.
Go to it.
Fixing the economy is easy. Deregulate the crap out
of it, give people incentives to start new business and
start hiring. You know how they opened parts of the
praire states. They gave 160 acres of land to anybody
who lived there for 5 years and improved the property.
Free of charge, west of the Mississippi. What do you
think this did for the economy?
"Eventually 1.6 million homesteads were granted and
270,000,000 acres (420,000 sq mi) of federal land
were privatized between 1862 and 1934, a total of
10% of all lands in the United States"
Things like this made us stable and eventually a world
power. In Europe, the land would have been sold to the
rich so they could be landlords. Here we gave it away
for free and built a nation.
Quote: EvenBobThats because you wracked your brain and can't come
up with more than he was black and gave a good speech.
You are not listening. I don't need to come up with more.
He won. Romney lost. That says it all.
Quote:Pretty pathetic.
What's pathetic is your trying to pretend you don't understand, that the only "strength" that really counts is the ability to accomplish your goal. You either can or you cannot. It is that simple.
Quote: weaselman
He won. Romney lost.
.
Do you have the car from Back to the Future?
Quote: weaselmanHe won. Romney lost. That says it all.
Good thing you weren't around Germany in 1930s.
Quote: P90Good thing you weren't around Germany in 1930s.
Well, I like it that I wasn't there too ... but I suspect you must mean something else when you are saying that, but your real intended meaning escapes me I am afraid. Would you care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that in your opinion Hitler was underestimated by his opponents in Germany back than in a way similar to how Obama was underestimated in US four years ago (and still is now), and that it was somehow a good thing?
Quote: weaselman... but I suspect you must mean something else
Well, you would throw your support behind the guy, because "He won, von Hindenburg lost", right?
Quote: weaselmanAre you suggesting that in your opinion Hitler was underestimated in Germany back than in a way similar to how Obama was underestimated in US four years ago (and still is now), and that it was somehow a good thing?
BHO was only ever overestimated, not underestimated.
He was overestimated as a president by his supporters; and overestimated as a danger by the rest.
I initially considered the 2008 election an anthropogenic disaster akin to Dustbowl or Chernobyl, but now, looking back, it was more like America's big collective wet fart. Crappy, but a couple machine cycles later, still same pants. Skinny boy, big mouth, too incompetent to do any good, too impotent to do much harm.
Quote: P90Well, you would throw your support behind the guy, because "He won, von Hindenburg lost", right?
I don't support Obama. I cannot begin to imagine what made you think I did.
Did you read anything I posted in this thread besides the one sentence you quoted in your response?
Quote:BHO was only ever overestimated, not underestimated.
He was overestimated as a president by his supporters; and overestimated as a danger by the rest.
I am talking about underestimating him as an opponent to Republican presidential candidates. He was underestimated in 2008, and won. Now, conservatives seem to be about to repeat the same mistake. Some people never learn.
Even so, though, everyone runs the best campaign they can... not always good enough.
Reps' position in 2008 was severely weakened by W, who became a joke among both sides. Putting McCain as their candidate wasn't a strong move either.
Quote: buzzpaffi was gonna vote for McCain. Liked his leadership qualities. Then he picked Sarh Palin and that was that. Biggest decision you have as Governor of Alaska is how much oil money to give each citizen annually.
That seems like an odd way to think given Obama's even thinner executive resume and the fact that Obama was running for President, not Vice-President.
Quote: buzzpaffi was gonna vote for McCain. Liked his leadership qualities. Then he picked Sarh Palin and that was that. Biggest decision you have as Governor of Alaska is how much oil money to give each citizen annually.
Even if that were true, and it is not, it is still more responsibility than voting "present" to avoid taking a stand.
And in case you forgot, Palin was the only thing that gave McCain a lead or any energy at all. After a week of that the lamestream media started their search-and-destroy mission, same as they did on Quayle.
BTW: Ever find it funny that Dan Quayle was considered "unqualified" by the lamestreams because he was just some Senator while Obama was considered "brilliant" but still just some Senator?
Quote: AZDuffmanBTW: Ever find it funny that Dan Quayle was considered "unqualified" by the lamestreams because he was just some Senator while Obama was considered "brilliant" but still just some Senator?
Quayle made some of the worst bumbling gaffes ever. Nixon had to defend him as not being an actual "mental midget". Nixon's own words.
Of course, let's not forget that what Romney did was sign the healthcare bill everyone's arguing about now, epically fail (veto overridden 113-2, IIRC) to push a compromise on stem-cell research, and finally lose to a charismatic black man whose slogan was "we can."
Quote: 24BingoWherever he was four years ago, Obama now has the best preparation for the job it's possible to get, and Romney has the third-best.
OMG, thats exactly what they were saying about Jimma Carter
in 1980! Jimma had actual on-the-job training as president and
was about to kick away the training wheels on his tricycle. And
all poor Reagan had was experience as a governor. And we all
know how that went for ol Jimma...
Let me guess, though, Reagan agreed with you that "Random Walk is a theory and not everybody subscribes to it."
Quote: 24BingoI think around the time he oversaw the death of bin Laden, brought the troops home, ended DADT, and got the health care plan through, the training wheels were pretty much off. I also don't seem to recall most of the negative press about Jimmy being built on absurd descriptors like "socialist" or insults that, to the untrained eye, really look a lot like race-baiting, or Reagan being an abject failure of a governor who found himself stuck making a central plank of attacking his own best-known achievements; I do recall that the Democrats were split down the middle at the time, though. Hmm.
Let me guess, though, Reagan agreed with you that "Random Walk is a theory and not everybody subscribes to it."
Apparently, the training wheels (Valerie Jarrett) were very much on regarding bin Laden, if the reports that she nixed the mission the first three times around are true. Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq longer; Iraq said no. We still have troops in Afghanistan, but we're losing the war there - the one Obama said was the important one. Obama waffled for years on DADT and gay issues generally, first having the DoJ defend DADT, being against gay marriage, then being for gay marriage but saying it was a state issue, etc. Not only are the training wheels on, Obama continues to face-plant despite them.
Why is "socialist" an insult to you? It's an accurate description of what's he's aimed for and failed to deliver (health care - in the primary he wanted single payer, Hillary was the one who wanted the mandate and private insurance companies) and in some cases what he's achieved (government takeovers). It's woven throughout his history, his mentors, the political circles he's been a part of. It comes out of his mouth when he goes off script. "It's good for everybody if we spread the wealth around." This is a socialist view.
Enjoy Summer of Recovery III. This time for sure!
Quote: 24BingoIt's not really an insult (although in reference to Obama it's nearly always meant as one); rather, it has a specific meaning, one Obama, a fairly middle-of-the-road leftist, doesn't meet at all. I'm not saying single-payer is a good idea - it isn't, really, not in this country, much less on a federal level - but it's no more "socialist" than a library or a fire station, and sure, some would say that we should be rid of those things, too, but only a fringe minority would use the word "socialist" for supporters of these programs, even if they might for the programs themselves.
There might be a greater trend towards using the term "socialist" for libraries and fire stations when they comprise 18% of GDP and there are hundreds of billions of dollars in income-based wealth transfers involved.
Quote: LlewObama waffled for years on DADT and gay issues generally, first having the DoJ defend DADT, being against gay marriage, then being for gay marriage but saying it was a state issue, etc. Not only are the training wheels on, Obama continues to face-plant despite them.
I doubt it was waffling, as there were issues to sort out with the military, and the plate became full once the healthcare issue got full steam there was no reason to purposely add more issues
The invites to the White House, and general conduct of the administration was of a "closeted" administration, hiding in plain sight. I believe he definitely lied about "evolving". That was just a cover.
So, yeah, he proceeded on a different time table, a lot slower than gay rights activists wanted, but that wasn't waffling. He already had decided on where he was going with it.
That's what I believe anyway. I don't believe he's ever really had issues with gay marriage, since he's been in office -- except as how to best negotiate as a political football to get to a certain end game.
Quote: Llew"It's good for everybody if we spread the wealth around." This is a socialist view.
Strikes me a general centre-left wing view, a partial opposite to the "rising tide floats all boats" idea of trickle down economics. It's merely stating support for a progressive taxation and wealth redistribution policy. Now those things may well be an anthema to your view. But they are not in and off themselves 'socialist'.
Quote: thecesspitStrikes me a general centre-left wing view, a partial opposite to the "rising tide floats all boats" idea of trickle down economics. It's merely stating support for a progressive taxation and wealth redistribution policy. Now those things may well be an anthema to your view. But they are not in and off themselves 'socialist'.
His reasoning for "spreading the wealth around" is "fairness" - a moral case, not an economic one, as if income inequality, no matter the cause, is inherently bad, because society collectively, not individuals, are what matter. This is pure socialist/communist ideology. If the center-left has adopted it, then they have adopted a socialist position.
The opposite viewpoint is that the economic freedom of individuals is what drives the productivity and innovation necessary for society to advance. Because human nature causes us to respond to incentives, we are more productive when we have more incentives to be productive (and fewer disincentives for being unproductive). If we have the same quality of life no matter what decisions we make, how hard we work, what career we choose, etc., we will follow the path that is most comfortable - and this is rarely a path of productivity and innovation.
The primary driver in people's decisions to develop skills that help society, to produce and innovate, to start business ventures, is the potential rewards they will get, not some altruistic desire to improve society. Any social engineering that relies on altruism rather than incentives is not going to work on a large scale - first, because it's opposed to human nature, and second, because a government wielding that much control and curtailing economic freedom to that degree is going to attract power-hungry bastards to run it.
Removing those incentives wherever possible may appeal to our emotions because it's human instinct to help members of the tribe. But instincts are often misleading and destructive in a civilization built on reason.
Quote: LlewHis reasoning for "spreading the wealth around" is "fairness" - a moral case, not an economic one, as if income inequality, no matter the cause, is inherently bad, because society collectively, not individuals, are what matter. This is pure socialist/communist ideology. If the center-left has adopted it, then they have adopted a socialist position.
Progressive wealth redistribution has been governmental policy on both the centre-left and centre-right for decades.
I think you've hit something. The socialistic/tribal view point probably does work on the small scale (100's) rather than civilisation (millions), as at the small scale, man will work altruistically to improve their overall local society, but in the large scale it's too abstract.
Interesting, I've heard altruism used as the motivating factor for many libertarians for people using their wealth for "good" without government coercion.
Of course, if the USA and other states do become more socialistic via aggressive wealth redistribution, Marx would have been right. Though he doesn't describe the eventual end of a Marxist revolution (means becomes the end, and justifies itself).
There's one thing that always jumps out at me about a conservative economic position, is that in real terms (and this is human nature too) far too many businesses are not long term planners.
Long term planners in business should see that, (give a for instance) circumventing safety concerns essentially to propel business profits will eventually self-destruct, in fines, lawsuits, employee injury, perhaps in total business failure even, but far too many businesses do put short term goals of profit over long term goals of profit.
Conservative theory pretends that the buying public will correct bad behavoir, yet we see over and over that failure goes DEEP before the correction occurs. This means that a lot of people usually get hurt before the correction occurs. That is why we have big scandels and failures eventually instead of sensible market correction.
Conservatives often reject regulation because it is more costly and when it does fail, they point and say, "see it NEVER works". Well, it does work sometimes, and it's all we've got as far as I know.
Quote: thecesspit
I think you've hit something. The socialistic/tribal view point probably does work on the small scale (100's) rather than civilisation (millions), as at the small scale, man will work altruistically to improve their overall local society, but in the large scale it's too abstract.
It always works well on a small scale, where
the people know each other, like in a small
town. The rich factory owner gives out
scholarships, donates libraries, theatres,
hospitals, as well as employ's most of
the town. He gives back part of his wealth
to those that helped him get it.
People see this and think it will work on
a large scale and it never does. Rich people
like to see first hand what their largess does,
not see it doled out 2000 miles away to
somebody in a trailer park. Its human nature.
Does someone need to watch them? -- I sure think so.
Quote: thecesspitProgressive wealth redistribution has been governmental policy on both the centre-left and centre-right for decades.
I think you've hit something. The socialistic/tribal view point probably does work on the small scale (100's) rather than civilisation (millions), as at the small scale, man will work altruistically to improve their overall local society, but in the large scale it's too abstract.
Interesting, I've heard altruism used as the motivating factor for many libertarians for people using their wealth for "good" without government coercion.
Of course, if the USA and other states do become more socialistic via aggressive wealth redistribution, Marx would have been right. Though he doesn't describe the eventual end of a Marxist revolution (means becomes the end, and justifies itself).
It works when you can see firsthand the need and the impact of the help you provide, and when it's your choice whether to help or not.
When your money is taken by force and split into a million different directions to people you never see and programs you may or may not support by a government bureaucracy thousands of miles away, you don't get the same feeling of satisfaction for helping your fellow man, and the sense of personal responsibility to help their fellow man that most people feel is replaced with the delusion that as long as you pay your taxes, you are absolved of that responsibility - that it is now a societal responsibility, not a personal one.
And from that point, it's human nature to get pissed off at the portions of society you think aren't living up to their part of that shared responsibility. Usually, everyone who's richer than you - but not you.
Quote: rxwine...also, adding to my last post. Big businesses actually are like life forms, in that they don't want to die even if they are no longer serving their primary purpose, they often inject factors to actually resist fair competition from smaller competitors, like manipulation of the market, or paying political favors.
Does someone need to watch them? -- I sure think so.
In this instance, government regulation actually favors big business at the expense of smaller competitors. Make licensing requirements and permits and red tape expensive and complicated enough, and breaking into any market becomes too hard and too expensive for start-ups to do. That's one reason start-ups tend to break into new markets, or online where regulations are still scant if they exist at all.
Quote: NareedIn this instance, government regulation actually favors big business at the expense of smaller competitors. Make licensing requirements and permits and red tape expensive and complicated enough, and breaking into any market becomes too hard and too expensive for start-ups to do. That's one reason start-ups tend to break into new markets, or online where regulations are still scant if they exist at all.
You know your system is flawed when lobbying gives you a better return on your money than capital investment and R&D.
Quote: LlewYou know your system is flawed when lobbying gives you a better return on your money than capital investment and R&D.
You know the system is flawed when you need a lobbyist.
Quote: NareedIn this instance, government regulation actually favors big business at the expense of smaller competitors. Make licensing requirements and permits and red tape expensive and complicated enough, and breaking into any market becomes too hard and too expensive for start-ups to do. That's one reason start-ups tend to break into new markets, or online where regulations are still scant if they exist at all.
Hey, that's my theory on why Vegas requires so many hotel rooms to open a casino. Do I suspect big casinos corps are anti-competitive and like it that way and may even be behind it? It's the "we are here to survive simply and will use any means necessary" now that we have the market.
And is that good for the customer, or are the big casinos just trying to styfle new competition?
Quote: thecesspitInteresting, I've heard altruism used as the motivating factor for many libertarians for people using their wealth for "good" without government coercion.
.
I was recently at a fundraiser where we raised over 40k for an organization that helped people to have homes of their own. This was all totally private- no government- an organization that was making a difference and the fundraiser came about because a single individual wanted to make a difference. Everyone had a good time, donations were made, money was collected, and "good" will be done. We even heard the story of one lady, from her own lips, on how the organization helped her.
If government would be more efficient in how they spend our money, people would be less reactive to even more radical re-distributive polices.
Quote: NareedYou know the system is flawed when you need a lobbyist.
As the left forever find impossible to grasp, there is no telos, no utopia, no objective good. When there's no need for lobbyists, your system is far beyond "flawed."
From a friend watching the Olympics: "How about that Michael Phelps?
But let's remember he didn't win all those medals, someone else did.
After all, he and I swam in public pools, built by state employees using
tax dollars. He got training from the USOC, and ate food grown by the
Department of Agriculture. He should play fair and share his medals
with people like me, who can barely keep my head above water,
let alone swim."
The note was merry and ironic. And as the games progress, we'll be
hearing a lot more of this kind of thing, because President Obama's
comment—"You didn't build that"—is the political gift that keeps on giving.
They are now the most famous words he has said in his presidency. And oh, how he wishes they weren't.
