Obama: Wealthy aren't responsible for their own success

[AG_Styles]

If getting the tax write off's and grants is so easy, I sure as hell would be setting up my small business there in a heartbeat.

Maybe it's easier for bigger corporations, but it sure as hell aint easy as a small start-up.

Well, we could all move to Montreal for corporate tax breaks.

[Antonito]

Gotta love out of context quotes. Here is a larger excerpt:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

So yes he would be a disingenuous asshole if all he had said was the quote provided in the OP (and in the hilariously biased article linked). Once you actually read the full speech you see he is talking about the contributing factors, not that the government does everything for everyone

Originally posted by m10-power


Microsoft
Apple

Computer based companies building on government researched technology using labour educated to a high degree by a generally government-aided education system

Originally posted by m10-power


Ford
...

If automakers would have had to foot the bill to create roads like train companies did to build the track system we might still be a train-centric society. As it was the government outlaid Billions of dollars (back when spending Billions was equivalent to spending Trillions today) to create a workable road/highway/interstate system to make cars a viable option

This all worked out to our benefit, not saying any of this is bad. That's the point actually. The government often steps in when private industry can't muster up the capital/cajones to do the ground work on major innovations, then private industry can take those building blocks and grow.

[msommers]

What makes me laugh is how many people think because a new guy is in power that the whole country is going to be turned upside-down. You do realize that it will take quite a time for that person's plans to actually take any real effect. You can't magically turn a country that was down in the shitter back to amazing in one presidential term. That whole idea is hard for Americans to grasp. Then again, I'd love to see an IQ test attached to each vote and see what the average was. Yikes.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Edit: Also he isn't incorrect. There isn't one company in the world that was built by a single persons efforts. You need proper contacts, and/or the government.

Bullshit, I know of several, including my own that were built just by shear hard work by one person, from nothing.

Microsoft and Apple owe a lot of their success to Xerox.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by Maxt
Bullshit, I know of several, including my own that were built just by shear hard work by one person, from nothing.

You've never been given a helping hand by anyone? Never got a loan? Never been provided an opportunity from a friend? Never used someone else's invention? Never relied on anything but your own two hands?

Give me a break.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by msommers
What makes me laugh is how many people think because a new guy is in power that the whole country is going to be turned upside-down. You do realize that it will take quite a time for that person's plans to actually take any real effect. You can't magically turn a country that was down in the shitter back to amazing in one presidential term. That whole idea is hard for Americans to grasp. Then again, I'd love to see an IQ test attached to each vote and see what the average was. Yikes.

Which makes 4 year term is really BS.

Obama only got 2 years when he need to learn the ropes and get shit done. He has been a lame duck for the last year and this year due to lost of Congress to GOP and re-election.

If he wins, he still be a lame duck for 2 more years until Dem get Congress back in 2014. If Romney wins, he's a lame duck too unless GOP got the senate as well.

And since nobody ever break ranks and cross the floor, nobody can ever get anything done. American federal government is dysfunctional and highly inefficient.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Maxt

Bullshit, I know of several, including my own that were built just by shear hard work by one person, from nothing.

Microsoft and Apple owe a lot of their success to Xerox.

your not exactly the megalomaniac ultra rich and powerful corporate giant we are worried about.

Vanderbilts, Rockafeller, Edison, "the seven sisters", United fruit company, Coke, Pepsi etc.... all examples of dirtbag scoundrel criminals..... thats only the ones who's history I have looked into.

And today, we are surrounded by it.

I'm not worried about the guy down the street that owns a paving company, fridge repair service, or a couple subway franchises.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Eleanor
You've never been given a helping hand by anyone? Never got a loan? Never been provided an opportunity from a friend? Never used someone else's invention? Never relied on anything but your own two hands?

Give me a break.

None of your examples support an argument that the government, and not entrepreneurs, is the job creator. Even if someone did get a helping hand from someone, an opportunity from a friend or a loan, it doesn't mean the government made that happen.

Sure, having customers detemines how well a business does, but there would be no business in the first place unless someone put in the time and took the risk to start it. It is basically saying that none of you hard work or sacrifice means anything because someone else patronizes your business.

[Toma]

Governments provide stable currency, economy, market, trade rules, taxes, access to land, resources, infrastructure, tariffs etc that allow business to operate.

Governments also do the jobs that MUST be done for society to function, even if it is not profitable or even if they lose money.

A corporation will do whatever it can to make a profit, with as small a workforce as possible.

When oil/gas, and the tar sands were non profitable, it was the government that pushed on, developed, built, tested, did the r&d and developed extraction methods at the U of A.

Even today they give massive tax breaks, incentives, and "royalty holiday".

Without government, business could not/would not function on a moral level.

Most of Humanity's greatest innovations were all a result of passion, or maybe search for fame, and not driven by money. Whether Tesla, Einstein, Plato, Socrates, Salk, the plow, the wheel, Watson and Crick, Davinci etc....

The silly notion that we need money or business to drive us is astoundingly narrow minded.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by FraserB


None of your examples support an argument that the government, and not entrepreneurs, is the job creator. Even if someone did get a helping hand from someone, an opportunity from a friend or a loan, it doesn't mean the government made that happen.

Sure, having customers detemines how well a business does, but there would be no business in the first place unless someone put in the time and took the risk to start it. It is basically saying that none of you hard work or sacrifice means anything because someone else patronizes your business.

That's not what he was saying at all.

That one sentence, out of a 45 minute speech, came out somewhat ambiguous and could be interpreted on its own as meaning that. The context of the whole speech makes it clear that his comment meant that success comes from collaboration with others. That effort may come from employees or suppliers or contractors and yes, maybe the government too. Unless your business is a lemonade stand that you built yourself, your business relies on the work of others - to at least some degree. Shit, even the lemonade stand relies on others. Did you grow the lemons yourself? Refine the sugar? No.

His point in that paragraph is that you can't do much if you don't take assistance (whether you pay for it or not) from others.

His broader point is that "trickle down" economics disproportionately benefit the people at the top. "Let's give the super-rich carte blanche to do whatever they want - I'm sure that will make the world better for everyone!"

All of this is to support one point - he wants to continue a tax break given to the first $250,000.00 of income earned. The rich aren't exactly getting shafted. They benefit exactly the same as everyone else does. They don't pay as much tax on the first $250,000.00 of income. Yes, it does shift overall tax revenue towards the richest because they have money they make beyond that that they do pay more tax on, but too bad - that's life.

Implementing marginal tax rates is just a recognition of obvious truths - If everyone paid 25% tax across the board without any exception that would affect the poorest the most - it would push a lot of the people just able to cover their expenses over the edge so that they lose their housing. The middle class are affected somewhat - now they don't have much disposable income to spend in the economy with more of their income going to necessities, and the richest? Well, they're still super-rich and get more money to sock away or invest with no guarantee that this money will do anything to assist the overall economy.

Relieving the tax burden on the low and middle income earners allows them succeed, have money to sustain them over a job loss, and to have money to spend on consumer items - which does stimulate the economy.

Shifting the tax burden somewhat towards the wealthiest makes them grumble and complain, but does it hurt the overall economy? Not as much as the failure to have a resilient low and middle class - where 98% of the population is.

Warren Buffet agrees with this, and he's one of the richest motherfuckers around. So really, is what he said completely out of touch and an insult to entrepreneurs? No, in fact, maybe it helps entrepreneurs. Apparently entrepreneurial success is born out of previous failures. Supporting lower income earners allows an environment for the entrepreneurial to get something going, and cushions them when they have inevitable failures, shortening the time until they get to try again.

[DRKM]

OP: Read the whole quote. Its called being informed. You are not. When you read something that seems controversial look into multiple sources before posting up your outrage.


Guy who made his own business:

Who made the roads to your business? The police that protect your building? The firemen? The currency?

What he is asking for is for people to pay taxes who make over 250k.

Do you think that it is right that Apple a company that has the same rights as a citizen of the US, pays a marginal tax rate of 9%?

Or that warren buffet pays less tax then his Secretary?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Considering the 9% is probably a massive and unimaginable amount of money.... more than all the tax you will pay in your entire life, so yes. Never mind the fact they provide employment and technologies that enrich everybodies lives.

High income people should be taxed a less higher percentage, any idiot can tell you that 50% of 50K is less than 1% of 1M. Why should somebody who works their ass off carry everybody else... where is the equality in that? We all use the roads, we all need police to keep order... yet despite that, some people pay more just because they are more motivated.

Yeah... let's penalize the hardest working people the most, damn socialists.

lol, wut??? did you really type that?

what you said is exactly why high income earners should pay more taxes. 30% tax makes a heck of a lot more difference to a family making $40,000/year than it does to some old guy making $400,000/year.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Why should somebody who works their ass off carry everybody else... where is the equality in that?

The day that this is true is the day we start paying teachers, paramedics, day care moms, the guys working overtime to make sure there is clean water for NW Calgary to drink, etc. etc. etc. $300,000/year. Truth is, there are a lot of folks who work their ass for rather menial pay, and make a giant contribution to society by doing that. Not everyone is out to make as much money as possible. That's a really, really ignorant view to think that high income earners are "working their ass off to carry everybody else."

who is teaching these high income earners' neglected children how to read???

[effingidiot]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Considering the 9% is probably a massive and unimaginable amount of money.... more than all the tax you will pay in your entire life, so yes. Never mind the fact they provide employment and technologies that enrich everybodies lives.

High income people should be taxed a less higher percentage, any idiot can tell you that 50% of 50K is less than 1% of 1M. Why should somebody who works their ass off carry everybody else... where is the equality in that? We all use the roads, we all need police to keep order... yet despite that, some people pay more just because they are more motivated.

Yeah... let's penalize the hardest working people the most, damn socialists.

There's no relationship between hard work and baller earnings. Also, hard work != scams, which is what the majority of top 1% in US seems to specialize in. But nevertheless, you're doing a very good job of taking things out of context.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Eleanor
You've never been given a helping hand by anyone? Never got a loan? Never been provided an opportunity from a friend? Never used someone else's invention? Never relied on anything but your own two hands?

Give me a break.

No, no, no, unreasonable question and yes...
Give me a break..

[Go4Long]

Gotta love bias. Obama I think is the lesser of two evils in that race.

Romney's a fuckin tool. I just hope people see through his bullshit enough to know that it's bullshit. He claims he's going to close tax loopholes for the rich...the tax loopholes he's been using pretty much since he took off the training wheels. He's the exact problem he's claiming he's going to fix.

[psycoticclown]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


High income people should be taxed a less higher percentage, any idiot can tell you that 50% of 50K is less than 1% of 1M.

Err... isn't 50% of 50k more then 1% of 1 mil?? 25000 > 10000...

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Toma

Even today they give massive tax breaks, incentives, and "royalty holiday".

Please enlighten us on this comment Toma. I love how you just spew your opinion out as fact but would love some real facts. Does the AB gov't offer royalty holidays? Which tax breaks are you referring to? What type of incentives?

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Considering the 9% is probably a massive and unimaginable amount of money.... more than all the tax you will pay in your entire life, so yes. Never mind the fact they provide employment and technologies that enrich everybodies lives.

High income people should be taxed a less higher percentage, any idiot can tell you that 50% of 50K is less than 1% of 1M. Why should somebody who works their ass off carry everybody else... where is the equality in that? We all use the roads, we all need police to keep order... yet despite that, some people pay more just because they are more motivated.

Yeah... let's penalize the hardest working people the most, damn socialists.

Poor people argue rich should be tax. Intelligent people understand that the poor wanr the rich get screwed for working hard. Although your post is half retarded, especially with the math, I would agree with the opinion.

There should be a limit to the amount of taxes an individual citizen can pay. If someone makes $100billion why should they have to pay a % of that when the gov't isn't making them any better off then the individuals paying a % of their $30,000 salary. Income redistribution...bunch of bullshit.

[CokerRat]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
...any idiot can tell you that 50% of 50K is less than 1% of 1M.

I have some bad news for you.