You didn build that !

What about Romney's taxes?

I think that is what is really on our minds.

Is he a billionaire, or did he pay no taxes some years?

Obama now says the uproar over his statement is "bogus" and out of context. I am back to my original claim of arrogance. We know what he said, we told him how we feel, and he says I think what you feel is bogus. Nice!

let me preface this statement by saying I do NOT watch any TV at all...no CNN, no FOX news, nothing. i listen to NPR radio mostly, read local and CNN news online sometimes. I am neither conservative, nor liberal. I favor small government, abortion rights, gay marriage, gun rights...I'm not religious at all...I love the outdoors and I love CC boats!!

I find Obama's statement very disturbing. I am very concerned that he (or others like him) is coming after money that I have worked hard for and saved. I believe he will come after it in the form of higher taxes only to give it away in the form of social programs to people who have less than me. I believe he will come after my 401K, salary, and SS (most likely already gone). I believe this because of what he says (like the topic of this post) and what he does (like obama care and all the "stimulus" spending). I think obama care should be repealed and many social programs should be cut to eliminate the incentives to stay on them. I believe in helping people that need help...but only enough to encourage them to help themselves.

MattB wrote: Interesting thread and something that you only get on Correct Craft fan

The sad thing is that it is not only on CCfan you get this stuff.. it is also on wakeworld forums, engine building forums , bbq forums, and every other place where unmoderated posts are allowed on the damn interwebs. I would say it is a positive example of democratic conversation except they are all the same posts with all the same talking points that are all out of context snippets picked and tested by a bunch of overpaid kids working for “conservative think tanks” that are neither conservative nor think.

They used to actually pay people to go around and make the posts and write the comments… they don’t even have to do that now… put it on 6 or seven friendly blogs, put it on a talking point list that you send out to a few radio shows, and 8 or 9 hours later you will hear it parroted back to you by all the loyal wing nuts and then reported on by mainstream media or at least on fox. Those guys got 24 hours to fill with only 30 mins of news to fill it with so they will be happy to talk about how people are talking about, or offended by, or is this finally the one that sticks and brings down such and such candidate…
Do a search sometime and be amazed how the exact same stuff comes up in a bunch of different places… it aint a case of great minds thinking alike as much as a case of mind control.

One should be asking themselves who has to gain from us wasting time and energy getting upset about such trivial nonsense as bad phrasing in one line of a speech, voter fraud that doesn’t actually happen, or “welfare money being spend on tattoos”, or whatever is thrown at the wall today.

ononewheel wrote: So how do we get there?

Great question, what is your answer?

sweet77 wrote: I dont know percentages, facts(or myths) ,numbers or any other kind of political mumbo jumbo. Whay i cant understand is how I get a phone call from a customer whos rental property has no ac. Nice appartment $1000.00 a month for me to rent it. Woman living there with three HORRIBLE children. IPHONE, COMPUTER, tons of cloths laying everywhere a boyfriend who "STAYS" with her.new car ect ect ect.... now in the last six months ive been there 4 times Dirty (FILTHY) filters because there too damn lazy to change them. the property manager says what seems to be the problem i tell him (In an aggravated way) and he proceeds to tell me she said she does not have time. BY THE WAY!!!!!! she does not work nor the boyfriend. she pays $189.00 a month for rent to the realtor and the rest comes out of a government fund. PERIOD END OF STORY!!!!!!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS "F"ed. someone explain this to me???????

Cool story, Bro. Don't know facts or numbers or mumbo jumbo you say? Sounds like you have the above situation figured out. Are you the maintenance guy, or do you have a part in the facts department or the kick the defenseless department.

So can I tell you about the families I know where both Mom and Dad whom are college educated, work, pay for and care for a home, raise and pay for a child or children, and still struggle to pay for groceries? Don't bitch about that too? Think Romney types have the money issues like my given situation and urs?

Those are hardworking people too, and deserve a credit for what they have done in making America. Teachers, pilots, construction crews, Dr.s, ac repair man, military,..... We had a hand in the success of America. We, as in America.    People are not born capable of tking care, raising themselves.
This is what I thought Obama said.


Most people, me included, think getting folks off welfare is a good idea. Cutting those folks off, without a plan is crazy, and won't work as intended.

So how do we get there?

Sweet, you actually got to meet the person that the rich are not paying their fair share to. I hope you took the opportunity to apologize to her behalf of all of us who work and pay taxes, but just not enough.

Sweet, "just drink the cool aid"

This could be more insidious than I thought. If Obama can get a voting block to believe that government built private business, he then can make a claim to those businesses. Why try to raise taxes on the rich if he can go Hugo Chavez on their businesses and nationalize them? We already have a large portion of the electorate willing to steal from a minority group of the electorate for their own gain through progressive taxes. With this already compromised moral state it is only a small step to start taking businesses. It all starts with baby steps, winning the hearts and minds.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Ok guys limit of two posts in a row.


Waldo