Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Romney gave away is inheritance remember?

Also remember that Romneys father did not come from money ?

Right?

Nice strawman.

Romney gave away his "Inheritance" in 1995 after he had benefited from his dads fortune and contacts and was already worth over almost 200 Million and was 48 years old. At the time he said what was left of his Dads fortune was "little money" to Romney....you can look it up.

HEY!

ATS Liberals!

Answer my question, please!!!!!

How is "middle-out" supposed to work?

*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*

Originally posted by beezzer
HEY!

ATS Liberals!

Answer my question, please!!!!!

How is "middle-out" supposed to work?

*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*

Consumption drives economic growth and the middle class is the consumer class.

this isn't idealogy...it is economics 101...A healthy consumer class is good for everyone...more jobs...more money flowing...more purchasing...driving demand...which drives expansion and hiring...which makes the wealthy more wealthy as long as they are willing to WORK for it by expanding thier companies....hiring more people...who then have more money to spend and consume etc. etc.

reply to post by seeker1963


Shhh...I gave you a star for your post.

Originally posted by beezzer


Damn them.
Damn them to hell for them wanting to keep their money.

No-one has explained the "midde-out" to me though.

Other than the leftists forcing wealthy people to give their money to others.

Well, when the middle class has no money to spend, then the economy can not grow. I can't spend money I don't have. Companies can't grow or sustain business and individuals can't amass wealth if the middle class doesn't have the money to spend. At the current rate, the wealthy will continue to amass obscene amounts of money (as is their right). However, when the middle dries up, what happens? Tell me what happens?

I believe that Romney recently discussed the wealthy individuals and corporations are sitting on record amounts of money and they will release that money via creating jobs...they would do it just as soon as Romney becomes POTUS. Why? Why wait? What's the point?

By no means do I advocate "forcing wealthy people to give their money to others"; however, I do advocate keeping enough money in the economy to keep it moving. The best way to keep that money in the economy is to create jobs and expand business. But that all starts in the middle.

Well, regardless of in or out of context, that whole paragraph reeks of "live by the means give by the means" at gunpoint.

Which is something I will never support.

I believe in giving people opportunity to succeed and thrive, but not by punishing somebody else who did it.

I'm sorry, but this just does not work.

History ahs proven this to be true, but the Marxists and Socialists and progressives just keep trying and trying and trying to steal anybody else's money and things any way they can.

I'm not falling for it. You can use all the gentle language you want to, but it's still a load of junk.

reply to post by beezzer


They can't because it is nothing but hydro choloro bull hockey.

The solution is to grow the 1 % instead of destroying what the middle class use to use to raise them to that 1 % class investment opportunities, and business opportunities.

Some places in this country believe New York it takes over 1 million to open a cab company because they have to buy a "medallion" so that "quality" is assured..

Translate that idiocy to the rest of the country.cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...

How the hell can anyone grow the middle class or the wealth class with that stupdity.

reply to post by neo96


Any answer I've received has been forcing the wealthy to pay more.

Okay.

So we understand what Obama wants. Rape the wealthy so the middle class has more. Do we get a check? Is it direct deposit?

reply to post by beezzer


Nope they give that check to other countries.

Another proven fact.

Hence the never ending pay your fair share,they go blow it, then come back and again take what they want, and the cycle never ends.

Rinse and repeat.

So how does Obama or the left grow the middle class out by destroying the rich pass out your money like it is candy to anyone they deem to be "worthy".

Don't see it how that works.

reply to post by beezzer

Any answer I've received has been forcing the wealthy to pay more.

Okay.

So we understand what Obama wants. Rape the wealthy so the middle class has more. Do we get a check? Is it direct deposit

BINGO!!!!!!! That is exactly the concept, but in reality our government is broke!!! There are not enough jobs and people working to support the addicts habits in Washington DC!!!

Quite relative when you bring it to the street level. A crack head need their drugs, the crack head will then rob and steal from anyone they can to get their next fix!!!

Dammit people!!! Our government is the same damn thing!!! Look at the high life, us tax payers provide them!!! Higher taxes, just means the addicts need another hit, because they run out of what they have already stolen!!!

Instead of this right/left arguement, I think we need to as tax payers, look at our government officials as they look down upon and incarcerate drug addicts! One is addicted to drugs, the other is addicted to money!!!

reply to post by neo96

Funny thing about that word "corporations" is some people do not really understand the magnitude of what that means:

From the dude selling a hotdog on a corner street all the way up to the multi-nationals can't form any business without forming a corporation.

You don't seem to really understand, either.


No offense...just sayin.'

A corporation is not required to run a business...a business files for INCORPORATION and thus becomes a CORPORATION which is an entity that is not human but yet is applicable to many laws that apply to humans in the course of operating as a corporation. Romney really wasn't whacked out in saying "Corporations are people, my friend," in this context...however...it doesn't apply to most regular people and that's why it seems so ludicrous for him to say such a thing.

More details here.

I seriously doubt the guy on the corner who sold you your lunch has filed for incorporation. In fact, I'd bet all my potential future hotdogs against the possibility...unless, of course, his hot dog cart is bearing an "LLC" behind the name it goes by. But that's something you'd notice, right?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Two things a person is entitled to in my opinion:

What they earn, and the lives they earn for themselves.

Key word there earn.

Nothing can truly be given.

Can yo define this a little more for me?

Did the Rothschilds "earn" their wealth? Have all the 20 somethings in Oxford and Cambridge, studying politics to become the next Tory, "earned" their wealth?

You have a very simplistic view, when it suits you. You seem to think people are entitled to keep what they earn, I assume that you mean they shouldn't have to pay taxes either?

And how do you decide who is entitled to wealth? Would you really agree that a nurse who saves hundreds of lives a year should earn less than a banker who sites behind a desk for eight hours a day and moves numbers from one column to another?

I also love the hypocrisy (yet more of it, it seems to be my favorite word when talking to Republicans) of entitlement. I love how the right think they are "entitled" to wealth, and that everyone in poverty lives in an "entitlement" mindset.
So it's okay to believe that people should be born into privilege, but more people should be born into poverty and have to slave their way out of it without those rich scum paying anything into society.

I should have known walking in here that this thread would be another right-wing proclamation of selfishness and arrogance.

reply to post by queenannie38


I understand just fine the citizens united ruling extend certain but not all rights to corporations meaning the ability to sue them, and a few other things, but that was it.

Dogma, and hype has blown that ruling in to never never land of a thing that was never said.

Romney said corporations are people true enough as they are made up of people, of it and their lives that are dependent upon external influences that can either let them live and grow, or create their own destruction.

Corporations are the bi product of the same ideology and policies that created them.

reply to post by detachedindividual

Did the Rothschilds "earn" their wealth? Have all the 20 somethings in Oxford and Cambridge, studying politics to become the next Tory, "earned" their wealth?

Depends on ones definition of "earn" only ones actions can create "personal wealth", and those same actions can work either way. profit or loss.

You have a very simplistic view, when it suits you. You seem to think people are entitled to keep what they earn, I assume that you mean they shouldn't have to pay taxes either?

If thinking that people should be able to keep what they earn is simplistic so be it, and those people do pay taxes contrary to popular dogma.

And how do you decide who is entitled to wealth? Would you really agree that a nurse who saves hundreds of lives a year should earn less than a banker who sites behind a desk for eight hours a day and moves numbers from one column to another?

That is a apples to oranges comparison.

I also love the hypocrisy (yet more of it, it seems to be my favorite word when talking to Republicans) of entitlement. I love how the right think they are "entitled" to wealth, and that everyone in poverty lives in an "entitlement" mindset. So it's okay to believe that people should be born into privilege, but more people should be born into poverty and have to slave their way out of it without those rich scum paying anything into society. I should have known walking in here that this thread would be another right-wing proclamation of selfishness and arrogance.

From whereI am sitting someone walkng into a thread with hypocrisy and arrogance.

Thanks have a nice day.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

The full quotation was not used considering the rules for quoting entire subjects of articles.

Oh god you are embarrassing....almost as much as your flip-flop clown.
There is NOTHING wrong with that quote - and quoting it entirely out of context and basically claiming the exact opposite what the quote actually means...embarrassing, for you.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

Originally posted by beezzer
I would appreciate anyone explaining to me how the economy grows from the "middle out".

Please?

Any of you fans of Obama care to explain this?

Not a fan of Obama. Not voting for either of the smoke screens in fact!

But this is common sense. The past thirty years have shown it certainly doesn't 'trickle down'! Look at the distribution of wealth, it has actually trickled up, well, more like a fire hose to the top than a trickle. Whereas, if all of that increase in wealth had gone to the middle, there would be exponentially more of it circulating throughout the whole economy (cars, tvs, phones, vacations, etc. etc. etc.) rather than sitting safely, tax sheltered, in Mittens offshore accounts where it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR ANYONE!

So the "middle out" is making the wealthy cough up their money and just give it to the middle class?

Yeah that is what I said! Exactly, just go straight to their bank accounts and take their money and then give it to me.

I overestimated your intelligence apparently. No, you don't enact a 'middle out' type of fiscal policy by taking money from anyone. You simply change the policies currently in place that favor the wealthy and instead, at the very least make them equal, or at best, let them favor the working class.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by queenannie38

 

I understand just fine the citizens united ruling extend certain but not all rights to corporations meaning the ability to sue them, and a few other things, but that was it.

Dogma, and hype has blown that ruling in to never never land of a thing that was never said.

Romney said corporations are people true enough as they are made up of people, of it and their lives that are dependent upon external influences that can either let them live and grow, or create their own destruction.

Corporations are the bi product of the same ideology and policies that created them.

edit on 5-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Wow, you need a history lesson.

Start here

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." [2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.

Corporations have rights as a 'person' as spelled out in the 14th amendment and as determined by the above rulings in the 19th century. Citizens United equated 'money' with 'speech'

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96

 

Any answer I've received has been forcing the wealthy to pay more.

Okay.

So we understand what Obama wants. Rape the wealthy so the middle class has more. Do we get a check? Is it direct deposit?

Let me ask you a sincere question beezzer. Do you believe in patriotism? Within your definition of patriotism, what is the upper limit and what is the lower limit? Within your answer, please provide a general list of ways one can be patriotic to their country.

This is not a loaded question and I will neither attack you nor praise you for your answer; regardless of what you may say. I have a point to this exercise, but it can only be done properly when my motives are not provided in advance.

Nah, forget it. I know you won't participate, so here goes...

Patriot: a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

So, if you are willing to give your life for your country, that makes you a patriot. If you defend the constitution, that makes you a patriot. Etc...etc...etc...

I submit to you that there is yet another form of patriotism. That form of patriotism revolves around the economy. Those who have the wealth (including American corporations) are only patriots if, and only if, they " love, support, and defend their country and its economic interests with devotion".

So, when you sit back and praise the 1% and corporate interests while ridiculing the 99%; keep one thing in mind...you are not supporting patriots. Oh no you are not; rather you are supporting oligarchs and corpocracy; which is counter to the American dream. Just remember that next time you profess your devotion to those that legally abuse the system. They abuse the system the same way those government welfare "freeloaders" do. The only difference is that they are on the opposite end of the financial spectrum. That 1% you so proudly defend are no less traitors of the United States of America than those at the bottom end that you loath with all of your heart.

reply to post by UdonNiedtuno


What do i need to learn?

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

Said that did i not?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Two things a person is entitled to in my opinion:

What they earn, and the lives they earn for themselves.

Key word there earn.

Nothing can truly be given.

More hypocrisy. How many people have worked all their lives some have even 2 jobs and go to school only to have everything stolen by the system with pump and dump scams? 401k's, home mortgages, saving and loan scams, Enron's, Bernie Madoff's, bank bailouts, business bailouts and soooo many other things yet no one is entitled? Please stop trying to protect your masters, it would really be hilarious if the consequences weren't so devastating for the people of this country and the the people of the world. (The full consequences are not even close to being realized yet).