Neither one of you has started and successfully operated a business.
Trust me, I can tell.[/quote]
Nor do I have an inkling of desire to.
But I do not live in some fantasy world where life would be just perfect without government. This is an argument that was settled thousands of years ago, and the right side won. It persists only in the perennially adolescent minds of people who read Ayn Rand when they were 15 and still draw comfort from pretending that they are captains of private industry. In my mind, it’s a way for someone who owns, say, a paper-clip company to feel heroic.
No offense intended to anyone who may be in the paperclip industry.
But the right is going to continue to whine about “you didn’t built that,” and the left is going to continue to vilify Romney for being a big bad rich guy, and the middle is going to continue to think that they are surrounded by loud clowns on every side. So I guess it’s pointless to go on about it.
How is your son, by the way? Back home and recovering?
But I do not live in some fantasy world where life would be just perfect without government. This is an argument that was settled thousands of years ago, and the right side won. It persists only in the perennially adolescent minds of people who read Ayn Rand when they were 15 and still draw comfort from pretending that they are captains of private industry. In my mind, it’s a way for someone who owns, say, a paper-clip company to feel heroic.[/quote]
Nice straw man argument.
Other than one or two posters on this site (extreme libertarian nuts) I’ve not read of anyone on any of these threads claiming that we want to do away with government.
But how about we have a smaller more efficient government?
Right now we have a President who is hell bent on growing government.
But I do not live in some fantasy world where life would be just perfect without government. This is an argument that was settled thousands of years ago, and the right side won. It persists only in the perennially adolescent minds of people who read Ayn Rand when they were 15 and still draw comfort from pretending that they are captains of private industry. In my mind, it’s a way for someone who owns, say, a paper-clip company to feel heroic.[/quote]
Nice straw man argument.
Other than one or two posters on this site (extreme libertarian nuts) I’ve not read of anyone on any of these threads claiming that we want to do away with government.
But how about we have a smaller more efficient government?
Right now we have a President who is hell bent on growing government.
I think there exists a happy medium don’t you?
[/quote]
For some reason I doubt that, should he win, Mitt Romney is going to give you the smaller, more efficient government you desire.
But anyway, yes I do agree with you. I would like to see government shrink. I also, though, think that it’s ridiculous to take offense at the notion that no man rises or falls alone in business or in life, which is what this whole discussion jumped off from. More broadly, I believe that the right has become infected with an insidious kind of self-aggrandizing arrogance masquerading as individualism. This manifests itself in the arena of foreign policy as an idiotic kind of jingoism, expressed invariably by old men (many of whom went out of their way to avoid having to go to war in their youth). But its domestic-policy version is probably even more egregious: this fantasy of the entirely self-made man, the lone heroic entrepreneur whose feelings must NEVER be hurt by the grubby socialists and their talk of the role of government infrastructure and security in private enterprise. Don’t EVER suggest that this self-reliant champion had even a sliver of help in his fabled journey to the top.
It’s a nice story, but it’s bullshit. Here’s why:
I grew up a house down from my best childhood friend, Andrew. By the time I was in high school, I had lived abroad and traveled to every continent but Antarctica. I was fluent in two languages and conversant in two more and I glided through school without an ounce of effort.
Andrew’s father lost his job and became addicted to painkillers because of an old injury. Mom was soon addicted too. He ate dinner at my house every single night, because he couldn’t stand the sight of his obese, indigent parents gorging themselves on drugs and cheap fast food. But they were his blood, so he spent high school pushing shopping carts around the parking lot of the local supermarket and surrendered his pay check to his parasitic parents every two weeks. By the time we graduated high school Andrew was living with his older brother; his parents got evicted and decided to leave suburban NY for Florida. On their way out of town, they stopped by their kids’ apartment and stole a bunch of kitchen appliances.
Both Andrew and I wanted to go to college; one of us did, the other didn’t. We both work extremely hard; one of us makes a little more than minimum wage, the other makes a whole lot more. One of us will continue to climb the economic ladder, the other isn’t sure if he’ll have enough money for both rent and food next month. One of us has ruinous credit, the other doesn’t. Can you guess which is which? I’d bet you can.
If I end up making it and becoming rich, I pray that I won’t be so fucking arrogant as to think that both my success and Andrew’s failure can be explained entirely in terms of individual ability.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I also, though, think that it’s ridiculous to take offense at the notion that no man rises or falls alone in business or in life, which is what this whole discussion jumped off from.[/quote]
So then, why is no one rushing to help out all those that failed? Why am I the one that has to sit and watch a 60 year old man that lost everything he had trying to save his company, keep food on the table for his 70 employees, cry in his office because he was ruined for trying to do the right thing.
Why is it that people feel entitled to think they had a hand in the success of those that made it, but are never there to comfort the pain of those that didn’t?
Is it the government’s fault he failed? Is it Johnny tax payer’s fault your friend didn’t go to school?
Well to that I say if all these people deserve praise for being the reason anyone makes it, then these same people deserve to suffer for those that didn’t.
So this man, the one who made it, hasn’t contributed to those very things you claim got him there?
Does this man get more or less benefit from his tax dollar than someone who pays less?
What is more burdensome and harder work: a) taking the private citizen’s money and paying a private company to pave a road, paying a private citizen to police that road or b) laying awake until 3am wondering how to cover payroll this week, chasing AR, paying vendors, balancing between customers, employees and ownership, developing a product or service to sell to the public that contributes to the public good, etc.
I find it funny that you are doing the same thing you are angry at the right for, just in the other direction. Simple fact is, had o worded the speech like say, JFK did, it would never had hit newspapers unless it was a national speech.
No one in their right mind is going to sit back and claim we don’t live in a society with many moving parts and we all interact with eachother, and it is that interaction that leads to your success or failure. No one. But there is a huge difference between “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and “you didn’t build that”. Either you refuse to see why people are upset about the latter, or you are guilty of playing partisian in the opposite direction.
I’ll admit I’m playing partisian. Because I fully, 100% believe o was pushing the idea of class warfare, to get the workers to vote for him.
[quote]It’s a nice story, but it’s bullshit. Here’s why:
I grew up a house down from my best childhood friend, Andrew. By the time I was in high school, I had lived abroad and traveled to every continent but Antarctica. I was fluent in two languages and conversant in two more and I glided through school without an ounce of effort.
Andrew’s father lost his job and became addicted to painkillers because of an old injury. Mom was soon addicted too. He ate dinner at my house every single night, because he couldn’t stand the sight of his obese, indigent parents gorging themselves on drugs and cheap fast food. But they were his blood, so he spent high school pushing shopping carts around the parking lot of the local supermarket and surrendered his pay check to his parasitic parents every two weeks. By the time we graduated high school Andrew was living with his older brother; his parents got evicted and decided to leave suburban NY for Florida. On their way out of town, they stopped by their kids’ apartment and stole a bunch of kitchen appliances.
Both Andrew and I wanted to go to college; one of us did, the other didn’t. We both work extremely hard; one of us makes a little more than minimum wage, the other makes a whole lot more. One of us will continue to climb the economic ladder, the other isn’t sure if he’ll have enough money for both rent and food next month. One of us has ruinous credit, the other doesn’t. Can you guess which is which? I’d bet you can.
If I end up making it and becoming rich, I pray that I won’t be so fucking arrogant as to think that both my success and Andrew’s failure can be explained entirely in terms of individual ability.[/quote]
I have a different story for you: two jewish brothers, grew up so poor they couldn’t afford shoes without holes in the soles. Both have 2 commas in their rainy day funds now…
I have a different story for you: two jewish brothers, grew up so poor they couldn’t afford shoes without holes in the soles. Both have 2 commas in their rainy day funds now…
Individual choices matter.[/quote]
For every story like yours there are a thousand like mine. And they are not mutually exclusive–they are both descriptive of reality. I recognize both realities. I suspect that you do too. My point is that the right refuses to acknowledge that Andrew didn’t have the shot that I had. I don’t even necessarily want anyone to do anything about it–I just want a spade called a spade. Burying your head in the sand is a shitty way to avoid sunburn.
I find it funny that you are doing the same thing you are angry at the right for, just in the other direction. Simple fact is, had o worded the speech like say, JFK did, it would never had hit newspapers unless it was a national speech.
No one in their right mind is going to sit back and claim we don’t live in a society with many moving parts and we all interact with eachother, and it is that interaction that leads to your success or failure. No one. But there is a huge difference between “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and “you didn’t build that”. Either you refuse to see why people are upset about the latter, or you are guilty of playing partisian in the opposite direction.
[/quote]
“No one in their right mind is going to sit back and claim we don’t live in a society with many moving parts and we all interact with eachother, and it is that interaction that leads to your success or failure.” This is exactly the sentiment that was being expressed in Roanoke. Exactly.
As for the rest of it, well you see class warfare and I see bad wording. Neither of us will change our minds. But I wonder: do you think the 47% thing was bad wording, or did Mitt Romney genuinely mean to say that disabled veterans who don’t pay income tax will never take personal responsibility for their lives?
I am consistent: I believe that Mitt Romney worded his thoughts badly in that instance, just as Obama had earlier (the only difference being that the rest of Obama’s speech helped his cause by clarifying exactly what he meant). I don’t hold it against Romney, I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I believe that the outrage over that comment is ridiculous and unwarranted. And I believe the same about the outrage over “you didn’t build that.”
But I do not live in some fantasy world where life would be just perfect without government. This is an argument that was settled thousands of years ago, and the right side won. It persists only in the perennially adolescent minds of people who read Ayn Rand when they were 15 and still draw comfort from pretending that they are captains of private industry. In my mind, it’s a way for someone who owns, say, a paper-clip company to feel heroic.[/quote]
Nice straw man argument.
Other than one or two posters on this site (extreme libertarian nuts) I’ve not read of anyone on any of these threads claiming that we want to do away with government.
But how about we have a smaller more efficient government?
Right now we have a President who is hell bent on growing government.
I think there exists a happy medium don’t you?
[/quote]
For some reason I doubt that, should he win, Mitt Romney is going to give you the smaller, more efficient government you desire.
But anyway, yes I do agree with you. I would like to see government shrink. I also, though, think that it’s ridiculous to take offense at the notion that no man rises or falls alone in business or in life, which is what this whole discussion jumped off from. More broadly, I believe that the right has become infected with an insidious kind of self-aggrandizing arrogance masquerading as individualism. This manifests itself in the arena of foreign policy as an idiotic kind of jingoism, expressed invariably by old men (many of whom went out of their way to avoid having to go to war in their youth). But its domestic-policy version is probably even more egregious: this fantasy of the entirely self-made man, the lone heroic entrepreneur whose feelings must NEVER be hurt by the grubby socialists and their talk of the role of government infrastructure and security in private enterprise. Don’t EVER suggest that this self-reliant champion had even a sliver of help in his fabled journey to the top.
It’s a nice story, but it’s bullshit. Here’s why:
I grew up a house down from my best childhood friend, Andrew. By the time I was in high school, I had lived abroad and traveled to every continent but Antarctica. I was fluent in two languages and conversant in two more and I glided through school without an ounce of effort.
Andrew’s father lost his job and became addicted to painkillers because of an old injury. Mom was soon addicted too. He ate dinner at my house every single night, because he couldn’t stand the sight of his obese, indigent parents gorging themselves on drugs and cheap fast food. But they were his blood, so he spent high school pushing shopping carts around the parking lot of the local supermarket and surrendered his pay check to his parasitic parents every two weeks. By the time we graduated high school Andrew was living with his older brother; his parents got evicted and decided to leave suburban NY for Florida. On their way out of town, they stopped by their kids’ apartment and stole a bunch of kitchen appliances.
Both Andrew and I wanted to go to college; one of us did, the other didn’t. We both work extremely hard; one of us makes a little more than minimum wage, the other makes a whole lot more. One of us will continue to climb the economic ladder, the other isn’t sure if he’ll have enough money for both rent and food next month. One of us has ruinous credit, the other doesn’t. Can you guess which is which? I’d bet you can.
If I end up making it and becoming rich, I pray that I won’t be so fucking arrogant as to think that both my success and Andrew’s failure can be explained entirely in terms of individual ability.[/quote]
What your seeing is a reaction to our President. Not just his comment, but the way in which he is growing government as if that alone is the answer to people’s problems. Usually it is the cause of many problems. Psych 101, a behavior rewarded is likely to be repeated. So, how do you get the many millions off the government dole? Not by giving them more.
Once again, I think the answer is somewhere down the middle.
More government only harms small business this I know after so very many years in business. However, I am not advocating no government. I just want it to be less intrusive. Let’s take good care of our senior citizens and the truly disabled. But those who are able bodied and have been milking the system need to take a hike.
Should Romney win (and there is a long way to go yet) I hope that he follows through in this direction. Someone starting a business should not have mountains of government regulation to overcome in addition to all of the many other challenges.
Many businesses were in fact built without any help from the government. And with little or no infrastructure. Just pick any of the start-ups in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. But we know for sure that government can get in the way and often does.
Has Obama made that better or worse for those small business people?
Worse, far worse by a long shot. And he’s done it not because he’s a bad person. He’s done it because he has no understanding of how small business works. But he does understand the power of government so he seeks to “help” with the only tools that he knows how to use.
More government only harms small business this I know after so very many years in business. However, I am not advocating no government. I just want it to be less intrusive. Let’s take good care of our senior citizens and the truly disabled. But those who are able bodied and have been milking the system need to take a hike.
[/quote]
What does this look like, in practical terms?
In fact, Mitt Romney has clearly expressed acceptance of the status quo regarding the safety net (“There’s a safety net for poor people. If it needs tweaking, I’ll do that, but it isn’t my concern.” Something to that effect). Let’s pretend he’s going to finally bring the conservative dream of dismantling the welfare state to fruition. What does it look like?
In other words: you’ve got a single mother of four kids who’s been living off of welfare for years. You and I would agree that she is living s contemptible life of dependency. What do you do with her? And, more importantly, what do you do with her children?
Are we talking about the checks simply ceasing to arrive in the mail here? Are we talking about kids going hungry? What exactly do you think Mitt Romney is going to change about the welfare state?
I find it funny that you are doing the same thing you are angry at the right for, just in the other direction. Simple fact is, had o worded the speech like say, JFK did, it would never had hit newspapers unless it was a national speech.
No one in their right mind is going to sit back and claim we don’t live in a society with many moving parts and we all interact with eachother, and it is that interaction that leads to your success or failure. No one. But there is a huge difference between “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and “you didn’t build that”. Either you refuse to see why people are upset about the latter, or you are guilty of playing partisian in the opposite direction.
[/quote]
“No one in their right mind is going to sit back and claim we don’t live in a society with many moving parts and we all interact with eachother, and it is that interaction that leads to your success or failure.” This is exactly the sentiment that was being expressed in Roanoke. Exactly.
As for the rest of it, well you see class warfare and I see bad wording. Neither of us will change our minds. But I wonder: do you think the 47% thing was bad wording, or did Mitt Romney genuinely mean to say that disabled veterans who don’t pay income tax will never take personal responsibility for their lives?
I am consistent: I believe that Mitt Romney worded his thoughts badly in that instance, just as Obama had earlier (the only difference being that the rest of Obama’s speech helped his cause by clarifying exactly what he meant). I don’t hold it against Romney, I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I believe that the outrage over that comment is ridiculous and unwarranted. And I believe the same about the outrage over “you didn’t build that.”[/quote]
Like ZEB said, it is just one glaring example in a sea of other evidence that o is, in fact, a progressive. And the only reason he hasn’t pushed the ideals further is because he wants re-election.
Again, you don’t hang out with communistist your entire life and write so well about them in your books because you are a hard line capitalist looking to score the awesome banana bread the pinkos bake…
Do I think that fear is overblown? eh… In some way yes, but in others no. Just like LBJ will be forever seen as the man that sealed the black vote for democrats for life, o seems to want to be the president that finally set the stage for full fledged decline into European style socalism…
Yes I think this is obama’s plan, and yes I think he wants to be seen as America’s savior from the evil of “capitalism” and I’ve never in my life hoped I was wrong more than I do now.
…My point is that the right refuses to acknowledge that Andrew didn’t have the shot that I had…
[/quote]
The solution is NOT to take money at the point of a gun from the Have’s and cradle-to-grave the Have-not’s in exchange for the Have-not’s’ votes.
[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SMH, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and predict you will someday have an epiphany ala 'Beans.
I believe you’re too smart to tiptoe through the liberal tulips for the rest of your life.
In fact, I guarantee it.
You’re going to get a few more years of Life under your belt then wake up one day with a different outlook. Trust me.[/quote]
I have already swung twice in my life: right in high school, left in college, and now somewhere pretty close to center. Yes, I lean somewhat to the left, especially on social issues (though not abortion), but I am all for a lot of the things that are popular on these boards.
If I do wake up a through-and-through conservative one morning, I promise I’ll come clean and let everyone know.
More government only harms small business this I know after so very many years in business. However, I am not advocating no government. I just want it to be less intrusive. Let’s take good care of our senior citizens and the truly disabled. But those who are able bodied and have been milking the system need to take a hike.
[/quote]
What does this look like, in practical terms?
In fact, Mitt Romney has clearly expressed acceptance of the status quo regarding the safety net (“There’s a safety net for poor people. If it needs tweaking, I’ll do that, but it isn’t my concern.” Something to that effect). Let’s pretend he’s going to finally bring the conservative dream of dismantling the welfare state to fruition. What does it look like?
In other words: you’ve got a single mother of four kids who’s been living off of welfare for years. You and I would agree that she is living s contemptible life of dependency. What do you do with her? And, more importantly, what do you do with her children?
Are we talking about the checks simply ceasing to arrive in the mail here? Are we talking about kids going hungry? What exactly do you think Mitt Romney is going to change about the welfare state?[/quote]
Of course I don’t know the answer to this question, but I do wonder how many “single mom’s” have live in boy friends who make pretty good bucks. And they either won’t get married so that she can stay on the dole, or they wouldn’t get married anyway (that seems quite popular these days). I only have seen personal instances that I’ve witnessed, but honestly how many women are living alone with x number of children? Not very many I bet.
So I say CUT EM OF!
The truly needy should be taken care of at a local level. Do you honestly think that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would approve of the US government handing out checks at the rate that we’ve reached?
This is a huge part of the problem and Obama only wants to make it worse. Because in his world it’s called “helping”.
They don’t call him the food stamp President for nothing. 47 million on food stamps and soon going to 60 million should Obama win a second term.
Honestly, how can any hard working American who pays his taxes vote for Obama? He is going to spend us into oblivion if given another four years.
More government only harms small business this I know after so very many years in business. However, I am not advocating no government. I just want it to be less intrusive. Let’s take good care of our senior citizens and the truly disabled. But those who are able bodied and have been milking the system need to take a hike.
[/quote]
What does this look like, in practical terms?
In fact, Mitt Romney has clearly expressed acceptance of the status quo regarding the safety net (“There’s a safety net for poor people. If it needs tweaking, I’ll do that, but it isn’t my concern.” Something to that effect). Let’s pretend he’s going to finally bring the conservative dream of dismantling the welfare state to fruition. What does it look like?
In other words: you’ve got a single mother of four kids who’s been living off of welfare for years. You and I would agree that she is living s contemptible life of dependency. What do you do with her? And, more importantly, what do you do with her children?
Are we talking about the checks simply ceasing to arrive in the mail here? Are we talking about kids going hungry? What exactly do you think Mitt Romney is going to change about the welfare state?[/quote]
Of course I don’t know the answer to this question, but I do wonder how many “single mom’s” have live in boy friends who make pretty good bucks. And they either won’t get married so that she can stay on the dole, or they wouldn’t get married anyway (that seems quite popular these days). I only have seen personal instances that I’ve witnessed, but honestly how many women are living alone with x number of children? Not very many I bet.
So I say CUT EM OF!
The truly needy should be taken care of at a local level. Do you honestly think that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would approve of the US government handing out checks at the rate that we’ve reached?
This is a huge part of the problem and Obama only wants to make it worse. Because in his world it’s called “helping”.
They don’t call him the food stamp President for nothing. 47 million on food stamps and soon going to 60 million should Obama win a second term.
Honestly, how can any hard working American who pays his taxes vote for Obama? He is going to spend us into oblivion if given another four years.[/quote]
There are many women living alone with children, especially in inner cities. In fact, single-mother households greatly outnumber traditional two-parent families in places like Bedford-Stuyvesant and Brownsville in Brooklyn. Again–what happens to these kids if their mother’s are cut off. Is the local economy going to be able to accommodate the massive influx of people looking for work? How many low-skill maintenance and janitorial jobs do you think exist in these kinds of places? Enough to pay everyone? What about kids whose parents are crack addicts. Should they be cut off too?
And again: do you believe Mitt Romney is going to make any kind of fundamental step in the direction that you prefer, given that he has already expressed an explicit acceptance of the status quo?