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

Also, I want to ask some more questions of the OP,
Putting aside mental and physical aptitude, OP, do you think that everyone is born with the same opportunities?
Do you think there are some maybe most people born with a lot less opportunity?
Do you think that money makes it harder or easier to access more opportunities?
How about connections, do you think they may play a part?
How about parenting, do you think that may play a part?
Do you think just maybe that some people are born into a life much more difficult than others?
Do you think these people at least deserve a fighting chance with trying to achieve their dreams?
(Simon Cowell does, that's whay there is an XFactor and American Idol just as an example)

No nobody is entitled to success but at the very least regardless of their background and what you think of these people, who had no choice of the matter to whom they were born, or the fact that they WERE born in the first place, do deserve the equal opportunity, if they so choose to pursue a dream. Not just elites, not just minorities, not just women, or orphans, or hispanics, but everyone deserves a fair shot at trying, meaning some (probably) most of them will need things like federal grants and loans for college or trade school, or even job training provided free. Most of them will need a job (No all of them will need a job) to have the experience that is needed to move forward in life, and many of them will need to sacrifice a lot more than you ever have to achieve their dreams.


ETA: I suspect that all of my replies will remain unanswered

reply to post by ldyserenity


If I may. . . . . .

From the OP.

This country does not just succeed when just a few are doing well at the top," Obama said, according to a rush transcript of the remarks. "It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy does not grow from the top-down, it grows from the middle-out.

www.weeklystandard.com...

It's not so much that we all disagree with people working, succeeding, or the oppourtnities that lie within.

It's the how we achieve that is the key.

Those of a more conservative approach, believe that personal responsibility, individuality are the keys to success.

Then there are those that believe that government is essential for that success to occur.

Hope that helped.

beez

reply to post by beezzer


And I ask again How the hell is someone supposed to take personal responsibility for being born in the Ghetto raised by a crackhead prostitute?
Who's saying these people need to take responsibility for the state of their being born is beyond me...if they want to succeed in life chances are they are going to need help going to school and possibly they are going to need a therapist which they probably can't afford. They would be taking personal responsibility by even trying to pick themselves out of the gutter and get an education. The money has got to come from somwhere (as long as our system involves money). Yes I can see that some people will never pay the loans back, of course you're going to have that but that don't mean throw the baby with the bathwater. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

reply to post by ldyserenity


You're just focusing on one aspect, and for every horror story, there are stories of inspiration and success. You claim we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I say lets not apply such a broad brush to everyone.

Generalising, giving government carte blanche, is not the approach to take.

Originally posted by campanionator

And you don't think that the industry can strategically shut down refineries to squeeze supply and
create more profit???

This is where you are erroneously assigning a benevolent motive to oil companies.

Why?

What makes you think they want lower prices??? Did you ever want to make less money?

Exploration has been limited, which drives up the potential future cost of any commodity.

No it has not, in five years the amount of land that has been opened to oil leases has increased 25 million
hectares in the U.S territories alone.

At the proposed Canadian pipline, prices dipped because of anticipation of increased supply, when it was killed (on our end) by the administration, prices went up becuase that increase of supply was taken away. It is very expensive to have many formulations of gasoline, especially with refineries going off line. The lefties in California mandate many of these formulations for "environmental" reasons. Guess what? Gas in California is shooting up to 6 bucks a gallon.

It is the industry that is taking the refineries offline, it is a business decision to make more money,
with less work. It is working too, yet you can't except that -

Lets see if you can understand this: the cost of corn and wheat have gone up this year. Must be those dirty farmers, by your logic, price fixing and gouging. Nevermind that there was a drought that reduced supply.

Did the farmers DECIDE to stop watering their corn, just like the industry decided to slash their
refinery capabilities?

Gas is up because of decisions made by our elected representatives. That, sir, is the facts behind the matter regardless how much people hate "corporations."

No sir, prices are up 300% in a decade because the people who profit from the industry want to
make more money.

Please tell me, PLEASE,

What makes you think oil executives want to make less money for more output?

Have you seen any evidence that profits have increased by 300%? No, of course not because there is none.

What makes you think that costs to produce oil have increased 300%?

Do you realize that a business can convert income into assets to make profits appear low?
Or they can convert income into holdings shares that make profit appear low, even though they
have essentially converted massive amounts of profit into "expense"

And please answer the question I underlined

edit on 6-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)

Of course oil executives want to increase profit. Every business wants to increase profit...that is the entire point of having a business. What you do not understand is that a too high price point actually lowers profit by causing a reduction in consumption. They don't just arbitrarily increase prices. By your logic, they would just price the gas at 10 bucks a gallon then they will have gazzillions more in profits.




In 2005, the average profit margin of US oil companies was 8.1 percent. Now it is 7.5 percent. The profit margin has never been horrible and is quite on par with other retail industries.

Converting income into assets to make profits appear low? OMG that is laughable and shows you know nothing of industry. TO expand, to make more wells, to explore more areas, you have to put more money into equipment. They are not hiding anything when they do this, this is just part of trying to maintain and increase output. It is part of the expense of running a business.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

What over regulation? What refineries closing? The pipeline as in Keystone? The one that Obama wants to build but can't because it goes through Sovereign Tribal lands and the Native Americans said no? That one? Next anything but greed excuse please.

US East Coast Faces Severe Oil Shortages and High Prices as Refineries Close

"Domestic infrastructure remains extremely constrained and there is not enough time for that to be resolved by summer,"

www.nj.com... close_exper.html

Economic Study Shows EPA Regulations Increase Prices, Kill Jobs

Let's see if this can answer some questions.

Ats for example, everyone starts out the same as in real life, they work(post) and produce a product, some produce a better product than others, some get rewadred, some get rewarded more than others.

Some are DOA out of the gate while those who are producing a better product drive the economy(ats) which creates the success of this site,.

People get out of life what they put in it.

Originally posted by beezzer

First off, I must apologise for all my evil stupidity. But I have quotas I must fill.

So instead of calling out the FED you put all(or most) of the blame on lazy workers? That is what I have hard time accepting.

And WTH? QE 1,2,3? They all suck! TARP was Bush's final nail as well! It all was a failed attempt to manipulate fiscal appearances by creating inflation and giving money to the banks! And that failed as well!

And that is why sometimes I don't feel like paying a red cent to the government. Bush was not as bad as Obama in this regard. Obama=MUCH worse! I am not even a liberal so why should I BS people around? Sure bush was a moron but at least he did not THROW AWAY TRILLIONS to banks and big business on the guise of creating jobs.

Any time government trys to influence policy with OUR money, WE end up paying for it!

I guess we should call it a government by default, but a more appropriate term would be the rothschild extortion racket.

reply to post by beezzer


All those stories are only possible with getting student grants and loans not one single one was done with out outside help. If you think they were you'd be mistaken, sadly. Unless it was a female and spent nights stripping while paying off law school, which is not really great since they had to obejctify themselves to do it. A broad brush is the only way it can be painted because that is the only fair and just way... period. If you pick and choose who gets to have a fair shake in life then it is simply unfair and unjust period.

It's not too hard to understand.

However there is better ways to do this...for one volunteers to teach the needed education, you know if this was a selfless society (and still monetary based economy) Just for people to work volunteer hours like teachers and professors not saying to make it required like by the government or anything. Just if we had a world where people weren't all about themselves. Of course it's not a realistic solution that, so given reality, the only thing to do is make those things available to everyone regardless of race, religion, skin color, gender, etc. Anything less is just plain crap.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Seems to me those refineries shut down because the owners want to sell because it's not quite profitable enough to refine oil on the East Coast, not because of any government decree. In fact per your linked article the governments intervention has been asked for in order to keep them open.

To recap the problem, two of the nine East Coast refineries with a capacity of 363,000 barrels a day (b/d) have recently been closed down. Sunoco which owns a large Philadelphia area refinery (with a capacity of 335,000 b/d) is seeking a buyer and says it will close the refinery in July unless one can be found. These three refineries comprised 50 percent of the East Coast refining capacity as of last summer. Interestingly, the Sunoco's Philadelphia is the oldest continuously operating refinery in the world having been established in the 1860s. The company says the price of imported crude which costs refiners roughly the going rate in London, plus about $2 a barrel for shipping, simply makes refining along the East Coast unprofitable.

Also per your linked article.

Even with the relaxation of the Jones Act and the environmental regulations, there seems to be a potential for problems in the near term.

A society does not truly succeed when there is no upward growth and one segment of society is on the backs of the other segment of society.

A successful society has upward growth for all for a high quality of life and when everybody is successful, and helps people who are having a hard time and needs assistance.

At least as far as I know, but I am no expert on these kinds of things.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Seems to me those refineries shut down because the owners want to sell because it's not quite profitable enough to refine oil on the East Coast, not because of any government decree. In fact per your linked article the governments intervention has been asked for in order to keep them open.

To recap the problem, two of the nine East Coast refineries with a capacity of 363,000 barrels a day (b/d) have recently been closed down. Sunoco which owns a large Philadelphia area refinery (with a capacity of 335,000 b/d) is seeking a buyer and says it will close the refinery in July unless one can be found. These three refineries comprised 50 percent of the East Coast refining capacity as of last summer. Interestingly, the Sunoco's Philadelphia is the oldest continuously operating refinery in the world having been established in the 1860s. The company says the price of imported crude which costs refiners roughly the going rate in London, plus about $2 a barrel for shipping, simply makes refining along the East Coast unprofitable.

Also per your linked article.

Even with the relaxation of the Jones Act and the environmental regulations, there seems to be a potential for problems in the near term.

What you fail to realize is that the multiple formulations of gas is what makes many of these refineries untenable.

reply to post by NavyDoc


So what's behind the change in formulas?

NVM I found it, it's to comply with emissions standards that have been in effect since 2007.

reply to post by neo96


Please don`t take me the wrong way. I am not jumping to the defense of Obama. Yet, I do not think that is what he meant. There are a lot of people in America working very hard and not getting the full benefit of their labor production. Think of all the people on a wage based income. Putting someone on a fixed wage denies them the full benefit of their labor production. It traps them into a certain class forever. When people who actually do the work are given the full benefit of their production, then is becomes easier for them to increase their wealth. On a wage based income, they can only get a fix amount of wealth as dictated by the owners of the means of production. This is a contradiction which must be resolved.

I am sure Obama did not mean it exactly the way I have just explained. Most likely, Obama is talking about increasing tax on the capitalist class; which I would not be against. There has been a global war by the capitalist class on government non-discretionary fund programs. Things the labor movement fought and died over to ensure for the people.

Currently, there is a global push to return to 1920`s style capitalism; due to the fact that the profit margin has slowed greatly for the capitalist class because of their own missteps which lead to the global collapse of the capitalist market.

Obama is a capitalist. Yet, he knows that unless he does something to ensure non-discretionary fund programs are not totally gutted the people will turn on him. That is the only reason he is pushing for increased taxes on the elite capitalist class.

I guess I just don't understand the whole 'raisin taxes to help the people' thing. Well for one, how can we trust them to use the money to help us and why don't they trust us to use our own money for good in the world?

I also don;t understand the bias against rich folk. Some are bad and some have too much power and use it negatively but don't they help employ people?

It's hard to truly know what's what now a days. Too many spins on different things that people say. Obama sais one thing, then does another; how do we know that other politicians aren;t doing the exact same thing? Romney for example. He comes off to me like a decent man but I hear so many things about him to the contrary and then he wants to go to war or help fuel the war in Syria? How do we know if it's even a just cause? We are so lied to.

It's dissapointing.

Despite assuming he is a dark hat, I do agree with what he said, at least my interpretation. I'm not sure of his hidden code in the words. Complete equality for every person and the highest cleanest technology without slavery. PERIOD. Anything else is pure evil.