You need to recheck you "facts" the internet was originally started way back in 1964, when Lee was only 9 years old. Fast forward to 1989 and Lee is said to have coined the world wide web, while working at CERN.

pjam09 Try traveling abroad, you will soon learn how good you have it here.

mj899 well said.

Even Warren Buffett repeatedly says it's the American environment and more than a little luck that is a big part of success.

He says they couldn't do if they were born in Bangladesh!

pjam - taking things out of context since he learned it will make conservatives heads explode. (but really, what doesn't these days?)

Seriously? Try reading the ENTIRE STATEMENT, instead of taking only one phrase and distorting it like a yogi master.

we know what you said and heard you loud and clear.

Yep, and either you are ignorant of, or are totally ignoring, what he said immediately before, and immediately after. Don't just listen to the talking heads, go listen to it yourself, and then stop making yourself look foolish. SERIOUSLY.

You're confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web. Tim Berners Lee is credited with inventing the protocol HTTP and the markup language HTML and coining the phrase "World Wide Web".

There are many Internet protocols and HTTP is only one of them. What we now call the Internet was supported for at least 20 years by the government.

Despite all the jokes, Gore played a significant part in transitioning the existing government sponsored network into a commercial one by developing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991.

Do any of you own a business you created? I am in the middle of creating a business and everytime I turn around the gov (local, state,and federal) is putting up a roadblock in the form of regulations or fees (taxes), or licenses (another word for tax). I suggest some of you try it and you will think about giving up everyday. All I want to do is provide for my family thru an honest living.

Most of people comes to America for an "opportunity" to be successful. American people are the one that provides the success for big business.

Try that in third world countries like Vietnam where I come from, without a support of a whole country, you will get nothing and be able to do nothing, that is a simple fact.

And as far as starting a business and having the governments up your butt, look at what has happened in the past couple of years MADOFF did you hear that name and you want our government to just say no problem, get real, you think you're something special. Do it just like I did it and the Millions of other businesses did.

I understood the president when I heard him speak. I knew he was talking about all the infrastructure and other supports that were built to enable all the business in this country to expand. I watched the miracle of growth from the time Eisenhower was president.

I find it very hard to describe the twisting pain in my stomach I experienced when I heard Governor Romney first start his attacks on the presidents statement. He sounded just like the playground bully mocking the kid who was seriously trying to make a point, and when I turned to see the tv screen, he had the same sneer on his face as that bully.

Well, watch out governor. It's harder to get away with bullying mockery these days.

pjam09

Wow, Obama can't even own up to his own words... at least he didn't blame Bush this time. "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. " Does the whole sentence make it better? no it is actually worse... not only didn't you build it, somebody else handed it to you, you didn't work at all.

THIS lie is so blatant that I seriously can't decide who is more ignorant... it's creators, it's repeaters, or it's believers.

I was for Romney before I heard him repeat and leverage this blatant lie...

Okay, okay... maybe not. But I figured that if you believed the first lie...

If you doubt the truth in the President's words ask yourself why there are no Steve Jobs in Rwanda. Why are their no Warren Buffetts in Indonesia? Why are there Bill Gates in Ecuador?

It's because THIS is where the right combination of infrastructure, education, labor with a strong work ethic, and yes, reasonable regulation exist to BUILD such a business. Successful business don't create those resources, they use them as building blocks.

Unfortunately the FYIGM crowd will never understand that. No man is an island.

If it takes the US Government to build a business why are companies constantly outsourcing jobs to other countries.

Either the US Government supports this or the businesses would rather do without the US Governments help!

I will admit that there were people who were supportive in my creating my business. But it was not government, it was my family, friends and clients. But it was I who created my product based on quality and my hard work, working over a hundred hours a week and still do fifteen years later.

My problem with his speech, which I listened to in its entirety is not taken out of context, is the use of the phrase "We the people". When there are expectations placed on "ALL" of we the people, rather than the few, then I will accept his premise. But when there are no expectations placed on a large percentage of our population, a welfare state is being created at the expense of the few, I hardly find that equitable.

It is the overall attitude that I find offensive. I don't owe anything to those that don't contribute to our society. We would be better off without them.

The exposed GOP mantra:

"America is great!... but it's only ME that makes it so."

or

"Two heads are better than... bull@!$%#... get your head out of my way."

or

"Tax breaks for the rich increases the (my) economy."

or

"The poor have sooooo many support mechanisms that they no longer need a tax break... like me... I need the tax break... I have no other support mechanisms... who are the poor anyway?"

DavidBan...awesome points!!!

Romney, 2002 speech to Olympic athletes:

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist]."

Romney doesn't think Olympians deserve credit for the medals they win or the records they break? Why does Romney hate athletes?

It was the Christian ideology of the founders of this nation that made it possible for individuals to accumulate wealth while in pursuit of happiness; the same Christian ideology that the Obama administration and it supporters are conspiring to eliminate from the equation because it shows them for who they really are.

The Emperor has no clothes.

For all those who posted that Obama was talking about the infrastructure.....just remember that the business owner also helped pay for that through taxation....so maybe the business owner did do it him/herself.

John B, maybe you should tell these people that "THIS is where the right combination of infrastructure, education, labor with a strong work ethic, and yes, reasonable regulation exist to BUILD such a business". I guess only 3 out of 10 were smart enough to figure it out.

2012 Top 10

#1 Carlos Slim $69 billion, #4 Bernard Arnault $41 billion, #5 Amancio Ortega $37.5 billion, #7 Eike Batista $ 30 billion, #8 Stefan Persson $26 billion, #9 Li Ka-shing $25.5 billion, #10 Karl Albrecht $25.4 billion.

@ Pjam09

Tim Berners Lee DID NOT INVENT the Internet. He invented the system of linking hypertext documents into an information management system now known as the World Wide Web. To make it simple to understand, the WWW rides on the Internet.

The early Internet was developed in very large part by funding from ARPA, the US Advanced Projects Research Agency, which was and is an agency funded by the government you seem to despise. It later became DARPA, Defense ARPA.

Berners Lee did a lot of work at CERN learning and researching what he had to know to create hypertext and information exchange. Who do you think funded that research, Guys like Mitt Romney? No, CERN is a consortium of European governments created to do advanced atomic research.

The US government, by working with universities and letting contracts for equipment to business DID create a fertile and funded field for developing the modern Internet which was a spin-off of the ARPA net.

To be short-sighted and self-serving, as many hyper-influential business types are (Romney, Trump, Murdoch, Koch brothers, Foster Friess ) is not unusual, and they all would tell you that they single-handedly created every last penny of their wealth.

We live in a society that bases its success upon cooperation and sharing of resources. The government can and does accomplish tasks that no business would undertake since certain tasks would benefit others as much as a specific business. Pure capitalism is selfish, uncaring and narrowly focused. The will and protection of the people stems from common governance and input from all quarters. The government is not always efficient, fair or timely, but it is a much better place to be heard than at a corporate annual meeting.

Funny, that’s exactly what Obama constantly does to this Political Opponents, take things out of context, and now he has the gall to complain. What a thin skinned incompetent buffoon we have as President. Obama is the one why plays loosey goosey with the facts, spouting his tripe in front of community college kids, who are too young to really understand what a fool this guy is.

Hopefully, the American people will retired our Nobel Prize winning Community Organizer in Chief in January 2013.

NOBAMA 2012!

.

OK, folks. Enough about the Internet. No one in this discussion really cares who invented it.

Secondly, to anyone saying that they built a business by themselves. Really? You did? Did you build that building you are in, or did you pay someone to do it for you? Did you educate yourself, or did you have teachers, professors, and counselors to guide you set a competitive curriculum so that you would be prepared for the "real world". How do people get to your business? Surely it must have been difficult to build all those roads to everyone's house... Oh, I forgot - you paid taxes. Do you think it was only your taxes they used to build those roads? I think what you have done, is worked hard with others to become a integral and productive member of society. You have adapted to hardships along the way, and persevered through them - both with your own fortitude and the strength of family and friends. No man is an island. You have achieved something commendable, but not without help.

You people are delusional. Brockton Barlow - I will help you understand what we are saying in small, easy to comprehend sentences. The President said "you didn't build that by yourself". He was referring to the infrastructure allowing small businesses to exist. Romney twisted his words in an ad, making it sound like he meant the business owners did nothing. Therefore, Obama is both right and his words were twisted. Did you follow me?

Lastly, anyone wanting to compare Romney's tax records to Obama's birth certificate or educational record is also living in there own little box, to which a hose has been connected, and reason vacuumed out. The short form BC indicated he was born in the US. No one really cares what time Obama was born at or the exact weight or length. No one cares if he got an A or a C in high school biology. This holds no relevance regarding his aptitude for the presidency. However, in today's world, when bankers and big business men are notorious for hiding assets, evading taxes, and making their own rules that line their own pockets, tax records can tell us a lot about someone's honesty and character (especially a self-proclaimed businessman).

John-2006106 I would love to argue this point with you, but you have provided no examples. Please expound.

So let's see. Which side has the most intelligent responses here, those responses with facts and logic.....hmmm.....

Which are parroting nonsense.

By the way, try reading history. The railroads got started when the government provided rights of way with 10 miles of land on each side of the right of way given to ther railroads to expoloit

The airlines got started by being given very lucrative air mail contracts. It wasn't until after WWII that the airlines could profit from the infrastructure that was government supplied to make a profit.

Could the American auto industry ahve been so successful without the US and later the Interstate system. Route 66 was US Route 66 paid for by the federal government.

Integrated circuit development was also first supported by the defense department and that led to our entire economy (well almost)

The KC-135 tanker was the government funded program that led to the Boeing 707.

Obama is absolutely right. Anyone who swallows Romney's arguments is not very bright or incredibly naive.

And the distortions of what the president said by the republicans would be comical if it weren't accpeted by the uninformed and brain dead constituency who actually do vote, against their best intersts and the best interests of the country as a whole.

recycle

I am not a business owner and I pay taxes. Should I get a refund?

It appears that some of the GOP viners don't believe that our society nor individuals are inter-connected. That would explain why so many believes Obama is the one to be blamed for everything and why the same group of people believe that the Democrats blame Bush for everything...

ONETRACK MIND, there are no shades in the world only black and white. Amazing collection of sheeps... no wonder the same group of people are followers and enjoyed being bussed and bossed about.

Ferrosynthesis: NO, you do not get a refund. Because you can't build anything. You are a worker. There can be only one builder and the rest of you must pay taxes so that I can keep the profit that I deserve. In addition, I can't believe you pose such question. In case you forget, I must remove the benefit contribution that I have so graciously given you over the past years. In order to make certain that your children will replace you as you age, it is important that we continue to provide that security. Hence, it is critical that you support our new Bill, extending the working age to include that of children. This is critical to our nation, because it allows us to compete against other 3rd world countries and at the same time we can further expand our GDP. Remember, by letting your children work early, it help ensure a well trained workforce who appreciate us who provides. Remember, your household income will also improve as well!

So remember to vote for me, your boss. I would not mention that your jobs depend on it. For those who indicated that you are Democrats, your mandatory shift on election day will start at 8:00am and end at 7:00pm. You will be ensured that overtime will be covered. The non-Democrats will work the day after. You all would not want us to shut down or allow them illegal aliens to compete for your jobs now do you? I spend sleepness nights thinking about the millions of dollars lost keep you all working here in America. I hope you all appreciate the time and energy that I spend to keep you employeed and families fed.

^ And that, folks, is how you troll like a boss (pun intended). You have mastered the art of sarcasm and are a true inspiration - *Applause* thturd, +1.

You need to recheck your facts. This from Wikipedia,

Now that is the funniest line I have read in a long time!

Romney said exactly the same thing Obama just said when he gave his Olympics opening address (yes it's on video tape Google it). He said "you (Olympians) did not build this" and then went on to outline the help of coaches, parents, teachers, community and GOVERNMENT. LOL @ Mr. Flip-Flop Romney once again...

Anyone care to respond to this?

Did we build the highway system in anticipation of someone creating mass production of motor vehicles or because the demand created by Henry Ford and others building cars faster than ever made roads necessary?

Did we build airports before Orville and Wilbur invented manned-flight or after the need was created by entrepreneurs building more and more airplanes?

Do we improve infrastructure today, for example paving a dirt road, anticipating someone will build a subdivision or a mini-mall out in a corn field or after a group of investors get together, create a business plan, blueprint the site and decide to build something?

Is the need for infrastructure just for leisurely family rides by millionaires on the weekend or to get to and from work, to and from school, to and from shopping, to and from family visits?

Are all the people in the middle of your daily traffic jam business owners or mostly workers going to or coming from work?

What Barrack Hussein said is idiotic. Infrastructure is created and maintained to support commerce and living areas.

Dave,

This was of course before the GOP decided to obstruct every single thing he and the Dems did, resulting in a record number of filibusters and every bit of procedural chicanery known to man in the Congress.

You must have fallen down and hit your head, so it is understandable that you are in a delusion where you don't know what is going on. It seems to be a requiring pattern with you Liberals. Harry Reid is the one that is obstructing bills from even coming to the floor to be voted on. The Republicans have put fourth many, many ideas and Harry will not bring them to the Senate floor. Here is what a Democratic Senator Durbin recently said on the floor,

"The people who are making $20,000 a week - that's what a millionaire would make in the course of a year, $20,000 a week do not need that tax break. They haven't asked for it. They don't need it. And they should be contributing towards reducing this deficit and saving America from deeper cuts in Medicare and education and other expenditures that are critical to so many American families".

I know as liberals you will not get what he is actually saying but I will help you out and make it clear. So you see his comments above. How is it that any one group of Americans has more of a responsibility to pay for the president and the Democratic Congress habits of over spending while making government bigger? It is not fair I don't care what side you are on. The rich already pay more than we do. I myself pay 23% tax and I am in the 28% tax rate. There are many people that don't pay tax 47% of America pay 0% taxes. So tell me again how fair for all this debt to land on the backs of the 53% of Americans that provided for this country it is not but here is what the Liberals want just look at what he said. “And they should be contributing towards reducing this deficit and saving America from deeper cuts in Medicare and education". This is a complete socialist view right here and they say they are not trying to take our country there. They want us all dependent on government Then the can doll out what they want and keep the rest. Just as they have been doing since Obama was elected.

They think if someone has worked hard, saved and then invested it in America that they should be taxed even more then they already are just because the government and the president has a spending problem. It is right there that is what he said. It is just not fair to do this to people I don't care that someone makes more money than I do. As I can go get another job, or I can putting off buying self-gratification products like the I-Pod, that is made in China but only the Republicans are outsourcing jobs, so that I can save the money to be able to someday open a business or to take it a with a big risk and invest it to try to make money. But what I do care about and what the government is slowly doing is taking the rewards of hard working men/women for themselves and it is not right. Below is our tax bracket in the USA so please tell me how a millionaire pays less than I do. Oh, I know how he can invest it and try and make money that way by taking big risk but know the government wants even more of your money thru capital gains. If I take the risk to invest my money I should not be bent over by Democrats when my risk finally pays off. By the way I do not listen to Rush or Hannity. They are to the far right I am an Independent that is in the center I think it is if you work hard and it pays off your government shouldn't take it. That is what is meant by "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." if I get that happiness the government should not be able to keep taxing me for it.

The president is not for small business if he was he would know that the money earned by small business is counted as income so that being said if your business makes $250,000 your tax bracket is 33% so how is that not hitting middle America? The president does not understand that you cannot spend your why to prosperity. That would be like trying to pay off your personal debt by sending even more on your credit cards, how does that bring your debt down? It does not and it works the same way in business. As I do own a small business a tanning salon and what did the president do for me there as soon as he came into office with his promise of not tax increases, he crammed a 10% tax hike on my business down my throat. So NO he is not for small business he has he us very hard. But you keep spewing the talking points instead of making your own decisions and forming your own thoughts that is what the Democratic Party likes “sheep” so fall in to line you will get your welfare check like everyone else as promised by his administration.

I know I got off topic but it pisses me off that if you disagree with the president you are racist or Republican. Did you ever think that it is common since no of course not you don’t have any but for those of us that do it is easy Obama must GO.

We need people put back to work, we need a limit on how long you can be on welfare. You keep saying the rich need to pay their way well I think everyone does unless you are disabled so that the 53% of us that do work does not have to foot the bill. We need him to stop busting medical marijuana club in the states where the state says that it can be used for medicinal purposes, quit wasting tax dollars going after them. We need to cut our government and get the lobbyists out of Washington, DC. We need to make it so you can no longer be a career politician by putting a two term limit on Congress. On you go to Congress you seem to lose touch with the realities of what the people put you there for and the longer you are there the more it becomes how do I get re-elected and less about the peoples will. This country is on the precipice of something very bad if we don’t start making tough decisions then we are doomed to repeat history.

QuintileAverage Income Before TaxesEffective Income and Payroll Tax RateIncome from Capital Gains, Interest and Dividends

Lowest
$18,400
2.0%
1.3%

Second
$42,500
9.1%
1.6%

Middle
$64,500
12.7%
2.5%

Fourth
$94,100
15.7%
3.7%

Highest
$264,700
20.1%
21.4%

Top 10%
$394,500
20.7%
26.7%

Top 5%
$611,200
20.9%
32.1%

Top 1%
$1,873,000
20.6%
43.4%

Top 400^[9]
$344,831,528^*
16.6%
81.3%

*Adjusted Gross Income(AGI)

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

Hmmmmm,

So, somebody (government) just started building roads and bridges before Henry Ford began mass producing cars in 1903? The roads and bridges were already preplanned years ahead of time anticipating some entrepreneur created the ability and affordability for everyone to buy a Model T?

WOW!!!! The government is absolutely incredible!

NO! Ford introduced the Model T in 1908, the Federal Highway Act was authorized in 1921. By this time Ford had already produced over 10 million cars.

Road and bridges and other infrastructure is not just created, they’re created just like everything else, because of demand and a reason. Do your county development boards just pave roads in the middle of nowhere anticipating that someday someone will build a subdivision or shopping center in the middle of a cornfield?

NO! They wait until developers, contractors and investors submit plans, business plans and site plans to build something. Once again the road is created because of demand and a reason.

Did the government begin to just build airports believing that someday someone will build a machine that can fly? No, they began to build them after 1903 when the Wright brothers invented manned-flight. Once again, because there was demand and a reason.

Did government just start erecting telephone poles without wires connecting houses and cities before Bell invented the telephone or Edison invented the light bulb, phonograph and other inventions that used electricity? NO! These were once again developed AFTER there was a demand.

Yes, even the internet as we know it wasn’t created by the government. The initial idea is credited as being Leonard Kleinrock's after he published his first paper entitled "Information Flow in Large Communication Nets" on May 31, 1961.

In 1962 J.C.R. Licklider becomes the first Director of IPTO and gave his vision of a galactic network. In addition to the ideas from Licklider and Kleinrock, Robert Taylor helped create the idea of the network, which later became ARPANET.

On Friday October 29, 1969 at 10:30 p.m., the first Internet message was sent from computer science Professor Leonard KleinRock's laboratory at UCLA, after the second piece of network equipment was installed at SRI. This connection not only enabled the first transmission to be made, but is also considered to be the first Internet backbone.

The first message to be distributed was "LO", which was an attempt at "LOGIN" by Charley S. Kline to log into the SRI computer from UCLA. However, the message was unable to be completed because the SRI system crashed. Shortly after the crash, the issue was resolved and he was able to log into the computer.

Ray Tomlinson introduces network e-mail in 1972. The first messaging system to send messages across a network to other users.

A commercial version of ARPANET known as Telenet is introduced in 1974 and considered by many to be the first Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Tim Berners-Lee introduces WWW to the public on August 6, 1991.

And of course Al Gore coined the term Information Superhighway.

From there the genius of Netscape, Microsoft, VoIP, HTML and everything else was created by the entrepreneurs who took an idea and created the greatest technologic boom in history.

Sorry government.

It's the American people who help the both the business owners and the poor in this country, IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT !

It's the Americans' money, tax money that is !

Obama and his cart full of clowns, with their huge and growing bigger government, is undermining our country's economy !

Bill, I thought we established that it would be a good idea for you to think about what you were posting before putting things up that could easily be disproven. I'm not sure if you read that part of the response. I'm also not sure how much of what I tried to tell you got through. You didn't respond to anything I wrote to you, or any of the numerous corrections I was forced to make to your post - other than to discuss your opinion about Harry Reid and the Senate.

Let's be very clear about our timeframes. You were discussing earlier and incorrectly stating who actually held the majorities in the Congress. I corrected you on this to show that the GOP actually had control over both houses for most of the time you were saying they did not. You have now pivoted to somehow go to the idea that it is Harry Reid who is being the obstructionist. Okay. So that means you're acknowledging the rest of what was pointed out to you. And if you wish to discuss Harry Reid's work over the past 18 months - yes, he's been handed a whole bunch of political bills by the House GOP. Political bills that they knew would never pass but which they wanted to send over so they could blame the logjam on the Senate. Political bills full of either draconian cuts that would gut what is left of our public sector or full of great ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood or PBS. Political bills like "Let's repeal the ACA a week after the Supreme Court said it was constitutional!" In what universe would any of those bills be considered good governance. On the other hand, when the crucial Debt Ceiling vote needed to be held, the GOP freshmen decided they would rather see the US credit downgraded than actually do their jobs. That's real obstructionism, and you should know the difference if you intend to lecture others about it.

As for your attack on Reid's comment about the super-rich not needing the tax break a middle class family needs, it makes no sense. Reid is correct. If you're earning 20K a week, you can afford to pay a little more so that the other 99 percent don't lose their Medicare. Back in the 60s, the wealthy paid a much, much higher tax rate on their Federal Income taxes and they did just fine. As for your repetition of the Fox talking point about the poor not paying taxes, that's hogwash. If you make less than a certain amount per year, you don't pay Federal Income taxes, but you DO pay multiple other taxes - most crucially sales taxes that affect the poor a lot more than anyone else and various state and local fees like DMV fees. So don't say these people don't pay taxes when you know that they do. Asking the extremely wealthy to pay their fair share and not just squirrel it off to another country to avoid the bill is not an unfair act. It is what we all do to contribute to our own country. Or do you prefer the idea of simply not having Medicare, Social Security, fire departments, schools, police?

As for your argument that it's not right for the government to take a little more money from the extremely wealthy and that they already pay plenty, you may need to do more reading on that one. Take a look at the work of David Cay Johnston if you want to see how much the extremely wealthy contribute - they are sheltering and offshoring their money as fast as they can. They don't want to pay anything more than the bare minimum, and in many cases, yes they really do pay a lower percentage than someone like you or me. You say you pay around 23 percent. I pay more. Mitt Romney admits on the only return we have that he paid a lot less than you in terms of percentage. And that's on what he was declaring.

I hear you saying that you don't listen to Hannity or Rush, but the strange thing is that you're still repeating their talking points. When you make the statements you've been making, they are not the words of an independent thinker who doesn't understand what Obama is doing. They are the words heard every day on right wing radio and television, of people who have a clear axe to grind against the President.

If your argument is that you don't like the level of government spending, then we need to look at what that spending is. Most of the spending is in mandatory programs like Medicare and Social Security, or in our funding for the military. When we get into the discretionary material, there's a lot less room to work. The overall number is high because this is one of the largest countries in the world and we have a gigantic economy and population. The idea that it can be governed by a part time legislature from a cheap building somewhere (this is the sort of thing we hear from right wing radio all the time) is ridiculous on its face, and it's typical of the way that honestly upset citizens get snookered by pundits who just want to take advantage of "the folks". If your argument about spending is that you don't want it to go to programs you don't like, then we have the issue that we don't get to choose individually what programs our taxes fund. We all agree to pay in, and that we don't get to say they can't use the taxes for this idea or that. People that do this usually wind up trying to withhold their taxes completely and give the money to charity - and that idea usually results in the person still owing the tax bill.

As far as the notion that President Obama hates small business, that's again ridiculous. He has repeatedly stated that he supports it, and has demonstrated it with the stimulus spending. But if you're saying that being a small business owner and making a net profit of $250,000 after paying all your expenses and salaries qualifies you as middle class, we've got a new definition of middle class. If you're making that kind of money in pure profit, you're making 2-3 times what a middle class family earns. I'm sorry your tanning salon business wound up having to raise prices 10 percent to cover the 2010 tax. But again, if you're still making 250K in pure profit after that went into effect, the complaint doesn't make sense.

Also, the notion of spending being inherently bad is not necessarily true. Please read the work of Dean Baker and the Center for Economic and Policy Research and you'll find that stimulus spending actually is a good idea, particularly when individuals are unable to do it. The equating of the US government with an individual with a credit card is a false comparison. Read Baker's writing on this subject and it gets a lot clearer.

You may think the multiple corrections I made to your earlier post were just talking points, but you should look closer. Those were facts that were directly rebutting the misstatements you had made. You had conflated who had control of Congress at which time. You had repeated multiple fact-free talking points that have already been heard many times from the right wing sources you say you don't listen to - things like discussions about President Obama's school records. It's strange that you would project the notion of talking points when you've been at it with such eagerness.

As for your concern about being considered racist or Republican, I can only say that if you repeat GOP talking points with that level of enthusiasm, it's hard to know that you're not a GOP voter. I didn't say you were racist, nor did I imply anything like that. I would say, however, that the whole notion of challenging President Obama's schooling is right in line with the racist notion of challenging his birth certificate. The throughline of challenging the school records is a dog whistle to the right wing that translates to: He didn't deserve to go to a good school and should never have made it to Harvard. The real message of the challenge is to somehow imply that he wasn't qualified to go to Columbia or Harvard, even though he clearly did well in both places, particularly the latter. You say that you're just curious to see how he did? Okay, but be aware whose company you're in on that ride.

I actually do agree with your statement that it's ridiculous to go after people who need to use medical marijuana. That's just a waste of resources, and it punishes people who really need it as medicine.

But some of the other notions that are sitting there won't work. You want a 2 term limit on congresspeople? Fine, but you'll wind up with freshmen every time and the people who will REALLY run the town and country will be the bureaucrats and the lobbyists. You want to get rid of the lobbyists? Great, except that they have a 1st Amendment right to state their opinions to the congresspeople. Unless you intend to amend the 1st Amendment, there's not much you can do. Of course, you could regulate them more - but then that's more government, right?

I agree with your statement that spending time in DC changes the perspective of a Congressperson from who they were back in their home district. Which is why I'm watching carefully to see if all the Tea Party congresspeople who said they were just going for one term to serve their district and then go home will be true to their word. If any of them runs for re-election, they're hypocrites and should be run out of office.

Finally, the notion that the country is in grave trouble is one we've heard over and over through almost every election I've seen since 1980. Either it's the Dems saying we have to vote the GOP guy out or else, or its the GOP guys saying we have to vote the Dem out or else. In 2004, the Dems ran Kerry under a banner of Anybody But Bush and we all saw how well that turned out. This year, the GOP is running Romney under the Anybody But Obama banner and they're headed down that same road. The reality is that after Obama's second term, there will still be a country called the USA and there will still be another presidential election in 2016. And then another one in 2020.

Jim Spence, your comment is parsing a lot of semantics to talk down the government and the public.

Your comment about roads and bridges forgets that there were already plenty of roads and bridges before Henry Ford began making Model T's and Model A's. Because there were such things as HORSES and carriages, not to mention bicycles. There were also plenty of resources for Henry Ford to use in putting together his assembly line, and means to get those resources to his factories. Henry Ford did not create his cars in a complete vaccuum where nothing existed.

As for the various utilities that have been created over time, each one of them has usually been a public project, which serviced the entire community - whether it be building sewers and plumbing, running power lines, putting up telephone towers, etc. You can argue that these would not have been built had someone not thought it up - and you'd be right. But you forget that these were and are public projects. Today, when you have power lines or gas lines being laid in your neighborhood, that's being done by either a public utility or a contractor being hired by that utility - to service the whole neighborhood. If you're arguing against that idea, then you're thinking of a society where everyone has their own generator, their own outhouse, and their own private communication line - not to mention their own fuel source since they don't have a public gas line. And while you're at it, everyone would also have to have their own fire department, police department, hospital and school. Does this still sound like a feasible idea?

As for your Internet history, you're forgetting the part where it was started as a government funded study and a way for scientists to communicate their findings over very large distances. Of course there were inventive and creative people who did amazing things with it, and there will continue to be those people. But the internet didn't just happen as a private device of two guys who built their own computers on two different continents and then linked them.

The history of modern technology and modern biological research has been that the advances we are so familiar with today came from government-funded research of one kind or another. When we talk about medicines that have been created, most come from government studies where the patent goes to the inventor if it works and then they take it private and make their fortune. When we talk about various technologies, certainly NASA has been a source for a lot of good things - which again, went private for their inventors and made those people a lot of money.

The idea that all these things happened in a private, secret world is strange to the rest of us, who live in the real world.

DavidBan

You are right. The government does spend money for good, but also bad. The fact is that it is either borrowed money or taxed money that they are spending.

Perhaps you can open our eyes to the justification of raising taxes or adding to our debt to pay a trillion dollars last year for welfare and healthcare for welfare without expecting anything of American citizens and illegals in return. The least they could be expected to do is public service.

First of all, the federal government is funded by the taxes it takes from businesses and other tax payers.

Second of all, there were businesses long before there was a United States or the infrastructure to support its expansion.

Third of all, there is no confusing or misconstruing what Elizabeth Warren was saying when she used the exact same dialogue.

No debate the president is an educated man. Clearly, he knows the proper usage of the words "that" and "those". If he was referring to the bridges and roads, he would have said "those". But, because he used the word "that" it implies the relationship to a person's business. That's what happens when he ad libs from looking away from the teleprompter.

Proud2BaVet - The short answer to your question is "no". We did not/do not build highways or airports in anticipation of these things. However, you also stated:

What Barrack Hussein said is idiotic. Infrastructure is created and maintained to support commerce and living areas.

Therefore, you answered your own question. Government supports business by maintaining the infrastructure allowing it to grow and thrive. Having to build and maintain the infrastructure it needs would not be very conducive to a business. Let's also not forget the large, tax-free government loans that many businesses require to get started. Public schooling also may help an individual learn how to run a business effectively.

So, you see, the President is saying business has gotten help from the government. He also credited the business owners for their "individual initiative", and the main point of his speech was this: "...when we succeed, we succeed because...we do things together". I would not say the President is always right, because there are many issues and policies I disagree with him on. But, in this case, he is right.

Finally, I just wanted to say that using the President's middle name as a strike against him is really childish and does not make you sound intelligent. I would also point out that, if you really are a vet, and proud of it, then you are a part of the most heavily government funded, socialistic program on Earth - the military. Note: This is just to put things in perspective, and I would sincerely never try to demean your service to our country - Thank you.

Bill1488 - You seem to like 1/2 facts.

For one, the bottom 47% DO pay plenty of taxes, even if their income is below the poverty level; and in fact, when it comes to these multitude of other taxes, the bottom 47% DO pay more.

Regardless, while the top 20% earn 87% of all income, they shouldn't complain about paying 60% of income taxes, when they should be paying 87%.

While I agree that Obama may not be perfect, I will never vote against someone (IE Vote for anyone but...) If Romney want my vote, he will have to do more than simply tell me how bad Obama is. Like a job interview...You will never get the job by taking crap about the other applicants, as if the interviewer (American voter) is too stupid to make their own judgments.

John, you're correct that the US government spends money that they either borrow or get through taxes. Your idea about welfare and healthcare without expecting anything in return is strange. Welfare was seriously mutated in the 1990s under Clinton and the Gingrich congress to demand that welfare recipients go back to work. And the healthcare idea you're talking about is the ACA, I think - and part of what they're trying to do is address the fact that we ALREADY pay for a lot of people who aren't covered, since we pay higher hospital costs to cover all those uncovered E.R. visits by the uninsured. I agree this could be handled better - with Single Payer, and we'll get there in a few years. For now, this will just have to do. You might also be referring to the extensions of unemployment benefits during this economy. Are you saying those people who the right is touting as a sign of the economy's woes should also be thrown off the books, and at the same time that the right is bemoaning their status? Doesn't that sound just a little hypocritical?

Dave, you can parse semantics all you like, but you're avoiding the point of what President Obama said. You want to say there were businesses before there was a USA? Great. You do realize there were nations, cities, towns and societies before there was a USA too, right? But here in the US, we've all acknowledged there are plenty of good opportunities to start your own business, with conditions we've cultivated that you don't find elsewhere in the world. Conditions we've all contributed to - and so businesses that start here have a great advantage and we're glad that they do. But it isn't just because of the one person whose creativity will lift everyone. It's because that creative person has been supported by a community. Have you never heard of the idea of "we're all in this together"? Have you never seen the neighbors of a farmer help him rebuild his barn? Have you never seen the members of a community join to help put out a fire or go to school meetings to be part of the educational process? Or do you believe in a situation where everyone is an island to themselves?

You've contradicted yourself in your words on the President. You're correct that he's well educated and was very clear about what he was saying. Most people figured it out without a problem. But you couldnt' resist closing with the line about "the teleprompter". Which is the usual right wing slam and dog whistle that's meant for the Rush/Fox News crowd to hear as "he's too stupid to know what to say if someone else doesn't script it for him". Which is ridiculous, since it's public knowledge that the President writes and rewrites much of his own material.

John-737278--are you suggesting that the people on welfare and medicaid should just be left to starve and die? Is that what your "Christian values" tells you is the right thing to do?

Also, President Clinton's welfare reform does make welfare recipients do public service. He called it welfare to workfare.

And as far as borrowing to pay for this, perhaps we could cut the military budget to help with that considering our military budget is bigger than all other countries combined. Maybe we can cut congress's salaries and make them contribute to their healthcare (like everyone else does), or perhaps stop giving no bid contracts and when there is cost overruns maybe we should not pay them as they should bid realistic numbers and keep to the contract.

There is money coming in the problem is how we spend it.

Andie469

For the record, I am not a Christian, nor am I GOP. However, somehow along the way people forgot the saying "God helps those that help themselves."

And yes, if they are unwilling to do for themselves, they can starve for all I care. I did not make them lazy, nor did I put them in their position. I started out of high school moving out with my wife and slept on the floor for over a year. We ate only potato soup for 4 months for one winter(Now we make a killer potato soup). I am, by no means, rich, but everything I have I worked for I payed for with sweat, and it really chaps my arse when parts of society try to tell me that part of what I have worked for should be given to those that won't.

@DavidBan: I never insinuated that the president was stupid. My remark about the teleprompter is that when he fails to remain on his talking points, he opens himself up to who he truly is and how he truly feels.

People who start businesses may not be smarter than everyone else, may not have more money than everyone else and may not be as creative as other people, but, they took the risk and made the sacrifice that others were not willing to make. Infrastructure is the same for business people as it is for employees right? The roads, secure neighborhoods, laws, schools etc. are all the same. Communities did not sacrifice their time or put up their capital to start a business for someone.

If the argument is made that it is because of government and society that businesses succeed, it must take equal responsibility when businesses fail.

It is true that the US was envied by the rest of the world for the environment that allowed businesses to flourish. However, many nations have learned from that and are partnering with entrepreneurs to open businesses. They are partnering with big businesses from the US to expand their operations in their respective countries. The environment in those countries resembles what our country was in the infancy of the industrial revolution.

A little American history question...which came first...trading posts or a city hall? Businesses all came first before their were towns. Our country grew for 137 years before the federal income tax.

John, thanks for clarifying your position. You're saying that the poor and unemployed can starve for all you care. Great. Then you won't be using unemployment figures or any misery index when attacking this President. You have just agreed not to discuss the economy since by your definition, anyone not succeeding has only themselves to blame. Thankfully, this is not a point of view shared by the rest of the country.

Dave, thanks for clarifying your position. The teleprompter line, as you know, is normally used for the purpose I described. And the note about revealing "who he truly is and how he truly feels" is another talking point we've heard many times from the GOP voices like Rush Limbaugh.

Nobody is saying that the communities put up their own capital to start someone else's business. You are conflating the point Obama was making with the one that the right wing is trying to pretend he made. Of course people who start their own businesses take risks and make sacrifices. Obama wasn't saying that they don't. Of course people who start their own businesses generate jobs for other people. Obama didn't say that they didn't. What he said was that no man is an island. The businesses didn't spring into being, fully formed out of the head of the one inventor who created all of his own resources, the community in which he sold his goods and the means with which he distributed them. That inventor was aided by teachers, mentors, guides along the way. He was able to make use of community resources we all have available to us, and he did so in an effective manner. And as a result, that inventor will reap incredible profits for himself. But he didn't do this all by himself.

Your argument about the government and society taking responsibility when businesses fail is interesting. It certainly applies when the government does things like repeal Glass-Steagall and watches the banking system collapse. It applies when the House GOP deliberately does not deal with the Debt Ceiling and watches the US credit rating get downgraded as a direct result. What the government and the society create is the environment and the resources. A good company can make use of those resources. A bad company may waste those resources and go under - and that's not the fault of the community, which supported it as well as it could. In fact, the best business owners are the ones who recognize their resources and use them appropriately. The owners who just try to loot their companies for themselves usually wind up breaking their own businesses - and again, that's usually not something I'd assign to the government. (The bank de-regulation is a situation where yes, it's obvious that the people in government who allowed it are quite culpable.)

Your description of the way the business environment is building around the world is missing some crucial information. What's happening around the world, and around this country is a race to the bottom. Multiple countries are offering places where US companies can make their products for less - paying less in wages, less or nothing in benefits, and paying little or nothing in taxes. The products, which are for US companies and for US consumption, are then shipped back to the US to be sold to people here who could have had jobs making the products. In trying to fight this, multiple states have offered tax incentives and other incentives to try to bring work to them. In the case of the movie industry, there are multiple states, particularly New Mexico and Louisiana, that have scooped up a lot of work that used to be done in California by using the twin moves of tax incentives and lower local wages/costs. The result of all this has been a continuing devastation of our economy on both a local and national scale.

You're correct to note that the environment in many of these foreign countries resembles the beginning of our industrial revolution. But you forget that this period was also marked by serious poverty and neglect and by major industrial disasters. The Triangle Shirtwaist fire is but one example of the kind of exploitation that had to be curtailed and stopped if we were going to have any kind of a human society. I'm sure you wouldn't want to see those kinds of conditions repeated around the world - as they have been.

I agree with you that trading posts were usually the first form of a small town in the US. And usually they were trading between the big cities back East that had blazed the trails and funded the expeditions, and the local tribes who already had their own societies going - which the traders and trappers greatly benefitted from.

As for your note re the federal income tax, you forget that during the period of growth there were multiple, multiple economic crashes that ruined everyone but the extremely wealthy. You forget that there was a big movement in this country to try to stop the boom/bust cycle or at least cushion it so you wouldn't see so many people ruined every 30 years. You also didn't note that taxes were raised as early as 1861 during the Civil War for a wartime tax and as early as 1894 for peacetime tax collection. The constant drive against taxes (and against social services) by the GOP would, if successful, put us back into the world of the 19th Century where you could work hard your whole life and still die a pauper with no medical care at all - simply because you weren't born with the money of another family. The whole idea of a safety net has been to prevent that scenario - and the idea of ridiculing the people in the safety net is a more recent one coming from the people who don't want to have one, like John.

DavidBan

Actually, I was stating that those not willing to pay their way are the problem. Success is not a requirement, trying is. Instead of whining for them, expect them to produce. Crops rotted in fields last year because people were too good to take that kind of job. Sorry, but no.

And if you haven't noticed, a large portion of the country does agree with me.

@DavidBan: I wish I had Limbaugh's money, but that is not where I formulate my opinions. It is the series of actions that the president has made which I formulate my opinion that he believes in a large central government as the solution to problems. That he frowns upon capitalism.

I believe in a limited centralized government. The president believes in an expanded centralized government. We have differing political ideologies. I believe many of the federal departments of government have not been beneficial to the American people. I believe that their budgets could be better spent at the local and state levels. A government that is closer to the people that it governs is more responsive to the needs of the people.

I may have bought the explanation that it may have been semantics. But, once the president said, "...you didn't build that...somebody else made that happen." It's his belief that people can't succeed without government. As I pointed to in my previous post, a trading post existed prior to an established government. A fur trader is a businessman. The blacksmith is a businessman. The saloon owner is a businessman. In that case, who was the "somebody" that made that happen?

In reference to your "race to the bottom" comment. It is true to an extent. It is more of a global "leveling off" brought about by the free trade agreements. Our country has suffered stagnant wages relative to inflation for more than three decades. Both parties supported these agreements. But, we are nearing a point where inflation in those countries that are expanding their middle classes and the cost to transport those goods to the US is no longer cheaper than manufacturing goods here. Our government should be creating an environment that encourages investment in the US. Tax cuts for the wealthy because they are the so called "job creators" is not a solution. A solution is allowing corporations to repatriate their foreign profits tax free if, and only if the profits are used to create jobs. If they are not used to create jobs, allow the corporations to repatriate the foreign profits after paying taxes at the capital gains rate. Lower the corporate tax rates or give them tax credits for increasing wages of the employees with the CPI.

People argue that the tax cuts didn't create jobs. It isn't true. The wealthy created jobs overseas while making themselves richer. Corporations benefitted from lower wages and less restrictive labor laws and environmental laws. It's true, many of those conditions would be illegal in the US. However, it's a "law of numbers". China and India are more populated than the US. As they become more industrialized, they will dominate the global economy. It is in that environment we must learn to be competitive or we risk becoming irrelevant. But, in that global economy, the US Dollar will not be the reserve currency any more. Because of that one reason, we must find ways to increase wages and tax revenues without sending more businesses overseas.

You mentioned Glass-Steagall in your post. Concievably, the bundling of mortgages that led to the financial crisis and housing collapse could have happened under Glass-Steagall. It was exacerbated by the revision of the Community Reinvestment Act, along with repealing Glass-Steagall, expanding the scope of acceptable sub-prime loans insured by the GSEs and increasing the guaranteed financial debt ceilings of the GSEs and the size of the loans.

Thank you for your civil discourse.

DavidBan

Your comment about roads and bridges forgets that there were already plenty of roads and bridges before Henry Ford began making Model T's and Model A's.

Yes, dirt roads, and they would have stayed dirt roads unless something revolutionary happened. In 1909, the first mile of concrete highway in the world was laid in Michigan on Woodward Ave between Six and Seven Mile roads. From far and near road builders came to see how concrete stood up under the heavy car traffic of that period. By 1917 Ford already built 10 million Model T’s. The 1921 Highway Act was a result of demand, no more, no less. Just like any free-market principle, demand drove the need for a solution.

Henry Ford did not create his cars in a complete vaccuum where nothing existed.

No, but Senators, Presidents or ombudsmen weren’t involved either. Other entrepreneurs like suppliers, investors and other visionaries were involved.

But you forget that these were and are public projects.

Yes, and as a public project everyone pays into it to use it. Businessmen, businesses and normal citizens all pay taxes. There is no designation that this 10 feet of sewers is yours and the next 25 is from the millionaire down the street because he pays more taxes. This has nothing to do with someone creating a business.

As far as the internet is concerned reread my post.

The initial idea is credited as being Leonard Kleinrock's after he published his first paper entitled "Information Flow in Large Communication Nets" on May 31, 1961.

In 1962 J.C.R. Licklider becomes the first Director of IPTO and gave his vision of a galactic network. In addition to the ideas from Licklider and Kleinrock, Robert Taylor helped create the idea of the network, which later became ARPANET.

ARAPANET and then DARPA were the government systems in 1963.

Look, if everything is at everyone’s disposal because of the government creating everything needed to start a business, why doesn’t everyone own a business? This nonsense that you somehow helped me start my 4 businesses is just more class-warfare by Barrack Hussein. You did absolutely nothing to help me start my businesses. You don’t even know what my businesses are. My investors, venture capitalists, partners, a lawyer and a business plan that we worked on for 16 months is what created our last successful business.

John, thanks for clarifying your remarks. So what do you say to people who have worked hard all their life but never made much money for whatever reason of luck or what have you? And when they retire, they have no savings to speak of and nothing they can count on but a Social Security check and Medicare. Are you saying that you support these people receiving the funds they've been paying into for their entire adult lives? I would hope that your answer is therefore yes. If that's your answer, then I would agree that most people in the country would support your position. If your answer is that you would need to see if you thought they'd actually "tried" enough to match your requirements, I have a feeling most people would have more questions. The idea of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" would seem to contradict the idea of "you better work real hard right now or you can starve for all I care."

Dave, I accept that you're not just repeating Limbaugh or Fox catchphrases.

We'll have to disagree about the President frowning on capitalism. He's a pretty centrist Democrat, and if you look at the companies and big money backing him, he's not hostile to their interests by a long shot. And if you want to see what people who really are very critical of capitalism think, check out Pacifica Radio and their flagship show Democracy Now. Not a fanclub for Obama by any means at all.

I actually agree with much of your statement on global capitalism - we've been seeing a situation where US companies play one country or one US state against another for the cheapest possible conditions - be it taxes, be it wages, whatever. Whenever one country or state says "Wait a second", the company uproots and goes somewhere else again. And I have a bit of an issue with that, at least on behalf of the people who work for a company and have done so for many years. When these people have given over ten years of their lives to a company and then just get tossed aside so the higher-ups can make a higher profit, that's entirely legal - but it's also incredibly disloyal to the people who helped build the company. And that's part of the argument of "you didn't build that". The CEO may be the most brilliant person in the world, but there's a lot of people working for that CEO who played a part - and when we see them getting tossed overboard like debris, it's really dispiriting.

My point re Glass-Steagall was that when you take the wall down between commercial and investment banks, and combine that with the investment banks acting like the housing market is a Blackjack table and you have a recipe for disaster. I think you're right that the collapse could have happened anyway. But losing Glass-Steagall made it a lot worse, because it then exposed the commercial end of the banking system - something we were never supposed to see happen.

JimSpence, you're parsing things again. Henry Ford did not have his factories manufacturing his cars in an empty world. You cite suppliers, investors, and other visionaries. How about Ford's teachers? His education? How about the support system for all of his workers, who actually built his cars? How about the community that supported all of those people? You're missing the point that no man is an island. If that were the case, then you could argue that you don't need to be here in the USA to start a business. You could go off to an island somewhere and presto! Create a business with no help and nobody else to have to pay or thank. I'm not sure that this would work in the real world, but you're welcome to try it.

Your comment about the sewer system neatly avoids the point. I was saying that we all pay for these services, and they support all of us. So we agree on that point. But when you say that business doesn't need any of them, or that individuals don't need those services to make their businesses, you're once again creating a void where the person is on an island creating all by themselves. And you could have a model like this - of a tax-free society where everyone has their own private services and those who can't afford them are out in the cold. But what human would want to live there?

As for the Internet, you're once again parsing semantics. The Internet was funded, particularly in its initial creation as a government project. You can name all the brilliant individuals who were involved with it, but you will be hard-pressed to convince anyone that somehow the Internet was actually a totally private business run by incredibly brilliant creative people. It was a public function that turned into a whole universe of amazing private businesses run by incredibly brilliant and creative people.

I don't know what 4 businesses you started - perhaps you could be specific how you created 4 entire profit-making enterprises in a complete vaccuum, with no help from anyone else, making all of your products by yourself. And you can also explain how you educated yourself, mentored yourself and dealt with all the mundane issues of managing your life - such as trash collection, firefighting, policework, hospital work etc without anybody else at all. You might want to rethink that idea.

Dave, take a look at our discussion on page 11. I have tried to provide a detailed answer to the discussion of the HR bills. Thanks much.

DavidBan

I would say that we have a responsibility to those that paid into to system, to take care of them, but it should be need based. It was never designed to pay out to millionaires. If someone retires with 2 mil, they will gain 1 mil in ten years through interest. they certainly don't need the the $500,000 they will suck out of SS. A retiring couple this year will have paid in $114000 in Medicare. They will pull out $350,000 by their lifes end. This is not sustainable. Nor is the Welfare system being part of SS

My point is that we have hard decisions to make if we are going to survive as a country, and it is quite obvious from our reps that they have no balls to make them.

John, you should be specific if you're going to go down this road.

It sounds like you're saying that this retiring couple shouldn't be supported, even though they paid into Medicare throughout their careers. Keep in mind the number you're using which can be disputed by economists is not on the same base as the number they may or may not pull out. The more likely scenario is that they will pull out less than they put in, or possibly, they'll pull out the same net amount, adjusted for inflation.

Before we had SS or Medicare, the likely result was that if you worked all your life but never really made any headway or were able to save any money, you were toast. And this still happens to many people. Some people wind up spending all their money raising their kids, or taking care of their parents. Or they have all kinds of personal disasters to deal with. And they don't get to buy that house or that TV or that car. They just survive from calamity to calamity, and when they can't work anymore, all they can do is get their SS check and their Medicare coverage. Telling those people "Oh well, we're back to the 19th Century" isn't much of a human option - and that's the reason that our reps aren't about to go down that road.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

Our reps should have to prove they can balance a checkbook before they can take office. SS and Medicare should be need based like originally intended.

DavidBan

OK, it seems I'm parsing things too much here so I'll make it simple.

If everything is available to create any business possible, because of everyone and government, why doesn't everyone own a business?

As Obama stated, there are a lot of smart people out there, there are a lot of hard working people out there. Why don't they just go out and start a business?

The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. This is only about 27.4 million business people. Demographics show we have a population of 313 million people in America, of those about 206 million are between the ages of 15 and 64, why don't they all own a business. According to Obama, " If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen". Why doesn't everybody just sit outside and say "Will somebody else make my business happen?"

I'll await your reply and then I'll tell you why Obama said what he did.

JimSpence - Besides the fact that not everyone wants to own a business, you are twisting the President's words. Listen to the whole speech (don't just go look up the words he said, but listen), not just what you hear in a Romney commercial or on Fox News, either. He was clearly talking about roads and infrastructure. He was saying that business owners did not build "that" - meaning the roads and infrastructure. I can't believe how many times I have had to explain this. It's like Republicans are brainwashing people. In fact, one of the ads repeats Obama's "you didn't build that" in rapid succession 3 times. They got two little girls on Fox News to talk about how the government didn't help them create their lemonade stand... What is this?! Then, Romney gets up in one of his speeches and says that he knows government has helped build business. At this rate, my mind is going to explode before we even get to the election.

John, I would agree with your comment about congresspeople needing to understand math - particularly if you mean that about the House GOP members who triggered a downgrade in our bond status when they tried to play chicken with the Debt Ceiling. Most Americans are hoping those guys learned their lesson and won't make that mistake again.

JimSpence, I think we know what you believe is the reason for Obama's remarks, given that you have repeatedly chosen to take the Rush Limbaugh interpretation of them regardless of what he was actually saying. I don't have an answer for you about why people don't magically start their own businesses. But I have been waiting for an answer from you about how you started 4 businesses completely on your own with no training, no schooling and no societal infrastructure - and how people could live in communities without the same, without us essentially giving up the notion of society.

As far as I recall, the Interstate highways were not built for people to get to businesses but as a government funded project to let the the military move missiles easily and quickly between states. Also, nearly all early aircraft were mostly sold to governments when they first came out because they were not very practical machines until people saw their importance in WWI/WWII (which you could also classify as a government "funded" project). Even today, a lot of innovation that's around is due to government incentives and previous government work.

It appears Barack Obama will continue with his war on America, the Catholic Church, US Christians, success, small business and American socioeconomic thinking!

Conservatives like to complain that Barack Obama is the most liberal president we’ve ever had, a closet Marxist who’s determined to turn America into a socialist hell and that his despotic socialist agenda is the big lie of the twentieth century. To that end, quick review of world history provides compelling proof that Obama’s brand of socialism promised prosperity, equality, and security,but it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery!

It appears Barack Obama will continue with his war on America, the Catholic Church, US Christians, success, small business and American socioeconomic thinking!

Conservatives like to complain that Barack Obama is the most liberal president we’ve ever had, a closet Marxist who’s determined to turn America into a socialist hell and that his despotic socialist agenda is the big lie of the twentieth century. To that end, quick review of world history provides compelling proof that Obama’s brand of socialism promised prosperity, equality, and security,but it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery!  

DavidBan

If I understand you correctly, when you are balancing your checkbook and run out of funds you take a cash advance on your credit cards and deposit the money into your checking account? That is neither keeping a balanced checking account, living within your means, or sound fiscal judgment.

It is no wonder we are bankrupt as a country with that kind of mindset. Must be devolution.

Actually, John, you're proceeding from a false assumption there. I don't play games with my personal checkbook or credit cards. But we weren't talking about people's individual finances. We were talking about the Congress understanding the math involved in the governance of the country. You were hoping that Congress would be able to actually handle it. I agreed with you and pointed out that the latest group of freshmen to come in 2010 had demonstrated a sad lack of ability in this area - when they decided to abrogate their responsibilities and trigger a credit downgrade for the country. Playing chicken with the Debt Ceiling is a fool's errand, as most of America is hoping those guys learned. I agree with your point that if the GOP House members don't figure this out, it will be a sign of bad fiscal judgment and a bad mindset.

It is truly amazing to me that many seem to think (Obama included apparently) that someone other than the person actually doing an action is responsible for that action.

Education?? Largely paid for by taxes and/or tuitions paid by the person doing the work. Most pay the lionshare of their educational costs in one way or another. I know i was paying on mine for nearly 15 years after i graduated college. And i know for sure the Fed wasn't there to help me sweat out any of my finals.

Infrastructure like roads? Largely paid for via taxes/fees/charges/etc which are paid for by the people using the infrastructure, some of whom are business owners. So yes, business owners did help build it.

This socialistic talk probably has a lot of old, smart dead guys, who helped start this country, rolling around in there graves. No doubt.

Jon, are you sure about what you're saying there?

I'd very much like to know how you paid for your K-12 education while you were getting it. Did you have a lemonade stand set up on the sidewalk outside your classroom? And how did you pay for the people in your community who mentored you and guided you? Or did you just ignore everybody and do things your way by yourself?

You're correct that taxes do pay for our infrastructure and our support systems. And that's a good thing. We all pay in, we all get a benefit. Or are you thinking that we shouldn't have a common infrastructure?

BTW with my education, I went to the UC schools 25 years ago. I worked through much of it, and when I graduated, I owed a single loan that I paid off within 18 months. It's actually a tragedy that we've gotten into a position today where getting a college education has become so expensive. What you're describing is something that needs to be fixed, not something we should be proud of. You're right that nobody took your finals for you, nor should they have. But somebody was teaching those courses and if they were any good, they helped you in ways you can't even count. If you're saying that you don't owe them anything because you had to pay student loans, that's a very strange way of accounting the value of their impact, and your learning experience.

This hasn't been socialistic talk. It's community talk. And the people who started this country would be happy to know that 200+ years later, the system is still working.

DavidBan

I think you may be a little conflicted. You state that you don't play games with your finances, but you are promoting the government doing just that. Spending more money than we can make and putting it on a credit card by increasing the debt ceiling. It is not a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. It is a mindset problem that when you spend other peoples money, do it responsibly.

No conflict here, John, but I thank you for your concern. I was responding to your implication about my personal finances and I'm glad to have corrected that assumption.

Of course, the idea of the Debt Ceiling isn't the same thing as your personal credit limit, now is it? You seem to be contradicting your earlier statements where you were hoping that the people in Congress could do the simple math to balance the checkbook there. And I agreed with you. The actions of the House GOP to play chicken with the Debt Ceiling was a disastrous idea. It resulted in a downgrade and it actually cost us a lot of money in additional payments, as was clarified two nights ago by Greta van Susteren. I don't know any sane economist who thought that the behavior of the GOP freshmen was commendable in any way, and your earlier statement properly castigated this kind of behavior. You're correct that bad behavior isn't Democrat or Republican by definition - in this case it was a group of freshmen congresspeople who chose to ignore their Speaker and ignore the consequences of their actions. It was, to be frank, childish of them. And it was a sign that the Speaker was not able to actually lead the House to take responsible action - something that is likely to be addressed this fall.

Your statement that they need to spend the public's money in a responsible fashion is absolutely right. Which is why the attempt to play some kind of game with the Debt Ceiling is something I'm happy to see you roundly condemn.

Why exactly do you not see the governments debt ceiling as the same thing as a personal credit limit? Do you honestly believe that we, as a country don't have a limit of what we would ever have hopes of paying back? Unless I am mistaken, if you combine the wealth of the next top 10 countries in the world, it would not equal our debt. There is not enough money in the world to pay it off unless we create it out of thin air. I may not agree with the GOP congressmen who caused the downgrade in how they went about it, but their math is sound and we are approaching a point that there will be no hope of ever paying off our debt.

John, you're getting into a bit of contradiction within your own statement. So let's be very clear. The Debt Ceiling is a number which goes up each year and is regularly approved by the Congress. We can discuss various ways of bringing the amount of debt down, of cutting some programs here or raising some taxes there. But the amount that the US must pay every month to our military, to Social Security recipients, to Medicare recipients, and to the various employees of the government is sizable, and simply announcing that you don't intend to pay it this month is a quick way to blow your credit rating, as the GOP freshmen discovered.

There are obviously many people concerned about the amount of debt, which is why President Obama and John Boehner were working so hard to try to come up with a way to effect some cuts, raise some taxes and take the kind of bold steps that would assuage exactly what you're talking about. It is unfortunate that the freshmen decided they didn't want to make any deal with the President and were willing to risk our credit rating to play this game of chicken. I don't know how you can say that those freshmen had any kind of sound mathematics going on when they actually cost us much more money than they would have by not playing politics with our tax dollars.

I will be very clear.

THe debt ceiling should not go up every year. Government should have to live within their means, just like the rest of us.

Just because they do it every year so they have more money to spend does not make it right.

And that kind of thinking, John, is what led the freshmen in the House to take what a demonstrably foolish step. Their tantrum over the matter not only hurt our country's credit rating - it cost all of us money. It wasted our tax dollars. I don't know how you can justify that. I understand you saying that you don't like how they went about this - but your statements here are exactly what they were saying when they gave us a bigger bill. And it was fairly obvious that they were actually trying to do a bit of political theater, and it backfired badly.

No, that is the kind of expectation all Americans should have for their government. Don't spend money you don't have. If all Americans had that belief, congress would have no choice but to compromise and put out a budget that works. You think that only the freshmen congressmen and the GOP grandstand? I think Harry Reid is just as bad for tabling everything in the senate.

John, you can't have it both ways. Either you understand that what these guys did was costly for all of us, or you don't. Your earlier statement, which you're now contradicting, indicated that you understood this.

As for the grandstanding, all politicians do it. But not all of them cost us a massive amount in a frivolous tantrum when they can't get their way. The Dems have certainly blustered, but I don't recall that winding up shutting the government down, nor do I recall the Dems being enthusiastic about such a prospect, as the GOP freshmen absolutely were. And Reid hasn't tabled everything in the Senate. You should read the discussion Dave and I were having on page 11. The Senate has passed many items through, particularly those that both the Dems and the GOP have been trying to pass for their mutual backers.

You're correct that compromise is needed here. President Obama did his best to engineer one, and he had a good faith effort coming from John Boehner. Both men were on the verge of what everyone was calling a "grand bargain" which would have addressed your concerns and would have shown the bond companies that our government was serious about how to handle our debt. Instead, the House GOP refused to go with the plan, since it would have provided Obama with political capital for the 2012 election. They chose instead to gum up the process and fold their arms. (And I have my own suspicions about Eric Cantor's part in this - regardless of party, it's obvious he's been maneuvering around the man above him) The result was a disaster for everyone. The only thing we learned from the situation was that the House GOP did not understand the math and chose to play political games with something that could bite them back, and that Speaker Boehner is having serious internal difficulties with his position.

Apparantly several like Proud2BaVeteran still question exactly what our gov do, hence posted question such as ...

Q1: "Did we build the highway system in anticipation of someone creating mass production of motor vehicles or because the demand created by Henry Ford and others building cars faster than ever made roads necessary?"

A1: Yes, road sytem did exist proior to Henry Ford's production. Highway system were then added as to IMPROVE speed and safety. If you don't have roads, then you would not have had cars (because wheels prefer flat surfaces). If you don't know then you need to study bicycles. Cars were extension of motorized bicycles (which requires roads). Oh, electric car actually came before combustion cars.

Q2: "Did we build airports before Orville and Wilbur invented manned-flight or after the need was created by entrepreneurs building more and more airplanes?"

A2: There were plenty of airports prior to the Wright Brothers. Perhaps you were fixated on airport for man powered airplanes. There were plenty of airports for ballons and gliders already at the time. As the power of airplane improve, the airports are then designed to stay well in advace of the needs of the vehicles and the populations. That is the reason why airports are always built in the rural areas, then as population increase, it will eventually surround the airport (and then try to shut it down.... :-))

Q3: "Do we improve infrastructure today, for example paving a dirt road, anticipating someone will build a subdivision or a mini-mall out in a corn field or after a group of investors get together, create a business plan, blueprint the site and decide to build something?"

A3: Obviously you have never bid nor try to win specialized gov/military grants/contracts before. In every case, these grants/contracts pushes or challenge the technology well 10 to 20 years in advance. Like the Space Shuttle, which were designed and planned 15 years in advance. It is the same as roadways and water system. That is why it is so critical that we update these infrastructure systems. That is actually exactly why America is so far ahead of other countries in nearly every departments prior to 1980. It was not until 1985 that we severly reduced our investment toward our future.

Q4: "Is the need for infrastructure just for leisurely family rides by millionaires on the weekend or to get to and from work, to and from school, to and from shopping, to and from family visits?"

A4: I would hope that it is clear to you by now. A better infrastructure helps the productivity of a nation's GDP. If one travels from pt A to B faster and safer then the the society receive the following benefits; (1) happier worker (2) more focus at work (3) able worker because no harm comes to work during travel (4) transit time improves for raw material/finished product... simply much more efficient. This is one of the most basic necessity for a third world country to progress into a 1st world country.

Q5: Are all the people in the middle of your daily traffic jam business owners or mostly workers going to or coming from work?

A5: Overwhelmingly majority of the American commuters are workers in comparison to owners. However, there isn't any point other than you would have ZERO PRODUCTION if the workers don't get to their work location. Then the owners would have ZELCH! Ask those owners who are effected when public transits halt. Dumb question. If you're question who is more important? then it is even more idiotic!

Q6: "What Barrack Hussein said is idiotic. Infrastructure is created and maintained to support commerce and living areas."

A6: I assume that is a statement. Which simply shows more ignorance, because who the heck is "Barrack Hussein"? Perhaps you were referring to USA's president, Barack Hussein Obama II or Barack Hussein Obama? Infrastructure is not only created solely to support existing elements. A good infrastructure is there also to expand and to contract. Unless you have a short sighted designer or crooked politician who is only interested in his/her own vested interest like yourself who obviuosly would eat your own children (or be damned with your children's future).

DavidBan

First of all, what I stated was that I disagree with how they went about it, but agree with their idea of a balanced budget. As far as a "grand bargain", it was not a balanced budget but simply a reduction in spending in return for higher taxes on some. Both parties like to spend other peoples money with reckless abandon.

Now, it was not only the GOP who crossed their arms. The Dems could have listened to the CBO and understood that we are approaching a cliff, submitted to he hard math, and given in to cuts. So both were responsible.

And quite honestly, I really don't think the downgrade affected "all of us". You speak of the bond market. I tend to bet that 2/3 of the country has never owned one. And any cost to the country in higher rates is miniscule in comparison to how fast our debt is rising. Other than a flat line during Clinton, our debt is a parabolic curve headed to infinity, and soon to be unrecoverable. We will have NO social programs if foreign governments quit buying our debt to finance 40 cents on the dollar. Welcome to WWIII financial version. China and Japan gang up on the US and refuse to finance any more of our overspending and we are done. They have already signed agreements to bypass the dollar as a reserve currency and are trading directly with their own currencies. Who else could we possibly outsource our debt to? Europe? LOL

John, you're being a little confusing here. You say that you agree with the GOP concerns regarding the math but disagree with how they went about showing it. The problem you don't seem to be seeing is that their refusal to do their jobs actually did cost us money. It cost us much more than the bill you're concerned about - they made that situation worse by their behavior.

The Dems actually did listen to the CBO and proposed the solution that the GOP House freshmen had the tantrum about. The Dems actually were submitting the hard math, offering a way out that allowed the situation to be addressed. And yes, it was a balanced budget - really the only version of one we've seen, doing exactly what you admitted in that it reduced spending while raising some taxes. When the GOP members realized this was a potential campaign boon for President Obama and the Dems, they torpedoed it. It was an act of political spite and a fairly immature one. The House freshmen thought they could muscle their way to some kind of deal where they didn't have to agree to anything. Instead, they triggered a downgrade and cost us even more money. If they truly valued the promises they made to their constituents, their next move should have been to resign their offices and apologize to the people who had voted them in.

The effect on all of us is that we have had to pay higher rates on the debt that those freshmen decided they didn't have to pay. This is what happens when credit is downgraded. Plus there are the various fees and other charges associated with what happened during the mess. And our tax dollars have been going to those payments. So yes, we all had to pay part of this.

You may believe that China is about to drop some kind of economic blast on us. That's certainly a popular meme on the right. Most economists don't think that would ever happen. Partly because it would hurt China's economy too. They're not about to say to us "No more for you!" and walk away. That said, we do need to get the debt situation under control, and we will. It was on the way to that before GW Bush did the tax cuts that tanked the idea and then got us into two unfunded wars. Now that we're out of that situation, and the top end tax cuts are due to expire, the situation can be addressed. And as the economy recovers, the debt should start to shrink. Provided that the next GOP president, whether that be in 2016 or 2020, doesn't go on the kind of spending binges we saw under Reagan and GW Bush.

Perhaps instead of perpetual argument about how it actually cost us money you could show proof. Proof that it cost the government money and proof that it cost taxpayers. I have heard estimates of what it could cost but nothing in real numbers. Some say it could cost $100 billion, some say it has not cost a dime, because even though I don't see it that way, we are still safer than most, and bond yields have actually gone down.

And I don't believe it was a balanced budget. If it was a balanced budget, the debt ceiling would not have to be increased, now would it?

As far as the top end tax cuts going away. Most also say it is a drop in the bucket compared to spending.

And China is already making preemptive strikes. As I stated a deal with Japan. Also, they have suggested that the dollar be removed from being the only reserve currency. When the dollar loses its reserve status, there will be no need for it internationally, and it will become worthless.

And this is what most don't understand. Even though there was a balanced budget during Clinton, that is a far cry from even remotely paying down what we were in debt at the time. Not the GOP or the Dems get that you should pay down debt when times are good, so you have reserves when times are not.

According to Greta van Susteren at her gretawire website, the intransigence of the GOP House freshmen cost us 1.3 billion dollars. This was in the form of increased borrowing costs for the Treasury. Investments had to be suspended from multiple funds in order to come up with the money to pay our obligations for that month, and then more fees had to be paid to restore the funds. That's 1.3 billion dollars of taxpayer funds that we all had to contribute to cover a political tantrum that should have been stopped before it got that far.

The approach to the budget that President Obama and Speaker Boehner was trying was a balanced one - it had both cuts and revenue increases in it - and it also was a path to paying down trillions of dollars of debt. The GOP freshmen rejected the deal and offered no alternative other than "My Way or the Highway." Didn't work out too good for them.

When the top end taxes went up under Bill Clinton in the 90s, many voices said that would put us into recession. They were demonstrably wrong. Those same voices are trying it again now, using both the argument that the wealthy shouldn't be asked to pay a marginal increase, and that the increase won't pay for anything anyway so why do it. They should be more honest and just say they don't want to pay more taxes, and leave it at that.

China is not going to upend their own economy by playing games with us or our currency. The damage they would take from suddenly not having us paying into their economy would be devastating. Keep in mind that countries are more interdependent now. Neither us nor China is in a position to dictate to the other.

I do agree with your last point, actually. I don't have any issue with that statement. No excuse for not paying down debt when you can, and having a rainy day fund for when times are harder.

The thing about China is that they are already doing it. It is in their best interest if they want to be top dog. Do a little research on them wanting the yuan or a new global currency to also be a reserve currency. Even though we do import a lot from China, they have tentacles in most countries and are hardly dependent on the US. They are buying up resources like crazy. The latest is the oil sands in Canada. When you own the resources, you own the world.

As far as the cost of the downgrade. Well, it caused a trillion in cuts. that is a lot of zeros from 1.3 billion. Almost 99 times in fact. I would argue that is kind of a small price to pay. 1.3% actually.

A path to paying down the debt is not actually paying down debt. If my many years on the planet tell me anything, politicians talk through their arses. Most of them anyway. It is always a delay tactic until the population forgets, and then it is spend again.

I actually do agree that in order to get out of this mess, the rich do need to pony up more. But I have to ask, what is their motivation to do so when they see how our polarized dysfunctional government spends it? I don't think it is too much to ask them to prove that they can spend it wisely, then tax appropriately.

Sorry, math error, missed a zero. .13% But I still do better than congress.

I hear you John. We agree about the need to get the house in order. We also agree that both parties tend to avoid dealing with any real problems while they continue to enjoy their positions at our expense.

My point about the cost was that if the House GOP had gone with the plan that their own Speaker had worked out with President Obama, they were looking at 4 trillion in cuts. They chose to blow that off, as a political gambit to make sure that Obama couldn't campaign with it this year. If they could have gotten off of that and just done their jobs, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The deal would have been made, the bond companies would have been fine with it and you'd have the foundation of a better budget.

You are right, 4 trillion over I think it was ten years would have been better than nothing but somehow I don't think they ever would have happened. Too much cockblocking and lobbying.

I do question whether it would have been a win for the administration though. The cuts would have caused pain, and voters remember that, even though it needs to be done. I liked the President and voted for him in 2008, but I won't this time for other reasons. Nor will I vote for Romney.

Ok, to the dumbasses still deliberately misquoting in the comments, this was the statement: Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

He's saying they didn't build the roads and bridges we all depend on for business. He's talking about the essential infrastructure which a group provides that allows one to succeed in business. Romney gave a nearly word for word speech like this in 2003.

Quit being jackasses. If you have issues, talk about issues, not petty lies and misinformation. Idiots.

Loved it republicans for obama.

And believe'n you can't honestly tell me you believe this all started just 3 1/2 years ago, republicans have been working on making more poor since Reagan and his made-up welfare queens driving cadillacs to anger his base.

This is all the bush policies coming to fruitition. First the crash that stole billions from our economy and then people started losing jobs and houses and their life savings. For God's sake the republicans gave tax cuts that paid for the move of our jobs to other countries.

Then unheard of in our history of the United States, the republicans cuts taxes during war time and Cheney famously said that deficit don't matter and they didn't until President Obama was elected and then the re-born conservatives began frothing and snarling their disdain and now blaming democrats for what they had done as soon as President Obama was elected.

Then to top it off you want to pretend it was President Obama's doing and want to forget that if the republicans had let the jobs act pass our country would have lower unemployment.

Just because bush and the republicans took a surplus, low unemployment and turned it in the biggest deficit in our history and losing millions of jobs leading up to Obama being sworn in, how can we blame bush?

That's it, with amnesia we can all pretend it was President Obama's fault for everything even things that bush did.

But I didn't have amnesia and I know that the republicans austerity they wanted to bring to America was tried in England and Ireland and both are now in double-dipped recessions.

So as you can see the last 4 years under republican rule would have been much worse as we would be in another recession right now with the rest of the world that pushed austerity.

Thankfully we had President Obama who pushed the stimulus and our country is growing abiet slowly we are still growing. We need to pass the jobs act and actually create some jobs.

You know as well as I do that all that tax cut money to the so called job creators didn't create any jobs, but they have had a lot of extra tax cut money to buy the election for the republicans that have promised them forever tax cuts.

alan290

Mitt Romney said the EXACT SAME WORSS Obama said about not doing it on your own but rather stressing a more cooperative aspect to creating our society at the Olympics at Salt Lake City 10 *&^%$# years ago. He said there that those atheletes, got support from parents, teachers, coachs. Of course, that's the way it truly is....it's called cooperation, collaboration, societal gain, evolution, etc.

I wrote a book...I didn't edit it...I didn't publish it, I didn't make the paper, I didn't design the cover. It had many many people work on it for free simply because it served the higest order of humanity, but, what the hell would the GOP know about humanity unless they can exploit it for their personal gain!

Some of you ignorant folk here are so damned set on bashing Obama with your worms eye view of thought, the world, politics that you don't even care that Romeny's people took THAT quote out of context (and many others) because your candidate is a talking head with no gumption, no ideas, no policy on the table but merely represents the party of NO BRAINS, NO HEART, NO PROGRAMS unless it is to be the robber barons and continue to steal, beg, borrow and hide every single dollar you can get your grimy hands on and you think most Americans can't see through your merciless greed, destain for the human race (except for the rich folk) and narcicistic approach to life where you come out on the top?

Not that you know, but some of us like the people in Colorado overcome huge issues with others helping demonstrating victory doesn't include your scorekeeping method---your bank balance--and succeed in a different way than you. You money folks want PROFIT, PERIOD...if the little people get in the way of big tabacco, big pharma, big insurance....well, you run right over the top of them.

Watch out...what goes around, comes around and the stupidity here on this board with you anti-Obama people, you big business supporters, you people who want less government may wake up one day and find that your idea of life is just a delusion of your own self importance rather than the way it really is.

We little people out number you, especially, the baby boomers. Just that population alone could give Obama the election by a landslide...remember old age and guille will always outsmart youth and skill and you folks....you are ignorant, myopic, self absorbed and look at the word like blood sucking leaches screwing people out of what they own like their home, retirements, etc so you can not release taxes, scurry to the Cayman Islands to hide your ill gotten gaines and point the finger at other people with higher scruples than you....mark my word...your day will come one way or the other. BE VERY SCARED...what goes around, comes around, the universal belief of Karma is operative. Here's to it, too. I toast all of you with my morning OJ and laugh at your silly, shallow values...to Mitt and Ann Romney...you are as fake as it gets and the presidency isn't just another form of enertainment for YOU PEOPLE.

People think listening to talk radio classifies as research where do we get these morons from and they want us to blindly follow them over the cliff because someone on the radio said so. That is why we think the RIGHT is a joke, they all think they are the smart ones while we all laugh our azzes off at their expense, what they are is the entertainment.

MITT ROMNEY cant tie his own shoes nor do something productive or is that the GOP because they elected BUSH twice

As another article pointed out yesterday Romney gave a speech at the Olympics he ran telling athletes they didn't do it alone owing their success to the many people who made it possible. Requiring support from family, friends, coaches etc. Hypocrite much?

So let's step back a second... think about this...

So the Romney campaign has chosen as it's key message... the message that it will WIN this election on... on a simple twisted lie that is so obvious a lie that it hurts to hear it... on a line Romney basically stated himself during the Olympics.

The Romney camp is showing just how little they have to work with... both in their candidate and their message.

If we swallow this and elect this guy, we deserve what we get.

Think about this....

President Obama wants us to vote for him over a man who was Govenor of a US State, ran, and saved, the Olympic Games AND runs a Fortune 500 Company YET President Obama has never held a job in his life, voted No Vote the MAJORITY of times in his one term as US Senator and says a business career is not needed to be President of the United States.

Well, I see what President Obama has brought to the table...

Mitt hasn't worked in years.

Ametrina..."Mitt Romney said the EXACT SAME WORSS Obama said..."

First let me correct you. Romney said it about the Olympics years before Obama said, so Obama said the same thing as Romney.

But what are saying, that Obama and Romney think alike?

LOL! How do you twist that into your pastel drawing of the world?

Mr. RepublicansforObama you are dead on.

hs, get real. It's just that Romney is a hypocrite that would say anything to get elected. And maybe he actually does know that Obama is right, but has no courage to say so. But then he does have brain dead supporters who will follw anything he says.

So are the Obama supporters trying to make the argument that Olympic Athletes are somehow equivalent to small business owners, and the government is somehow equivalent to loving parents?

Lols.

You guys are REALLY reaching now.

He said it. It was not out of context, I saw the whole speech. If anything, in context it's even worse than by itself.

No matter how hard you try, you can't make him "unsay" it.

He said it. We all heard him.

Even if he really feels that way, which is bad enough, he's got to be a complete idiot to say it on TV.

Did you mean this, Alil:

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power," said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year's Summer Olympics.

So I agree with you....

He said it. It was not out of context, I saw the whole speech. If anything, in context it's even worse than by itself.

No matter how hard you try, you can't make him "unsay" it.

He said it. We all heard him.

Even if he really feels that way, which is bad enough, he's got to be a complete idiot to say it on TV.

Since you obviously know full well he was referring to "roads," etc., i.e the American infrastructure that businesses use on the public dime, you only make yourself look petty and childish by truncating his statement to suit your own needs ... "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that." You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

The internet was funded by largely by DoD and politicians saw a use beyond military. The roads and other infrastructure don’t get built by business but
government. Just like GPS Satellites are military but business lobbied politicians to make it public yet all cost come from DoD’s budget. Everybody wants but
nobody wants to pay.

The Romney camp is only proving their desperation and ignorance with this tact. Only a few seem to be repeating this foolishness. And only a fool would buy into it.

spiritdance...Those before us and we paid taxes to build that infrastructure. So we are only getting what we paid for. People who build businesses pay more in taxes and employee people who pay taxes increasing the governments revenue so it can build infrastructure.

I don't owe the government any praise for building what I paid my taxes for it to build.

ha321

I don't owe the government any praise for building what I paid my taxes for it to build.

How shallow. You refuse to give the government any credit for building roads and bridges with your tax dollars when you don't even want to pay taxes in the first place. "I can spend my money better than the government" has been the battle cry from the right wing ever since Obama got elected so tell me how/or what you would have built for the good of the country if the government had not forced you to pay taxes. Eisenhower was the one that started the interstate highway system to build super highways from coast to coast and by doing so the economy started to expand because of the jobs it created from tax revenue. And you don't want to give this Republican president any credit for the roads business people use to transport their goods? How shallow.

You people don't want to pay for services to help the poor where I just as don't want to pay for bombs to kill people that never had anything to do with any attack on us. Where's the trade off? They can use your tax dollars to build bombs and use the taxes I pay to help people in need. Sound fair?

Talk about taken out of contest Larry.

The GOP have never said they don't want to pay any taxes, just a fair share. We all agree that people and businesses should pay a fair share, we just disagree on what constitutes a fair share.

Much of this depends on perspective. Yes, people that have businesses use the roads, but so does every other citizen whether or not you have a business and those roads are equally available for anyone to use. So I could easily make the argument that all persons equally benefit from the roads and so no group of persons should pay more or less for their availability.

So do you want to make the argument that people should pay for the government services that they use?? So what do the 50% that pay no income tax pay for the use of the roads? Don't drive, you haven't paid.

Another issue is that the government will find some way to spend every dime we send them and many times in an inefficient manner (bridge to nowhere or Pelosi's frog study) even if the tax rate on every citizen was 90% the government would spend that money.

The government funded U.S. Post Office loses billions of dollars to deliver junk mail to my mailbox that I take out and throw away. More garbage for landfills and more carbon in the atmosphere from transporting all of that junk mail.

He NEVER said he Created the internet.

Gore: “… During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
Read more at http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/12/al-gore-never-said-he-invented-the-internet/#tf3od5ZHF8T8ZRa6.99

Mark-2840524:

I like what you posted... As I had asked earlier in the post....

Did we build the highway system in anticipation of someone creating mass production of motor vehicles or because the demand created by Henry Ford and others building cars faster than ever made roads necessary?

Did we build airports before Orville and Wilbur invented manned-flight or after the need was created by entrepreneurs building more and more airplanes?

Do we improve infrastructure today, for example paving a dirt road, anticipating someone will build a subdivision or a mini-mall out in a corn field or after a group of investors get together, create a business plan, blueprint the site and decide to build something?

Is the need for infrastructure just for leisurely family rides by millionaires on the weekend or to get to and from work, to and from school, to and from shopping, to and from family visits?

Are all the people in the middle of your daily traffic jam business owners or mostly workers going to or coming from work?

What Barrack Hussein said is idiotic. Infrastructure is created and maintained to support commerce and living areas

And Mark, ya want to know something... No one has responded.

@ Proud2BaVet

Your point would seem reasonable if it weren't for many examples of government funding of research and engineering that precede a commercial need. The Internet and the GPS constellation being two glowing examples. One side benefit of the interstate road system was that it was a backup to military landing needs in the event of a massive war that would certainly take out airfields. Yes, both sides of this argument can find some examples to shore up their argument, but I'll side with a government that can fund research before there is a commercial need as well as the same government that can respond to needs when necessary. We just need to make that government more responsive.

Mr. Obama is far from perfect, but the man is no idiot. That was a moniker that sometimes befit a predecessor. And if you must maintain that our president is an idiot, I insist you give Mitt Romney equal time for his olympic speech to participants which strangely predates and is a parallel to Obama's.

Isolation !

What a novel idea !

Do you have a particular prison picked out in which Obama can be housed ?

rMONEY you can take that several ways

retiredceo - I'll care to respond when you make so much as ONE valid point.

And aylortays - if the right can SCREAM for Obama's BC (repeatedly, not even happy when they HAVE IT) and college transcripts (a first for any President), we can have every expectation of Romney's tax returns, as has been customary for every Presidential candidate back to Romney's dad.

THOSE TAX RETURNS are not given for a reason....they show the character of the man ...perhaps he gave more to his church than he paid in taxes. If he shows those taxes, he will be defeated...and you know what...he will be defeated anyway.

His tax returns show Romney has years he was in the dreaded 48% who paid no taxes club. Far more embarrassing to pay no taxes on ten's of millions gross income than a grannie with her $800 a month social security check don't you think?

It's true, he doesn't HAVE to show us those tax returns...and we can continue to wonder what he's hiding by that refusal.

The new Obama campaign line: "Words mean whatever I say they mean. Romney is a liar and unfit to be president because he takes what I say literally."

Presidents DON'T normally release college paperwork. That's a total canard and you know it.

Presidents DO normally release 10+ years of tax returns to show they were honest in their tax dealings, so there absolutely is precedent there.

Obama released all years' tax returns going back to 2000. Why won't Romney?

Retroactive Romney is a liar.

Consider what Romney once believed, before flip-flopping for political expediency:

1. Pro cap and trade

2. Pro gay marriage

3. Pro Affordable Care Act (when it was Romneycare)

4. Pro-Choice

5. Pro Assault Rifle Ban

Plus, he has previously said the businesses are dependent upon the infrastructure and services that the Government provides.

What a hypocrite who is not fit to lead.

Carl..."Presidents DON'T normally release college paperwork. That's a total canard and you know it."

Obama is a U.S. citizen, but he was in a position to claim he was a foreign student to get aid under that premise. All I want released is his college admission papers. (I don't care about his grades.) I just want to know what could be so secret about something so benign as a college admission papers.

To use John B's words, "and we can continue to wonder what he's hiding by that refusal."

Even taking what he said in context, it was a poor wording on the choice of his speech writers.

I know what he meant, but it's not really what he said.

Honestly, I don't see this comment as being taken 'out of context'. He's telling business owners that they can't build businesses on their own; they need the help of government, which is why Obama wants to tax them (weird logic in my opinion). Of course Romney should jump on that...the comment is revealing about Obama's thoughts on capitalism and government's role in building an economy. Obama is a socialist at heart...he doesn'lt like the idea of individuals prospering whereas others are left in the dust.

That being said, I feel that Romney has to communicate a real strategy, rather than just wasting time and criticising others. He's going to lose this election if he doesn't get more direct.

Both sides are taking lines out of context. Obama does the same thing. That is why you have to research just about everything either one of them says to find the truth.

Nancy Pelosi now admits that the classified information leaks the White House has been lying about all along did in fact come from the White House. You won't hear about this here, and since FOX is the only news channel that is reporting it, you can pretend it isn't true. How convenient!

Obama saying "you didn't build that" is just like Romney saying to Olympians "you didn't get here by yourself".

Obama left out one word that showed the intent of his speech to his audience that the Republican trolls missed. It was "alone". To put it in perspective, Obama was saying that " If you've got a business -- you didn't build that alone." Everyone that heard the speech knew what Obama was saying but to those that want to nitpick they leave out all the speech but those words.

Romney said "I'm not concerned about the very poor". Now without the rest of the statement that sounds pretty bad. Actually with the rest of the statement it didn't sound good but regardless it's taking bits and pieces of a speech that is deceiving negative campaigning which the Republicans are good at. Just ask John Kerry and John McCain.

4.15

The Republicans WIN...

on internet nonsense

After eight years in the White House , George W. Bush had been the subject of 47 internet rumors.

After less
than two years in office, Barack Obama had been the subject of 87, or nearly
twice as many.

Even more telling is the relative accuracy of those stories.

For Bush, 20
rumors, or 43%, are true. Only 17, or 36%, are false. The remainder are of
mixed veracity (4), undetermined (4), or unclassifiable (2).

In
contrast, for Obama only 8 of the 87 rumors, or 9%, were true, and a whopping
59, or 68%, were whoppers.

There are 17 of mixed veracity
and 3 undetermined.

In other words, a GOP
precipitous slide into the chasm of pure wackitude started immediately...

and rapidly went full steam ahead

so that there isn't an avowed Republican who knows the full truth on ANYTHING.

@ Jim Laee

Wasn't it convenient how FOX never reported any negative news about the White House outing of a CIA agent? Your point is useless when the FOX news network does not report the true facts. If you heard it on FOX and never heard it anywhere else...it's most likely not news and/or not true. That's why everyone else refers to them as FAUX News. They are a Republican propaganda channel.

@ R I Mom

Well put. I might add that those rumors started right after the November 2008 election. They never waited until he was sworn into office. They started immediately after the election.

Funny that when the GOP vets their Vice Presidential candidate choice, will they only ask for two years of tax returns?

If so, that candidate will NOT have been properly vetted. But if they do get more than two years of returns, they will have held that person to a higher standard than Mitt himself.

Looks like the GOP is going to yet again apply a double standard to this race. They have no shame, and then there's Karl (Ham) Rove.

We used to believe in something in this country called the social contract -- those who were successful owed something back to the society that helped them get where they were.

Romney's attack on Obama's speech makes it absolutely clear that he doesn't believe in this. He's telling his followers, "If you're successful, you don't owe anything to anybody, least of all the government. You should avoid paying anything back, just like I did in the taxes I'm not revealing."

BruceGee

We used to believe in something in this country called the social contract -- those who were successful owed something back to the society that helped them get where they were.

Romney's attack on Obama's speech makes it absolutely clear that he doesn't believe in this. He's telling his followers, "If you're successful, you don't owe anything to anybody, least of all the government. You should avoid paying anything back, just like I did in the taxes I'm not revealing."

I'll take it a step further....... After Romney made himself filthy rich playing checkers with other peoples credit, jobs and companies he did the least patriotic thing he knew how.

Avoided paying the tax and moved that wealth out of the country! No, he couldn't reinvest it and create jobs could he? No, he didn't want to do something positive with it. Instead he horded it, and it's never coming back. Stay Klassy Mitt! Thanks for "helping" out the economy and "creating" some jobs.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Doesn't look "out of context" to me - Obama told business owners that they didn't build their businesses. According to Obama, somebody else made that happen. It's right there in bold.

T Bourlon,

It is out of context because the way it it written with incorrect punctuation. It makes it look like "you didn't build that" applies to a business. But, if you listen to the speech, you would would realize that it applies to the roads and bridges. The transcript should look like this:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

RI Mom - I love you! You are able to take completely useless info and spin it into something even more useless. The number of internet rumors that are true or false has exactly what relevance to obama's ability, or more accurately - inability, to lead? The number of false internet rumors on Bush have no relevance to Romney. While you were wasting time determining the veracity of internet rumors, did you also track who started the false rumors?

Why would GOP supporters start false rumors about themselves? So I'm thinking that since most political supporters wouldn't start false rumors about themselves that the opposing supporter would start them. Therefore, your data shows that democratic suporters are the more prolific liars.

This is my best impression of Romney’s economic advisors:

To get our economy back on track, the best thing to do is decrease infrastructure spending and increase or keep our current level of defense spending. Just look around the world to see the countries with thriving economies that have done the same. Stores like Wal-Mart are filled with products from Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and African countries. Those countries’ economies are flourishing and people are thriving with a great standard of living and it is all due to defense spending.

On the other end, counties that have invested in infrastructure more so than defense are getting destroyed on the world market. China, Japan, Germany, and Brazil cannot compete on the world market with the countries listed above. Private and public businesses have no chance to successes without access to capital, national infrastructure like roads, railroads, airports, and cheap energy that are not available in these countries. Without a chance for business to succeed and compete globally, countries like Germany have very low standard of living, high unemployment, and almost no opportunities.

Americas best chance for a revived economy is to follow the paths of the countries that have been so successful in growing their economies by spending more defense. America would be lucky to have the standard of living that Afghans and North Koreans enjoy.

Not a great impression but you get the idea. This election, we the people get a chance to pick which direction the country will be heading. I am voting for the candidate who has a vastly better chance of bring economic prosperity both short and long term. Obama 2012.

T Bourlon, Cynisturb was correct. It's sentence structure. In your "quote" the sentence punctuation was incorrect, it lead you to believe that Obama was talking about business owners not building their own business. But, what he stated was that businesses did not build the infrastructure.

The problem with the speech really has to do with the speech writer. People with less education may not understand complex sentence structures. That's why when the GOP speaks to their constituents, they are usually short and very easy to understand sentences. More or less at a middle-school grade level.

Jim Laee, it was Diane Feinstein, the Democrat from California that said it is clear that some of those leaks came from the White House, not Pelosi. Pelosi doesn't have the integrity it would take to admit anything at all negative regarding the Democrat Party.The important issue here is the leaks have been traced to the White House and the haters here, like Larry, that support this failed Presidency will not believe it even when that news comes from their own. They just keep swallowing that DNC Koolaid.

By Charles
Krauthammer, Published: July 19The Washington Post

“If you’ve got
a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

— Barack Obama,

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 thecollective. Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success.
How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off
which we all thrive. Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.

Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is
therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal
utilities, that account for the different outcomes.

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. More nonsense.
Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia
was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since
forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function
of government. 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. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is
swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all- giving government of
bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth
control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s
on her own is at her grave site. Julia’s world is
totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no
spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state. Or to put it
slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama
political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing
for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not
to supposedly autonomous adults.

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

Well written Gideb114: I do not not know where you got the patience to write such a well thought out response for such an obvious group of "Cheer Leaders For Obama".

Liberals do one thing very well - divert from the topic and divert from reality. For example the question is about Obama's comment that "you didn't build that". Why are we talking about Romney's tax records or HIS comments? Those are irrelevant.

We have a SITTING president that publicly stated individuals did not build their own businesses. Try telling that to a person who invested and risked $100,000 of their own money on a new idea. Try telling that to a person who worked 16 hours a day for a whole year without any time off and without a paycheck as they got their business started. Try telling that to a young couple who delayed starting a family to start their own business.

And then we have this president flat out LYING that he was taken out of context. He said he was referring to roads and bridges. Hogwash - and I can prove it. How? Simple really - in the way it was stated. Our president is a very intelligent man (he sucks as a president but is very smart) so he understands the English language.

He spoke of "a person's business" and then spoke of "roads and bridges". When he says "you didn't build that" the key word is "that" which is singular. Say you have a table and you point to it and say "are you going to use that". It is singular and means the table. You would not say "are you going to use those" pointing at the table. Say a person has 10 chairs - you would point to the chairs and say "are you going to use those" with "those" being the relevant term. That is plural.

So if Obama meant "you didn't build the roads and bridges" he would HAVE to say "you didn't build THOSE". He is not unintelligent and say "that" to mean roads and bridges". So since he use a singular term, and had just talked about a person's "business", he absolutely meant that a person did not start and build their own business.

What a pathetic thing to say about the many hard-working small business owners like myself. I get less than 5 hours sleep a day and sometimes work 20 hours in a day to build my business. How DARE the president say I didn't build my business. How DARE he say I didn't build it through my OWN hard work and sacrifice.

I think that comment will be the one that does him in. Obama is careful about what he says and works very hard to make sure American citizens don't know how he really believes but every once in a while he lets something slip like "at some point you have made enough money" or "conservatives cling to their guns and religion" but most let those slide. But THIS comment makes it very clear he is anti-capital and anti-American. And THIS comment will hurt him very very badly. Which is great because he has done so much damage that another 4 years could very well collapse this once great nation. We MUST get rid of Obama to save this country.

Just when I thought Obama could not become any more morally corrupt, I learned today he has made yet another Faustian deal with the devil. He has appointed the “King Of Gay Porn” to his campaign finance committee.

This man is not fit to hold the hallowed office of President of the United States, a land he does not love.

Yeah! They elected G.W. Bush TWICE!

Not counting hanging chads and a RWNJ SCOTUS

Deceptive? Yeah right. The ad used Obama's own words from the speech video/recording. At the end of the ad (These Hands) Romney read the speech aloud word for word from the transcript. Obama is now saying that is no different than lying because he didn't mean what he said. And you blame Romney? Get a life Dude.

Deceptive? You're just an Obamabot unless you can tell us how that could possibly be true. And don't give us that preposterous spin that he was talking about bridges and roads. That's just not what he said. Obama said: "You have a business - You didn't build that". That's what he said. That's what he meant. It took the fool almost a week to figure out that that was a really stupid thing to say. And now he's lying wildly to avoid being held responsible for what he said. Obama is the worst president in American history. It's not close.

Read the whole statement....he wants to make sure you know that because of the government you were allowed to make that business....because someone chose to buy from your business, not how hard you worked, not how many 20 hour days you put in, not how often you advertised or asked people for their business, not how often you sought out help to make your business successful....no with all his new regulations that isn't happening as often..Unemployment is 8.2% Mr. President and you aren't making business grow. I am hanging on by a thread thanks to all the new requirements for real estate. Having to pay a third party to give me assignments because the government decided we must have someone between the appraiser and the lender and who pays that 3rd party....the appraiser....who gets a raise NOT the appraiser...but the buyer is paying more than ever for a loan and the government is getting their share. Look at how PMI have gone sky high in a monthly mortgage payment...cream off the top.

Romney, 2002 speech to Olympic athletes:

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist]."

Romney doesn't think Olympians deserve credit for the medals they win or the records they break? Why does Romney hate athletes?

Vivian-379841 -

Only a fool would hang on to a manipulated soundbite and center their argument on it. If you really believe the president is doing all he can to destroy commerce, and does not believe in entrepreneurship and small business, then you are truly a fool beyond all help.

Another thing.... where is your concern for the third parties and wasted overhead in our (up until 2012) terrible health care industry? Where is your appreciation that he is trying to change a system that is rife with unnecessary middlemen and wasted $$? Are those crickets I hear?

Why don't you skip voting this year? Take this one off for a change. You haven't had a good run.

I think people have picked the wrong word that was twisted. I think it was the word "that" which if he had used the word "it" would have made the Republicans case. The word "that" applies to the plural of things mentioned and when you say you didn't build "it", you surely mean the item you were just talking about a few words before. But hey what does one little word mean anyway in the big picture. If you want to believe that Mitt believes in the small business owners and Obama doesn't then that is what you will believe no matter who says what.

They are basically speaking to the air-head tea partiers, who will believe anything.

Not counting hanging chad and a RWNJ SCOTUS.

Since it was a 9-0 decision by the SCOTUS to send the case back to FL to be heard because Gore subverted the judicial process, that means the SCOTUS is unanimously RWNJ. And the FL Supreme court is LWNJ because they tried twice to give the election to Gore.

Toasty will never call President Obama on his BS.

If you read the whole transcript it paints a different picture than the portion that has been selected by NBC in the article.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Only 35% of small business makes it past the first 10 years. I would love to know what government is going to do to increase that number...seeing how they are the ones that built all of those business in the first place...

Internet nonsense

After eight years in the White House , George W. Bush had been the subject of 47 internet rumors.

After less
than two years in office, Barack Obama had been the subject of 87, or nearly
twice as many.

Even more telling is the relative accuracy of those stories.

For Bush, 20
rumors, or 43%, are true. Only 17, or 36%, are false. The remainder are of
mixed veracity (4), undetermined (4), or unclassifiable (2).

In
contrast, for Obama only 8 of the 87 rumors, or 9%, were true, and a whopping
59, or 68%, were whoppers.

There are 17 of mixed veracity
and 3 undetermined.

In other words, a GOP
precipitous slide into the chasm of pure wackitude started immediately...

and rapidly went full steam ahead

so that there isn't an avowed Republican who knows the full truth on ANYTHING.

Obama's massive deficit spending has created one of the heaviest debt burdens as a % of GDP in the industrialized world! This massive deficit spending makes us more dependent on foreigners for deficit financing than any other major country in the world! Those facts alone should frighten anyone with even the most basic understanding of economics into voting him and his socialist cronies out of office!!!

Sadly,the economic ignorance inherent in the posts of the Democratic minions in this chat reminds me of a group of "canaries in a coal mine" singing away seemingly unaware their commander and chief has been the architect of what will go down in history as the most devastating economic tsunami in the entire history of the industrialized world!!!

Anyone with even a scintilla of intellectual acumen need only glimpse at the impact "Obama style socialism" has had in Europe to bear witness to America's future under Obama. On the verge of defaulting on government debts, people are living under crushing austerity measures. Countless jobs have been wiped out; the official unemployment rate is 15-21%. Salaries have been cut to the bone. Pensions and health benefits have been slashed. Tourism industry is a shambles. Tens of thousands of workers have taken to the streets to protest a problem they thought they'd never see in their lifetime! In picturesque plazas, beggars outnumber tourists and protesters outnumber beggars. In front of Parliament, riot police stand watch to protect big spending socialist lawmakers from angry mobs.

It is this kind of chaos that lies in wait should Obama be reelected! Even if clear thinking Americans unseat him, the damage he has done will require anausterity pill and a good dose of Cod liver oil to ease the pain! God help America! Obama has built his house on shifting sand and when the winds of the "most reckless fiscal policy in American history" blow, he and his godless house will surely fall!

Obama saying "you didn't build that" is just like Romney saying to Olympians "you didn't get here by yourself".

Earn_My_Vote

Obama saying "you didn't build that ALONE" is just like Romney saying to Olympians "you didn't get here by yourself".

There EARN...... I fixed that for you. So quit distorting/omitting words. Enough already. You obviously don't get it. Either quote him, or head back to the Fox pasture and join your flock. Fer Fuchs sake man!

"Bigotry" being the key word in your statement, SandShark.

Tea Party Dowgrade

But that is what FAUX News does and you worship them. Being the tea bagger you so proudly proclaim you have no room to talk.

I find it rather humorous that obummer is so bent out of shape when somebody uses one of his very tactics - taking a comment or action out of context.

The leftists here, Earn My Vote and Tea Party Downgrade are now calling each other Tea Partiers. This is just too funny. The fact is the majority of business people do build their businesses on their own. My employees did not put everything they own at risk when I started my business. My employees work an 8-hour shift and go home while I come in early, stay late, and come into the office on most Saturdays and Sundays. Those highways Obama would like me to thank the government for were built with my tax dollars too, both personal and company tax dollars. There will always be those that disparage others for being successful, mostly from envy, and it is in Obama's best interest to convince as many as possible that there very existence is dependent upon big government. That's an easy task based on the leftist rantings in these messages.

I would like to point out a couple of things. I come from a family which started and grew a successful business. I know other people who have done the same. Everyone thought that they started with "nothing" and earned success on their own. I completely get how it seems that way.

However, "nothing" is a relative term. Our advantages are many. We live in a free country, unlike much of the world. We rely on the rule of law for our contracts, we depend upon law enforcement to keep our business safe, we depend on schools to supply us with workers, we learned our skills in public schools, we drive on roads built by government, we send mail through the post office. If you come from a middle class family, you have the support and knowledge of your "tribe", and most of all you were taught that you can succeed if you work hard. All of the above are advantages you had at the "get go". Small busness owners should at least acknowledge that they are supported by government services which they do not pay extra for.

Finally, as small business owners, we are not in the class of large businesses. There is a lot of propaganda out there to convince you that you are one of them and you should fight on their side, They need you to help them defeat regulations and avoid taxes. But we have seen what happened when banking regulations were relaxed. Your small business can not destroy the economy, but big banks can, and will do it again if we do not put back sensible regulations. This is not a black or white world where you are for taxes or against them; for regulations or against them. Though the fight is being defined as "you are with us or against us". I support small business, but I am also for the regulation of giant corporations. Please think through the issues. The president and progressives are not the enemy. Americans are being pitted against one another for the benefit those who wish to retain power and wealth.

Renee, good post. All of us have roads, streets, police departments, so why isn't everyone a successful businessman? That businessman who was up all hours of the night and weekend starting a successful business, and plying every dime he made at the beginning, had no other advantages than all of us who drive our roadways. Obama showed his true communist leanings by his disparaging the business community, he just does not believe in the free enterprise that is our bedrock. He was not misquoted, he was not taken out of context. He just forgot to stay with his teleprompter. He will pay dearly in November.

Dasvset,

The president does not disparge the business community. He is pointing out that those who claim they did it all on their own that they did not. There is an effort out there to convince us we do not need government at all. If we think that, then the corporations will be able to strip away even sensible regulations.

We do need our government to support us as we build our businesses. "Government" is all of us, deciding in a democratic consensus that we want public services. Most communist states were started by revolutions not due to too many regulations or public services, but due to a huge disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor.

Please stop listening to the president's political enemies who tell you he "doesn't get" business. They are biased, and can't tell you what he believes. Read his books which state in his own words what he believes.

You know what really hurts a campaign? Attacking your opponent on things he/she has said/done in the context in which it was said/done. Also, try catching your opponent in a lie, and bringing tangible proof. This twisting of words just makes campaigns look pathetic (on both sides, I might add. Though this one seems to be the twist of the week).

Dasvet...

All of us have roads, streets, police departments, so why isn't everyone a successful businessman?

First of all, women can not, without invasive surgery, become successful businessmen. You gave away more about yourself than you intended with that little "slip".

Secondly, most people who are successful in business are forward thinking and have a good idea. Using the words "communist" and "teleprompter" in your weak-minded argument proves that the only business sense you have is to ask folks, "Would you like to super-size your order."

People who repeat dishonest propaganda are thoughtless...and , as we have seen in a not so distant history, thoughtless people are good for one thing and one thing only...leading people to the gas chamber.

Are you paid well to lie, or are you just following orders, dasvet?

Tea Party,

ummmm...He was not quoted as saying "you didn't build that ALONE" He never said "ALONE". That was added by you. He said "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Period, end of sentence.

What he FAILS to mention is that EVERYTHING that the government has is made possible by tax dollars paid for by people AND business. Talk about distorting and misquoting.....sheez!

I would say that about 50% of the teabaggers misunderstood...when reading their posts, it is obvious that they have HUGE challenges with the English language and resent anyone who can use it properly.

The other 50% are just outright liars.

Either way...all 100% would be ashamed of themselves if their mothers would have raised them right.

And the Obamabot has spoken! If you don't agree, then you're a Teabagger. I think even your mother would tell you that just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them wrong and you right. I voted for the failed President sitting in the Whire House. I did it because I thought we needed change. I just didn't realize that change would be Obama splitting this country down lines of race and class. I just didn't realize Obama would sue to stop the states that acted to stop illegal imigrants from entering and thriving in this country when they could no longer wait for the feds to do their jobs. I just didn't know that Obama's policies would mirror the failed policies that have tanked the European Union. I did not know that Obama would spend more time campaigning than working on bringing us out of the economic doldrums. I did not know Obama would not address our out of control national debt. For the sake of this country, we cannot afford another 4-years of this failed presidency.

Perhaps hes referring to Mitt's 2002 acceptance of millions in federal bail out for the SLC Olympics?

Then you heard a different speech than I did.It was totally taken out of context and if you dont understand that your cognitive skills need development .He also took out of context a conversation he had with the foreign minister of Australia.Romney said he was criticizing Obama but he wasn't.The minister was furious and complained loudly.It makes me worry what the big mouth is going to do when he visits England ,Israel and Poland.And he solicited 1.4 billion$ taxpayer dollars for the Olympics.Good fix.

Perhaps Kath is referring to the gutting of company pension plans that Bain did while Gov. Romney was CEO. This put the burden of restoring privately paid for pensions on the US Taxpayer. I'd say that as CEO and sole shareholder that Gov. Romney benefitted from "government bailouts" since Bain Capital profited from that type of action.

And Kath never said that tax deducitons were illegal. Kath specified that Gov. Romney benefited from them. You know this is true simply because of the effective tax rate he showed in the two sets of taxes he has released.

Maybe he's talking about 31% of Romneys income being taxed at the capital gains rate of 15% when it's actually carried interest.

"Carried interest is not an investment," argues James Dodok, an investment adviser in Dayton, Ohio. "It is compensation to partners in exchange for their services."

If so, then carried interest should be taxed like employment income, at rates up to 35%. At least twice Congress has come close to raising taxes on carried interest but backed off, and President Barack Obama also has pushed for a change.

All of you b!tching about the tax thing need to address it with the people who write tax law. Only fools do not take their deductions.

Congress can't pass it because too many of them profit by it. Pelosi's husband case in point!

And he said the same thing when speaking to the Olympians!

Jean,don't let these two jackass' bother you .They are Nazi Trolls,not to be feared unless they have a machine gun.

It's just attempt to duck the Bain issue, but here is another example of how ignorant the RIGHT, they think businesses don't use publicly paid things and if they were not available the business would still have been viable. Talk about dumb.

Was it arrogant when Romney told athletes they didn't do it alone owing their success to parents, coaches and friends who supoorted them?

There is a difference between taking government handouts and having your friends, family, etc support you. In fact, if society went back to helping your neighbor, the governments would not have to be so involved.

What if I can't help my neighbor? What if my salary is just enough for me and my family to get by on? In my town the food banks are tapped out, the churches are tapped out so in some cases "helping your neighbor" isn't the answer.

Diane,

We are all part of Team America. We all do better when we work together as a team. Libertarians and conservatives don't want to help the team that they are on. They are only willing to help themselves. But if they want or need help, then they demand EVERYBODY helps them. They also believe that if they worked hard once, then that one time they worked hard justifies their increasingly excessive pay and benefits for life.

I would like to think we would all help our neighbors. But, not just our neighbors, but our neighbor's neighbors, too. And our neighbor's neighbor's neighbors, and so on. In other words, I would like to think we would help all people. Unfortunately, empathy and altruism are not qualities found in abundance among conservatives or libertarians. So, we are left having to fight against hunter/gatherer mentalities.

I got mine (or stole it) F-U. The modern Republick platform. Who took the government handouts, the ones they demanded or else they were going to take the whole economy with them? Who took stimulus funds, you know the often criticized stimulus the Chamber of Commerce (those commie bastards) overwhelmingly supported, the stimulus plenty of red states used to keep public service alive in their communities. Now, who built the laws that didn't raise minimum wages for over a decade, while taxes for upper crusters went down, and their "earnings" skyrocketed? Who used de-regulation to tank the economy? I know the baggers want you to believe Wall Street had nothing to do with the collapse of the economy and it was all those un-deserving home buyers fault.
Who has spent the last thirty years claiming the way you help poor people is to have rich people pay less? Who denigrates higher education as "liberal bias"? Who says public workers are leeches (what the hell are politicians)? Who is out to suppress voters rights?

Now the state of America, which Romoney claims is in decline, wasn't built with these ideas, we didn't build that, Republicks built that. They want to create a government they can own. They call some of what you have earned "entitlements" a hand out. Of course everything they "earned" was haaaard wooorrrrk. Some of them made money the old fashioned way, they stole it from poor people.

The real America is the one described in President Obama's speech, the one where even though the little people didn't create the mess we find ourselves in now, they have been and always will be the ones who pay the dues that count. We are the job creators. Or did you buy the BS that businesses hire people as a handout, instead of making profits off of their labors. (If you're a billionaire I can assure you, you didn't get there by your efforts ALONE).

Don't bother trying to get GOP fanboi tea-baggers to understand. Romney has been getting his ass kicked for the last 2 weeks and they are desperate for something.

How about this? You want to be president, show me your tax returns and money donor lists, then ill consider it. Until then, your just another shady wanna be business man trying to turn America into another business where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges."

Yeah, it was taxpayers and investors, you know those "evil" people who have money. Government simply distributes the money, the people doing the "investing" is still the people themselves.

Haven't you seen the signs "This road improvement paid for by the 1/2 cent sales tax."?

What business worries about roads and bridges when they are just starting? Well probably none.. Because we as a community, a county, a state, a nation, have banded together and have provided that infrastructure so that you can access your plant, ensure trained employees can reach your plant, receive raw materials, ship product, receive service and receive payment. Please tell me how your business would be successful if you had to fully fund that access to and from your physical plant? AND when this infrastructure fails, as an act of nature or God (Or even human error or deliberate destruction) Who rebuilds it and restores your ability to function as a business. I'll give you a hit... it wasnt you alone!

Please tell me how your business would be successful if you had to fully fund that access to and from your physical plant

Please tell me how government would be successful if businesses did not exist to start with.

Please tell me how the government can take credit for making "that" happen if it were not for the privately owned construction and paving companies that laid down the roads and bridges. Paving companies that in the end were paid tax dollars collected mainly from businesses and employees of those businesses.

Government builds nothing. The only business they are in is the US Postal Service and we know how successful they are at that. Wake up if not for Business government wouldn't couldn't exist.

Obama is a Marxist. His very own words prove it. He broke from the Telepromter and exposed the real person that he is. It's not a big surprise to most of us. We knew all along. Why do you think the economy still stinks. Businesses will never grow or even attempt to expand when they know a Marxist is in office.

No worries though. Obama will get fired in November!

What if your business is building roads and bridges?

Also, does EMDF9A's interpretation mean that if you do not own a business, you did, in fact, "build that"?

Seriously--are you paid to be on here and keep spewing this BS over and over again? You've repeated the same thing to the point of inanity by now, and it was a really weak point to begin with. You just sound like a petulant child trying to argue that Santa Clause really is really, really real uh-huh. Romney has jack to run on himself--a health care bill that was the inspiration for the one he now opposes, a ban on assault weapons that will piss off the NRA (while Obama has not taken one step toward limiting access to arms), and little to no interest in anyone who hasn't already made their millions off the back of everyone else.

The point of the speech stands--in making your business, you needed roads, you needed internet, you needed infrastructure. Had you needed to build all that yourself, you probably would no have built a business. That is part of why it is important for businesses and the wealthy to pay into the system--because they frequently are the ones who not only HAVE benefited from it the most, but CONTINUE to benefit the most from it. This dream where the rich are the downtrodden and put upon has run its course--ain't no one buying it anymore, schmecky.

Your GOP class on distortion, served you well

@ Pjam09

Tim Berners Lee DID NOT INVENT the Internet. He invented the system of linking hypertext documents into an information management system now known as the World Wide Web. To make it simple to understand, the WWW rides on the Internet.

The early Internet was developed in very large part by funding from ARPA, the US Advanced Projects Research Agency, which was and is an agency funded by the government you seem to despise. It later became DARPA, Defense ARPA.

Berners Lee did a lot of work at CERN learning and researching what he had to know to create hypertext and information exchange. Who do you think funded that research, Guys like Mitt Romney? No, CERN is a consortium of European governments created to do advanced atomic research.

The US government, by working with universities and letting contracts for equipment to business DID create a fertile and funded field for developing the modern Internet which was a spin-off of the ARPA net.

To be short-sighted and self-serving, as many hyper-influential business types are (Romney, Trump, Murdoch, Koch brothers, Foster Friess ) is not unusual, and they all would tell you that they single-handedly created every last penny of their wealth.

We live in a society that bases its success upon cooperation and sharing of resources. The government can and does accomplish tasks that no business would undertake since certain tasks would benefit others as much as a specific business. Pure capitalism is selfish, uncaring and narrowly focused. Just look at Romney's work history at Bain. The will and protection of the people stems from common governance and input from all quarters. The government is not always efficient, fair or timely, but it is a much better place to be heard than at a corporate annual meeting.

Yawn....

only parasites and marxists vote for the Stalinist Obama

And THIS is what is offered for actual reason--name calling and stupidity. Half you people wouldn't know Marxism if it walked up to you and punched you in the face. You spew crap you heard on the radio even though you don't know what it means and then stomp your feet and act like three year olds.

LOL, STALINIST?! Did he TAKE OVER the insurance companies? Nope.

Swing AND A MISS!!!

You wouldn't know Stalin if he took away your house, job, and car, and dumped you on a commune in Siberia.

Larry: You cannot exercise Free Speech here -- you will be collapsed by noon.

Why would Larry collapse by noon? Exercising free speech intelligently isn't THAT exhausting. (Oh, wait, I see your point.)

Simple way to avoid being collapsed is to not be incredibly rude, and to have a VALID AND RELEVANT POINT to the topic at hand.

Calling everyone who voted for Obama silly and inaccurate names is of NO VALUE.

Actually, Jobs did design a little hardware before Apple. And since he ripped off his best friend Woz in the early days, he had plenty of ME.

Thank you, Spence, for chiming in as a voice of reason.

Kudos Spence!

...another Vet.

Spence...so all the taxes paid by the generations of your family before you and you that built that infrastructure and paid for that GI grant mean nothing?

That is what people don't get. We paid for that infrastructure with our taxes and now Obama lords it over us as if the government somehow paid for and built all of it out of thin air. Pathetic BS!

hs321:

government = we the people

Obama thinks he's the government. And he certainly doesn't think he's anything as low as you and I, Peggy.

hs321,

What are you basing your ridiculous assertions on? And has any of the last three republican presidents been any better? Nixon thought he was above the law. Reagan negotiated with terrorists and traded weapons for hostages. GW Bush has a long list of things he said that demonstrated what you accuse Obama of.

Yes, he said what he said. Trouble is, your ilk keeps leaving part of his quote out, which changes the meaning. You are determined to do whatever you can to ruin this man, using all the lies and skullduggery you can come up with. Everyone knows the real reason you are against him and it's been that way from the start.

During the Presidents second term is when he is really going to apply himself and hopefully with a few more allies in Congress and stepping on some toes,get a whole lot more done.He will call the right wingers bluff,this time.Betcha 10,000$!!

patcee....how many times have I read something along the lines, "We know what you meant Mr. President..."? Too numerous to count.

Frank,

When you get degrees from Coulmbia and Harvard, then maybe you can say something about President Obama's brain. Otherwise you sound incredibly ignorant. Go take a history course if you want to know about Marxism.

By the way, for you and everyone else who have listen to the Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh rantings about Communism Marxism, Stalinism etc. ..Most Communist countries got that way by a revolution,or popular uprising, not a slow descent from democracy into socialism into communism. The reason the revolutions occur is because of a huge discrpeancy between the few very rich and the many very poor. We are getting closer to that discrepancy here. So you are right to be afraid of communism because your right wing buddies are creating the largest wealth gap this country has ever seen.

frank, barton and all who ignorantly smear and label falsely with no understanding of what you mean...I am so sick and tired of this "Marxist" labeling by right wing followers of speakers who spew misinformation and subtly alter the meaning of words to infer that something is other than what it actually was or is. You have completely blown it Republicans.

As far as your condemnatory use of this word, you are simply persecuting based on your ignorance and stereotyping. Those with an education must try to figure out what the bogeyman you are trying to describe actually is here. It certainly has nothing to do with a term from Economics, History or Sociology. You are making a monster of some kind to point fingers at to convince and rouse up your ignorant followers. So please help us by actually providing a further description of the monster you are talking about literally without using the bogus word.

I think you will end up describing a dictator who is ready to gobble everyone up and come closer to slavery, totalitarianism or fascism. It will be looking like complete control by a Power Elite. Thank you Renee above! This is always brought about by the polarization between the haves and have nots. The most important safety mechanism against that is maintaining a broad based middle class as has already been proved by history.

I demand that you define what you mean by Marxist. Can you define what is so good or bad about "Marxist"? What are you talking about with the persecution and pointed fingers as if the word Marxist is a dirty word and why? Your attempt to blacken a person of earned authority with a complete and stupid misnomer makes you look like a clown to anyone with above a high school education. It clearly reveals an incorrect, uninformed and elementary understanding of any kind of economic and industrial management of what is called capital. Period.

Go read something by the real Karl Marx, you can begin with the book Das Kapital. What is so bad about the description of how a factory works to create products and make money? Come on, tell me. I really want to know and so does everyone else who knows what they are talking about, and please do not continue to attempt to smear the president of my country, whoever it is, with your false BS any longer. If you have a valid complaint, with proof, if it is a real problem, bring it to the floor like everyone else in search of a change or a solution. Otherwise you have no constructive criticism or any valid issue at all, just a smear campaign for right wing ulterior motives like continuing to create this larger unfair wealth gap leading you closer to what you are trying to actually describe as your bogeyman.

If you will notice, you can count the number of times down through history that Republicans strike below the belt and attack the personal traits and character of the opponent. It is like a broken record, over and over, their main modus operendi. It is absurd that you can attempt to discredit a true scholar and legal expert who is very qualified and is our official elected President. It is also completely disrespectful of the office and the country, it is un-American to attack his personal traits, and completely different from debating the practice of governmental or political policy. Your party is so fragmented that it has crossed any decent ethical and credible lines and it had better start relying on things other than sentence structure, misnomers and brainwashing the ignorant if they want to be taken seriously by the majority of Americans.

When it comes down to it you cannot back up your definitions because you did not even do your homework to understand the rhetoric you listen to on talk radio. It is a tool of propaganda, right wing propaganda. What is heard on the news after that is an attempt to reveal what that propaganda is or consists of, a real and factual kind of damage control by educated and qualified news professionals who went to college and earned their degrees, and is not lies and garbage like that stuff the right wing extremists spew out in the first place.

Lastly, if you knew your simple sentence structure from English 101 and had a better sense of reading comprehension, you would see that the point President Obama is making is that, quite simply and literally from birth, "Man is a Social Being" (Durkheim), "No man is an island" (John Donne) and is in the same spirit of the quote by Hilary Clinton that, "It takes a village". So, tell us, what is so bad about that? Any day, I would choose cooperation, love, and peace over the war of all against all. For any civil society to function, peace is a requirement first and peace requires the trust earned from ethics and customs in common for the survival of its citizens. Its just common sense and logical reasoning, the kind that built our country over time. You can learn the foundations of that in Philosophy 101.

Please post your source Shaun. Thank you.

Matthew...Shaun doesn't understand the first thing about business. If he did, he would understand why those businesses were aloud to go under. He believes in this fantasy world where businesses never fail.

What would be more interesting is if he could post a link to all the business that have filed for bankruptcy, say in this last year of the Obama administration. You know, a year after Pelosi, Reid and Obama had complete control of DC.

They were all profitable when Bain bought them and then Mitt did his magic pulling out all the equities, overloading them with debt, firing all the staff and cannablized what was left before filing bankruptcy. Mitt was good that he has the distinct honor of having a whopping 25% bankruptcy rate for everything Bain owned. That is real leadership if your a vulture.

Extracting millions in fee's and special dividends does nothing to strengthen a company. This is how they did it at KB toys'

Put up 18 million and brought in investors for the rest to aquire KB toys. Took out a 65 million dollar loan on KB's assets paying it in a special dividend just to the Bain partners. Waited long enough a bankruptcy judge wouldn't claw back the money then filed bankruptcy citing excessive debt as cause. Net result.

Bain partners profit 47 million dollars above what they put up.

Remaining investors, suppliers and KB employee's receive little owed to them.

3700+ KB employees fired.

We understand exactly how Bain operates, that's the problem.

The Rest of the Story....

The GOP and republicans Privatize Profit while the Taxpayers unknowingly accept and finance the risk.

World Wide Grinding systems - renamed GS Technologies.

After Bain was through with them 750 people lost their Jobs

Pension benefits were cut in half - causing the government funded insurance to pony up more than 44 million dollars while Bain Walked away with over 12 million on a 8 million investment.

Seriously this behavior is acceptable to those on Wall Street but not a value asset for someone who wants to be the President of the United States.

That's why I say Romney and the Republicans are all about Privatized Profits while Taxpayers assume ALL the Risk.

Their methods are a 1% er's wet dream. Make the money leave the government to clean up the mess from their profit taking...not to mention all the unemployment, medicaid and food stamps that had to be paid out....Then blame the economic crisis of those that use them.....all while they laugh and drink martini's and get people to support eliminating safety nets.

Call it what you want but that is certainly not my vision of a leader

Romney said that years ago. So was Obama copying Romney's concept? Amazing how much they think alike isn't it?

Yes. Romney will run this country like a corporation. He will make sure the people that are not in upper management will lose all their benefits, get their pay cut, will have to work longer just to survive, and so on in order for him and those on the board, in upper management, his cronies, and so on, will get all the money that they saved the company by taking everything away from everybody else. Then he and his fellow elitists will complain about how lazy all the peasants are while siphoning as much wealth out of the economy and the country as they can.

patcee: the reason IMO is that they are liars. When we have a world with truth meters and number of Pinocchios a statement merits then people lie. We I am from if it isn't the truth, the whole truth (without having to extract it like teeth) and nothing but the truth then it is a lie, plain and simple. romney is lying and the entire GOP is lying about the statement and are clearly taking it out of context if the entire statement is heard including the voice inflection where it is obvious to any human that he was referring to the roads and bridges. QUESTION THE MOTIVES OF THOSE WHO TWIST THE TRUTH AND TWIST PEOPLE'S WORDS. QUESTION THE MOTIVES OF THE GOP! QUESTION THE MOTIVES OF THE LYING, CROOK ROMNEY WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN INTERACTION ENOUGH TO REALIZE (1) TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS REFERRING, AND (2) THAT TAKING A PERSON'S WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT AND TWISTING REALITY WITH NO REGARD FOR TRUTH OR BASIC COMMON DECENCY IS THE SIGN romney IS CLEARLY A SOCIOPATH. If my child lied like romney lies she would be punished. Thankfully she does not because she has morals which romney clearly does not. Release your tax forms so the rest of the World will know how big a crook you are. romney the crook. I figured it would take at least another generation from the time of Nixon the crook until the GOP nominated another crook but I was wrong because the GOP nominated another crook this year. romney the crook. Where is the crook going on his three nation tour? Bermuda, Cayman Islands and then stopping off in Switzerland?

patcee...."Super individualism only exists in books by Ayn Rand."

You know nothing of history. Many people came to this country before there was infrastructure and built roads, towns and businesses from the ground up, with absolutely no government assistance.

Super individualism, as you call it, is historical fact.

well the reality of the universe, as it exits by todays standards, is that roads, towns, business and buildings simply won't pop up without governmental authorities at play any more... we are nearly 250 years into this experimental democracy and to make believe that we can operate the country like it was 9 years old is absurd .....

Super individualism, as you call it, is historical fact.

Yeah! because the settlers didn't come in the Mayflower, they were great swimmers and swam all the way here in the middle of winter! because George Washington kicked out the British with his superpowers all on his own!

... hs231, go reread your history books.

Super individualism is the biggest load of crock invented by an ideologue with a extreme narrow view of the world. Super individualism is what is hurting us; thanks to Ayn Rand's BFF Alan Greenspan.

Absolutely, Whatsinaname et al...Alan Greenspan told us shortly before his retirement that his theory did NOT work after all, ooopsie! 5 presidents watched him work his magic. There is a kind of attention deficit disorder called selective listening among the Republicans. Where were all the trickle down laissez faire folks that day when he shrugged his shoulders and played the part of Atlas? Here is the Frontline documentary "The Warning". Please watch all parts, especially the ones with Greenspan admitting more than one time that his Objectivist philosophy did NOT work in economic practice due to human nature and the need for checks and balances!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXUQZP4mmwU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL9403D9E282A006E1

did you read the above article or did you hear his speech or are you going by what romney took a small part of the speech or do you watch the end of a movie then try to explain the whole movie then your like these guys ROMNEY AND BEANGRINDER its too bad we have two pansy-assed LOSERS

did you read the above article or did you hear his speech or are you going by what romney took a small part of the speech or do you watch the end of a movie then try to explain the whole movie then your like these guys ROMNEY AND BEANGRINDER its too bad we have two pansy-assed LOSERS

BeanGrinder,

I listened to it in it's entirety and heard that no one single business or business person built the infrastructure that makes our commerce possible. A large part of our infrastructure was created by government. I find it so appauling to read some of the right wing idiots comments here who can't comprehend that government functions (or should function) for the people. BTW, thank you first responders, firefighters, teachers, road builders, engineers and the lot for all you do. Without the government ensuring we have these critical peices in place, we'd be back to the age where private fire companies would watch the houses burn because no body immediately cut them a check. Certain things aren't always profitable, nor should they be. This "screw you, I got mine" attitude is not how this country was made great, but it will be it's downfall.

Here's a clue, Mike. Within Obama's speech, he deliberately demeaned businessmen/women in his continuing effort to promote class warfare. His theme is that those who make $250K plus should feel obligated to fork over even MORE money to feed his never ending need to spend MORE money.

Increasing taxes on the so-called rich would make no difference in our national debt. No more than a drop in the bucket. Indeed, Obama already has plans to spend it if he gets it. This is the most ignorant man we have ever put in the White House. Like others, I would dearly love to see his college transcripts, but his promise to be transparent doesn't extend that far......or anywhere for that matter.

By the way....Henry Ford built his cars......and his cars were responsible for the infrastructure of the roads. And today it's not some shadowy "government" that builds our infrastructure, it's our tax money!

I keep saying the FYIGM crowd can't understand what the message was really about and they continue to demonstrate their lack of understanding.

President Obama's message was about the interconnectedness of modern society. Yeah, Henry Ford built a lot of cars, and he deserves credit for hard work, dedication, and the ability to see something no one else saw. But without more and better roads he wouldn't have sold nearly as many.

Also, without a substantial base of people who were paid to build and maintain those roads there wouldn't have been nearly as many buyers. Without those roads AND the increasingly heavy machines to run on them we would never have developed a heavy trucking industry, intercity busing, a tourist industry based on travel, or even suburbs.

THAT is the meaning of the President's comments, and also the genius of America. He's referring to the brilliant tradition of a capitalistic society that also provides meaningful public inputs like infrastructure, education, and basic research as well as a reasonable level of regulation that prevents the uglier side of capitalism from getting out of control.

Let's see how it feels on Election Night, after he's made that concession call to wish President Obama well on his second term.

what kind of idiot thinks obama deserves re-election??

Why do you people keep quoting the same part over and over again when anyone with three IQ points can go back, read the entire passage, and see that you're leaving out the part that creates the context? Do you honestly believe that coming on here and repeating the same ridiculous bull@!$%# over and over again is going to somehow make it come true? Or are you seriously deluded enough to believe the crap you type?

you left the part that supposedly gives it a different context out too genius. what was the proper context? that people got help? big effin deal. you are another lib coward unable to admit he made the comment in context to his CURRENT plan to heap billions of new taxes on the wealthy and business owners; and his speech was just classic left-wing class warfare and trying to make people feel guilty, and others feel angry; that just got rejected this time. obama lost his mojo

methinks the leftard doth protest too much!

You know what you were told to hear, read the entire transcript before you make yourself look like an idiot.... oh wait, to late.

For pete's sake--you people are too freaking dense to even bother with.