It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama: ‘If You’ve Got a Business — You Didn’t Build That. Somebody Else Made That

page: 11
79
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Do you realize that many roads that we drive on today were some trails in the past?

and I never stated that government does not help, but it seems that those in government seem to think we would all be unable to survive without them.....which to me is a load of crap

Source: ME.




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarksThoughts
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Many of you who think like this are fools. The movement West in the 19th century was made possible by the rail industry, which was built entirely by American entrepreneurs


False. These private corporations took HUGE amounts of money and land from the government, and could NEVER have completed their efforts without it. You are perpetuating a fantasy version of history.

And Im not vilifying private business. It is INTEGRAL to the development of any nation. I am merely correcting your absurdest version of history. Atlas shrugged is fiction.



With the passage of the Pacific Railway Bill during the Civil War, the Union Pacific Railway Company and Central Pacific were given millions of acres of land to complete a railroad all the way to the Pacific Ocean, one company starting at the West Coast and the other farther east. Both lines met at Promontory Point, Utah, in 1869, where the ceremonial "golden spike" was driven with a silver-plated hammer to commemorate the historic event.


www.landandfreedom.org...
edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Do you realize that many roads that we drive on today were some trails in the past?


Right. Great point. Government hasnt, like, built and maintained them or anything.




and I never stated that government does not help,
Yes, you did. Repeatedly.


edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


Its true...hes right-

That uncomfey feeling you have that wants to defend attack rationalize against or even for what Obama said....well
that's the ego still thinking its in control and scared to death of losing what it thinks it has or wont get what it wants.

you interpret the way they want you to interpret (opponent)....Obama isn't saying the government did it all or even suggesting it....hes saying we all did.

A demonstration-
Lights
Camera
Action






edit on 15-7-2012 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


This speech, as I read it, is an attempt to use a grain of truth to perpetuate a communist viewpoint. It seeks to convince those who listen, the idea that individual acheivement should not be priased or credited. Only the combined collective is responsible for what has been accomplished. It is true, a large industry is created by the efforts of many, but where would those efforts go without someone to lead the way? It is the entrepenuer who comes up with an idea, convinces investors to risk capital on his idea, and employes others using that capital to build his business into a success. For example, do we credit the invention of interchagable parts and the cotton gin to Eli Whitney, or to those who invested in his idea, and worked for him? Do we credit Henry Ford for the invention of the modern assembly line, or the holders of Ford stock? He seeks to do as others have before him, he seeks to covince us it is not individual acheivement, but collective acheivement, facilitated by those in government who "allowed" the collective opportunity to proceed forward. Such beliefs were presented to the public by men like Joseph Stalin, or Maozedong. This shows his commitment to promoting the socialist ideals on which he was raised to believe in.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hequick
 





This speech, as I read it, is an attempt to use a grain of truth to perpetuate a communist viewpoint.


You people are seriously reading another speech or something.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Do you realize that many roads that we drive on today were some trails in the past?


Right. Great point. Government hasnt, like, built and maintained them or anything.



He stepped directly into that one.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hequick
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


This speech, as I read it, is an attempt to use a grain of truth to perpetuate a communist viewpoint. It seeks to convince those who listen, the idea that individual acheivement should not be priased or credited. Only the combined collective is responsible for what has been accomplished. It is true, a large industry is created by the efforts of many, but where would those efforts go without someone to lead the way? It is the entrepenuer who comes up with an idea, convinces investors to risk capital on his idea, and employes others using that capital to build his business into a success. For example, do we credit the invention of interchagable parts and the cotton gin to Eli Whitney, or to those who invested in his idea, and worked for him? Do we credit Henry Ford for the invention of the modern assembly line, or the holders of Ford stock? He seeks to do as others have before him, he seeks to covince us it is not individual acheivement, but collective acheivement, facilitated by those in government who "allowed" the collective opportunity to proceed forward. Such beliefs were presented to the public by men like Joseph Stalin, or Maozedong. This shows his commitment to promoting the socialist ideals on which he was raised to believe in.


Great points. It's Obama's "Collective Salvation" that he's promoting and sadly some are buying.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Well Mr. Obama, your the President. You didn't get there by yourself, we the people made that happen...



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by hequick
 





This speech, as I read it, is an attempt to use a grain of truth to perpetuate a communist viewpoint.


You people are seriously reading another speech or something.



Memetics and NLP
All the far out stuff they use to implant it at even deeper levels(technologies).....well...you simply wouldn't believe me.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Incorrect:


The decade of the 1920s had started with very high tax rates and an economic recession. Tax rates were massively increased in 1917 at all income levels. Rates were increased again in 1918. Real GNP fell in 1919, 1920, and 1921 with a total three-year fall of 16 percent. (Deflation between 1920 and 1922 may also help explain the drop in tax revenues in those years, evident in Table 1). As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut. Conclusion The tax cuts of the 1920s were the first federal experiment with supply-side income tax rate cuts. Data for the period show an initial decline in federal revenues as tax rates were cut, but revenues grew strongly during the subsequent economic expansion. After the cuts, total tax payments and the share of total taxes paid by the top income earners soared. President Bush's current proposal to make phased-in rate cuts effective immediately also promises to expand the tax base. Indeed, Congress should consider further rate cuts to stimulate even larger gains in incomes and economic growth.

www.cato.org...


Whenever taxes are cut the economy booms....when taxes rise the economy contracts....liberals never learn from history.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

As far back as the 1920s, a huge cut in the highest income tax rate — from 73 percent to 24 percent — led to a huge increase in the amount of tax revenue collected by the federal government. Why? Because investors took their money out of tax shelters, where they were earning very modest rates of return, and put their money into the productive economy, where they could earn higher rates of return, now that those returns were not so heavily taxed. This was the very reason why tax rates were cut in the first place — to get more revenue for the federal government. The same was true, decades later, during the John F. Kennedy administration. Similar reasons led to tax rate cuts during the Ronald Reagan administration and the George W. Bush administration. All of these Presidents — Democrat and Republican alike — made the same argument for tax rate reductions that had been made in the 1920s, and the results were similar as well. Yet the invincible lie continues to this day that those who oppose high tax rates on high incomes are doing so because they want to reduce the taxes paid by high income earners, in hopes that their increased prosperity will “trickle down” to others. In reality, high income earners paid not only a larger total amount of taxes after the tax rate cuts of the 1920s but also a higher share of all the income taxes collected. It is a matter of record that anyone can check out with official government statistics. This result was not peculiar to the 1920s. In 2006, the New York Times reported: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”


www.unionleader.com...

More examples for you...lowering taxes on the highest earners along with middle class helps the economy.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pivilu
 


Are you to say then sir/lady, the janitor should not be grateful for his employment? It was the businessman who created the business. Many such men have done so with the help of others, ie. investors, employees, and on occasion grants for the business. However, it was these men who began it all, lead it, and cultivated the endevours of those who work for them to make it a success. It was he who employed the janitor, and pays him a days wage for a days work. That janitor is payed a wage based off the service he provides as an employee to the company. Should he recieve the pay of an engineer simply because his work is one involving toil and sweat in unclean conditions? No. While the janitor keeps the toilets clean, it is the engieer who makes use of his education to design products which profit the company. The engineer recieves more pay, for it is his work that results in the most profits for his company. The machinist recieves lower pay, because if not for the engineer, he would have nothing to fabricate. The machinist still makes good money for his effort, as his work fabricates that which is put onto market. The janitor is a service employee, he does a neccessary job, but said job does not create any profits for the company.
None of the above named employees would have employement without the man at the top putting it all together. If the janitor wishes for more respect, then he can start his own janitorial company, contract it out to others, and employ others to work under him. I would be willing to bet the janitors working for him would feel the same way he did while working for another man. No one has ever been employed by someone who had less money than he.
Do not take away from the importance of the leaders who lead the way in human endevours. All things start with one man. Without that one man giving direction, few things would get accomplished. Do those who work under him deserve credit. Yes. Do they deserve more credit than the man who employs him? No. As I have said, theyre accomplishments would have never occured without the efforts of the businessman who created the venue from which these accomplishments were born.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Obamas words he chooses are way to arrogant.Dividing the country all the more.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The boom of the 20's was screwed up by government know it alls who knew nothing about economics:


Misguided federal policies caused the downturn that began in 1929, and they prevented the economy from fully recovering for a decade. Policy blunders by the Federal Reserve, Congress, and Presidents Herbert Hoover and Roosevelt battered the economy on many fronts. The events of the 1930s influence economic policymaking today. Many people think that we need a big government to prevent, or to reverse, recessions. But the 1930s illustrate that activist policies increase, not decrease, economic instability. Government interventions reduce the flexibility that markets need to adjust to shocks and return to growth. This bulletin looks at the 1930s economy and highlights the worst policy failures


Hoover and Roosevelt were part of the cause of the Great Depression not the saviors:


TextIn the early 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon ushered in an economic boom by championing income tax cuts that reduced the top individual rate from 73 to 25 percent. But the lessons of these successful tax cuts were forgotten as the economy headed downwards after 1929. President Hoover signed into law the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. The act increased the top individual tax rate from 25 to 63 percent. After his election in 1932, Roosevelt imposed further individual and corporate tax increases. The highest individual rate was increased to 79 percent. State and local governments also increased taxes during the 1930s, with many imposing individual income taxes for the first time. All these tax increases killed incentives for work, investment, and entrepreneurship at a time when they were sorely needed


www.cato.org...


Everyone needs to study this for themselves instead of believing what you learn from the government backed indoctrination/education system.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Not at all sir. I read the speech, and listened to it in its entirety after reading one of your points. It was a lesson I learned years ago while watching the news clips on tv of the cops beating rodney king. The short few seconds of video presented and narrated by the press did not cover the entirety of the incident. The full video, several minutes long, show his resisting the police, assualting the female officer first. It shows him being tazed, and still attacking the officers. The point I am making, is I learned that a few short pieces of the entire picture can be taken out of context. I thus try to view the entirety of something to put it into its proper context. In the case of this speech, while this is only one portion, it ties into the entirety quite nicely. When you write an essay, do you not write each paragraph with an opening, supporting sentences, and a conclusion? Do not all the paragraphs in an essay tie into a central theme or statement? So it was with this speech. The central point of this speech was collectivism, and the demonizing of the individual. It was written in the same type of prose you would find in works such as Das Kapital. It used simple truths, such as a business being a success due the the efforts of many, to seed the lies which follow. Have you never heard of a lie being more believable when you seed it with a few grains of truth? Such is the way the socialist/communist lies have been sold to the people for decades.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I don't know what it takes to get people to under a government is of the People and by the People.The people are the government when you argue it any other way your crossing into socialsim and communism.

Factual that every nation where the body of government kept growing and controlling everyone has ended into disaster and collapse eventually.Morals die because of this as well.
Paying off your debt never gets done as well which leads to more law suits and abuse of money and greed and control and power.

After the bailout happened not one single person was arrested over it.Which again shows you the lack of trust and faith in the body of government.So if its gets so bad like it did in WW1 and WW2 you have to put trust in somehing else that makes more false promises.Why individual person is the only person you can realy trust.

It ends up coming down to who you can trust.Obama and Congress has proven to be untrustworthy with money.
edit on 15-7-2012 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


What blows me away is that the same people who perpetrate the absurd fantasy of "Atlas Shrugged" are the FIRST people to tell you that studying history isn't that important. If they had their way, you'd just check with Siri, and she could be edited on the fly. Don't study history! Listen to the innovators who rediscovered that democracy might be easily bought and sold, and the ones with the most monopoly money get to write their own version of it.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


You're saying that tax cuts in the 1920s helped the economy, yet the depression happened just after? That's illogical.

It sounds like the government opened the flood gates for money making, and the economy suffered when they cracked them back closed. Which sounds a lot more logical and very fitting to the current situation. The solution to the great depression wasn't to open the flood gates again.
It was to put middle class Americans back to work.

As far as current economics go, neither man can prove that they know how to create jobs. They're both claiming they want to, it's just not happening. Romney has a pretty poor record as does Obama. I'm going to write Davy Crockett on my ballot and call it a day.

edit on 15-7-2012 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I live in a house that I built (cut every board nailed every nail). The roads going to my house are private roads. My water is a rural water district (a coop owned by the water users), same with my electricity. The fire department is run by volunteers. Police, it takes them an average of forty five minutes to respond to any location in my county.
edit on 15-7-2012 by 00018GE because: sp




top topics



 
79
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join