Government Did Not Build Your Business

[chanel]

Huh? Of course it does. But it also benefits private businesses and the communities that host those businesses.

Here in NJ, Gov. Christie has asked all mayors to do the "yellow book test". If a service can be provided by private industry, rather than public employees, he wants them to consider 'outsourcing". He believes that will provide the needed service at a lower cost to the municipalities.

I have no problem with tax dollars being used to build roads and bridges. Very few people do. But private contractors do most of the actual work. That is what we call a partnership.

If Obama had his way, every bridge builder would be on the govt. payroll. Forever.

When has Obama ever proposed such a thing? You are just making shit up

It's called hyperbole rw. However increasing the federal workforce is one of Obama's goals. This is the man that said "The private sector is doing fine".

If another bridge collapses, you can bet your ass there will be a whole new bureaucracy in charge of fixing them. Wasn't that what the stimulus was supposed to do? Hmmm.

There is no doubt in my mind that European style socialism is his preferred form of government. And we will see him turn far left in the next four years, esp. if the Republicans don't take the Senate.

 

[Bfgrn]

I appreciate your time to do so.

This independent is voting for Romney as the best choice of the two for the next 4 years this time around.

Well, if you believe our founding fathers created a plutocracy, go for it. I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I've seen the catastrophic end result of two revolutions based on pure ideology and doctrinaire. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.

Out of the two choices, Romney simply posessing the keys to the office will instill confidence and free up capex.

Then jobs will follow.

Without that, the other stuff matters not.

Then we will see what the next choices are in four years.

It wasn't Reagan was so great. He wasn't Carter.

How cute. You mean Carter, the man who proposed a comprehensive energy policy that would have made two middle east wars that wasted 3 trillion dollars of our treasury and spilled the blood of thousands of our sons and daughters and innocent men, women and children unnecessary? Or Carter, the President who put Social Security on sound financial footing, so Reagan could loot it?

Hey, maybe Mitten will follow in Ronbo's footsteps, and help the self-employed small businessman by raising the self-employment tax 66 percent?

 

[Listening]

I don’t think those are good ideas. So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks. I don’t mind having that debate. But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security. (Applause.) So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.

No.

You miss the whole point.

Trust is low.

You bastards on the left had always taken this approach and gone back on your part of the bargain. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You want to have that debate. You can give the cuts to everyone and we will have the debate. Untill then take your lies and shove them up your skinny backside.

He doesn't think it's a good idea ?

Solyndra ==> Good Idea....

 

[rightwinger]

Huh? Of course it does. But it also benefits private businesses and the communities that host those businesses.

Here in NJ, Gov. Christie has asked all mayors to do the "yellow book test". If a service can be provided by private industry, rather than public employees, he wants them to consider 'outsourcing". He believes that will provide the needed service at a lower cost to the municipalities.

I have no problem with tax dollars being used to build roads and bridges. Very few people do. But private contractors do most of the actual work. That is what we call a partnership.

If Obama had his way, every bridge builder would be on the govt. payroll. Forever.

When has Obama ever proposed such a thing? You are just making shit up

It's called hyperbole rw. However increasing the federal workforce is one of Obama's goals. This is the man that said "The private sector is doing fine".

If another bridge collapses, you can bet your ass there will be a whole new bureaucracy in charge of fixing them. Wasn't that what the stimulus was supposed to do? Hmmm.

There is no doubt in my mind that European style socialism is his preferred form of government. And we will see him turn far left in the next four years, esp. if the Republicans don't take the Senate.

Bush increased the Federal Workforce. I have yet to see Obama propose it. Compared to the public sector which has been cutting jobs every month, the private sector is doing fine.

When, not if, another bridge collapses there will be a push for increased government inspections. I would guess it might be a hundred years since the last time government workers built a bridge. What makes you think they would do it now?

 

[Bfgrn]

Huh? Of course it does. But it also benefits private businesses and the communities that host those businesses.

Here in NJ, Gov. Christie has asked all mayors to do the "yellow book test". If a service can be provided by private industry, rather than public employees, he wants them to consider 'outsourcing". He believes that will provide the needed service at a lower cost to the municipalities.

I have no problem with tax dollars being used to build roads and bridges. Very few people do. But private contractors do most of the actual work. That is what we call a partnership.

If Obama had his way, every bridge builder would be on the govt. payroll. Forever.

When has Obama ever proposed such a thing? You are just making shit up

It's called hyperbole rw. However increasing the federal workforce is one of Obama's goals. This is the man that said "The private sector is doing fine".

If another bridge collapses, you can bet your ass there will be a whole new bureaucracy in charge of fixing them. Wasn't that what the stimulus was supposed to do? Hmmm.

There is no doubt in my mind that European style socialism is his preferred form of government. And we will see him turn far left in the next four years, esp. if the Republicans don't take the Senate.

Herein lies your problem...TRUTH vs. dogma

Bureau Of Labor Statistics: Government Employment Has Decreased By 608,000 Since Feb. 2009.

The Private Sector And The Public Sector Under Obama - Business Insider

 

[Listening]

Well, if you believe our founding fathers created a plutocracy, go for it. I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I've seen the catastrophic end result of two revolutions based on pure ideology and doctrinaire. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.

Out of the two choices, Romney simply posessing the keys to the office will instill confidence and free up capex.

Then jobs will follow.

Without that, the other stuff matters not.

Then we will see what the next choices are in four years.

It wasn't Reagan was so great. He wasn't Carter.

How cute. You mean Carter, the man who proposed a comprehensive energy policy that would have made two middle east wars that wasted 3 trillion dollars of our treasury and spilled the blood of thousands of our sons and daughters and innocent men, women and children unnecessary? Or Carter, the President who put Social Security on sound financial footing, so Reagan could loot it?

Hey, maybe Mitten will follow in Ronbo's footsteps, and help the self-employed small businessman by raising the self-employment tax 66 percent?

My recollection of history is that Carter totally miscalculated his Social Security fix saying it fixed things for 30 years. Within the first year of Reagan's presidency, they had to fix it again because it was in danger of going bankrupt.

This according to Sylvester S.'s book "The Real Deal", a very good history on Social Security.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don’t think those are good ideas. So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks. I don’t mind having that debate. But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security. (Applause.) So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.

No.

You miss the whole point.

Trust is low.

You bastards on the left had always taken this approach and gone back on your part of the bargain. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You want to have that debate. You can give the cuts to everyone and we will have the debate. Untill then take your lies and shove them up your skinny backside.

He doesn't think it's a good idea ?

Solyndra ==> Good Idea....

Actually I haven't missed the point at all. I have known all along who and what I am handing their head to...

Listening and friends...

 

[OODA_Loop]

How cute. You mean Carter, the man who proposed a comprehensive energy policy that would have made two middle east wars that wasted 3 trillion dollars of our treasury and spilled the blood of thousands of our sons and daughters and innocent men, women and children unnecessary? Or Carter, the President who put Social Security on sound financial footing, so Reagan could loot it?

No I mean Carter I didn't have a job and my investments were for shit.

And Reagan I had folks looking for me with jobs and 10% APR FDIC-insured Certificate of Deposits.

Same with Obama / Romney.

Absent a forced choice of the two, I don't particularly care for Romney but I do like to eat.

 

[chanel]

When has Obama ever proposed such a thing? You are just making shit up

It's called hyperbole rw. However increasing the federal workforce is one of Obama's goals. This is the man that said "The private sector is doing fine".

If another bridge collapses, you can bet your ass there will be a whole new bureaucracy in charge of fixing them. Wasn't that what the stimulus was supposed to do? Hmmm.

There is no doubt in my mind that European style socialism is his preferred form of government. And we will see him turn far left in the next four years, esp. if the Republicans don't take the Senate.

Bush increased the Federal Workforce. I have yet to see Obama propose it. Compared to the public sector which has been cutting jobs every month, the private sector is doing fine.

When, not if, another bridge collapses there will be a push for increased government inspections. I would guess it might be a hundred years since the last time government workers built a bridge. What makes you think they would do it now?

Bush is no longer president.

And the private sector is not "doing fine".

From CNN:

The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.

The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

 

[Listening]

I don’t think those are good ideas. So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks. I don’t mind having that debate. But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security. (Applause.) So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.

No.

You miss the whole point.

Trust is low.

You bastards on the left had always taken this approach and gone back on your part of the bargain. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You want to have that debate. You can give the cuts to everyone and we will have the debate. Untill then take your lies and shove them up your skinny backside.

He doesn't think it's a good idea ?

Solyndra ==> Good Idea....

Actually I haven't missed the point at all. I have known all along who and what I am handing their head to...

Listening and friends...

The black knight of Monty Python speaks again of victory.

You sound a lot like Chris these days. Your same tired links keep showing up time and time again. They get blasted and you just move on to post them again, knowing full good and well they are bull.

Why don't you just start a thread called Bfgrn's link box and we can deal with your "issues" once and for all. It will save bandwidth.

 

[Bfgrn]

No.

You miss the whole point.

Trust is low.

You bastards on the left had always taken this approach and gone back on your part of the bargain. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You want to have that debate. You can give the cuts to everyone and we will have the debate. Untill then take your lies and shove them up your skinny backside.

He doesn't think it's a good idea ?

Solyndra ==> Good Idea....

Actually I haven't missed the point at all. I have known all along who and what I am handing their head to...

Listening and friends...

The black knight of Monty Python speaks again of victory.

You sound a lot like Chris these days. Your same tired links keep showing up time and time again. They get blasted and you just move on to post them again, knowing full good and well they are bull.

Why don't you just start a thread called Bfgrn's link box and we can deal with your "issues" once and for all. It will save bandwidth.

I know none of your right wing peasants for plutocracy like to be exposed for who and what you are. But...that is exactly who and what you are. That is not my doing, it's yours.

You prove it ever single day. Maybe if you didn't open your pie hole, you could hide the truth. But it's too late for that.

There also one other thing about your arguments...Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

 

[Listening]

I know none of your right wing peasants for plutocracy like to be exposed for who and what you are. But...that is exactly who and what you are. That is not my doing, it's yours.

You prove it ever single day. Maybe if you didn't open your pie hole, you could hide the truth. But it's too late for that.

There also one other thing about your arguments...Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

Yes, still the Black Knight.

1. You've exposed nothing.

2. What's proven every day is that you appeal to the same tired worn out debunked myths time and time again.

3. Your claims of using logic and reason to bury people have yet to be realized. All you've done is make a laughing stock out of yourself.

You want to keep yacking about how smart you are....start a thread and stay on topic (if that is possible) and try not using the same tired crap you've used in the past.

Please....light it up.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I know none of your right wing peasants for plutocracy like to be exposed for who and what you are. But...that is exactly who and what you are. That is not my doing, it's yours.

I am just a middle class ham and egger who needs my wife and I employed to maintain food on the table and my way of life.

When you get to the most elemental of brass tacks......there is no other choice out of the two we have before us but Romney for some semblance of hope for returned economic prosperity. I am going with the warts the gives me the best shot to work.

I am an independent from an extended family and business community that feels exactly the same way.

 

[Listening]

I know none of your right wing peasants for plutocracy like to be exposed for who and what you are. But...that is exactly who and what you are. That is not my doing, it's yours.

I am just a middle class ham and egger who needs my wife and I employed to maintain food on the table and my way of life.

When you get to the most elemental of brass tacks......there is no other choice out of the two we have before us but Romney for some semblance of hope for returned economic prosperity. I am going with the warts the gives me the best shot to work.

I am an independent from an extended family and business community that feels exactly the same way.

And Bfgrn is a elitist self proclaimed intellectual whose shown she is anything but that.

The Paul Krugman types of the world who sit in ivory towers and think they can somehow manage people's affairs in a massive and complex economy have shown they are have little use for the realities of life.

The difference between a scientist and an engineer ? An engineer has to make money with it. Scientists often have no connection to cost.

That is why more engineers are conservative than not and more scientists are liberals than not.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

Let's be clear, are you saying the single sentence you took out of context is a stand alone? That the President was saying you didn't build your business?

The "Context" indeed IS ALL THERE. Particularly - when he starts the fortunate honesty with statements about how he's constantly struck by folks who think that because they worked hard or were smart that they were successful..

That sets the tone that all ALL SWEAT LABOR is equal because "a lot of folks work hard" or there's "a lot of smart people".. Not equal in the Operating Room that's for sure. And not equal to the risk and resolve display by the creators of the venture.

Because NONE of his juvenile observations about "roads and bridges" would mean anything until you set the tone that Innovation, Resolution, and Creativity and RISK don't matter. All that matters is sweat. Should be $10/gallon of sweat for everybody.

I've even got TereRun telling me that the Window Washers I hire by contract are as essential to the success of my business as my Board of Directors.

You folks are in severe triage spin mode. And you need to put down those Clintonian word parsers and READ THE MESSAGE in it's entirety. It's clear and it's becoming a classic.

 

[Listening]

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

Let's be clear, are you saying the single sentence you took out of context is a stand alone? That the President was saying you didn't build your business?

The "Context" indeed IS ALL THERE. Particularly - when he starts the fortunate honesty with statements about how he's constantly struck by folks who think that because they worked hard or were smart that they were successful..

That sets the tone that all ALL SWEAT LABOR is equal because "a lot of folks work hard" or there's "a lot of smart people".. Not equal in the Operating Room that's for sure. And not equal to the risk and resolve display by the creators of the venture.

Because NONE of his juvenile observations about "roads and bridges" would mean anything until you set the tone that Innovation, Resolution, and Creativity and RISK don't matter. All that matters is sweat. Should be $10/gallon of sweat for everybody.

I've even got TereRun telling me that the Window Washers I hire by contract are as essential to the success of my business as my Board of Directors.

You folks are in severe triage spin mode. And you need to put down those Clintonian word parsers and READ THE MESSAGE in it's entirety. It's clear and it's becoming a classic.

The real question is in my mind is that if "you didn't build that"...who does Obama think did ?

Obama could say that government facilitates business in that it can help with some swings of costs in infrastructure.

But the bottom line is that when a road gets built. It is built with the taxpayer dollars of the businesses who utilize it and the taxpayer dollars of the people who use it (who might work for those businesses). That road got build by taxpayer dollars.

Government builds nothing.

It might do some facilitation...but that is not what he is saying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

Let's be clear, are you saying the single sentence you took out of context is a stand alone? That the President was saying you didn't build your business?

Let's be clear, I challenge you to put that in context and prove that Obama is saying we should not tax people that are smart, work hard, and make a successful business that employs lots of people, more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People on the right have never really understood how markets work.

The goal of any business is to increase market share.

Shareholders want market share.

Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.

A monopoly is the point of building market share.

Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.

The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.

In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.

Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.

Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.

The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".

God help us.

I was going to reply to you intelligently, then I read your post.

You should post this in the appropriate forum.

ummmm...riiiight....Obama's a Communistmarxistkenyanmuslimapologist....but londoner's post should be in conspiracy theories?

BTW...Londoner? when you get responses like this? You've fucked with their world view and they don't know how to handle it.

Yep, I go all over the board calling Obama a communist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People on the right have never really understood how markets work.

The goal of any business is to increase market share.

Shareholders want market share.

Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.

A monopoly is the point of building market share.

Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.

The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.

In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.

Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.

Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.

The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".

God help us.

I was going to reply to you intelligently, then I read your post.

You should post this in the appropriate forum.

Conspiracy forum...really?

The modern corporation is the dominant form of business organization in the world today. Corporations' reach, however, is not limited to the business world. As they have multiplied in number, size, and power, corporations have also begun to exert extraordinary influence over the civic, economic, and cultural life of the human societies which host them. Although corporations are effective mechanisms for generating certain kinds of wealth, much of their influence can rightly be regarded as pernicious and even dangerous.

There are two linked problems with such concentrations of cor*porate power. First, that power increases corporations' ability to influence societal affairs, from fixing prices to altering laws. Second, while corporations and governments may have similar amounts of power, the latter are designed-at least nominally-to serve the public interest, and many are accountable to these publics. Because of shareholder pressures and other demands, most corporations today focus almost entirely on maximizing profits for their shareholders-and they do so primarily by externalizing as many of their social and environmental costs as possible.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995 - four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

Parasite hosts are generally helpless to alter the destructive behavior of the parasites that have invaded their systems-a limitation that is often fatal. Humans, in contrast, can regain control and shape the role of the corporation to benefit the host rather than destroy it.
more

Seriously, the problem with Londoner's position is that shareholders are not all about market share. This can easily be demonstrated that the only company that is currently a monopoly because it has no competition at all is losing value every day. That makes everything else he has to say, which is built on that assumption, wrong. That makes everyone who agrees with him wrong.

 

[Bfgrn]

I know none of your right wing peasants for plutocracy like to be exposed for who and what you are. But...that is exactly who and what you are. That is not my doing, it's yours.

I am just a middle class ham and egger who needs my wife and I employed to maintain food on the table and my way of life.

When you get to the most elemental of brass tacks......there is no other choice out of the two we have before us but Romney for some semblance of hope for returned economic prosperity. I am going with the warts the gives me the best shot to work.

I am an independent from an extended family and business community that feels exactly the same way.

Here is the problem. What we are experiencing as a nation has nothing to do with the last 3 years. The damage will take decades to repair. What we are experiencing as a nation and a society is the failure of the conservative era and policies over the last 30 years. The Reagan revolution with it's trickle down, top down, lick the ass of the opulent didn't work. It will never work. It didn't create jobs, it create wealth in the hands of a few. They could care less about you or me. They are investing overseas. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy only created massive DEBT. And, the 2000's dominated by Bush and Republicans created ZERO net jobs. ZILCH, NONE...

I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I could tell you what America was like for the middle class when liberals ran the government, but you wouldn't believe me.

Obama is not a very liberal Democrat. My old Senator from NY, Jacob Javits was MORE liberal than Obama.

Jacob Koppel "Jack" Javits (May 18, 1904 – March 7, 1986) was a politician who served as United States Senator from New York from 1957 to 1981. A liberal Republican

Here is an excerpt of a party platform from the mid 1950's...it is not the Democratic party...

HERE is what the Republican Party USED to stand for...

Excerpt from:
Republican Party Platform of 1956
August 20, 1956


Our Government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose.

The Republican Party was formed 100 years ago to preserve the Nation's devotion to these ideals.

On its Centennial, the Republican Party again calls to the minds of all Americans the great truth first spoken by Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

Our great President Dwight D. Eisenhower has counseled us further: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."

"We shall ever build anew, that our children and their children, without distinction because of race, creed or color, may know the blessings of our free land.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs-expansion of social security-broadened coverage in unemployment insurance - improved housing- and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

Labor
"Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country...they are America."

The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding...

Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years, to raise the continuing consideration of these problems for the first time to the highest council of Government, the President's Cabinet.... We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded polio.

Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.

We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater (R) Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement