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

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

"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.

Stay safe.

[Paragrouper]

Originally Posted by Guy

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

You sure as hell got that right.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

Originally Posted by USANick7

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.

Originally Posted by USANick7

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]

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=x0MCP...e_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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

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]

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]

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=qiMai...e_gdata_player

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Guy

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.

Stay safe.

Right. You Got Me There!

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by tonyz

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]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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