"If you've got a business, you didn't build that." [Archive]

Flagg

07-15-2012, 20:13

Hmmm,

Let's see.

I only have a high-school education.

I spent 20 years in the military (all in SF). I became a Program Manager for Lockheed Martin making over 85K per year in Fayetteville, NC while at the same time starting my own business which now has 17 years under it's belt.

You're DAMN right I did all that by myself. The only people I have to thank for it are my parents for raising me right and the soldiers who fought and/or fought and died so I could have the freedom to do it.

I've built, bought, and sold a few businesses.

While I took the most risk(my capital and my credit), I definitely appreciate all the folks who supported me along the way. Family, friends, mentors...and especially outstanding staff.

In my opinion, and in my business, our competitive advantage is having the best team in the industry....which means I spend the biggest chunk of my time keeping my staff happy.

Politicians stepping deeper into that relationship between my staff and I, or as a non-working, non-shareholding "partner" is quite scary.

If there's one thing I'd be keen to see US small business owners or just prospective entrepreneurs learn is the difference between new business formation in the US compared to other countries such as New Zealand, Singapore, Australia as just a few examples.

Way down here, it's easy(to start, NOT to compete...that's a different story). Way up there, not so much anymore.

Just my 0.02c

Flagg

07-15-2012, 20:22

Obama's recent statements and policies appear to be those of a true statist ideologue who is hell bent on fundamentally transforming this country.

Those of you who have founded, built, maintained, advised, or managed businesses over the past few decades have probably done so despite the government and its choking regulation - not because of it.

And, that government infrastructure that helps us all do business...was generally funded and paid for by taxpayer dollars, your dollars, earned and voluntarily paid over to government because of your labor and sacrifice.

In most any discussion, by Obama, regarding business (and, frankly many other areas) I'm afraid that this wanna be Emperor, too, has no clothes.

I'm grateful for where/when I was born and where I live.....I've magically appeared on one of the better games of Monopoly.

What grinds me a bit is the President comes across as attempting to teach small business owners a lesson in gratitude.

Every small business owner I associate with(regardless of which country they reside in) is incredibly grateful for the opportunity of birth they recieved.

But to be grateful for infrastructure for which they've paid and continue to pay?

That's just weird.

I'm grateful for my family's ACCESS to electricity and water, but I'm not grateful at PAYING the bill...I'm grateful to my family/friends/mentors for helping provide me the tools I needed so I can PAY the bill...and pay employee wages...and hopefully have some left over for the risks I've taken with my capital that no one else has.

I know politicians make mistakes, even though they are trained to mitigate them....but this one kind of irks me.

Paragrouper

07-15-2012, 21:04

If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. Probably Al Gore.

Obama is very good at playing a crowd--sriking a cord that resonates with the audience he is speaking to.

I imagine he would have something different to say if he was addressing, for example, small business owners.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/05/25/sot.obama.small.business.cnn

I never doubted his political prowess, just his leadership.

Sigaba

07-15-2012, 23:20

Obama is very good at playing a crowd--striking a chord that resonates with the audience he is speaking to.

I think that the president is playing his opposition.

He's figured out that if he pushes the right buttons, his opponents will react--rather than respond. These reactions advance his arguments better than his inept, inarticulate rhetoric ever could.

Until his opposition develops the self discipline to break this dynamic, the president will be able to avoid a debate over the effectiveness of his policies.

My $0.02.

USANick7

07-16-2012, 04:24

http://culpeperrepublican.com/2012/07/16/you-didnt-build-that-said-the-community-organizer-to-the-business-owner/

This is yet another frightening example of Obama's complete lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

USANick7

07-16-2012, 04:27

I think that the president is playing his opposition.

He's figured out that if he pushes the right buttons, his opponents will react--rather than respond. These reactions advance his arguments better than his inept, inarticulate rhetoric ever could.

Until his opposition develops the self discipline to break this dynamic, the president will be able to avoid a debate over the effectiveness of his policies.

My $0.02.

I think when Obama gets off teleprompter he screws up and actually says what he is thinking...which is generally not a good idea if you are as left wing as Obama is.

Romney needs to get a lot better at articulating free market principles in a way that can penetrate the wrong headed yet flowery rhetoric that most people have become comfortable with concerning economic questions. It has to be approached not only from an economic standpoint (capitalism works better) but a morale one as well (individual liberty in the market place)...Reagan and Thatcher were great at that...

Dozer523

07-16-2012, 04:52

Guy

07-16-2012, 05:46

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

You disagree with that? Isn't that the ENTIRE point of calling an ODA a Team?
Sigaba may be correct about the "react v. respond" thing.Businesses (politicians & Wall Street) are "totally" different from an ODA!

Like a DNA test, I could trust an ODA +95% of the time; them other folks are the polar opposite.:D

Stay safe.

Paragrouper

07-16-2012, 06:09

Businesses (politicians & Wall Street) are "totally" different from an ODA!

You sure as hell got that right.

Badger52

07-16-2012, 06:18

I think that the president is playing his opposition.

He's figured out that if he pushes the right buttons, his opponents will react--rather than respond.I personally don't think he's figured out jack. He's good on camera with spoon-fed lines but he's got alot of writers and executive producers behind him. Other than having learned after his grooming that "all that fosters class-warfare is my starting point" I don't think he really has any values that he could discuss, on his feet, without notes or prep. He knows nothing of leadership and is an otherwise empty vessel.

His "crew" on the other hand remains of great concern.

Sigaba

07-16-2012, 06:33

I think when [the president] gets off teleprompter he screws up and actually says what he is thinking...which is generally not a good idea if you are as left wing as [the president] is. I remain doubtful that the president is actually as left wing as some think. I think he's a self-serving opportunist who lets his supporters and opponents, his friends and his enemies think he is what ever they want so he can exploit the ensuing confusion to his benefit.

I think he manipulates his opponents into mud slinging so he could use it to tell his supporters "See this mud? It proves I'm one of you" without delivering on his core campaign promises in a timely manner.

I think he manipulates his supporters into defending him by pushing his opponents' buttons. For example, I am convinced that he knows that questions about his birth certificate as well as accusations that he's a Communist are going to antagonize the living f--k out of specific cohorts and that they will always circle the wagons and they won't vocalize the questions on their minds until the shooting stops.

Romney needs to get a lot better at articulating free market principles in a way that can penetrate the wrong headed yet flowery rhetoric that most people have become comfortable with concerning economic questions. It has to be approached not only from an economic standpoint (capitalism works better) but a morale one as well (individual liberty in the market place)...Reagan and Thatcher were great at that...MOO, the president is leading Romney into a trap when he says that this election is a debate over narratives. This debate has been ongoing since the 1770s and it isn't going to get settled one way or another between now and November 2022, much less November 2012.

At present, Americans are more interested in here and now solutions than in the big picture questions. Ultimately, those questions should be answered, but that task will be much easier if there are solutions in place that can serve as examples of those answers.

YMMV.

tonyz

07-16-2012, 06:44

The template exists - it is not rocket science. JFK had a vision that would still resonate (to the producers) for January 2013.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0MCPoqQl_g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Among many things, lower taxes, rollback government budgets to 2007 levels - take the handcuffs off the energy industry - ok that Canadian pipeline...it is not rocket science.

Dusty

07-16-2012, 07:28

I remain doubtful that the president is actually as left wing as some think.
YMMV.

FUCK ME! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE BULLSHITTING!

How the FUCK can you get more left wing than marxism, Sigaba?

Paslode

07-16-2012, 07:35

Actually I did build it, out of my blood, sweat and tears without any client base. And fortunately people found worth in paying me for my services. And before that earned opportunities to grow and learn because I busted my ass and embraced challenges.

Have I earn opportunities from clients and employers? Hell yes, but I put those pieces together and I would not have received them had I not earned them.

I built that, I wasn't entitled to it and it was not handed to me on a golden platter.

Obama's comment falls in line to all those folks who have the misconception that because you have your own business.........you must be RICH and live on EASY Street!

GratefulCitizen

07-16-2012, 08:05

He's talking about himself.
If you've got a White House, an Air Force 1, a large staff that tends to your needs; you didn't build that.

It's not yours.
You won't get to keep it.

tonyz

07-16-2012, 09:06

Obama is, among other things, about class envy, division, power and guilt. He is a community organizer not a true problem solver. Certainly not a business problem solver. He can whip them up with the very best - but he has no actual, viable, proven solutions.

He has been speaking for 2+ years (campaign mode) to those who, for whatever reason, have not been producing in the system. He also speaks to those who can afford to pay more tax (much of the Hollywood crowd) but don't.

It has always stuck me as odd that the "Hollywood crowd" could voluntarily pay more tax - any time they want to - but they appear to be more interested in making YOU and ME pay more before they do so. For these folks, is it really about paying more tax, or, is it really about the power to make you pay more? I don't know. The video below may address this concept. As I have suggested before, the tax code has been the real currency of the political elite for ages. The tax code has been misused to divide us against one another. The biggest, most egregious culprits are both big government and big business. When you lower rates and broaden the base, you necessarily decrease the value of that political currency.

When rates are lowered and the base broadened, power shifts from big government and big business, to the people, small business - those who are small and nimble - not big and powerful. Efficiency is rewarded.

In the current environment, government is "rewarded" by growing, not shrinking. As a big government bureaucrat, you are "rewarded" for growing your budget and power base, not shrinking it.

Anyway, it appears that these (currently non-producing folks) might just push Obama over the hump this election cycle.

Personally, I doubt that the non-producers can be reached with logic. With them it is all about emotion.

There is plenty of misdirected anger out there - there are valuable resources being diverted - and there are billions at stake.

I do not know how to reach the non/never-producers. Obama appears to be the ultimate community organizer in this vein.

My life experience both advising and owning businesses strongly suggest that big government, more regulation, increased taxation, is not the answer to our nations problems.

Moreover, those who have risked their own capital, invested their own labor, spilled there own blood, sweat, and tears to keep this system going - should be sincerely commended.

A short video that fits in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiMaipssKt4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Dozer523

07-16-2012, 09:07

Businesses (politicians & Wall Street) are "totally" different from an ODA!

Like a DNA test, I could trust an ODA +95% of the time; them other folks are the polar opposite.:D

Stay safe. Right. You Got Me There!

Sarski

07-16-2012, 09:40

I think the reality is that more businesses fail than succeed. As for those that have failed, did somebody else make that happen too? Give me a break.

This highlights a problematic theme in the socialist approach taken by this administration. It is one step away from, "since somebody else made that happen, your success is not really yours, so share the wealth via redistribution."

It also higjlights another problematic theme running through this administration, one that shrugs responsibilities; somebody else made that happen. And, since we are all in this together, and somebody else made it happen, then we couldn't all possibly have failed, so there is no more failure regardless of the results.

Goes hand in hand with our current pussification. Failure does not exist. Too big to fail.

Really, give me a break...November please hurry up!

USANick7

07-16-2012, 11:15

"I remain doubtful that the president is actually as left wing as some think. I think he's a self-serving opportunist who lets his supporters and opponents, his friends and his enemies think he is what ever they want so he can exploit the ensuing confusion to his benefit."

I think that is actually a much better definition of Bill Clinton than Obama...the one thing I will say for Obama is that I think he genuinely believes in his leftist ideology and is willing to fight for it, even to his own political detriment. I would have never said that about Clinton.

"I think he manipulates his opponents into mud slinging so he could use it to tell his supporters "See this mud? It proves I'm one of you" without delivering on his core campaign promises in a timely manner."

I think you are giving him way to much credit...saying "You didn't build that to business owners in this country is on par with saying that the private sector is "doing fine". He will be explaining this away for weeks.

"MOO, the president is leading Romney into a trap when he says that this election is a debate over narratives. This debate has been ongoing since the 1770s and it isn't going to get settled one way or another between now and November 2022, much less November 2012."

I agree that Obama would like this to be a battle of political showmanship, but completely disagree that this is simply a question of who has the "better plan" going into 2013. The larger narrative is important, especially this time around. People are getting far more involved in discussions of overall governing philosophy this time around. Its not a question of "settling" the debate between the different philosophies, I don't believe that is possible in this life, but tying your economic polices to a larger narrative that people can associate with. If Romney makes the mistake of going "policy wonk" on the general public without providing a general Reagan/Thatcher esqe vision of not only where we are going but the moral and practical reasons for why we are going there it wont play well. Obama did so well in part because he linked his message to something bigger than himself (although not by much).

"At present, Americans are more interested in here and now solutions than in the big picture questions. Ultimately, those questions should be answered, but that task will be much easier if there are solutions in place that can serve as examples of those answers."

I think that is certainly true for some people, probably especially the unemployed. But there are already plenty of solutions which serve as examples of the supremacy of free markets, etc. I think the key, like in COIN, is to find a way to make the principles and solutions relevant to the target audience, and I don't think that can be done without a larger narrative.

V/R

Badger52

07-16-2012, 14:16

In the current environment, government is "rewarded" by growing, not shrinking. As a big government bureaucrat, you are "rewarded" for growing your budget and power base, not shrinking it.

Anyway, it appears that these (currently non-producing folks) might just push Obama over the hump this election cycle.
I can't speak to other Gov agencies, especially those that have no provenance that could even be loosely tied to the Constitution. I do see, by effect downstream, that your assessment is pretty accurate as would pertain to many in the SES and those who are agency appointees. My sense, however, is that averaged from the Nat'l Capitol Region to the other extreme of my brethren out in the Rockies or the beautiful deserts around Fort Huachuca...

The POTUS is in deep kimshi if he thinks his 'message' is resonating with rank & file DoD workers, especially those working in the agencies that have seen the majority of their personal treasure go to war in the last 10 years and sometimes not come back the same way.

DISCLAIMER: The above assessment is completely anecdotal and I can hang onto it all I want. I don't work for Sebelius or Big Sis; I just tell folks:

I'm from the US Army; you may have heard of us, we've been in several wars.

Sigaba

07-16-2012, 15:20

FUCK ME! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE BULLSHITTING!

How the FUCK can you get more left wing than marxism, Sigaba?Dusty--

The craft of history is dominated by social historians who are informed by materialist theory. This contingent regularly kicks around the question "Why is there no socialism in the United States?" By contrast, in those circles where "traditional" forms of historical inquiry still thrive, an enduring theme is the essentially consistent nature of American national politics and policy in which--for worse and for better--political, economic, and social elites get their way much more often than not. When one views contemporary American politics from these perspectives, what some see as "Marxism" emerges as a weird marriage of left of center Progressivism and left wing populism cloaked in a threadbare mantle of empty radical rhetoric.

IMO, we undermine our intellectual credibility and political effectiveness when we call the president a socialist or a communist. Not only does this dog not hunt, it gladly bites the hand that feeds it. A Marxist genuinely interested in fomenting class warfare would not be making appeals to the middle class. Nor would he be co-opting organized labor for campaign contributions and votes while standing mute during the two most significant labor disputes of his administration. Nor would he promote policies that bail out the banking and automotive industries. Nor would he be talking about fixing democratic capitalism. Nor would he redefine GWOT as primarily an exercise of law enforcement. Nor would he be constantly touching the third rail of identity politics. Nor would he be talking about America being at the cross roads of history. Nor would he be paraphrasing (badly and unconvincingly) Reagan, FDR, and Hamilton.

Paslode

07-16-2012, 15:37

IMO, we undermine our intellectual credibility and political effectiveness when we call the president a socialist or a communist.

In what circles and in whose eyes?

Edited by Richard

bubba

07-16-2012, 15:41

So, if not a ist believing in an ism, what is he? I know what his actions are, and in a way I have found to describe 0's policies:

"If there are 9 guys on a diamond shaped field throwing, catching, and hitting a leather covered hard ball, they aint playing football no matter what you want to tell me."

If you read the communist goals for America entered into the congressional record in 1963 you will see that no matter what he is calling it, he is enacting marxist / communist policies that have but only one discernable and planned result......

Sigaba

07-16-2012, 16:15

So, if not a ist believing in an ism, what is he?Bubba--

MOO, the president is the worst sort of politician -- an opportunist who will do / say what ever he can to stay in power just for the sake of staying in power.

While I am inclined to oppose their policy preferences and their broader arguments about the role of government in our everyday lives, I believe there's a legitimate place in American politics for patriotic leftists. Historically, America has been its best when debate over controversial issues has been driven by contrasting viewpoints.

I think that the current president is subverting this tradition to serve his own personal ambition.

YMMV.

Sarski

07-16-2012, 16:32

Dusty--

The craft of history is dominated by social historians who are informed by materialist theory. This contingent regularly kicks around the question "Why is there no socialism in the United States?" By contrast, in those circles where "traditional" forms of historical inquiry still thrive, an enduring theme is the essentially consistent nature of American national politics and policy in which--for worse and for better--political, economic, and social elites get their way much more often than not. When one views contemporary American politics from these perspectives, what some see as "Marxism" emerges as a weird marriage of left of center Progressivism and left wing populism cloaked in a threadbare mantle of empty radical rhetoric.

IMO, we undermine our intellectual credibility and political effectiveness when we call the president a socialist or a communist. Not only does this dog not hunt, it gladly bites the hand that feeds it. A Marxist genuinely interested in fomenting class warfare would not be making appeals to the middle class. Nor would he be co-opting organized labor for campaign contributions and votes while standing mute during the two most significant labor disputes of his administration. Nor would he promote policies that bail out the banking and automotive industries. Nor would he be talking about fixing democratic capitalism. Nor would he redefine GWOT as primarily an exercise of law enforcement. Nor would he be constantly touching the third rail of identity politics. Nor would he be talking about America being at the cross roads of history. Nor would he be paraphrasing (badly and unconvincingly) Reagan, FDR, and Hamilton.

I understand what you are saying,Mr. Sigaba, but the shift of the pendulum has to start somewhere. Given 4 or 10 years down the road when the effects and what I would term as consequences of this administrations policies reach fruition, then a marxist would be able to take that luxury. In the meantime, IMO, that is the road we are going down. And soon enough, there won't be any turning back, and the ideals for marxisim thrive.

I think he also is spewing enough disinformation and incongruencies (hypocracies) about what he says and what he does, so none really have any idea from one speech to the next exactly what the hell is going on, especially those that might not be so into following political events.

Richard

07-16-2012, 17:28

He said this:

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

But that seems to have been lost in the current rising tide of on-going election year hyperbole and polemics.

I'm done with the effin' palaverin'...I just wanna vote.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Sigaba

07-16-2012, 18:34

Give me a break. He is a commie pure and simple. He panders to who he needs to to get elected all the while tearing down the foundation of this country to rebuild it into a socialist paradise. You are taking something simple and complicating hit, dancing around and justifying it. He is a Marxist pure and simple. Look at his record and who he was around in college. Look at his wife's record and her political views. Additionally he is a racist.Precisely how does offering a different analysis of a politician constitute justifying that politician's thought and behavior?:rolleyes:

Dusty

07-16-2012, 18:41

Precisely how does offering a different analysis of a politician constitute justifying that politician's thought and behavior?:rolleyes:

Sigaba, anybody who can't understand that the title quote of this thread is an example of communist, socialist an/or marxist reasoning is a dumb shit.

GratefulCitizen

07-16-2012, 18:45

Richard

07-16-2012, 18:46

Sigaba, anybody who can't understand that the title quote of this thread is an example of communist, socialist an/or marxist reasoning is a dumb shit.

IMO the title is contextually misleading. It's an election year, and anybody who doesn't understand that is...well...whatever. :rolleyes:

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Sigaba

07-16-2012, 19:48

Sigaba, anybody who can't understand that the title quote of this thread is an example of communist, socialist an/or marxist reasoning is a dumb shit.Or that unnamed "anybody" is familiar with the American System as proposed by Hamilton, and practiced by John Qunicy Adams and Henry Clay.

Dusty

07-17-2012, 04:07

IMO the title is contextually misleading. It's an election year, and anybody who doesn't understand that is...well...whatever. :rolleyes:

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Richard, "it's an election year" isn't the answer to everything.

Remember "It Takes a Village." Same communist shit.

Anybody who believes libdems a la Obama, Billary, Pelosi Galore et al are only communists during election years is a dumb shit.

Richard

07-17-2012, 05:56

..."it's an election year" isn't the answer to everything.

Ratcheting up the hyperbolic rhetoric as has been happening for the past year is an election year staple for politicians, their affiliations, the pundits, the media, and the blogosphere. It isn't an answer for 'everything' being said or done out there, but certainly applies to a discussion of the context of a politically delivered, election-oriented speech such as this one.

Labeling everyone a communist or a dumbshit with whom you disagree is one way to answer everything that's being said or done, however, I'm pretty much in agreement with Sigaba's opinion that such mislabeling does more harm than good, reflects poorly on those doing such mislabeling, and distorts and deadens any message(s) being attempted...even among those who may agree that someone like BHO is deceptive, inept, disunifying, and one of the least effective Presidential leaders we've elected within the recent past.

But as I said previously, I'm tired of the pallaverin' and am ready to vote now. However, because that won't happen for three-and-a-half more months, I'm predicting the election-related rhetoric from all corners will only become even more picayune and strident as Election Day nears.

Richard :munchin

Pete

07-17-2012, 06:02

Badger52

07-17-2012, 06:29

Not convinced his comments are a consequence of a socialist ideology.
They are a consequence of his narcissism.

Romney has consistenty demonstrated independent success through life.
The president has been highly dependent on others for his successes.

This side-by-side comparison is a threat to his fragile ego.
The president needs this "collective success" to be true.

If the story ends up going against him, the rage will show.
Then, the obvious explanation will be racism.

His socialist ideology is probably just a consequence of his narcissism.
He needs it to be true to explain why others succeed where he fails.
That's a pretty damned good post.

I still think he's a less-than-average achiever left to his own devices. The thuggery behind his marketing remains a primary concern; the crew has to go, I don't want to see a single remnant when he's sent home to write another book.

VVVV

07-17-2012, 06:39

I still think he's a less-than-average achiever left to his own devices.

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

VVVV

07-17-2012, 06:56

Well, I can vote today.

Republican primary runoff.

A few state offices to vote for.

Under 700 early voted in the county - and that counting D's and R's.

Folks - don't complain if you don't pull the lever, push the button or mark the card.

Nonpartisan Primary

I voted almost 2 weeks ago by drop off /mail in ballot . Four Judges and one School Board member.

Going to the polls is so 19th centuryish!

Paslode

07-17-2012, 07:01

Ratcheting up the hyperbolic rhetoric as has been happening for the past year is an election year staple for politicians, their affiliations, the pundits, the media, and the blogosphere. It isn't an answer for 'everything' being said or done out there, but certainly applies to a discussion of the context of a politically delivered, election-oriented speech such as this one.

Labeling everyone a communist or a dumbshit with whom you disagree is one way to answer everything that's being said or done, however, I'm pretty much in agreement with Sigaba's opinion that such mislabeling does more harm than good, reflects poorly on those doing such mislabeling, and distorts and deadens any message(s) being attempted...even among those who may agree that someone like BHO is deceptive, inept, disunifying, and one of the least effective Presidential leaders we've elected within the recent past.

But as I said previously, I'm tired of the pallaverin' and am ready to vote now. However, because that won't happen for three-and-a-half more months, I'm predicting the election-related rhetoric from all corners will only become even more picayune and strident as Election Day nears.

Richard :munchin

I'd agree in large part......the notable exception would be the labeling. In some instances is considered positive i.e. I am an American.....in some other countries it would be something you might want to hide. The same can be said Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist.

Regardless of the hyperbolic rhetoric, we do have a POTUS who we don't know much about, other than he has and does dance with a cast of characters that are nothing short of Radicals, Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist, and many of his themes, ideas and policies lean in that direction.

Sigaba is saying quit the name calling. He is saying you cannot have a reasonable conversation or debate when you throw out labels such as Fascist, Communist, Socialist and Marxist.

But Abiding by that idea puts those labels into the same PC category as the Nazi label. So no matter what the fact is or isn't, but you cannot use the label.......you have to dance around the issue to address the issue if you want to be taken seriously.

You can think it, you can know it but you can't say it.

Badger52

07-17-2012, 07:14

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html
Obama spoke at one protest rally, but largely preferred to stay behind the scenes and lead by example, recalls one of the protest leaders, Keith Boykin ‘92. Obama opted against taking sides in the ideological disputes that often divided the politically polarized Law Review staff, casting himself instead as a mediator and conciliator. That approach earned the enduring respect of Law Review members including those not necessarily inclined to agree with his political views today.

"He tended not to enter these debates and disputes but rather bring people together and forge compromises,” says Bradford Berenson ’91, who was among the relatively small number of conservatives on the Law Review staff.It would appear something got left in the halls of academia when he departed. Or perhaps this talent as mediator has been tempered by encountering others who hold views on which they will not compromise and on whom his charm has no effect.

His academic time is one thing. The list of what he said he'd do & what he stood for, versus what he's actually done counter to that, is of more import in my view. Many who did not look at the substance of his "watch the kind of people I surround myself with" remark are, admitted or not, suffering some buyer's remorse.

Richard

07-17-2012, 07:19

I'd agree in large part......the notable exception would be the labeling.

I disagree.

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.

Call him inept...and then explain why.

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.

Call him an ineffectie leader...and then explain why.

But calling him a communist, a fascist, a racist, a Marxist, a radical, etc, only fuels the political rhetorical piss pot, distorts and obfuscates the issues, and turns people away.

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

Richard :munchin

Dusty

07-17-2012, 07:20

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

Harvard is a spawning ground for communists, so that story dovetails nicely.

sinjefe

07-17-2012, 07:20

I'd agree in large part......the notable exception would be the labeling. In some instances is considered positive i.e. I am an American.....in some other countries it would be something you might want to hide. The same can be said Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist.

Regardless of the hyperbolic rhetoric, we do have a POTUS who we don't know much about, other than he has and does dance with a cast of characters that are nothing short of Radicals, Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist, and many of his themes, ideas and policies lean in that direction.

Sigaba is saying quit the name calling. He is saying you cannot have a reasonable conversation or debate when you throw out labels such as Fascist, Communist, Socialist and Marxist.

But Abiding by that idea puts those labels into the same PC category as the Nazi label. So no matter what the fact is or isn't, but you cannot use the label.......you have to dance around the issue to address the issue if you want to be taken seriously.

You can think it, you can know it but you can't say it.

And, at the end of the day, one can be a Marxist or Socialist and if they are, there is nothing wrong with referring to them as such. If it looks like a duck.....

Dusty

07-17-2012, 07:25

I disagree.

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.

Call him inept...and then explain why.

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.

Call him an ineffectie leader...and then explain why.

But calling him a communist, a fascist, a racist, a Marxist, a radical, etc, only fuels the political rhetorical piss pot, distorts and obfuscates the issues, and turns people away.

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

Richard :munchin

If you need explanation as to Obama's deceptive, inept and disunifying performance which has rendered his leadership ineffecti(v)e, you're either an Obama-worshiper yourself or you've been asleep or drunk for 4 years.

Richard

07-17-2012, 07:34

If you need explanation as to Obama's deceptive, inept and disunifying performance which has rendered his leadership ineffecti(v)e, you're either an Obama-worshiper yourself or you've been asleep or drunk for 4 years.

Isn't the purpose to sway the BHO supporters to vote contrary to their 2008 impulses? :confused:

If that's the mission, I don't think 'nanny nanny noo noo' name calling will do that, but offering simple, factual counters to any of his or his supporters' claims will.

Richard :munchin

PedOncoDoc

07-17-2012, 07:56

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

How long until they elect President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho? :mad:

Stargazer

07-17-2012, 08:12

Although I agree in principle with what Richard and Sigaba are stating, I don't believe it is an effective or realistic approach within today's society. Most people don't utilize deliberate, conscious and analytical reasoning -- too much work. Most do respond based on emotion and unconscious judgments that includes labeling. Marketing campaigns bank on it... so do politicians.

IMO President Obama understands this behavior very well, especially within certain social groups. He is a master at pushing buttons. He is so confident in this approach, that he doesn't even concern himself with contradicting previous statements. Because he knows, the majority of people are lazy thinkers and all he has to do is make a personal connection.

That is where Romney will fail. He has too much integrity and wants to have rational and honest dialogue. He is thought of as boring or doesn't connect with those who are listening because he doesn't talk about little Tommy that he met in the street, who if he had a son would look like him.

I hope POTUS has hung himself out to dry with his recent statements in regard to small businesses. I work for a small business and know many small business owners. S Corporations, LLC, partnerships... they are targets for the $250K. And the people I know are NOT hiring based on the uncertainty within our country as it is NOT conducive to risk taking. Sure, they are certain sectors that are growing.... but for the most part service the public/government sector.

In closing, with respect to the following statement:
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

That strikes me in the same manner as the person who praises you then follows with "but"............ it's comes across as disingenuine and lost among the offensive statements that surround it........

Badger52

07-17-2012, 08:53

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.
Well documented "gun-control under the radar" efforts comment during the campaign coupled with, over time, sufficient nexus to events that give credence to his Administration's intent to do that. Sworn testimony & files provided to Congress show an, at best, disingenuous Administration. He promised the most transparent administration in history and promptly, and continually, signs bills (or Executive Orders when legislation doesn't work) without the promised 5 working days for public review & comment, his so-called "Sunshine to Signing" promise, which surprisingly didn't apply to the first crippling stimulus bill he signed inside 3 hours of its passage.

Call him inept...and then explain why.
The "beer summit" in the Rose Garden over his Cambridge professor incident was just the first hint. It was necessitated because of his inept (not included above) conduct in weighing into a simple law-enforcement matter clueless as to the import that remarks from a sitting POTUS carry. Similarly, the much discussed "apology tour" early on in his term - chummy times with Hugo Chavez aren't very "Presidential" and he does not seem to understand the concept of being "Presidential." (Exception: When he's doing that preening 'Duce' thing Pete talked about.)

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.
His continuing use of rhetoric that fosters class warfare, pitting the haves vs. the have-nots - and the almost Holy Grail-like benchmark of $250,000 per year family income equated with the evil "haves." The very people he's pandering to need to understand that, under his rule, they can only succeed just so far, "because at some point I think you've made enough money." They need to understand that he has no interest in their actual success other than to confiscate & make more loyalists. His complete misunderstanding of the word "fair" in any sense that reflects American ideals, traditions, and laws borders on conceptual illiteracy. He continues to support an Attorney General who has gone on record as saying that, basically, there can't be a white victim to a hate-crime.

Call him an ineffective leader...and then explain why.
He had the world, or at least the Congress, by the ass during the first half of his Administration and STILL couldn't get key initiatives passed. By any objective standard this is a leadership failure of the first order. (Stimulus-I wasn't a key initiative, it was a worse-than-FDR shotgun blast to appease the appearance of doing something. (I may refile this under 'Inept' later.) His apology tour mentioned above ended up with several important heads of state basically telling him to pound sand after the POTUS returned to CONUS. I guess Putin wasn't impressed by all the bowing.

Just a start. Then again, some can just wait for his next book to get the truth. Slice & dice, have at it. Pullin' pitch...
C'mon November.

Dusty

07-17-2012, 09:12

Isn't the purpose to sway the BHO supporters to vote contrary to their 2008 impulses? :confused:

If that's the mission, I don't think 'nanny nanny noo noo' name calling will do that, but offering simple, factual counters to any of his or his supporters' claims will.

Richard :munchin

Simple, factual counters to any of his or his supporters' claims are found in virtually EVERY news source, Richard-with the exception of the AP, UPI, Reuters, NYT, WaPo and NPR. That's because these are liberal, communist-leaning outlets. How can you possibly not realize that, and be an educator?

afchic

07-17-2012, 09:14

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

Now if he would only release his school records. But we all know that will never happen.

And before you go saying that he doesn't have to, think about this. I am only speking on behalf of the Air Force, because I don't know if the rest of the services use the same information.

Since I have been in the Air Force, my school records have been used to determine if I am competent to either get selected to attend graduate school, and/or if I am competent to be selected for promotion. Yes our Graduate School grades are included in our promotion records. All grades from under grad and grad are used to determine if we meet the criteria to attend in residence PME.

So if I have to show God and Country my school records, why shouldn't the POTUS?

Stargazer

07-17-2012, 10:21

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/17/business-groups-criticize-obama-over-remarks-about-government-role-in-success/#ixzz20rIiarHb

David Chavern, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Commerce, accused Obama of slighting the remarkable achievements of extraordinary individuals.

"We should applaud the risk-takers and the dreamers who are willing to stand out from the crowd," Chavern said in a Chamber blog. "Rather than denigrate what these people have done, we need to encourage more people to be like them."

The National Federation of Independent Business said the president's "unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs."

"I'm sure every small-business owner who took a second mortgage on their home, maxed out their credit cards or borrowed money from their own retirement savings to start their business disagrees strongly with President Obama's claim. They know that hard work does matter," the group also said.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told FoxNews.com on Monday that the remarks "reflect just how unqualified he is to lead us to a real economic recovery."

"They are also insulting to the hardworking entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and job creators who are the backbone of our economy," she said in an e-mail.

The Obama campaign, though, accused the Romney campaign of launching a "false attack" to distract from questions over outsourcing tied to his former company Bain Capital. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt defended the premise of Obama's comment.

"As President Obama said, those who start businesses succeed because of their individual initiative -- their drive, hard work, and creativity," LaBolt said in a statement. "But there are critical actions we must take to support businesses and encourage new ones -- that means we need the best infrastructure, a good education system, and affordable, domestic sources of clean energy. Those are investments we make not as individuals, but as Americans, and our nation as a whole benefits from them."

Richard

07-17-2012, 10:37

So if I have to show God and Country my school records, why shouldn't the POTUS?

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution? :confused:

Richard :munchin

tonyz

07-17-2012, 10:53

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution? :confused:

Richard :munchin

It just seems like it requires an amendment to the Constitution - to get the truth out of this president.. :D

Dusty

07-17-2012, 11:42

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution? :confused:

Richard :munchin

Ammendments aren't necessary to a POTUS to whom the Constitution is immaterial.

GratefulCitizen

07-17-2012, 12:04

Collective success implies collective failure.
The buck stops with you.

He's making an excuse as to why his schemes aren't working.
It's the people's fault; they just aren't smart enough to grasp his wisdom.

BKKMAN

07-17-2012, 12:57

The current course of events and narratives have some eerie parallels to the storyline of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged...

Some of my favorite quotes...

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.”

“...through all the generations of political extortion, it was not the looting bureaucrats who had taken the blame, but the chained industrialists, not the men who peddled legal favors, but the men who were forced to buy them; and through all those generations of crusades against corruption, the remedy had always been, not the liberating of the victims, but the granting of wider powers for extortion to the extortionists. The only guilt of the victims, he thought, had been that they accepted it as guilt.”

"He knew no weapons but to pay for what he wanted, to give value, to ask nothing of nature without trading his effort in return, to ask nothing of men without trading the product of his effort."

"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved."

"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

“Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.”

mark46th

07-17-2012, 13:44

The most telling aspect of Obama's politico-social agend is the constant rhetoric about class warfare. This, above all else, shows his core belief about society in America. If it quacks like a duck, he is a socialst if not marxist at heart...

From Wikipedia...

Marx largely focuses on the capital industrialist society as the source of social stratification, which ultimately results in class conflict.[13] He states that capitalism creates a division between classes which can largely be seen in manufacturing factories. The proletariat, is separated from the bourgeoisie because production becomes a social enterprise. Contributing to their separation is the technology that is in factories. Technology deskills and alienates workers as they are no longer viewed as having a specialized skill.[13] Another effect of technology is a homogenous workforce that can be easily replaceable. Marx believed that this class conflict would result in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and that the private property would be communally owned.[13] The mode of production would remain, but communal ownership would eliminate class conflict.[13]

Sigaba

07-17-2012, 14:21

The most telling aspect of Obama's politico-social agend is the constant rhetoric about class warfare. This, above all else, shows his core belief about society in America. If it quacks like a duck, he is a socialst if not marxist at heart...If talking about class conflict defines one as a Marxist, what then is to be said about Alexander Hamilton and other statesmen of the early Republic?

alelks

07-17-2012, 14:35

If talking about class conflict defines one as a Marxist, what then is to be said about Alexander Hamilton and other statesmen of the early Republic?

He doesn't just talk about it it PROMOTES IT! :D

Sigaba

07-17-2012, 14:46

He doesn't just talk about it it PROMOTES IT! :DSo did Jefferson and Madison.

tonyz

07-17-2012, 14:49

So did Jefferson and Madison.

Are they running this cycle?

afchic

07-17-2012, 15:00

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution? :confused:

Richard :munchin

Tell me where in the Consitution is states that candidates need to release xxx years of tax returns? It's not there, but we still pressure every candidate to do it.

tonyz

07-17-2012, 15:02

I have suggested on this BB that we, as individuals, can often be examined by reviewing an accumulation of our own unique life experiences.

Similarly, Obama is an accumulation of his own life experiences and in the rare, unguarded, moment he telegraphs or projects some of his true life experiences to his audience. It is not just what he says but how he says it. Listen to the clip that is the subject of the OP. He really believes some of his own nonsense.

"...police acted stupidly, better off when we spread the wealth, if you've got a business you didn't build that."

IMO, Obama has enjoyed a great deal of life's fruits that he has not "earned" - at least not earned in a traditional sense...Obama's land deal in Chicago, the Nobel Peace Prize...If we had his high school, college, and law school transcripts, I suspect that I could go on.

In this latest instance, I believe that Obama spoke from his heart, again. He telegraphed his own life experience. And that ought to give most everyone pause. When the leader of the free world undermines (either overtly or covertly) the value of the business owner's individual contribution to society...in this economy...I think we know why he has chosen certain policies, to date and rejected others. I think we can reasonably expect few true pro-business policies out of this administration.

MOO, if educated, intelligent, otherwise successful folks can't see this person for what he is - can't see how economically untenable and divisive this president and his policies are - folks, then we are circling the bowl as a nation.

mark46th

07-17-2012, 15:51

It was redefined by Karl Marx and implemented by the Russians and Chinese in a manner that would have been completely unacceptable to Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson. These men were all small government proponents, Obama wants to have an IRS agent sleeping between you and your wife.

Paslode

07-17-2012, 15:56

I disagree.

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.

Call him inept...and then explain why.

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.

Call him an ineffectie leader...and then explain why.

But calling him a communist, a fascist, a racist, a Marxist, a radical, etc, only fuels the political rhetorical piss pot, distorts and obfuscates the issues, and turns people away.

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

Richard :munchin

On this board we have for several years now discussed in detail Obama's radical ties, agendas, etc..etc...so when Dusty for example, simply labels Obama as a Commie or a Marxists, many on the board do not need an explanation because they have read his thoughts for some time.....and they haven't changed from what I can tell.

I understand what you are saying though, you are going to get a better reception with some if you expand on the label and/or explain why you believe the way you do then they will be more apt to listen and possibly understand where you are coming from.

Dusty

07-17-2012, 15:59

So did Jefferson and Madison.

lol Sig, you're as random as a wild goose.

We're talking about the POTUS. An admitted protege of Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn. Buds with Rashidi, Lezko and other scum (about which I've been bitching since before the last election). We're not talking about the f.cking 1700's, we're talking about the future of the Country going down the tubes in 3 months if he's re-elected.

So, why do you keep diverting focus away from the true problem?

Sigaba

07-17-2012, 16:31

Are they running this cycle?

My broader point is this. Earlier in this thread, USANick7 and I briefly discussed how much time Romney and the GOP should invest in developing a larger narrative to counter the incumbent's rhetoric. IMO, he made a fundamental point with which I agree. The larger narrative is important, especially this time around.

However, the reason why I think we should not have this debate now is because we are not ready. Members of the American political right want to appoint themselves the guardians of this nation's history, its traditions, and its conventions. Regrettably, some members of this contingent increasingly display a dizzying ignorance of the history and the political philosophy they seek to protect.

For example, it is fashionable to assert that the current president is uniquely un-American because he says this and does that. However, these allegations do not take into account the many instances in which American politicians and statesmen have done and said the same things. Were they also libs/socialists/Marxists? Or were they Americans who sought ways to match the basic concepts of American political philosophy to the changing demands of a growing society in an increasingly complex world?

Rather than pursuing the more difficult task of proving that the president is a "Marxist" (which, in my opinion, requires actual research (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/) rather than "duck tests"), why not pick the low hanging fruit by reverse engineering the president's policy preferences and rhetoric within the framework of American political philosophy? From there, one could go to a different floor of the local library and find examples of how those preferences and rhetoric did not work out as well as hoped, and/or brought unforeseen change.

Here's my concern. What's at stake is not only the 2012 presidential election, but the very relevance of the Republican Party and the American political right. Right now, because of our increasingly shrill rhetoric and ideological blinders, we are presenting the opposition with a golden opportunity to destroy our intellectual credibility by turning the nation's attention to our view of history. (There are several Americanists who, if they were to marshal their resources, could bring such a work to market by October.*)

While some among us would scoff at the "Marxists" for their revisionist view of history, the judicious use of primary source materials would leave many cringing and most of us reeling as the GOP fell into oblivion.

MOO, the memory of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush the Elder deserve much better than the following.

I'll take political trivia for $400.

A.: The last Republican candidate to get elected president in the twenty first century.

Q: Who was George W. Bush?

My $0.02.

__________________________________________
* Gordon Wood, Sean Wilentz, Daniel Walker Howe, Eric Foner, George Herring, and Steven Hahn come immediately to mind. Heaven help us if Carol Smith-Rosenberg or Emily S. Rosenberg were to throw their hats into the ring.

mark46th

07-17-2012, 16:53

I agree , the right shouldn't be pointing out POTUS as a socialist/marxist. He does that for himself with regularity. Also, it won't change anyone's mind on the left. The left knows who he is and embraces it. We should pin Obama's ears back on the economy and his lack of awareness there of, every time he goes off topic...

tonyz

07-17-2012, 17:37

I just read Mark46th's comments and agree. Moreover, my .02 below.

Rather than pursuing the more difficult task of proving that the president is a "Marxist" (which, in my opinion, requires actual research (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/) rather than "duck tests"), why not pick the low hanging fruit by reverse engineering the president's policy preferences and rhetoric within the framework of American political philosophy?

IMO, now, that is potentially fruitful (pun intended) and something that even I might understand.

MOO, the president is leading Romney into a trap when he says that this election is a debate over narratives.

At present, Americans are more interested in here and now solutions than in the big picture questions.

I also found your earlier comments to be interesting.

Is this not another election that offers the very real opportunity for the candidates to illustrate bold policy differences ?

To date, has Obama supported policies that exacerbate or actually address our undeniable economic problems?

To another of your points, if Romney can exit from the convention with not only a running mate, but with, for example 10 solutions to obvious matters of national concern (my gosh it, can't be that difficult - tax policy, energy, healthcare, and immigration policy alone, should yield 10) he would do himself some good.

MOO, Romney had better define himself - fast - before the Obama crowd does.

For example, the Obama camp has already labeled Romney a felon - when Romney probably hasn't even met a felon. While in reality, Obama has had actual felons as supporters, friends and acquaintances - at least in the not so distant past.

Obama is "cool" - Romney is competent. Unfortunately, in this day and age cool trumps competent in the "minds" of too many. Culturally, that is a real challenge for Romney.

Dusty

07-17-2012, 18:14

tonyz

07-17-2012, 18:41

Like many, I was not excited about Romney - don't get me wrong - I was ABBO but I had not read about Romney's undergraduate and graduate education - when so much is made of Obama's.

This guy was no slouch. I also suspect that given his background, he understands what a it takes to build, lead and manage a business organization.

Excerpt:

"Romney graduated high school in 1965 and promptly enrolled in Stanford University. However, his stay there was cut short, and he traveled to France to begin missionary work on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a popular activity among the Mormon youths at the time. He spent the next two and a half years there cycling around the countryside dressed in formal black attire, attempting to convert the mainly Catholic residents to his faith. Disaster struck six months before he left for home when he was involved in an automobile accident. A Catholic priest, believed to be under the influence, smashed into the car Romney was driving. He was thrown right out of the vehicle, but did not suffer serious injuries. However, one of the passengers died in the accident. The experience proved to be a sobering one for Romney, as he would later recount.

Upon his return, he married his high school sweetheart, Ann, and soon after, enrolled in Brigham Young University. He graduated in 1971 with a Degree in English, with a 3.97GPA. His young family then moved to Boston, and Mitt enrolled in both Harvard Law (HLS) and Harvard Business School (HBS). He obtained his MBA from HBS in 1975 and graduated cum laude from HLS with his Juris Doctor the same year, finishing in the top 5% of his class."

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Education.php

VVVV

07-17-2012, 21:06

His academic time is one thing. The list of what he said he'd do & what he stood for, versus what he's actually done counter to that, is of more import in my view. Many who did not look at the substance of his "watch the kind of people I surround myself with" remark are, admitted or not, suffering some buyer's remorse.

Couldn't the same be said for most Presidents? Two that come to mind are : George H W Bush's "Read my lips... No new taxes", and George W Bush's "No more nation-building!

Dusty

07-18-2012, 05:22

Couldn't the same be said for most Presidents? Two that come to mind are : George H W Bush's "Read my lips... No new taxes", and George W Bush's "No more nation-building!

Yeah, you could say that. This thread's about being a communist, though. The Bush's weren't communists.

Obama apologists are so predictable with the "Bush blah-blah"; no matter what the f.ck Obama has done, Bush is worse. :rolleyes:

ddoering

07-18-2012, 05:50

If they can't blame it on Bush then it must be racism......

Hand

07-18-2012, 06:23

Paslode

07-18-2012, 07:12

How did Bush Jr's policies affect today's rate of unemployment, unprecedented federal debt, cities all across the country filing for bankruptcy and our current level of people sponging off of the borrowed money that uncle sugar is doling out?

Previous presidents have taken office with similar obstacles and managed to make improvements. Every day under the current administration is only worse than the last. When was the last time we heard some good news from the WH?

We have kicked the can down the road through many administrations in a fashion that is synonymous with moving credit card balances, to a new credit card so you can keep spending on the old ones. Overtime that debt accumulates to a point where you cannot make your minimum payments or maintain your plastic lifestyle.

Bush Jr's also has TARP which bailed out the bankers for the sub-prime mortgage scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

It's not that any one President caused the mess, it is that they allowed it to continue to some degree. I say to some degree because we have two Houses that create laws, control taxes and government spending.

Hand

07-18-2012, 07:59

We have kicked the can down the road through many administrations in a fashion that is synonymous with moving credit card balances, to a new credit card so you can keep spending on the old ones. Overtime that debt accumulates to a point where you cannot make your minimum payments or maintain your plastic lifestyle.

Yes sir, I understand, but I don't see this this as an unavoidable eventuality. We put a man on the moon and a satellite outside the solar system. We pioneered the automobile, the personal computer. Are we really not smart enough to reign in our excessive spending before we completely ruin our economy for good?

Bush Jr's also has TARP which bailed out the bankers for the sub-prime mortgage scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

It's not that any one President caused the mess, it is that they allowed it to continue to some degree. I say to some degree because we have two Houses that create laws, control taxes and government spending.

I remember the debate leading up to TARP, I absolutely disagree with that decision. But then, since you brought that up, are you suggesting that it tipped some balance and sent the national debt into a free fall? By pointing at a Bush Jr bad policy, does that somehow remove Obama from any responsibility for his own mistakes or bad policies? Obama has his very own TARP and his is bigger, he also has this abortion of a health care bill. Can we say these are Obama's fault? Or are they also the result of previous administrations decisions?

Debt has actually fallen during Reagan and surprisingly Clinton's administrations. It can be done. I referenced not only debt, but unemployment, cities failing financially and the number of those on entitlement programs because there is no argument that previous administrations can be blamed for the current state of the country given those factors in consideration.

Our success as a nation rests squarely on the shoulders of free enterprise and personal liberty. These two things have been grossly restricted by this administration. There are countless examples scattered through out this forum of this happening. These cannot be blamed on Bush Jr.

While I disagree with what I'm about to say, for the sake of debate - Ill give you that responsibility for the debt isn't Obama's fault. Is there anything that he CAN be blamed for?

Dusty

07-18-2012, 09:28

http://www.foxnews.com/

Mitt Romney is starting to give anxious Republicans just what they want, moving from a defensive crouch over attacks on his Bain Capital record and launching a broadside against President Obama over the issue at the heart of the 2012 race -- jobs.

The Republican presidential candidate took to the stump Tuesday with a crowd-rallying vigor, and is unlikely to let up when he holds a town hall meeting Wednesday afternoon in Bowling Green, Ohio.

The spark, for Romney, was Obama's now-famous comment Friday in which he suggested businesses owe their success to government investment. While Romney has bounced among various themes in recent weeks, his speech to a Pennsylvania crowd Tuesday zeroed in on that quote as illustrating a singular difference between his attitude toward the economy and Obama's.

Romney described the comments as "stunning" and revealing" and argued they played into a larger narrative of Obama "changing the nature of America," calling his policies "extraordinarily foreign."

"In the past, people of both parties understood that encouraging achievement, encouraging success, encouraging people to lift themselves as high as they can, encouraging entrepreneur celebrating success instead of attacking it and denigrating makes America strong," he said.

Romney said Obama wants Americans to be "ashamed of success." He suggested the comment was tantamount to saying Steve Jobs didn't build Apple or Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's, calling the notion "insulting" and wrong.

Snip

Badger52

07-18-2012, 11:00

When was the last time we heard some good news from the WH?I can't believe everyone hasn't read all the wonderful ways the current Administration has positively impacted decades of US history; after all, it's in the WH Presidential biographies.

Dusty

07-18-2012, 19:14

I disagree with Sigaba that Obama is just a self-serving politician. That is more Romney IMO. Obama is a genuine leftist. That said, I disagree with Dusty on Obama being a Marxist. A Marxist doesn't believe in liberal democracy or any kind of private property ownership whatsoever. Remember, there are all kinds of leftist: pacifists and warmongers, nationalist socialists versus internationalist socialists, believers in liberal democracy versus believers in a "dictatorship of the proletariat," etc...George Orwell was a socialist. But he was no Marxist.

IMO, I see Obama as a classic European-style social democrat. Not an outright socialist, but believes in a much larger role for government in society then what has been the norm in America. He'd fit in perfectly with Britain's Labour party as it was during much of the 20th century, or in one of the leftwing parties of the Scandinavian countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, etc...), or with France's Socialist party.

Regarding Romney, I think Romney's problem is that he is not a genuine conservative, so he sounds like cardboard in trying to talk like a conservative. He does not sound like a man who is well-versed in conservatism or conservative policies, but rather just as a politician who made the decision to run as a Republican and now must try to sound like a conservative.

Good points.

tonyz

07-18-2012, 19:15

Dusty

07-18-2012, 19:29

Just to follow up on Broadsword2004's interesting observations - there is no magic in societal groups doing things together.

IMO, the magic of the free market system, among other things, is that a bunch of individuals (volunteers) have the initiative, self discipline, self-motivation to do things together because the system rewards it - or doesn't reward it, as the case may be.

But, not because the system makes you do it.

IMO, Obama is a statist who wants to - likes to - make you do things.

It might be interesting to have psych evaluations of both candidates.

Well, Obama has marxist dreams, e.g.

"Marxism. noun...the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society. "

but constraints are forcing him into a more European-like socialist approach.

In a perfect world for Obama, the current have-nots (people on the dole) would be the only class, and the wealth collected by capitalists would be divvied up equally and given to the strugglers upon whose backs the capitalists trod for hundreds of years.

Have you read the novel, "Dreams From my Father'? (rhetorical)

tonyz

07-18-2012, 19:41

Well, Obama has marxist dreams...

He may well have - I've always preferred the term statist because IMO it is nebulous enough - but accurate enough - to described observable conduct (both actions and omissions) by the man.

Without a beer summit - and I ain't getting one of those - it is very difficult to gauge the man's true belief system.

That is a big part of the problem this election cycle - the press has given this guy such a free pass that we are left with only his statements and his actions and little understanding of his core beliefs and influences.

Only now, are some of those things coming to light.

ETA: While some have reported on his questionable associations and secrecy - unfortunately, those folks are quickly labeled kooks - oddly enough, occasionally, by those who claim to hate labels. Thus, IMO, there has never been a proper vetting process of this man. Maybe folks will realize what is at stake this go round and push the matter come hell or high water. Unfortunately, I think we still need some in the MSM to take up the charge.

BOfH

07-18-2012, 19:51

MOO: Given that one of his primary mentors(Frank Marshall Davis) was a card carrying, dyed in the cloth Marxist, I would say that BHO leans more towards Marxism than European style soft socialism. What makes him come across as less extreme are things like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, checks and balances and of course both the House and the Senate. The other thing to consider is the fact that he comes across as a narcissist, which probably lends to his appearing opportunistic, as opposed to the rigid ideologue which he so wants to be: meaning he does care about what people think of him, from time to time, hence adjusting his message so that they approve, making him feel better about himself. Ultimately, he knows that he is just the water boy for the liberal, progressive forces in this country hell-bent on utterly transforming America.

Despair and governmental chains are more like it...

My .002

Paslode

07-18-2012, 20:01

Yes sir, I understand, but I don't see this this as an unavoidable eventuality. We put a man on the moon and a satellite outside the solar system. We pioneered the automobile, the personal computer. Are we really not smart enough to reign in our excessive spending before we completely ruin our economy for good?

I remember the debate leading up to TARP, I absolutely disagree with that decision. But then, since you brought that up, are you suggesting that it tipped some balance and sent the national debt into a free fall? By pointing at a Bush Jr bad policy, does that somehow remove Obama from any responsibility for his own mistakes or bad policies? Obama has his very own TARP and his is bigger, he also has this abortion of a health care bill. Can we say these are Obama's fault? Or are they also the result of previous administrations decisions?

Debt has actually fallen during Reagan and surprisingly Clinton's administrations. It can be done. I referenced not only debt, but unemployment, cities failing financially and the number of those on entitlement programs because there is no argument that previous administrations can be blamed for the current state of the country given those factors in consideration.

Our success as a nation rests squarely on the shoulders of free enterprise and personal liberty. These two things have been grossly restricted by this administration. There are countless examples scattered through out this forum of this happening. These cannot be blamed on Bush Jr.

While I disagree with what I'm about to say, for the sake of debate - Ill give you that responsibility for the debt isn't Obama's fault. Is there anything that he CAN be blamed for?

Bush is just another current example other than the prey of favor, I am not picking on him.

Bush's mistake with TARP is he buckled to the Banks and bailed their asses out of a sling when he should have let sit in the nest they made. He set a precedent that the banks are Too Big Too Fail and the Government can save the day. He also covered the lawmakers and overseers asses as well. But there is far more to it than that, I liken it to the current Sheriff Joe 'conspiracy in that if the depth of real truth were known it would show how bad the system has failed. On one hand he F-kd up and on another he had a gun to his head in a manner of speaking.

What he did was similar to bailing your kids ass out of trouble and in turn the kid learns little more than I can get away with it....my parents will always be there.

From there Obama has up the ante with his programs......and he has examples from Bush and Romney (and a many others) for a basis like the Patriot Act, TARP and Romney Care. They did it, so can I and I can do it better!

The overall point I was making was, for this cycle to stop someone has to man up and say NO and no one has been willing to do it. While Obama is tool, he is far from being the only tool and in most instances it takes more than one tool to create a mess like we have.

Obama and many others are responsible for allowing things that should be stopped to continue. IMO the only things Obama can be specifically blamed for are the things he dictates, like through Executive Order.....all the others crimes run through both houses before they hit his desk....or Bush's desk, etc..etc. and in that case if he signed it he is only partially to blame.

It has gone on for so long there is no way to gain control of it

The folks in DC are like crack addicts, they will lie, cheat and steal by any means necessary to maintain the status quo and they will rob and pillage the private coffers to get their fix until it runs dry......unless some stand up and say NO MORE, NOT ON MY WATCH!

Our success as a nation rests squarely on the shoulders of free enterprise and personal liberty. These two things have been grossly restricted by this administration. There are countless examples scattered through out this forum of this happening. These cannot be blamed on Bush Jr.

Ahhhh....but a nation without responsibility and of good moral character is not a place they will flourish ;)

alelks

07-18-2012, 20:13

You guys need to get off your ass and help me expand my business. Lord knows (OOPS, I meant to say "Obama knows") I can't do it by myself.

You're all slackers.

Paslode

07-19-2012, 00:26

IMO, they were too big to fail though. That was the problem. If allowed to fail and the financial system had gone under, credit could have frozen and the economy completely frozen up. That couldn't be allowed to happen. Ben Bernanke, a very accomplished scholar on the causes of the Great Depression, went and said to President Bush that if he didn't bail out the financial system, then we'd have a depression worse then the Great Depression. So I think Bush acted responsibly there.

And you have to ask yourself who allowed the banking system to get so enormous and out of control? The Lawmakers and the Overseers.

What should be done is to make it where the financial system doesn't require a bailout in the future. The question here is how to structure the big financial institutions where they are not too big to fail, but are still large enough to provide aid to America's largest businesses.

That should be what we push towards. In the 80's and 90's we had a wide variety of banks dotting the landscape. Then Nations Bank and others began gobbling up smaller banks, that unto itself limited the playing field for the consumer and created monopolies that essentially put all our eggs in one giant basket.....a basket so big you could lose everything if it fell.

And who allowed that? The Lawmakers and Overseers.

Well the Obama administration has sought to regulate the financial sector (Dodd-Frank), but the problems here are does this regulation really address the problems, and also, is a nasty side effect of this regulation that the financial system is being hit with uncertainty right now because a lot of the actual rules and regulations have yet to be written?

Weren't Frank-en-Dodd involved in the sub-prime fiasco...Fannie May/Freddie Mac and a sweetheart deal from Countrywide. And Bill Clinton toughened anti-redlining rules and launched a federal assault on mortgage underwriting standards.

That's like the fox guarding the chickens...

I agree on RomneyCare, TARP as said I think was a necessary evil, the Patriot Act I think is a good thing. It was to allow the intelligence agencies to be able to communicate with each other. Since then it has been revised, with certain parts of it removed, other parts modified, other parts continued. The legal system has done a whole lot of scrutinizing of it. It isn't just a big bill that was written and that's that, no changing of it

TARP good or bad, right or wrong.....the end result is crime and poor business practice pays. The Patriot Act good or bad, right or wrong overlapped other law we already had on the books....and now we have NDAA. And with each and every new addition we increase the size of government which cost money.

What we need is a conservative who will govern to conservatism as Obama has governed to liberalism. We had Reagan who changed us towards limited-government, but he had to gun up defense spending and also had a deficit due to the Federal Reserve reducing inflation and also the ensuing recession which also slashed tax revenues. However, afterwards, President Bush Sr. should have continued the limited government mindset, but he was a more big government conservative. Then we had Clinton and a period of limited government with the Republicans in control of Congress, but Clinton at heart is a big-government guy, he pivoted after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994. Then President Bush, Jr. who while a good guy was a big-government conservative. The Republican leadership also decided to try adopting a "compassionate conservatism" philosophy, i.e. that the Republican party could do big government better than the Democratic party. Then in 2008, in the name of "Change" we get Obama, who basically just engages us in more of the same big government, but gunned up to a wholly new level.

Real change would be things like adopting a long-term plan to limit the growth of and reduce the size of the government (government doesn't even need to physically shrink to become smaller as a percentage of the economy, it's growth just needs to be controlled and we need healthy economic growth). In addition, we need to go back to having Congress regularly discuss debt management, which is something that used to be discussed regularly by Congress, but which has since been forgotten. And then we need to stick to those principles year-after-year. Even when the Treasury is flush with revenue, we need to have a constant focus on keeping spending controlled.

You might remember this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joDjwtjIQS8

Now just imagine the left and rights most notable villains....George Soros is manipulating the Blue Robot and the Koch Brothers are manipulating the Red Robot. And we get watch and cheer our team on.

That's current day politics and the game we play as I see it.

Jesus! Charlie Rangel and Ted Stevens can screw The People and still run for office!!!

We need a team of individuals with high moral standards, who are responsible and who aren't easily manipulated.....that would be real change.

Dusty

07-19-2012, 13:40

I think what America needs is the regulations that create the incentives for the prudence and banking conservatism we see with the Canadian banks, but keeping the system decentralized could probably keep the system more flexible.

Nailed. And instituted quickly.

tonyz

07-19-2012, 13:48

Nailed. And instituted quickly.

I think what America needs is the regulations that create the incentives for the prudence and banking conservatism we see with the Canadian banks, but keeping the system decentralized could probably keep the system more flexible. Canada's banks are not subject to the politicism of America's banks regarding trying to get everyone a home as well.

Wow, you guys are harsh. You mean that potential borrowers should have verifiable, stable incomes, sound creditworthiness and appropriate down payments?
;)

Dusty

07-19-2012, 14:07

Wow, you guys are harsh. You mean that potential borrowers should have verifiable, stable incomes, sound creditworthiness and appropriate down payments?
;)

Madcap, eh?

Hand

07-19-2012, 14:24

Wow, you guys are harsh. You mean that potential borrowers should have verifiable, stable incomes, sound creditworthiness and appropriate down payments?
;)

NO! That would be racists. hehe

Sorry - I do appreciate the thoughtful conversation in this thread. Thank you gentlemen for your time and clear thoughts.

Paslode

07-19-2012, 14:28

Wow, you guys are harsh. You mean that potential borrowers should have verifiable, stable incomes, sound creditworthiness and appropriate down payments?
;)

Exactly.

Stargazer

07-19-2012, 19:30

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-did-the-state-make-you-great/2012/07/19/gJQAbZOiwW_story.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1

Once again, I think Charles spells out the"fallacies" of this President and his administration.

And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.

To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective....

The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives....

The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure...

What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia’s world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived....

Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.

Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.