"You didn't build that" is Obama's precise belief.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Somebody pitched those homers.

You didn't know that babe Ruth invented baseball himself, taught everyone else how to play, build every stadium and maintained the fields along with making every baseball & bat, all the while working the camera to film his own newsreels?

 

[Krotos]

I'm not so sure there would be price hikes. There wouldn't be any more money printed, so that's out. Price hikes only happen when there is no competition.

And when demand exceeds supply, which is what I'm talking about.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I note that no one waited around for government to create a game...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You didn't know that babe Ruth invented baseball himself, taught everyone else how to play, build every stadium and maintained the fields along with making every baseball & bat, all the while working the camera to film his own newsreels?

And only a Librul like yourself would sit on the bleachers at the park and watch the grass grow. Growing grass is all you got without the player with initiative.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

"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.

"The point is, when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Now that the statement is in context, it makes a lot of sense. The United States is not just a bunch of individuals. The President said nothing remotely implying that a successful business person did not build their own business. Just by repeating that tripe you undermine everything else you post.

E Pluribus Unum

It's obvious what the POTUS say saying. He wants everyone to know that Government was partially (or in whole) responsible for our success. Therefore, Government can tax our success because, after ll, we should be grateful to the government for making our success possible.

A typical Lib will always point to someone making us successful. But the same typical Lib never points to someone )or some entity) that is responsible for preventing success, or for causing people to bad things.

Government cannot have it both ways. If they take credit for our success, they must also take credit for our failures. But they wont and don't.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And when demand exceeds supply, which is what I'm talking about.

Which in most cases is pure fantasy. Do you really think the price of making a car would rise that drastically? Or an iPod? Or whatever you can think of? The only price that might really shoot up is gas.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It's obvious what the POTUS say saying. He wants everyone to know that Government was partially (or in whole) responsible for our success. Therefore, Government can tax our success because, after ll, we should be grateful to the government for making our success possible.

A typical Lib will always point to someone making us successful. But the same typical Lib never points to someone )or some entity) that is responsible for preventing success, or for causing people to bad things.

Government cannot have it both ways. If they take credit for our success, they must also take credit for our failures. But they wont and don't.

Businesses don't pay taxes.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Henry Ford did not create the automobile because Eisenhower created the Interstate to make sure he could get Forts Leavenworth and Riley to the coasts...

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Businesses don't pay taxes.

Was that sarcasm, or not?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Was that sarcasm, or not?

It's 100% true.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

It's 100% true.

Even if it were true, what does that have to do with the topic?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Even if it were true, what does that have to do with the topic?

You tell me. You brought it up.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

You tell me. You brought it up.

Please quote me then. I do not know what you are talking about.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It's obvious what the POTUS say saying. He wants everyone to know that Government was partially (or in whole) responsible for our success. Therefore, Government can tax our success because, after ll, we should be grateful to the government for making our success possible.

A typical Lib will always point to someone making us successful. But the same typical Lib never points to someone )or some entity) that is responsible for preventing success, or for causing people to bad things.

Government cannot have it both ways. If they take credit for our success, they must also take credit for our failures. But they wont and don't.

Quoted.

 

[Liar]

It's obvious what the POTUS say saying. He wants everyone to know that Government was partially (or in whole) responsible for our success. Therefore, Government can tax our success because, after ll, we should be grateful to the government for making our success possible.

A typical Lib will always point to someone making us successful. But the same typical Lib never points to someone )or some entity) that is responsible for preventing success, or for causing people to bad things.

Government cannot have it both ways. If they take credit for our success, they must also take credit for our failures. But they wont and don't.

Should a venture capitalist take credit for the faliure of a company they have invested money in?

 

[Krotos]

Which in most cases is pure fantasy. Do you really think the price of making a car would rise that drastically?

No, but manufacturing costs are not the only determining factor. When demand rises, so do prices. That's why the price of oil (and wheat) goes ever up and up- it is driven by rising demand. Its prices fall when an economic crisis hits and demand decreases- with very little relation to mining and refining costs.

Thirty million people suddenly getting $ 100 000 each, and most families buying a new car. Suppose, being on the conservative side, it translates into demand for five million additional cars. What's available for sale right now would be gone within days, and the vendors realize that the next ten shipments are pretty much guaranteed to sell out, too. So they'll raise the prices, to squeeze maximum gain from this short-lived yet massive spike in demand. The manufacturers and importers, swamped by sudden and urgent orders for additional cars, will do the same, and you have a price hike across the board extending all the way to the mining companies providing the initial raw materials. This will be further augmented by consumer psychology; a person with $100 000 that has just fallen into their lap will not, on average, be as fussy about the purchase price as the person who saved penny to penny for years to arrive to that sum.

Finally, is the idea itself that different from printing money? Where does the rich people's money intended for confiscation actually reside? If it is is the kind of money that sits idle as savings or as cash in a safe until confiscated, it's still lots of money previously excluded from the market suddenly made available to the market, and the result is still massive depreciation. The mechanism is exactly the same- supply exceeds demand, resulting in decrease of value. If the confiscated money was invested somewhere, it's going to be pretty damn tricky to confiscate and redistribute without gutting the economy.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, but manufacturing costs are not the only determining factor. When demand rises, so do prices. That's why the price of oil (and wheat) goes ever up and up- it is driven by rising demand. Its prices fall when an economic crisis hits and demand decreases- with very little relation to mining and refining costs.

Thirty million people suddenly getting $ 100 000 each, and most families buying a new car. Suppose, being on the conservative side, it translates into demand for five million additional cars. What's available for sale right now would be gone within days, and the vendors realize that the next ten shipments are pretty much guaranteed to sell out, too. So they'll raise the prices, to squeeze maximum gain from this short-lived yet massive spike in demand. The manufacturers and importers, swamped by sudden and urgent orders for additional cars, will do the same, and you have a price hike across the board extending all the way to the mining companies providing the initial raw materials. This will be further augmented by consumer psychology; a person with $100 000 that has just fallen into their lap will not, on average, be as fussy about the purchase price as the person who saved penny to penny for years to arrive to that sum.

Finally, is the idea itself that different from printing money? Where does the rich people's money intended for confiscation actually reside? If it is is the kind of money that sits idle as savings or as cash in a safe until confiscated, it's still lots of money previously excluded from the market suddenly made available to the market, and the result is still massive depreciation. The mechanism is exactly the same- supply exceeds demand, resulting in decrease of value. If the confiscated money was invested somewhere, it's going to be pretty damn tricky to confiscate and redistribute without gutting the economy.

They can raise the price all they want, a car is only worth what someone will pay for it. If car X was worth $20,000 last week, people probably won't buy it $30,000 this week.

 

[stickwork]

But setting the record straight, I did too build that. And for those things already in place before my time, my father, and his father before him built it.

Everything that the government is, has done, has facilitated the construction thereof, was done with the consent of those who paid for it and rest assured, the paymaster wasn't the government. Every single dime came from the taxpayer and for the most part from the various businesses that employed those taxpayers.

The government has never created a single penny of wealth and never will. The best the government has ever done is to get out of the way of those that actually do create wealth.

You owe your government, community, absolutely NOTHING. Every single piece of infrastructure that exists you bought and paid for with the sweat of your brow. You're obligation is to do nothing more than to pay the taxes you owe under whatever tax laws you live under and to obey the laws until such time that you, along with others, can overturn those laws via the courts or the various legislative bodies. The very concept that the 'government' gave you these things and you 'owe' them in return is the mind set of a serf, a slave, an indentured servant at the very best. It is not an attitude befitting free men and women.

There was no 'taking Obama out of context' in his statement. His statement was a true reflection of what he believes. He stated as much in his book, assuming you bothered to take the time to read it. All of the semantic 'dancing' and convoluted disassembling of his words just won't change the reality of what he was saying. And what he was saying was that all blessings flow from the government. The government didn't 'build' those roads, or bridges, or anything else public because the government COULDN'T build those public facilities without the capital that flowed in from the industries and individuals that, in the end, actually made all of those roads and bridges possible.

Ishmael

I can't read all that right now.

I just wanna know if you're still mad at Perg.

 

[Krotos]

They can raise the price all they want, a car is only worth what someone will pay for it. If car X was worth $20,000 last week, people probably won't buy it $30,000 this week.

Sure they will, if there are no cars available for $20 000 anymore. This is a nationwide effect, remember?

Besides, it's $100 000 that's just fell into their lap. It's like lottery winnings: easily acquired, just as easily parted with. There's no reason to suddenly expect uniquely rational consumer behavior.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Sure they will, if there are no cars available for $20 000 anymore. This is a nationwide effect, remember?

Besides, it's $100 000 that's just fell into their lap. It's like lottery winnings: easily acquired, just as easily parted with. There's no reason to suddenly expect uniquely rational consumer behavior.

I agree it will be easily parted with, but again you're talking about pure fantasy.
If the price of a new car is that high, what stops individual car owners from selling their cars?

 

[stickwork]

Sure they will, if there are no cars available for $20 000 anymore. This is a nationwide effect, remember?

Besides, it's $100 000 that's just fell into their lap. It's like lottery winnings: easily acquired, just as easily parted with. There's no reason to suddenly expect uniquely rational consumer behavior.

Already there, except for the ones with a big turn-key in the trunk.

 

[Krotos]

I agree it will be easily parted with, but again you're talking about pure fantasy.
If the price of a new car is that high, what stops individual car owners from selling their cars?

Who'd buy a used car when they just got gifted enough money for a fancy new one?

It's like saying that the housing bubble that took place in the US couldn't happen because should the prices ever fall, someone would immediately be buying up houses and the market's invisible hand would magically balance it all out.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Who'd buy a used car when they just got gifted enough money for a fancy new one?

It's like saying that the housing bubble that took place in the US couldn't happen because should the prices ever fall, someone would immediately be buying up houses and the market's invisible hand would magically balance it all out.

The poor. They have a rep for not spending money wisely, you said so yourself. Remember, this is found money to them. If there is no car for them to buy, they're very likely to just spend it on something that they can buy instantly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The poor will buy what they always buy: Mom and Sis will buy tats and scratch-offs, Dad's gonna get some pot and beer, and then theyre all goin to Disney World for a week.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Businesses don't pay taxes.

Was that sarcasm, or not?

It's 100% true.

Even if it were true, what does that have to do with the topic?

You tell me. You brought it up.

Please quote me then. I do not know what you are talking about.

Quoted.

I posted the trail. Your final post included a quote of a post of mine, and you bolded text to show that I brought the issue of business into the conversation:
Quote:
"Therefore, Government can tax our success because, after ll, we should be grateful to the government for making our success possible."
End Quote.


Okay, so I reread the trail, and nowhere did I state "business." I stated that the government can tax our success because they feel we owe our success to them. "Success" was used in the general sense. There are plenty of people that are successful (and earn a lot of money) that are not business owners.

So it would appear to me that your comment was off-topic.

EDIT - corrected typo