Someone else made that happen?

jcp026 · 07-26-2012, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

I think he's way off base. The early settlers in America tried the 'commune' style of living. It didn't work because somebody thought, hey, I can work twice as hard and reap twice the reward. If the other guy works half as hard and reaps half the reward so be it. To be sure Americans are THE MOST GENEROUS PEOPLE ON THE PLANET, but I'll work hard and make twice as much. THAT, my friend, is the true American Spirit.

What Obama overlooks completely as he's trying to sell his point is risk. Small business owners take risk. LOTS of risk. He's not stupid. He knows that. But that fact doesn't fit his agenda.

Yes, we rise and fall together. Nobody went to the moon on his or her own, but if I may, I think he's expanding severely on the point for the sake of making a point. Some people DID get there on their own, and to that end I think Danno makes an excellent point in his Saints comparison.

Look, my grandpa drove a truck for a living. He hauled supplies to a military base, and before that he hauled logs. Later he took a job driving a truck for a Conoco distributorship and later, Conoco asked him if he wanted to buy it. He did. And a man with a 7th grade education did very well. Who helped him? The guy who built the road he drove his truck on? Is that Obama's point? Because if it is I'm not buying it.

Funny story about Gramps. He is a Dem. As mad as I've EVER seen him was when I got arrested. The only other time I ever saw him even close to that angry was when he was stopped hauling gas one day by a State Trooper. He was given a ticket because the trooper said his tire treads were too worn.

"That little son of a *****! I was driving a truck before his damn parents were born. I've hauled fuel and have had wrecks in that truck. I know how dangerous it is. That little bastard is going to tell ME when I need new tires?"

LOL. Telling the story here doesn't do it justice at all. That's the "big" government I loathe. Somebody needed to make a rule so somebody could sell more tires I guess. Maybe the Firestone folks were lobbying heavy that year, I don't know. It's just damn silly.

Now, the liberal will say the government should protect us from the evil trucker who is recklessly driving around trying to kill people on bald tires. And look, I know that the government has to monitor and regulate things, but I know you get my point.

My grandpa got out of the Gas business because big government made it too challenging to make a living at it. He retired and built apartments. 50 and counting, and oh my GOD you wouldn't believe the tax he has to pay on those apartments. And here comes Obama wanting more? And he justifies it by playing on American Patriotism? He talks about sending a man to the moon? Who does he think he is, JFK?

Hoover Dam? The Golden Gate? Depression era projects that created jobs. More tax on small business? Not even close. No relation. Period. Sorry Mr President, but sell it somewhere else, 'cause this here white boy ain't buyin'.

But, to be fair Romney said the same thing.

I think there's a misconception out there. A misconception about what liberals "want." There's a narrative that going back to a 39.6% tax rate for income over $250K (from 35%) is somehow a step down the slippery slope to socialism and then fascism is bogus. When Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (I almost put Howard) maintained a 90%+ tax rate for the highest earners because he thought the debt was important. He's the last Republican president to have balanced budget also. All, I think, liberals want right now is an acknowledgement that our nearly $16,000,000,000,000 is a problem and we can't JUST cut our way to fiscal sanity. What liberals want is a government that is, at least, top 5 in the world in education. An EPA that has the tools to actually protects the environment and an MMS that isn't in the pocket of the oil industry.

I think I'll be branded "a liberal" for wanting those things, but how do they differ from conservatism? An efficient, effective government that is responsible to ALL THE PEOPLE instead of the wealthiest of the wealthy, sounds like conservatism to me and I doubt any of you disagree with it. A balanced budget, or even a budget surplus, if it goes to paying down the debt. Real Liberty for everyone, in the sense that the the government can't tell you who you can/can't marry. If we ban same-sex marriage...or even polygamy for that matter, it IS on religious grounds and IS religious persecution. Any disagreement there?

If anyone remembers my posts from a different thread, you know I know you know I know we can fix this. And we don't need solutions that fit neatly under the umbrella of big government and we do not need solutions that jive completely with the mantra of slash and burn. Effective. Efficient. Responsive.

07-26-2012, 06:29 AM	#16
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953	Originally Posted by saintfan I think he's way off base. The early settlers in America tried the 'commune' style of living. It didn't work because somebody thought, hey, I can work twice as hard and reap twice the reward. If the other guy works half as hard and reaps half the reward so be it. To be sure Americans are THE MOST GENEROUS PEOPLE ON THE PLANET, but I'll work hard and make twice as much. THAT, my friend, is the true American Spirit. What Obama overlooks completely as he's trying to sell his point is risk. Small business owners take risk. LOTS of risk. He's not stupid. He knows that. But that fact doesn't fit his agenda. Yes, we rise and fall together. Nobody went to the moon on his or her own, but if I may, I think he's expanding severely on the point for the sake of making a point. Some people DID get there on their own, and to that end I think Danno makes an excellent point in his Saints comparison. Look, my grandpa drove a truck for a living. He hauled supplies to a military base, and before that he hauled logs. Later he took a job driving a truck for a Conoco distributorship and later, Conoco asked him if he wanted to buy it. He did. And a man with a 7th grade education did very well. Who helped him? The guy who built the road he drove his truck on? Is that Obama's point? Because if it is I'm not buying it. Funny story about Gramps. He is a Dem. As mad as I've EVER seen him was when I got arrested. The only other time I ever saw him even close to that angry was when he was stopped hauling gas one day by a State Trooper. He was given a ticket because the trooper said his tire treads were too worn. "That little son of a *****! I was driving a truck before his damn parents were born. I've hauled fuel and have had wrecks in that truck. I know how dangerous it is. That little bastard is going to tell ME when I need new tires?" LOL. Telling the story here doesn't do it justice at all. That's the "big" government I loathe. Somebody needed to make a rule so somebody could sell more tires I guess. Maybe the Firestone folks were lobbying heavy that year, I don't know. It's just damn silly. Now, the liberal will say the government should protect us from the evil trucker who is recklessly driving around trying to kill people on bald tires. And look, I know that the government has to monitor and regulate things, but I know you get my point. My grandpa got out of the Gas business because big government made it too challenging to make a living at it. He retired and built apartments. 50 and counting, and oh my GOD you wouldn't believe the tax he has to pay on those apartments. And here comes Obama wanting more? And he justifies it by playing on American Patriotism? He talks about sending a man to the moon? Who does he think he is, JFK? Hoover Dam? The Golden Gate? Depression era projects that created jobs. More tax on small business? Not even close. No relation. Period. Sorry Mr President, but sell it somewhere else, 'cause this here white boy ain't buyin'. But, to be fair Romney said the same thing. I think there's a misconception out there. A misconception about what liberals "want." There's a narrative that going back to a 39.6% tax rate for income over $250K (from 35%) is somehow a step down the slippery slope to socialism and then fascism is bogus. When Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (I almost put Howard) maintained a 90%+ tax rate for the highest earners because he thought the debt was important. He's the last Republican president to have balanced budget also. All, I think, liberals want right now is an acknowledgement that our nearly $16,000,000,000,000 is a problem and we can't JUST cut our way to fiscal sanity. What liberals want is a government that is, at least, top 5 in the world in education. An EPA that has the tools to actually protects the environment and an MMS that isn't in the pocket of the oil industry. I think I'll be branded "a liberal" for wanting those things, but how do they differ from conservatism? An efficient, effective government that is responsible to ALL THE PEOPLE instead of the wealthiest of the wealthy, sounds like conservatism to me and I doubt any of you disagree with it. A balanced budget, or even a budget surplus, if it goes to paying down the debt. Real Liberty for everyone, in the sense that the the government can't tell you who you can/can't marry. If we ban same-sex marriage...or even polygamy for that matter, it IS on religious grounds and IS religious persecution. Any disagreement there? If anyone remembers my posts from a different thread, you know I know you know I know we can fix this. And we don't need solutions that fit neatly under the umbrella of big government and we do not need solutions that jive completely with the mantra of slash and burn. Effective. Efficient. Responsive. saintfan likes this.
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953