"You didn't get there on your own"

[thereisnospoon]

The cost to treat a broken arm is exactly the same regardless of who pays for it. If the patient pays only $8 and it costs $8,000, somebody else is paying $7,992. You cannot eliminate the cost of anything simply by shuffling around who the payee is going to be.

Oh no!!! With Obama care, the government will pay for the care.
Didn't you know that?
Throughout Obama;s sales pitch for ACA, he made the case for controlling "cost"...Not true. ACA controls the "price" not the cost.
ACA is nothing but a government mandated price control for medical care. And that applies only to certain individuals. For the rest of us, the price of care rises. And rises dramatically. We all end up with the same care. Rationed care. While half of the population will pay nothing, the rest of us foot the entire bill..
Now, the price may be one thing. But the cost of medical care, research and development of new technologies, medicines and procedures continues to rise. There is nothing that can be done to prevent that. ACA will also attempt top control the flow of money into medicine. Essentially the entire medical industry will fall under control of the federal government. And when that happens, we will end up with Western European style socialized medicine. Which is GARBAGE.

 

[KGB]

The "Class warfare strategy" isn't working. The latest Gallup poll is a testament to Obama's failure to make Romney's wealth an issue.

And other polls show that the average blue collar working is not going to be cheering The O on like they did last time. His popularity is dropping like a stone.

"An overwhelming majority of voters – 75 percent – say that Mitt Romney’s $200 million net worth makes no difference in their choice between him and President Barack Obama, according to a new Gallup poll.

Meanwhile, 20 percent of voters say Romney’s wealth makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Breaking it down by party affiliation, among Republicans, 89 percent say Romney’s riches make no difference, 8 percent say they are a reason to vote for him, and 4 percent say they are a reason to vote against him. Among Democrats, 62 percent don’t care about Romney’s wealth, 37 percent say it’s a negative factor, and 1 percent say it’s positive.

The sentiment of independents may be most important, as they are likely to decide the election’s outcome. In this demographic 76 are indifferent to Romney’s wealth, 19 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Gallup: Majority Say Romney’s Wealth Won’t Affect Their Vote

Gallup: Majority Say Romney?s Wealth Won?t Affect Their Vote

Insert links, not just references or posts will be deleted. Thanks.

the reason why people don't care about Romney's wealth is that they are too concerned about protecting their own....

 

[regent]

of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even a million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!

I said, now pay attention little boy, if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!

You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.

Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??

I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder. Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.
But the following quote is from the Ford internet site:

"Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, gentle correction here. Because government got away from the gold standard and the concept of balanced budgets, government DOES fund a lot of things by printing more paper money that devalues the money in circulation and by borrowing money a lot of which comes from countries that do not have our interests at heart. So we and those who follow us are saddled with the very real effects of inflation plus a crushing debt that we will be generations paying off. A debt that will compromise America's sovereignty if we do not bring it under control now.

But almost all infrastructure is built with tax dollars paid.

It was the willingness of the individual to risk whatever capital they had and/or to gamble their credit rating and their future on loans that depended on their personal success to be repaid that 'built that'. Whatever previous generations have done, the guy who takes the plunge and risks everything he has to open an automotive repair shop or open up a bakery or start a janitorial service are the people who 'built that' and who are 'building that'. It is because they risk, they gamble on themselves, then and now, that people have jobs, that taxes are paid, and that infrastructure exists.

I watch new infrastructure going in all the time and in every case it is because new businesses and new housing projects are being built, not because government is making it happen.

Fair points;

However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...

Yes. Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity. It doesn't create it. Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses. If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.

I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fair points;

However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...

Yes. Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity. It doesn't create it. Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses. If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.

I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.

Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home. It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that allows people to have jobs. And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs. And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes. And I also built my business.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes. Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity. It doesn't create it. Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses. If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.

I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.

Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home. It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that allows people to have jobs. And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs. And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes. And I also built my business.

No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder. Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.
But the following quote is from the Ford internet site:

"Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."

I doubt that is from the Ford website. Ford never made such a claim. He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.

Do you have a link?

 

[bripat9643]

No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.

Wrong. It's done all the time.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder. Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.
But the following quote is from the Ford internet site:

"Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."

I doubt that is from the Ford website. Ford never made such a claim. He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.

Do you have a link?

Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release

Next...

 

[Foxfyre]

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.

Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home. It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that allows people to have jobs. And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs. And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes. And I also built my business.

No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.

But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others. And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary. It really is not a chicken and egg thng. It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.

First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure. And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school. Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel. Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc. Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.

It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads. Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.

Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Fair points;

However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...

Yes. Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity. It doesn't create it. Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses. If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.

I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.

Just another step toward the agenda's end game. You vote for a Democrat you vote for loss of freedom and opportunity. Absolute Misery.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home. It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that allows people to have jobs. And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs. And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes. And I also built my business.

No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.

But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others. And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary. It really is not a chicken and egg thng. It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.

First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure. And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school. Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel. Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc. Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.

It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads. Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.

Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.

Not all infrastructure is for businesses. NOW what???

 

[Londoner]

Obama shows a weakness of the Left. They've been asleep for 30 years. While the Right has spent the last 30 years paying smart people to describe the power of markets to create the most efficient and morally upright outcomes, the Left can't explain the Hoover Dam, nor its multiplier effect

 

[copsnrobbers]

One Trillion Dollar Stimulus and nothing but more debt and misery.

No they didn't get there on there own.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home. It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that allows people to have jobs. And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs. And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes. And I also built my business.

No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.

But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others. And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary. It really is not a chicken and egg thng. It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.

First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure. And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school. Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel. Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc. Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.

It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads. Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.

Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.

First the American military conquered the native Indian population to make it safe for the homesteaders to settle the new lands.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes. Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity. It doesn't create it. Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses. If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.

I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.

Just another step toward the agenda's end game. You vote for a Democrat you vote for loss of freedom and opportunity. Absolute Misery.

RUBIO: We chose more GOVERNMENT instead of more FREEDOM. RUBIO: We chose Mitt Romney

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder. Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.
But the following quote is from the Ford internet site:

"Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."

I doubt that is from the Ford website. Ford never made such a claim. He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.

Do you have a link?

Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release

Next...

There's no quote of Henry Ford saying that. Your article also states that the reason for the wage increase was to reduce worker attrition.

While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high

 

[Barb]

I doubt that is from the Ford website. Ford never made such a claim. He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.

Do you have a link?

Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release

Next...

There's no quote of Henry Ford saying that. Your article also states that the reason for the wage increase was to reduce worker attrition.

While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high

In 1913, to help meet the growing demand for the Model T, Henry Ford turned his attention to improving the manufacturing processes. The business model Ford developed—production on a grand scale, performed by well-paid workers—spread throughout the world and became the manufacturing standard for everything from vacuum sweepers to cars, and more.

The $5-a-day Workday

After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another transformative idea: in January 1914, he startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers. The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from nine to eight hours). While this rate didn't automatically apply to every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage.

While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high—newspapers from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill.

Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever.

duh

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.

Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home. It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that allows people to have jobs. And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs. And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes. And I also built my business.

No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.

You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts.
First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth.
Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab.
In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust.
In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.
You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home. It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that allows people to have jobs. And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs. And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes. And I also built my business.

No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.

But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others. And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary. It really is not a chicken and egg thng. It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.

First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure. And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school. Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel. Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc. Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.

It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads. Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.

Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.

The development of the City of Las Vegas is the perfect example of private money building something out of nothing.
Now, we will see the excuses fly. Starting with "But that..."...Watch.