"You didn't get there on your own"

[buckeye45_73]

I have a question if a teacher makes that much of a difference, how come all their students dont succeed?

many do succeed, but it is up to the individual to make a success with the education provided.
i believe that more votech training should be included in school and a work study program to give youngsters training and experience.
here in our county the high school actually builds houses and sells them to support the votech section of the school. The jr college down the road builds houses that are alternative energy and takes them on tours to show to prospective buyers. The school was originally an engineer prep school for the NG engineer battalion attached to the college.
these kids get out of school with a trade and can build houses for a business.

couldnt agree more with the highlight, which is why it's nice to have support, but if you make it you own it and if you dont, you only have yourself to blame

 

[Dr Grump]

I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.

I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?

Do you have any idea how much those stop/go signholders actually make? I'll give you a hint... Davis-Bacon

So having no ambition or schooling pays!

 

[GuyPinestra]

So the United States DIDN'T steal the land from the Indians? Well, damn, son! Remind me to point this post out the next time you or one of your leftist butt-buddies tries to bemoan the "poor Native Americans" and how our evil nation screwed them over.

Meanwhile, what was the name of the government body that went out and built homesteads, planted crops, fought off raids and outlaws, started businesses, built up frontier towns, etc., and thus made the settlers successful? Oh, and that wonderful paved road the government built for the covered wagons to take west, what was that called again?
intercontinental railroad was financed by the governemnt, making it easier to travel west and to increase produce shipping for markets. then in your imagination, business built up all infastructure and if there was no infastructure business in the US would not suffer.
The Erie canal was the first govt. project to help transport goods. then came the military to help protect settlers and control the native poulation. The people back then wanted govt. to help establish themselves in hostile areas.
Don't think you're going to wander off down tangents and avoid the main topic, which is that PEOPLE built this country by starting businesses and engaging in commerce and busting their asses; GOVERNMENT didn't build it, and those few occasions - far, FAR back in the past - when government did something helpful - because it rarely does anything of the sort NOW - are a long, sad cry away from entitling Obama to claim any sort of share for the government in people's success.

No one has said that government did it all for business but you twisted fanatics. The main topic of the statement was collective commerce assistance to businesses for greater success.
And yes the land was forcibly taken by the US many times. Happened in many parts of the world back then, should we still be doing it to other nations,no, manifest destiny had to stop at some time.

but you may fly off any tangent you would like. it's just a discussion thread, don't have a cow, man.

Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.

As to the land, you need to make up your ******* mind. Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.

You can't have it both ways, sonny.

They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.

 

[Moonglow]

I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by the govt. saving me time and money.

 

[del]

I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.

I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?

Says the Australian parasite who mooches off others and has them pay for his wife's surgery. Seriously, why don't you get the **** off the US Message Board and make your ignorant, uneducated comments on an Australian site? What, do you suffer from American envy or something? You don't live here, you don't understand the issues, you don't understand what is going on - just go away.

Also, leave it to a liberal idiot to demean working. You mooch off the Australian government like the parasite you are while having the audacity to demean a person who works at a restaraunt, at a construction site, or at a factory? Unfuckingbelievable. What an asshole...

sensitive troll is crying.

rottweiler

more like a shit-tzu

tissue?

 

[Moonglow]

No one has said that government did it all for business but you twisted fanatics. The main topic of the statement was collective commerce assistance to businesses for greater success.
And yes the land was forcibly taken by the US many times. Happened in many parts of the world back then, should we still be doing it to other nations,no, manifest destiny had to stop at some time.

but you may fly off any tangent you would like. it's just a discussion thread, don't have a cow, man.

Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.

As to the land, you need to make up your ******* mind. Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.

You can't have it both ways, sonny.

They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.

The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.

 

[The Infidel]

Wow... we are going all the way back to the ******* CIVIL WAR to justify what Obama said????

Are you kidding me????

WAKE THE **** UP

 

[GuyPinestra]

Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.

As to the land, you need to make up your ******* mind. Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.

You can't have it both ways, sonny.

They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.

The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.

Shit dude, you were on the page, how'd you miss this part??

Pacific Railroad Act
Main article: Pacific Railroad Act

The Pony Express from 1860 to 1861 was to prove that the Central Nevada Route across Nevada and Utah and the sections of the Oregon Trail across Wyoming and Nebraska was viable during the winter. With the American Civil War raging and a secessionist movement in California gaining steam, the apparent need for the railroad became more urgent.

In 1861 Curtis again introduced a bill to establish the railroad, but it did not pass. After the secession of the southern states, the House of Representatives on May 6, 1862, and the Senate on June 20 finally approved it. Lincoln signed it into law on July 1. The act established the two main lines—the Central Pacific from the west and the Union Pacific from the mid-west. Other rail lines were encouraged to build feeder lines.

Each was required to build only 50 miles (80 km) in the first year; after that, only 50 miles (80 km) more were required each year. Each railroad received $16,000 per mile ($9,940/km) built over an easy grade, $32,000 per mile ($19,880/km) in the high plains, and $48,000 per mile ($29,830/km) in the mountains. This payment was in the form of government bonds that the companies could resell. To allow the railroads to raise additional money Congress provided additional assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants of federal lands. They were granted right-of-ways of 400 feet (100 m) plus 10 square miles (26 km2) of land (ten sections) adjacent to the track for every mile of track built. To avoid a railroad monopoly on good land, the land was not given away in a continuous swath but in a "checkerboard" pattern leaving federal land in between that could be purchased from the government. The land grant railroads, receiving millions of acres of public land, sold bonds based on the value of the lands, sold the land to settlers, used the money to build their railroads, and contributed to a rapid settlement of the West.[9] The total area of the land grants to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific was even larger than the area of the state of Texas: federal government land grants totaled about 5,261,000,000 square meters and state government land grants totaled about 1,983,000,000 square meters.[10] The race was on to see which railroad company could build the longest section of track and receive the most land and government bonds.

The bonds and land grants have been frequently characterised as a government subsidy. However, historian Stephen Ambrose has argued against this since the companies repaid both the capital and interest.[11] He also argues that although the companies were able to sell the land grants in the Sacramento Valley and Nebraska at "a good price", most of the land in Wyoming, Utah and Nevada was "virtually worthless".[12]

 

[The Infidel]

I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by the govt. saving me time and money.

All that is good and fine, but NONE of it would be possible without the hard work, of your fellow Americans in the private sector... we pay for the military, we pay for the grants, we pay for everything the gov't "gives".
The gov't does not exist w/o us, the tax payers, and of course capitalism

 

[Clementine]

.

Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."

On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.

This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.

Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.

Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'

.

I think Obama is comparing his life to others. He didn't get where he is on his own. He should thank people, like Soros or Ayers, every day for his position.

He didn't earn the peace prize either and should thank others for handing to him for doing nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?

I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...

this is your brain on auto pilot

They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.

Arguments all suck? Are you insane?

No, I'm utterly rational. It's a curse when you live in an insane society.

 

[bripat9643]

In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.

Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.

The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society. Our society is doomed. I hold out no hope for it. This election is capitalism's last stand. Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.

That's only if we let them. If we force them to take personal responsibility and fend for themselves like big boys and big girls, then they won't be able to collapse our nation. If we keep pandering to them, then you are correct...

They outnumber us. The government takes your money and then uses it against us to promote its growth at our expense. Once the process is set in motion, it's irreversible. That's what the history of the 20th century shows. That's why the idea of "limited government" is a farce. It's purely a temporary state of affairs. It's unstable.

 

[Moonglow]

I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by the govt. saving me time and money.

All that is good and fine, but NONE of it would be possible without the hard work, of your fellow Americans in the private sector... we pay for the military, we pay for the grants, we pay for everything the gov't "gives".
The gov't does not exist w/o us, the tax payers, and of course capitalism

Yes, but the government also works to help business.

 

[bripat9643]

The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society. Our society is doomed. I hold out no hope for it. This election is capitalism's last stand. Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.

Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme

The truth of the matter is obvious. Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by the govt. saving me time and money.

All that is good and fine, but NONE of it would be possible without the hard work, of your fellow Americans in the private sector... we pay for the military, we pay for the grants, we pay for everything the gov't "gives".
The gov't does not exist w/o us, the tax payers, and of course capitalism

Yes, but the government also works to help business.

No, it doesn't.

It works to help ITSELF.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

 

[Moonglow]

The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society. Our society is doomed. I hold out no hope for it. This election is capitalism's last stand. Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.

That's only if we let them. If we force them to take personal responsibility and fend for themselves like big boys and big girls, then they won't be able to collapse our nation. If we keep pandering to them, then you are correct...

They outnumber us. The government takes your money and then uses it against us to promote its growth at our expense. Once the process is set in motion, it's irreversible. That's what the history of the 20th century shows. That's why the idea of "limited government" is a farce. It's purely a temporary state of affairs. It's unstable.

Every superpower has gone through this. Our trade deficit has destroyed jobs becuase of cheap imports.The economics of supply and demand are stagnant when consumers buy fewer products produced in the USA.
The devaluation of the dollar which happens during recessions is an attempt to lessen that debt and create jobs, by being more competetive in the price of consumer goods exported.
The fact that free trade agreements have severly hurt the economy and companies move to produce goods cheaper and send them here, so the companies that were here are part of the problem with trade imbalance and loss of jobs.
that is why reds and blues are both promoting made in the USA, trying to get people to buy more American made products to support our economy.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.

As to the land, you need to make up your ******* mind. Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.

You can't have it both ways, sonny.

They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.

The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.

All the government transcontinental railroads went bankrupt shortly after they were completed. They were rife with corruption and outright fraud. The construction was so shoddy that most of the line had to be rebuilt before they could be operated profitably.

 

[Moonglow]

They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.

The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.

All the government transcontinental railroads went bankrupt shortly after they were completed. They were rife with corruption and outright fraud. The construction was so shoddy that most of the line had to be rebuilt before they could be operated profitably.

Thank the railroad companies.
it was around the time of when grant was a republican president and his administartion was rife with corruption and fraud also.

 

[bripat9643]

The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.

All the government transcontinental railroads went bankrupt shortly after they were completed. They were rife with corruption and outright fraud. The construction was so shoddy that most of the line had to be rebuilt before they could be operated profitably.

Thank the railroad companies.
it was around the time of when grant was a republican president and his administartion was rife with corruption and fraud also.

Whenever government decides to subsidize private businesses, corruption is always the result, but somehow the liberal always finds a way to blame business. Corruption is the inevitable result of giving away other people's money. It goes along with government subsidies just as STDs go along with promiscuity.

The bottom line is that the government transcontinental railroads were financial disasters. I always laugh whenever I see liberals touting them as great examples of the benefit of government subsidizing business and "investing" in infrastructure.

 

[bripat9643]

They outnumber us. The government takes your money and then uses it against us to promote its growth at our expense. Once the process is set in motion, it's irreversible. That's what the history of the 20th century shows. That's why the idea of "limited government" is a farce. It's purely a temporary state of affairs. It's unstable.

Every superpower has gone through this. Our trade deficit has destroyed jobs becuase of cheap imports.The economics of supply and demand are stagnant when consumers buy fewer products produced in the USA.
The devaluation of the dollar which happens during recessions is an attempt to lessen that debt and create jobs, by being more competetive in the price of consumer goods exported.
The fact that free trade agreements have severly hurt the economy and companies move to produce goods cheaper and send them here, so the companies that were here are part of the problem with trade imbalance and loss of jobs.
that is why reds and blues are both promoting made in the USA, trying to get people to buy more American made products to support our economy.

My point went right over your head.