quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Because you asked in an enquiring, rather than a dismissive fashion, I will answer as best I can Brennan When people have to spend the majority of their salary on neccessities of life,and getting by, then they are paying income tax in one form or another. Yes they can have a place to live, a bed etc etc...but have very little left, even if they ARE fiscally sensible. So they spend their income paycheck to paycheck, and pay a further tax in the form of sales tax. Then the people who sell them their requisites pay the sales tax out of the money they take...and take some as profit..upon which THEY pay income tax, and sales tax...etc etc. So you see, the poorer peoples' income finally almost ALL ends up in Government coffers. Then you take the wealthier section of Society (and most are entitled to that wealth, I am not denying that ). And they buy things just like the poorer section, and pay taxes in the same way. BUT...they have an amount of money left over, which has been taxed as income tax, and then they will probably invest it. Once invested, the invested sum doesn't get taxed, AFAIK, and they earn interest ON the investment, which is taxed at a far lower rate than a SALARY. Now, compare that to somebody who doean't earn enough to get by on his salary, and takes a second job. THAT amount is automatically taxed here and in the UK at a HIGHER rate than his principal job. So a guy who is industrious, and WORKS MORE for MORE money, is productive and does his jobs well, will pay MORE percentage tax on his total income, than the guy who has ONE job, and earns good money which enables him to invest that money and make more income from it...and pays less tax percent than somebody who actually WORKS his 'second job' on an investment. I fail to see how that is encouraging people to work, and be productive, when they can make more money and pay less tax, and not work for the 'extra' income. I simply believe that income earned from investment should be taxed at the same rate as the other guy's second job.

Returns on investments are taxed here. I still fail to see how circulated money that yes, has been taxed in the past, means that the people "at the bottom" are taxed at 100%. Furthermore, your notion that more money = put in investments is not true. Firstly, because there are people from many walks of the income trail that invest. The higher quantity investors are, of course, the ones with more disposable income. Secondly, not everyone is cut out for understanding the market and what their money will look like after being invested, so not all do it. I assume you mean that the poor have less disposable income, and that it's somehow bad. I interject that even homeless around here have luxuries such as iPods, guitars, etc. Yes, some make money off of their instrument, but that's not my point. My point is that virtually everyone in the U.S. at some point has disposable income in one way or another. Even if you take necessities out of the picture such as food, nobody has all of their money given to the government, no matter how many times it's circulated.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Just as F88 jumped in and deliberately CHANGED the meaning of my words, so too have you, but I tend to believe you missed it because F88 deviated your thoughts away from what I actually WROTE, because you read his words and took them to be correct They weren't, Brennan, and consequently neither were yours I even went to the trouble of reposting that which had initially written, and axplained where my words were conveniently twisted to make my 'stance' more vulnerable: by making my words appear ludicrous. I will say it AGAIN...I NEVER said personal millionaires, billionaires, or trillionaires. I SAID that cumulatively, the very wealthy were directing their money AWAY from being taxed in the same way as 'Joe Public' on PAYE HAS to pay his taxes.SO the sum total of money not being taxed runs into Billions, if not Trillions Obviously I should have further stated that Corporations contribute vast amounts of those billions and trillions to the 'untaxed' poo,. but for the benefit of the wealthy, and less wealthy who, none the less, have money to invest in the Corporations etc., and thereby get an enhanced return FROM that pool.

I did read it incorrectly, but my point of how much money that is stands. You believe that there is even close to a trillion dollars floating around the U.S. that nobody of authority knows is there? The government taxes everything they can get away with... there is likely not a dollar in existence that hasn't seen any form of taxation. There is a lot of avoiding taxes to be sure, but not to that scale. At least not in any way that is illegal. If it's legal, that's another matter entirely, and I would suggest again that a simple flat tax is the best tax, perhaps with a higher sales tax as well. No refunds, no confusion, no write-offs.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Taxes etc are NOT FREE MARKET TRADING. I don]'t force ANYBODY to buy from me ,AND they have the option of bargaining down the price. See the freedom there, but not in the other situation? Returns on investments are a very simple tax on the people who WORK and RUN the businesses invested in. And I hasten to add that SOME money is invested to augment the advancement and expansion of particular businesses...but an awful lot of investments never even REACH the Company it is being 'invested' in because it is used as 'chips' in a form of gambling, and NOT for the betterment of any particular Company. Investment no longer consists of INVESTING in a Company, but as a good bet for a substantial return BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS ALREADY FUNCTIONING AND EXPANDING WELL without the need for the vast amount of 'investment they enjoy. '. So the stock exchange appears to ME to have mostly one giant Casino, where the wealthy can put their surplus money and generate MORE from 'gambling'. It appears to me to be a system set up for people with a LOT of wealth already, to make even more for doing nothing but using a pretty safe 'gambling' system.

Of course taxes aren't free-market trading, that's why I suggested that the government is the only entity to siphon money from anyone. I disagree with your stance on the big casino, though I definitely understand that perspective. For some people, it may be just that. I see it as this:
Someone gives their own money to a company. That company, in turn, takes that money and uses it to operate within higher cash flow and develop their own products to make an even bigger profit. Because they used the money from the person to build that infrastructure that allows higher profits, it then has more value as a company. That person can then take the money back to make a profit. Many other times, people will put money into a company, only to see the company misuse the investments, and crash, giving the investor nothing. That is simply the investor's choice, but not a gamble. The investor chose to give money freely to a company. It is only by trusting the company that he or she would expect anything in return.

Without those investments, many companies would never have been able to grow. They would continue trying to work within cash flow, or try to take out outrageous loans to build infrastructure. If those loans fail and the company declares bankruptcy, the bank takes that hit, therefore the populace takes the hit. Investments get rid of a lot of that danger in the publicly traded sector.

That's how I understand it. Obviously, stocks don't always reflect the actual worth of the company, merely what the public THINKS it's worth, but that is part of the company's job. Positive public image creates success.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: ???? That is utter gibberish to me, and just a little spiteful for effect, IMHO. . Edit to add: No, I could not possibly claim with all honesty to having done it all by myself. Because I rely upon electricity generated, factories that make the welder,and the weldwire. The people who bottle the gas. The transport system that delivers all my requisites locally. etc etc. So you are right...'I didn't build that....ON MY OWN '. Which backs up my other comment that Obama should have expanded his comment to encompass these facts, which, I am sure, everybody agrees are true..if they are honest But Politics hardly engenders and encourages truth, does it? Since the departure of JStricker, there has been nobody who puts an argument forward with sufficient integrity, lack of soundbites and party hack rhetoric, to stand a chance of changing ANYBODY'S views and opinions on PFF, with the exception of frontal lobe. I could read and listen to his words all day, and be swayed by his LOGIC, his respectful posts, his intelligence and his patience. HE singlehandedly represents, to ME, everything which is required of a person to create and stimulate thought and understanding. Brennan, for all his youth, is another who commands my respect. Somebody who posts ridiculous photos and even MORE ridiculous words attached to them stands a snowball in Hell's chance of converting ANYBODY. AGAIN, IMHO.

A joke Nick.
Why would a dumb a$$ comment by the president change my opinion of the fact that you do good work?
And I don't try to convert anyone, pretty much a big waste of time.

What a great post
First of all, your perception of 'investments' to ME, is out of date, because the 'investments' NOW are no longer 'loans' to Companies, to my mind. 'Investments' was the correct term in the 50's 60's etc, because many small investors did their own research,and invested their money DIRECTLY with the Company or concern they favoured, as a result of their deliberations on performance, potential, management and workforce, and the markets. And as such, the money invested as a total, was 'owned ' by a fragmented group of shareholders, with little cohesion to use their gross investment as a lever to gain a better return upon their investments
. The financial markets were not so prone to influences and fluctuations created by people/concerns having enormous and powerful united wealth THEN, as they do now.
Nowadays, investment companies who have a LARGE base of investors, with a LARGE amount of gross investments, on their joint behalf,have enormous power to negotiate with,and to wield on behalf of a whole Group, as a single entity, and the ability to affect markets to their advantage. I don't know the percentages, and wouldn't claim to either, but a great number of people with money to invest rely upon these big 'investment' companies to do the legwork for them nowadays, which then generates a powerbase for the Investment Companies to try to manipulate and alter the normal balance of free market trading. Money generates power, whether that money is owned by one person or hundreds, if it is amalgamated into one powerful block. And that power is open to misuse, without legislation to prevent it. And the Legislators, more often than not, are the same people who weild that power anyway,

Basically, I have an intense mistrust of anybody, whether an individual, or a company, who has so much money at their command to wield as a bargaining chip, NOT to do so fairly.
Sorry, but you will have to reply in myabsence Brennan I have had 5 hours sleep in 30, and need to go to bed..it is nearly 4:20am, and I am beat, exremely hot, and worn out.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I did wonder Thanks for the clarification..it just came across as being a little of a 'harsh' reflection on me No problems

Yea I felt the same harshness when Obama made his statement being one who sacrificed so much to start a business to better the lives of my wife and kids.
I would never lay that on anyone, so I should have clarified it was a joke.

The drinking establishment is still there, thanks to Nobama.
Heh, I find myself in Houston as I fell into a job I was not looking for. Almost the exact same place as ten years ago. Nostalgia kicked in and I went looking for the old watering hole I used to enjoy a beer at and listen to live music. The waitress I remember, who I think had worked there for about ten years, was still there. 'Cept now, she is the owner. Nick, she was a gal who lived paycheck to paycheck. Taxed at your ridiculous assertion of 100%.
Nick, I would be one of those taxed at 100%. Others need to do as I did. Make more money. Because I did it as a high school drop out with a few black marks on his permanent record, I don't want to hear any whining about how they can't do it or that it is too hard or inconvenient.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Basically, I have an intense mistrust of anybody, whether an individual, or a company, who has so much money at their command to wield as a bargaining chip, NOT to do so fairly.

Every dime I have is a bargaining chip. You do not need to trust us people to wield them fairly. That is up to the people who take our money. They decide what is fair.
My apologies Nick. I did not spend enough time after my last post to fully consider and respond to you response to me. I will.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The drinking establishment is still there, thanks to Nobama. Heh, I find myself in Houston as I fell into a job I was not looking for. Almost the exact same place as ten years ago. Nostalgia kicked in and I went looking for the old watering hole I used to enjoy a beer at and listen to live music. The waitress I remember, who I think had worked there for about ten years, was still there. 'Cept now, she is the owner. Nick, she was a gal who lived paycheck to paycheck. Taxed at your ridiculous assertion of 100%. Nick, I would be one of those taxed at 100%. Others need to do as I did. Make more money. Because I did it as a high school drop out with a few black marks on his permanent record, I don't want to hear any whining about how they can't do it or that it is too hard or inconvenient. Every dime I have is a bargaining chip. You do not need to trust us people to wield them fairly. That is up to the people who take our money. They decide what is fair. My apologies Nick. I did not spend enough time after my last post to fully consider and respond to you response to me. I will.

Cliff...you simply don't understand what I wrote,IMHO, regarding the '100% tax' bit. I was tired, been working all day and night in 100 degrees or more, and it was 4:30am when I wrote it.
I get frustrated at trying to explain via text Brain is just too fast for the fingers ..I'll try again one day. Can't guarantee it will be any more lucid then either
But it is pointless you demonstrating your opinion by using isolated cases, because they are probably FAR from the 'norm', and prove nothing except 'a person' managed to do it. A bit like me saying 'Hey! My nextdoor neighbour just won the lottery! We can ALL do it!!! Yay!!'
Perhaps your waitress lady had some money left to her by a parent or relative, and decided to buy the place out? Maybe she turned tricks on the side? Maybe she sold drugs under the counter? YOU don't know if any of those crazy hypotheses are true or not. You just see the end result, not the causes and effects she experienced in those 10 years

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 07-19-2012).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Cliff...you simply don't understand what I wrote,IMHO, regarding the '100% tax' bit.

No, I do believe I understand your point. Be it a governmental tax or a survival tax consuming all of one's assets to exist.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: But it is pointless you demonstrating your opinion by using isolated cases, because they are probably FAR from the 'norm', and prove nothing except 'a person' managed to do it.

Wrong !
Let me ask you, what is the "norm" ? Allow me to answer. There is no such thing. Unless you identify it with specific results. Let's castrate Boondawg for illustration (I am joking). He recently made a major life change. He admitted it to be a hard decision. It filled him with worry, doubt, and uncertainty. He now reports increased confidence in himself,, and his ability to conquer the unknown. He took a personal risk, just as any business man does. Business men do it multiple times a year, a day, perhaps hourly. Is taking a risk the "norm" ? It is for successful people but it is only one of the "norms".
Nick, you are an isolated case. What did it take for your success ? Hard work, determination, perserverance, sacrifice, and a quality character, among other things. I say people who don't succeed do not try hard enough. I say people who do not think that they have succeeded enough have class envy. I say people who have class envy try to give the appearance that they have class equality, detrimental to success.
Did the waitress do tricks, sell drugs, or inherit money ? Perhaps. Who knows. Why would it matter in the context of the thread topic ? She doesn't owe America for her success.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: ... once all the taxes are poured into the melting pot...you want to tell me WHICH of the dollars in the melting pot are INCOME TAX, and which of the others are sales taxes etc. etc.etc.? You can't, and nobody else can either. The only people who do not end up paying ALL their income into the taxes cauldron one way or another, are those who have enough to save, after they have spent all they need.

The melting pot ? Do you mean the tax coffers ?
I can tell you this. An income tax leaves you with income. A sales tax is based on how much you spent of your money. Meaning that you can not be taxed 100%.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 07-19-2012).]

If you build something and someone buys it, is the money they gave you a tax?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: What a great post First of all, your perception of 'investments' to ME, is out of date, because the 'investments' NOW are no longer 'loans' to Companies, to my mind. 'Investments' was the correct term in the 50's 60's etc, because many small investors did their own research,and invested their money DIRECTLY with the Company or concern they favoured, as a result of their deliberations on performance, potential, management and workforce, and the markets. And as such, the money invested as a total, was 'owned ' by a fragmented group of shareholders, with little cohesion to use their gross investment as a lever to gain a better return upon their investments . The financial markets were not so prone to influences and fluctuations created by people/concerns having enormous and powerful united wealth THEN, as they do now. Nowadays, investment companies who have a LARGE base of investors, with a LARGE amount of gross investments, on their joint behalf,have enormous power to negotiate with,and to wield on behalf of a whole Group, as a single entity, and the ability to affect markets to their advantage. I don't know the percentages, and wouldn't claim to either, but a great number of people with money to invest rely upon these big 'investment' companies to do the legwork for them nowadays, which then generates a powerbase for the Investment Companies to try to manipulate and alter the normal balance of free market trading. Money generates power, whether that money is owned by one person or hundreds, if it is amalgamated into one powerful block. And that power is open to misuse, without legislation to prevent it. And the Legislators, more often than not, are the same people who weild that power anyway, Basically, I have an intense mistrust of anybody, whether an individual, or a company, who has so much money at their command to wield as a bargaining chip, NOT to do so fairly. Sorry, but you will have to reply in myabsence Brennan I have had 5 hours sleep in 30, and need to go to bed..it is nearly 4:20am, and I am beat, exremely hot, and worn out.

The only thing that changed is that more money is in the game then, by your saying? So really, there is no change to the game. It's just a different play.

I don't have a mistrust of people. I run by trust first before anything else. If I don't have a reason to distrust you, I won't. It has burned me in the past, but I am happier that way.

Great advertisement for Romney!



Obama's end can't come soon enough!

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 07-19-2012).]

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Great advertisement for Romney! Obama's end can't come soon enough!

I gotta admit it, just when you think the Democrats might hang onto power they come up and say the STUPIDEST thing they can think of. At least they are consistent

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal:

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Great advertisement for Romney! Obama's end can't come soon enough!

great ad

Oh yeah, that's right, under Obamacare the government will operate on you...because no doctor will work under it.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I gotta admit it, just when you think the Democrats might hang onto power they come up and say the STUPIDEST thing they can think of. At least they are consistent

You're talking about Democrat politicians. Unfortunately, Democrat voters are equally consistent in voting Democrat anyway.

If anybody wants to try to understand my way of thinking, about '100% of poor/medium peoples' income returns to the Government', just read this. If it needs explaining again after you have read it, I am either wrong, or it isn't worth continuing the discussion, because you don't WANT to get it
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorul...ca/power/wealth.html

Way off topic now, but [shrugs].
I'll sum up what I am trying to get at in these few words:
We live in a consumer-driven Society primarily.
When an Investment Society takes too much money out of circulation, then the Consumer market shrinks, because too much 'liquid' money is tied up in investments etc., and not fuelling the Consumer Society, upon which we mostly depend. And then the Consumer Society fails.
Going back to the original topic...yes, the way Obama worded his statement doesn't stand up at all. But there is truth in MY comment, that had he said 'you didn't build your business on your own, because you needed the established infrastructure of our modern Society to MAKE it work', he would have been right, IMHO.. Unlike the Pioneers, who had to do everything themselves, because there WAS no infrastructure at that time.
Edited to add link...told you I was tired

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 07-19-2012).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: We live in a consumer-driven Society primarily.

When did that happen ? It has always been true. There were markets in Jesus' day.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: ...yes, the way Obama worded his statement doesn't stand up at all. But there is truth in MY comment, that had he said 'you didn't build your business on your own, because you needed the established infrastructure of our modern Society to MAKE it work', he would have been right, IMHO.. Unlike the Pioneers, who had to do everything themselves, because there WAS no infrastructure at that time.

We are the pioneers of the future, hello. The pioneers had ships to get them here, wagons to go west, and some of them made zhit happen. The ones that followed after, owe it to the pioneers who went before them. Nobama wants to tax the pioneers more.

I'll hazard a guess that you didn't read the link Cliff.
I would point out that I didn't base my beliefs on LINKS, but upon my own lifetime observations. I just decided to Google the subject, and that link came up at the top. I opened it, read it, and it became clear to me that I wasn't the only one to understand it.
Now, I don't have a clue as to whom wrote it, whether they are Socialist, Capitalist, Republican Conservative or whatever: I didn't look for a reply per Affiliation. I am not that much of a dogmatic person.
I just look for what I believe is the truth, and why our Societies are so troubled recently. It just confirms MY beliefs, simple as that.
Now, perhaps the article is as wrong as me, in some peoples' eyes. But I believe it is true.
It also follows logic, something I firmly base my opinions on, not what some pundit on TV spouts every day, all day.
You see, I make my conclusions based on my life experiences, and my life has been quite long, and exceptionally varied.
I also believe that, when 80% of the population have their income hammered down to below reasonable remuneration levels, that affects the Consumer-driven Society drastically, because the amount of money required to fuel and sustain our Society is no longer in the hands of the very people who SUSTAIN thst system..the masses. And what happens then? They can't AFFORD TO BUY THEIR OWN PRODUCE. So Commerce then start importing enormous amounts of cheap imports to sell to an impoverished Nation, and continue to make their profits that way. Destroying the home-based industries, and therefore jobs, and therefore decreasing even MORE the amount of money available in the Public domain to sustain even buying cheap imports...and destroying their ability to EXPORT. THAT LEADS TO A DEFICIT, which increases inexhorably until the Nation finally collapsed fiscally...but the Companies and their Boards still maintain their wealth, by buying and importing and selling CRAP that remains affordable to the general Public.
Unless it is stopped, and VERY quickly, the 'cheap crap' that we can afford today, will eventually become 'EXPENSIVE CRAP', to future generations, and beyond the financial range of those generations. So what will happen then? Even CHEAPER crap will be sourced from 'emerging third World countries', making THEM richer than us too.
Sounds familiar to ME.

BUT WAIT.... Barrack Hussein says he unfairly quoted and that he relates to small business owners. How racist of us to assume he meant otherwise!



Anyone else not surprised by the muslim in chiefs latest flip flop?

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 07-25-2012).]

It's not a flip flop. He's not really changing his position. He's just pointing out how ignorant and racist everyone is to think he said what he said when what he really meant was exactly what he said, but with people loving him for it.

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal:

Total win. That's going on my Facebook page.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Total win. That's going on my Facebook page.

Fix the grammatical error first.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Yeah, I know he's "standing behind me"....I can feel him back there.....

Keep your hand on your wallet.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-25-2012).]

Eh, I don't care about the error enough to fix it.

And my wallet is less of a concern than keeping my colon intact.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Yeah, I know he's "standing behind me"....I can feel him back there.....

...with his hand in your pocket

"The context makes clear that the president was saying entrepreneurs need government infrastructure like roads and bridges, investments in education and what Obama called "this unbelievable American system that allowed you to thrive."

But of course when has context ever mattered?

quote "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, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. "So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-25-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: "The context makes clear that the president was saying entrepreneurs need government infrastructure like roads and bridges, investments in education and what Obama called "this unbelievable American system that allowed you to thrive." But of course when has context ever mattered?

You ignored the rest of the crap he said, just like all the other liberals.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You ignored the rest of the crap he said, just like all the other liberals.

Such as? (BTW nice try on the labeling and generalization )

http://www.whitehouse.gov/t...ent-roanoke-virginia

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: "The context makes clear that the president was saying entrepreneurs need government infrastructure like roads and bridges ...."

Exactly.

quote But of course when has context ever mattered?

Yes. Scoring political points is far more important. Reading comprehension here on PFF usually seems to have a strong political bias.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: WHAT alleged illicit activities?... I amtotally honest about everything I post...and if I am NOT...I will go back and correct it when I am proved to be wrong.

I came upon this kind of late, but this stood out for me. How about illicit activities like mutilating one's foot for profit? Insurance fraud? You have felt pretty comfortable on multiple occasions to make these accusations towards me without any shred of evidence to support you. You have never retracted these statements or "corrected" them. You are morally bankrupt and have no right to preach to others.

quote Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: You are morally bankrupt and have no right to preach to others.

quote Originally posted by fierobear:

That's what I said. You can tell me how you feel about it over tacos. Or you could just continue to hide behind the keyboard. Your call.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Yes. Scoring political points is far more important. Reading comprehension here on PFF usually seems to have a strong political bias.

No, Marvin. There is more to this than the comment on businesses.

Elsewhere in the speech, he tried to imply that business people aren't successful because they are smarter or worked harder. That comes from his attitude about socioeconomics and government-centric viewpoint. His comments weren't made in a vacuum.

As for the "roads and bridges" thing, he conveniently leaves out the idea that people and businesses have to work and PAY TAXES for those "roads and bridges" that he champions.

quote Originally posted by newf: "The context makes clear that the president was saying entrepreneurs need government infrastructure like roads and bridges, investments in education and what Obama called "this unbelievable American system that allowed you to thrive." But of course when has context ever mattered?

I still don't understand your point. I read his statement word for word and it was very clear what he meant. Tell the part about "wroking together" to Steve Jobs...under Obama, Jobs and Wozniac would have been red tagged by the Fire Marshall, the City Building Department, and a dozen other agencies for trying to start Apple Computer in their garage....uh, with no help BTW. How about Papa John's Pizza? The guy took over his dad's pizza shop in the mid 80's and turned it into a dynasty by working long hours and investing HIS money wisely....no help. He created every job in that business from nothing.

What YOU fail to understand, as Obama does, is that the seed for every great economic empire began with one person's idea and will power to see it made into reality. The power of the individual mind must be acknowledged and encouraged in a free society. But Obama does not WANT a free society, he wants centralized rule, he wants to starve the creative spirit in favor of order and uniformity (Fairness, as he calls it...slavery, as I call it)

Nice try but I know EXACTLY what the colossal imbecile meant.

quote Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: That's what I said. You can tell me how you feel about it over tacos. Or you could just continue to hide behind the keyboard. Your call.

You trying that bullshit again? You REALLY don't get it.