Mitt Romney: Okay, businesses do need government, after all

[Murf76]

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

He was speaking from a Constitutional perspective, moron.

Eh, apparently you didn't read his next few posts. He's been hard at work defending the proposition that a person born impoverished in Detroit has the exact same chance of success as a person born a scion to a family fortune. He's offered no equivocation about it being a constitutional issue.

Go ahead, read his posts. Then tell the class who the moron is.

It's actually the Nanny-State which keeps the poor in poverty, not any class distinctions. Constitutionally, we don't have those; each citizen has the same value. IOW, we all are guaranteed the same "right to pursue happiness".

What gets in our way is our own government. In its efforts to ostensibly keep us all safe, it creates nearly insurmountable hurdles for the poor to engage in entrepreneurship. Licensing, inspections, insurance, taxation, etc.etc... these are all "start-up" costs which can easily prevent the poor from engaging with the selling aspect of the marketplace.

Think about this too... wealth is no barrier to poor outcome. Sage Stallone was just found dead a few days ago at the age of 36, and while toxicology reports are outstanding, some are guessing drug overdose. We see this sort of outcome quite a bit actually. It's not unusual for the children of the very wealthy to never recreate their parent's success.

In America, your value as a citizen is guaranteed. Your outcome is not. But if we want more opportunity for our poorest citizens, we need to get the nanny-state out of their way.


Let me just add another thought... Liberals appear to believe that Conservatives hate the poor. But in actuality, it is we Conservatives who love them most. Because it is we who want to give back to them the opportunities which are their birthright, and it is we who respect their value as citizens enough to trust that they'll make the most of it. Writing a check isn't love. Believing in your fellow man is.

 

[SniperFire]

Eh, apparently you didn't read his next few posts. He's been hard at work defending the proposition that a person born impoverished in Detroit has the exact same chance of success as a person born a scion to a family fortune. He's offered no equivocation about it being a constitutional issue.

Go ahead, read his posts. Then tell the class who the moron is.

I did. Everyone knows what he was talking about with the possible exception of you.

The moron would be you.

Oh really now? So when he used Sam Walton as an example, what he really meant to say was that Sam Walton had the same opportunities under the Constitution? When he said

"Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is."

He was referring to the Constitution?

Do you really wish to continue defending your position here?

Not bright, but then again we are used to your obfuscation and semantics.

I didn't say he was referring to the Constitution. I said he was speaking of equal opportunity from a Constitutional perspective.

Of course, you know that, as does everyone else, but you still choose to get your ass handed to you in failed argument.


LOL

 

[Vel]

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

He was speaking from a Constitutional perspective, moron.

Eh, apparently you didn't read his next few posts. He's been hard at work defending the proposition that a person born impoverished in Detroit has the exact same chance of success as a person born a scion to a family fortune. He's offered no equivocation about it being a constitutional issue.

Go ahead, read his posts. Then tell the class who the moron is.

You can try your best to drag this thread off topic as to the effects of poverty on future prosperity if you like. Will it be more difficult for a child born into poverty to succeed in this nation? Perhaps. Does that child have a chance in this nation to become fabulously wealthy? Absolutely. Does the child of the rich man have a chance to become fabulously wealthy? Absolutely. Does the child of wealth have an opportunity to squander the advantage his family gave him? Absolutely. See Sage Stallone for a very recent example. The point I was making that you're desperately trying to divert from, is that that government is not who is owed for success. If Steve Jobs children have an advantage, it was given to them, not by government, not by society, but by Steve Jobs. They have no more obligation to the infrastructure then anyone else.

 

[onecut39]

.

Funny thing is, none of us who were insulted by Obama's comments have claimed otherwise.

.

Then you shouldn't have been "insulted". Obama stated a fact.

The schism is the taxes to pay for all those services.

Like it or not..the government needs revenue to exist. And constant cuts in that revenue is patently stupid.

Giving away so much for free to needy people that do not need it and then finding mistakenly over paying in the billions is dumb and dumber!!
The taxes they have for the roads and bridges comes from ... ? So who did for who and if the government didn't make a road or bridge and company x saw they could make twice as much if the towns people didn't have to drive 5 miles out of the way to get to the store would invest their own money and build it.
Walmart was not a super walmart to begin with it saw the need and invested, took a chance .. government didnt say hey take a chance they might get a tax break here or there, but would still find a work around if there was a profit to be made.

Apparently you are completely ignorant of the infrastructure and tax breaks provided to Walmart stores. Walmart them proceeds to decimate small business in the area.

 

[8537]

He was speaking from a Constitutional perspective, moron.

Eh, apparently you didn't read his next few posts. He's been hard at work defending the proposition that a person born impoverished in Detroit has the exact same chance of success as a person born a scion to a family fortune. He's offered no equivocation about it being a constitutional issue.

Go ahead, read his posts. Then tell the class who the moron is.

You can try your best to drag this thread off topic as to the effects of poverty on future prosperity if you like. Will it be more difficult for a child born into poverty to succeed in this nation? Perhaps.

No, not perhaps. With certainty, everything else being equal.

Does that child have a chance in this nation to become fabulously wealthy? Absolutely. Does the child of the rich man have a chance to become fabulously wealthy? Absolutely. Does the child of wealth have an opportunity to squander the advantage his family gave him? Absolutely. See Sage Stallone for a very recent example. The point I was making that you're desperately trying to divert from, is that that government is not who is owed for success. If Steve Jobs children have an advantage, it was given to them, not by government, not by society, but by Steve Jobs. They have no more obligation to the infrastructure then anyone else.

No, the point you made is exactly what you stated. I can't be held responsible for what you meant to say, only what you said - and subsequently defended:

every single person out there has that same chance for success

Now, of course, you are equivocating and admitting it's not true. You could have saved us all a lot of time by admitting that in the first place.

 

[8537]

Not bright, but then again we are used to your obfuscation and semantics.

I didn't say he was referring to the Constitution. I said he was speaking of equal opportunity from a Constitutional perspective.

Well that's nice, but even the poster who made the statement disagrees with you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Here are two reasons I think people were upset by the Presidents comment. First they were snookered into believing that he was talking about the individuals business by the GOP echo Chambers' false narritive of the speech. Second, they simple hate the President and everything he says.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Snookered is right. And when it was pointed out to them, even some of the intelligent ones, they were either idealogically forced to ignore the facts or are just too embarrassed to admit their error.

 

[Stephanie]

Here are two reasons I think people were upset by the Presidents comment. First they were snookered into believing that he was talking about the individuals business by the GOP echo Chambers' false narritive of the speech. Second, they simple hate the President and everything he says.

oh for sure that HAD to be it...cause we all can't make out what that brilliant man says's or means..it's all our fault we just CAN'T understand the poor dear cause we all just HATE HIM

 

[J.E.D]

.

Funny thing is, none of us who were insulted by Obama's comments have claimed otherwise.

.

Then you shouldn't have been "insulted". Obama stated a fact.

The schism is the taxes to pay for all those services.

Like it or not..the government needs revenue to exist. And constant cuts in that revenue is patently stupid.

like it or not, we don't need this much bloated Government, this what we can't get through to some of you... then they need TO FIGURE out more ways to soak the people for MORE monies

and I was absolutly insulted to have our President say what he did...Obama believe we wouldn't BE where we all are IF IT WASN'T FOR Government..so don't try and blow smoke up our asses

Then I guess you don't "need" Romney either, since he agreed with Obama (whether you or he realizes it or are willing to admit it).

 

[J.E.D]

Mitt Romney: Okay, businesses do need government, after all - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

“There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That’s an important thing.”



"oops"

Now post the rest of it.

No need to -- Romney made Obama's point with that statement.

 

[Buford]

Mitt Romney: Okay, businesses do need government, after all - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

“There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That’s an important thing.”



"oops"

Now post the rest of it.

No need to -- Romney made Obama's point with that statement.

What is Obama's "point"?

 

[J.E.D]

Now post the rest of it.

No need to -- Romney made Obama's point with that statement.

What is Obama's "point"?

That businesses achieve success with the help of others -- teachers, employees, infrastructure and, yes, gov't -- and Romney agreed with him.

 

[Buford]

No need to -- Romney made Obama's point with that statement.

What is Obama's "point"?

That businesses achieve success with the help of others -- teachers, employees, infrastructure and, yes, gov't -- and Romney agreed with him.

I agree, we all have teachers, use roads, and some of us pay taxes including business owners while over 40% don't.

What's the point? Might as well say we all breathe clean air and drink clean water because we pay taxes to the EPA. What does that have to do with building a successful business? Obama states the obvious and some people get all warm and fuzzy and think the idiot is a damn genius.

 

[Murf76]

No need to -- Romney made Obama's point with that statement.

What is Obama's "point"?

That businesses achieve success with the help of others -- teachers, employees, infrastructure and, yes, gov't -- and Romney agreed with him.

No he didn't. As I pointed out earlier, Obama's statements were in the context of justifying his position on raising taxes. Romney's statements were in the context of defending business owners from additional taxation. What he's saying is that just because everybody has parents and teachers and whatnot, doesn't mean they didn't work for what they have and it doesn't mean that they owe more than what they're already paying.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

.

Funny thing is, none of us (outside of the standard hardcore absolutists, have fun with them) who were insulted by Obama's comments have claimed otherwise.

.

So what exactly was it they found insulting? That Obama was talking?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is Obama's "point"?

That businesses achieve success with the help of others -- teachers, employees, infrastructure and, yes, gov't -- and Romney agreed with him.

I agree, we all have teachers, use roads, and some of us pay taxes including business owners while over 40% don't.

What's the point? Might as well say we all breathe clean air and drink clean water because we pay taxes to the EPA. What does that have to do with building a successful business? Obama states the obvious and some people get all warm and fuzzy and think the idiot is a damn genius.

Good to see you are keeping up.

 

[tjvh]

.

Funny thing is, none of us (outside of the standard hardcore absolutists, have fun with them) who were insulted by Obama's comments have claimed otherwise.

.

So what exactly was it they found insulting? That Obama was talking?

Must be racism... Of course it is racism. Yep... It sure is racism. Racist, racist, racist, racism.

 

[J.E.D]

What is Obama's "point"?

That businesses achieve success with the help of others -- teachers, employees, infrastructure and, yes, gov't -- and Romney agreed with him.

I agree, we all have teachers, use roads, and some of us pay taxes including business owners while over 40% don't.

What's the point? Might as well say we all breathe clean air and drink clean water because we pay taxes to the EPA. What does that have to do with building a successful business? Obama states the obvious and some people get all warm and fuzzy and think the idiot is a damn genius.

Don't talk to me about it. Your beef is with Romney. He did, after all, agree with Obama

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is Obama's "point"?

That businesses achieve success with the help of others -- teachers, employees, infrastructure and, yes, gov't -- and Romney agreed with him.

No he didn't. As I pointed out earlier, Obama's statements were in the context of justifying his position on raising taxes. Romney's statements were in the context of defending business owners from additional taxation. What he's saying is that just because everybody has parents and teachers and whatnot, doesn't mean they didn't work for what they have and it doesn't mean that they owe more than what they're already paying.

What we have here is an edumacated nutter. Good command of the language,
capable of recognizing context.....and more than willing to lie in order to try and sway opinion on a message board.