Obama: "If You've Got A Business - You Didn't Build That." - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

DWB · 07-18-2012, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Someone here talked about letting the private sector do it. I was reading states where they are bidding to get a private contractor to take over their prisons.

The scary part was the company said they had to guarantee 95 percent occupancy. And how is the state going to do that and who is going to pay for that?

They are going to fill those prisons (and all the new ones they are building) mostly with blacks. But will have plenty of room for Latinos and whites who also live in poverty.

Big money in prisons.

pornguy · 07-18-2012, 06:56 AM

You owe them and they owe you. I think the point is that its not fair for the CEO to be banking Millions and hundreds of millions and laying people off that were instrumental in making the business that money.

Paul Markham · 07-18-2012, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Someone here talked about letting the private sector do it. I was reading states where they are bidding to get a private contractor to take over their prisons. The scary part was the company said they had to guarantee 95 percent occupancy. And how is the state going to do that and who is going to pay for that?

Could be like Private Medicine. Where it costs more and delivers less.

All the people saying "We don't need Government". Best look at places that don't have it to see the shit storm no Government results in. Where shall I start?

Somalia maybe.

Ethiopia?

Congo?

Sudan?

It's the Government that keeps this from happening where you live. Think about what keeps the gangs where they are?

CDSmith · 07-18-2012, 08:17 AM

Kane, thank you for saving me a bunch of typing, and for again being the voice of reason in a thread full of misinterpretation.

I especially enjoyed this part...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I understand what Obama is saying and in many ways he is correct, he just said it in a strange way and should punch whoever wrote the speech in the face.

He is simply saying that if you are successful there were other people and outside influences that helped you get there whether you realize it or not. If you are a successful webmaster you took the initiative and had the drive to put in the hard work to get that success, but you sure as hell didn't invent the internet. You didn't create Google or Yahoo, or the other places that you are likely getting your traffic from. You didn't invent the computer and then figure out ways to improve it and mass produce it so that it could be affordable to the millions who now have them and use them to access your business. You didn't create HTML code or the software you use to build your site. Hell, you might not have even shot the content that is on your sites and I'm pretty confident you don't supply the millions with their ISP connections. These are all things you had nothing to do with, but they directly affect and influence your success and without them you have no business.

You are the motor that powers the car of your success, but without tires, a steering wheel, a transmission and other parts you aren't going to be getting very far.

Where his speech goes off the rails in not where he points out that a person's success was influenced by others, but where he suggests that the government can help average middle class people to gain that level of success and that somehow his administration is either going help them achieve that without them having to do much themselves.

Couldn't have said it any clearer myself.

Freaky_Akula · 07-18-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

I think the point is that its not fair for the CEO to be banking Millions and hundreds of millions and laying people off that were instrumental in making the business that money.

Did those people not get paid for the job they were hired to do?

BlackCrayon · 07-18-2012, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

That would be a nightmare. It's been tried before in other countries and it doesn't work.

You only need one currency, but it MUST be backed by something tangible.

We just went off the gold standard back in 1933, which is not that long ago. I don't understand why everyone is so against going back to a currency that is actually backed by something real, or by a collection of various commodities. A currency backed by gold, silver, palladium, copper, or whatever they want so long as it was real, would work.

Sure, that means the Gov can not borrow endless amounts of money and send the country into massive debt again, but that is the way it is suppose to be! The system we have now is not supposed to be this way. We are not supposed to have trillions of dollars of debt! Money is supposed to be worth something, not worthless. They create money out of thin air! How stupid is that? But the ignorance doesn't end there. They borrow more money that someone else created out of thin air in another part of the world, by selling them IOUs for our fake money, and then are in debt to them for money that doesn't even exist in the first place, all the while giving our borrowed and printed fake money by the billions to other countries who are broke! It's lunacy! But more importantly, it is unsustainable.

going back to the gold standard would never would because there just isn't enough gold in the world to back it. what do you do when you run out of gold or whatever to back currency? no more wealth is able to be created?

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

You dont realize 200 yrs ago. You would be a lowly worker and with not much,no chance of building yourself up. Without the gov funded internet where would you be ? You start a store there is electric service there ,a road to the store,police force,fire. A basically educated work force the gov provides that. Courts that will uphold your contracts.You guys need to read up on history, the facts not the bullshit. The gov basically created the middle class which you are all part of, it didnt exist before ww2. In a total free market most of the people here would be a lowly worker at best nothing more.

Why would I be a "lowly worker" "with not much chance"?

I could have been that right here in my own lifetime.
But I'm not.

As far as electricity:
Thomas Edison (a guy who dropped out of school) is the one who personally wired up New York with his company. He envisioned electricity as being free for everyone. That was impossible of course. But the U.S. govt. had nothing to do with people having electricity. The electric company utilities (which charge me an arm and a leg) do.

How does the govt. "fund" the internet? That's really interesting to me. How? What exactly do they "fund"? And if they do...then WHY am I paying $150 a month for a 50 MBS download connection? Could of sworn those were all private businesses doing that.
Or do you mean that it was guys working for the govt. back a few decades who had the first primitive computers that communicated? Or NASA's work in computer technology?
Yes, I agree on THAT.
And guess what...those in society that actually pay taxes...paid for that. Right? But the govt. (whose money comes from people like me and you) doesn't have to "fund" the internet. We all pay for it when we pay our bill.

The govt. provides the "educated work force"? Really? How?
That statement is a bit crazy.
We have public schools. They are paid for by local property tax. People like me who own my own property have to write a check.
Public schools are definitely something that the govt. did a good thing in creating. The BAD part of it is that it's not a tax that is paid by everyone.

Courts that uphold contracts...yes, a civilized society does need courts to maintain the law.
I would say that our govt. (federal, state, and local) may have gone a little TOO far with writing laws though. They seem to have a law against EVERYTHING. And a lot of the "law" seems to be ways to grab even more money from citizens.

I agree that govt. has certain roles. But don't forget WE are the govt. (at least we are supposed to be). But the govt. seems to think that we work for them instead of the other way around.

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Actually one of the first things our founding fathers did was set up a treasury so they could borrow money. Gov doesnt run debt free, you are going to build a road with no debt or go to war.

The Treasury was set up to manage govt. revenue.

I think you're thinking of the Federal Reserve which was created in 1913 and is the central banking system of the U.S.
They are the ones who are supposed to keep banks from failing, etc.

And they pretty much set the interest rates.

They were supposed to be what would stop any more financial crisis's from happening. And then a couple of decades later....The Great Depression. lol

And of course every cycle of recession/boom times since.

A lot of people think that it's an "evil" organization. I think it's just like most things that govt. gets too deep in: ineffectual.

Rochard · 07-18-2012, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

You owe them and they owe you. I think the point is that its not fair for the CEO to be banking Millions and hundreds of millions and laying people off that were instrumental in making the business that money.

Yeah, it's not fair, but that's the way the business world operates. If you want to make millions and millions, you need to climb your way up that ladder until your the CEO.

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Somalia has rulers and they use violence. Exactly what I'm talking about NOT doing

Rulers, Gangs, Warlords... that's what you "are talking about not doing" but who will make sure this "not" is enforced?

back to square one

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

The biggest rulers, gangs and warlords are ....you guessed it- the government! Who will make sure this is "not" enforced?

Thanks for validating my point.

They are both forms of government, the only choice you have is if you want it in it's current form or in this one...

Unless you are a desperate hippie who believes in self-governance and ignores human nature.

tony286 · 07-18-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The Treasury was set up to manage govt. revenue.

I think you're thinking of the Federal Reserve which was created in 1913 and is the central banking system of the U.S.
They are the ones who are supposed to keep banks from failing, etc.

And they pretty much set the interest rates.

They were supposed to be what would stop any more financial crisis's from happening. And then a couple of decades later....The Great Depression. lol

And of course every cycle of recession/boom times since.

A lot of people think that it's an "evil" organization. I think it's just like most things that govt. gets too deep in: ineffectual.

no my friend that had to pay off the war debt bills and they borrowed money.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/history/history.htm

tony286 · 07-18-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Why would I be a "lowly worker" "with not much chance"?

I could have been that right here in my own lifetime.
But I'm not.

As far as electricity:
Thomas Edison (a guy who dropped out of school) is the one who personally wired up New York with his company. He envisioned electricity as being free for everyone. That was impossible of course. But the U.S. govt. had nothing to do with people having electricity. The electric company utilities (which charge me an arm and a leg) do.

How does the govt. "fund" the internet? That's really interesting to me. How? What exactly do they "fund"? And if they do...then WHY am I paying $150 a month for a 50 MBS download connection? Could of sworn those were all private businesses doing that.
Or do you mean that it was guys working for the govt. back a few decades who had the first primitive computers that communicated? Or NASA's work in computer technology?
Yes, I agree on THAT.
And guess what...those in society that actually pay taxes...paid for that. Right? But the govt. (whose money comes from people like me and you) doesn't have to "fund" the internet. We all pay for it when we pay our bill.

The govt. provides the "educated work force"? Really? How?
That statement is a bit crazy.
We have public schools. They are paid for by local property tax. People like me who own my own property have to write a check.
Public schools are definitely something that the govt. did a good thing in creating. The BAD part of it is that it's not a tax that is paid by everyone.

Courts that uphold contracts...yes, a civilized society does need courts to maintain the law.
I would say that our govt. (federal, state, and local) may have gone a little TOO far with writing laws though. They seem to have a law against EVERYTHING. And a lot of the "law" seems to be ways to grab even more money from citizens.

I agree that govt. has certain roles. But don't forget WE are the govt. (at least we are supposed to be). But the govt. seems to think that we work for them instead of the other way around.

You think the power gird got there by itself? It was gov money that paid for it.
If you read your history before the creation of the middle class if you were poor ,didnt finish grade school (my grandfather finished the 5th grade)and if you didn't come from money you were never going to get there for the most part.
The internet government funded the creation and paid for the set up of high speed infrastructure,the big companies didnt want to pay for it.

tony286 · 07-18-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yeah, it's not fair, but that's the way the business world operates. If you want to make millions and millions, you need to climb your way up that ladder until your the CEO.

its worst now its all I got mine fuck you. Thats why ceo's now make 500x the avg worker and avg worker wages have been flat forever. Cheap credit hid alot of it. My father told me about the recession in the 70's wages were frozen but no one was let go. It was considered a loss of face to do that. They basically sat around with nothing to do til it blew over. It also blew over quicker because everyone was working. Not being laid off by the millions.

baddog · 07-18-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Why? Do you think I'm lying about it? I don't have any reason to. I just grew up a lot different than you did.

No, I was genuinely interested in two things. Why you knew how much he paid in taxes (I have no idea how much my dad paid, ever) and why would he pay over $1 million in taxes. Did he not have an accountant so did them on his own or just let the govt figure them out for him?

galleryseek · 07-18-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's why we do NEED govt.

But just as you said earlier...the govt. has grown incrementally over the last two centuries and now is so big and overreaching and so bloated with bureaucrats and administrative crap that it's out of control.

The argument has been made in the past that the governments that start out the smallest and most non-invasive, like how the US was as a republic, are the ones that end up the most tyrannical and over reaching. The US is quickly becoming proof of that.

Governments do not work, they always fail because everything they're about (aggression) is against human nature. Humans are not inherently violent, they only become violent when you place them under a hierarchical system of aggression, otherwise known as the state.

Here's a really good/thought provoking debate with Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux.. Schiff is a minarchist, Molyneux is an anarchist.

TheSquealer · 07-18-2012, 10:45 AM

A government has money for schools, hospitals, roads etc only because entrepreneurs create business and jobs which is where the government derives the majority of revenue to provide those things

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

You completely miss the point

you completely missed mine

Let me take it step by step for you, dumb it down a little :

You said : "this is what I'm talking about NOT doing"

If there is a NOT there is a rule, it's a form of governance.

Whether you're naive enough to believe in Anarcho-Pacifism and think the rule will enforce itself is irrelevant, it's still a form of governance.

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Right, the free market creates massive amounts of wealth and value and people in the government like the vampires they are suck that right of society through force

I've said this countless times but I'll give it another go...

Dumping, insider trading, price fixing would destroy free markets. Free markets are markets dictated solely by supply and demand, free of manipulation, not free of regulation

DWB · 07-18-2012, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

going back to the gold standard would never would because there just isn't enough gold in the world to back it. what do you do when you run out of gold or whatever to back currency? no more wealth is able to be created?

Go back and read what I said. There are enough commodities to back a currency, it doesn't just have to be gold.

If gold was once good enough to back currencies all over the world since the existence of paper money, then a mix of commodities would be good enough to back the world currencies now.

Since Nixon totally took us off the Gold standard in 1971, only 41 years has passed. That's it. This entire cluster fuck of a global economy has happened since then. It didn't happen before, it happened after. I have also read that it is not true that there is not enough Gold to back currencies again, but lets say it is true, then you use multiple metals.

Yes, moving back to a gold/silver/whatever backed currency would limit lending, but that is a good thing. Not a bad thing. The ONLY reason they are not going back to a backed currency is because those who are profiting the most off of fiat currency will no longer be able to game the system, and every country will have to follow a budget. How can you wage illegal wars, have endless government entitlements, and bail out businesses who are "too big to fail" if you have a budget to keep?

DudeRick · 07-18-2012, 11:39 AM

http://didntbuildthat.com/.

Relentless · 07-18-2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

A government has money for schools, hospitals, roads etc only because entrepreneurs create business and jobs which is where the government derives the majority of revenue to provide those things

1) A society of educated law abiding workers earning a fair wage.
2) A sector of commercial businesses innovating and taking risks within the limits of a legal framework of regulations.
3) A powerful government of statesmen capable of creating useful laws with TEETH that keep workers and businesses in line with a broader agenda aimed at improving life for everyone involved.

You can not have any two of the above without the third piece. It really is that simple. What we have now are unregulated businesses blaming workers and being backed by the GOP, lazy entitled workers who bleed the system and blame businesses while being backed by Democrats, and a government that is being used as a business by profiteers from both 'sides' that have no interest in the greater goals of our society. That's why it is broken. It won't be fixed until people take off their 'red shirts' and 'blue shirts' long enough to realize we are actually all on the same team.

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

What we have no is FORCE and VIOLENCE

Once those two things are removed, it's amazing what happens. Try this in your personal life. It's amazing

Sure look how well that worked for the porn industry when people can choose to do the right thing or steal, it's amazing what happens

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

In a truly free society, there would be competing currencies.

The government has a monopoly on what is allowed as currency, which is pretty much the exact opposite of a free market

Finally something we can agree on

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

There are thousands of ways to prevent people from "stealing" your content. Not difficult at all. The porn industry in and of itself is a free market.

The respect of property rights is the underlying basis of free markets, so no the current porn industry isn't a free market.

Anyway nowhere in the post you quoted did I mention free markets. only the "amazing things that happen" when people are not forced to do the right thing

Slappin Fish · 07-18-2012, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Yes, when you set up a shoot with a girl that is the free market at work. I seem to be making good money whether people "steal" it or not I could careless. There are measures to set up that doesn't involve force to prevent that but I just don't really care. Those who look for free content aren't going to spend $$$ anyways

Free market isn't when you "shoot with a girl" it's when you sell it

Content theft, like dumping, skews normal market competition it's the polar opposite of what market economies stand for.

Minte · 07-18-2012, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

1) A society of educated law abiding workers earning a fair wage.
2) A sector of commercial businesses innovating and taking risks within the limits of a legal framework of regulations.
3) A powerful government of statesmen capable of creating useful laws with TEETH that keep workers and businesses in line with a broader agenda aimed at improving life for everyone involved.

You can not have any two of the above without the third piece. It really is that simple. What we have now are unregulated businesses blaming workers and being backed by the GOP, lazy entitled workers who bleed the system and blame businesses while being backed by Democrats, and a government that is being used as a business by profiteers from both 'sides' that have no interest in the greater goals of our society. That's why it is broken. It won't be fixed until people take off their 'red shirts' and 'blue shirts' long enough to realize we are actually all on the same team.

As usual you make some good points.

What I have seen over this administration is that the divide between red shirts and blue shirts has gotten much deeper and more viscious. There are people that I used to almost call *friends*. Today we have nothing to say. And the root cause is the political climate. In many cases the damage that has been done here in Wisconsin won't be undone.

Relentless · 07-18-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

As usual you make some good points. What I have seen over this administration is that the divide between red shirts and blue shirts has gotten much deeper and more viscious. There are people that I used to almost call *friends*. Today we have nothing to say. And the root cause is the political climate. In many cases the damage that has been done here in Wisconsin won't be undone.

We agree.

That trajectory was set in place by career congressmen with no fear of being replaced, but Obama has done a poor job of altering its path. He allows blowhards like Bohener or Cantor far too much leeway as a minority party bent on stirring up conflict and even worse he lets dumbasses in his own party like Pelosi get out in front of issues that he should be the face of from the start.

As one simple failure to communicate his message:
Just imagine if Obama said from the start 'We should continue the tax breaks on the first $250,000 dollars earned by EVERY American each year" (which is 100% true using the graduated tax system we have in place) - instead of saying "We are extending tax breaks for anyone earning less than $250,000" (which is inflammatory and factually less accurate). If you make 20 million you get the identical tax break on the first 249K as someone making 249K gets... you do pay a higher rate on the amount over 250K... but not a higher rate on the first 250K you earn.

Unfortunately Romney is likely to be even worse and until we fix the election campaign system we are unlikely to get any candidates who are significantly better. I am a bigger proponent of real national healthcare than anyone else you are likely to meet. I would gladly trade the Roberts vote on the healthcare act for a flip of his vote in Citizens United. That decision will retard our nation for generations if it is not overturned.

kane · 07-18-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

In a truly free society, there would be competing currencies.

The government has a monopoly on what is allowed as currency, which is pretty much the exact opposite of a free market

I will ask for a second time since you didn't answer the first time. How does competing currencies in the US make us a better, stronger country? Also, how does it work? Who is going to control and back these currencies and how are they going to do it for profit?

Relentless · 07-18-2012, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I will ask for a second time since you didn't answer the first time. How does competing currencies in the US make us a better, stronger country? Also, how does it work? Who is going to control and back these currencies and how are they going to do it for profit?

We already have competing currencies. You can trade all your dollars right now for Euros, Yen, Gold or the currency of any other nation. You just can't trade your 'State currency' for the currency of any other State because only the federal government can mint money. Just a quick note, if States each had their own currency, over the last 200 years the rest of the nation would have been financially enslaved by New York, Texas and California.

The problem with our currency is that so much of it is owned by other nations or subject to our growing debt... not that we have too few kinds of it. For example, Monopoly money in six different colors is all equally worthless because it isn't backed by any real value. The orange paper isn't worth more than the white paper just because one says $500 and the other says $1 on it. The same will be true of multiple currencies or our sole currency in real life if we don't curtail its demise.

kane · 07-18-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

We already have competing currencies. You can trade all your dollars right now for Euros, Yen, Gold or the currency of any other nation. You just can't trade your 'State currency' for the currency of any other State because only the federal government can mint money. Just a quick note, if States each had their own currency, over the last 200 years the rest of the nation would have been financially enslaved by New York, Texas and California.

The problem with our currency is that so much of it is owned by other nations or subject to our growing debt... not that we have too few kinds of it. For example, Monopoly money in six different colors is all equally worthless because it isn't backed by any real value. The orange paper isn't worth more than the white paper just because one says $500 and the other says $1 on it. The same will be true of multiple currencies or our sole currency in real life if we don't curtail its demise.

Very good points. Having a system where we have competing currencies within the US (IE each state has it own currency, or anyone who wants to start and run a currency can) doesn't really benefit us as much as having one good strong currency which our government is not doing enough to protect.

kane · 07-18-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

As usual you make some good points.

What I have seen over this administration is that the divide between red shirts and blue shirts has gotten much deeper and more viscious. There are people that I used to almost call *friends*. Today we have nothing to say. And the root cause is the political climate. In many cases the damage that has been done here in Wisconsin won't be undone.

It does seem to be getting worse and worse. There has always been a divide, but it seems like these days there are several people I know who are republicans and they believe in their heart that the democrats will destroy this country and are planning a communist takeover and that the republicans are the only ones that can save it. On the other side I have some friends and relatives who are democrats and feel the exact same way about the republicans. I have two aunts that have had such heated fights over politics that they no longer speak and won't go to the same family functions. It is crazy.

Both parties know that they benefit during election years if there is a strong culture war and it seems like they finally got what they want.

Relentless · 07-18-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Both parties know that they benefit during election years if there is a strong culture war and it seems like they finally got what they want.

I don't believe it's a culture war or a race war or any other specific demographic. Go back through the history of our nation and you will always find politicians trying to divide people to make it easier to get 51% of their support. Look up Gerrymandering if you aren't familiar with it, it's a very interesting lesson in how politics works and it remains as true today as it was when it first started. They don't care which issue divides us, they only care that it defines 51% of us as their built-in support.

What has changed is that we used to have Statesmen in our government, in our news media, in our classrooms and in our social circles who were able to show scumbag politicians for what they really were. When that failed we had terrible times like McCarthyism, when it worked we had periods of prosperity thanks in no small part to people like Walter Cronkite, Dwight Eisenhower and FDR. People have always disagreed on the best way to solve a problem but now they disagree on 'whether or not it benefits our party to solve a problem.'

You can look at someone like Bill Moyers on the left as a living statesman. Some would argue Jon Stewart and Colbert fit the bill. On the right people like George Will or Pat Buchanan might be included (I agreed with Buchanan about once every 30 years but I don't doubt he honestly wants what he truly believes is best for the nation). Jim Baker probably also fits the label. Those kinds of people with national prominence are very few and far between these days... which is why the Glenn Becks, Bachmans, Pelosis and Keith Olbermans of the world are getting way too much attention while the issues get almost none.

I don't dislike people I disagree with, in fact many of my best friends have very different points of view from my own. None of us doubt the other's intentions... that is what matters most, and it is what is lacking almost completely in our national discourse today.

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

You think the power gird got there by itself? It was gov money that paid for it.

Huh?

No they did not! Companies did.

The American Electric Power company built the very first long distance lines in 1911. And the utility companies built the rest because it's cheaper for some areas to buy electricity from other areas than it is to produce it locally. Free market...buying and selling. That is the "power grid".

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

no my friend that had to pay off the war debt bills and they borrowed money.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/history/history.htm

Well...I'm gonna go with this:
"The Department of the Treasury is an executive department and the treasury of the United States federal government. It was established by an Act of Congress in 1789 to manage government revenue. The Department is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, who is a member of the Cabinet.

The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint. The Department also collects all federal taxes through the Internal Revenue Service, and manages U.S. government debt instruments, with the major exception of the Federal Reserve System.

The U.S. Treasury is an entirely separate entity from the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States. The Federal Reserve is independent within the government, and its Board of Governors (including its chairman and vice-chairman) are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Monetary policy decisions of the Federal Reserve System, in distinction to the Treasury's decisions, "do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government."

TrafficRush · 07-18-2012, 02:00 PM

i cant wait till that mofo is outta office.. damn

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrafficRush

i cant wait till that mofo is outta office.. damn

Trust me...he'll just be replaced by the next "mofo" lol

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

kane · 07-18-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

I don't believe it's a culture war or a race war or any other specific demographic. Go back through the history of our nation and you will always find politicians trying to divide people to make it easier to get 51% of their support. Look up Gerrymandering if you aren't familiar with it, it's a very interesting lesson in how politics works and it remains as true today as it was when it first started. They don't care which issue divides us, they only care that it defines 51% of us as their built-in support.

What has changed is that we used to have Statesmen in our government, in our news media, in our classrooms and in our social circles who were able to show scumbag politicians for what they really were. When that failed we had terrible times like McCarthyism, when it worked we had periods of prosperity thanks in no small part to people like Walter Cronkite, Dwight Eisenhower and FDR. People have always disagreed on the best way to solve a problem but now they disagree on 'whether or not it benefits our party to solve a problem.'

You can look at someone like Bill Moyers on the left as a living statesman. Some would argue Jon Stewart and Colbert fit the bill. On the right people like George Will or Pat Buchanan might be included (I agreed with Buchanan about once every 30 years but I don't doubt he honestly wants what he truly believes is best for the nation). Jim Baker probably also fits the label. Those kinds of people with national prominence are very few and far between these days... which is why the Glenn Becks, Bachmans, Pelosis and Keith Olbermans of the world are getting way too much attention while the issues get almost none.

I don't dislike people I disagree with, in fact many of my best friends have very different points of view from my own. None of us doubt the other's intentions... that is what matters most, and it is what is lacking almost completely in our national discourse today.

When I say culture war I guess I don't mean it in a literal sense but more as a broad statement. For example sports teams often talk about building and developing a culture of winning. I see it, in these terms, as more a statement of overall ideals.

For example. Today a friend of mine posted on his Facebook that every time he hears Obama speak he can't imagine how people can't see that he is a full blown communist. He will now be voting for Romney because of this. Over the last three years the republicans have done a very good job of branding Obama as a communist to their base. The democrats are doing it now with Romney as they work hard to paint him as an evil blood sucking capitalist who would sell his mom for profit and who will gut this country and sell it to China and it is starting to work.

What is most sad to me is that both parties seemed to have stop caring about helping the country get better and are no just worried about getting re-elected even if that means letting the country as a whole suffer for a while and there are a lot of people who eat it up.

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Over the last three years the republicans have done a very good job of branding Obama as a communist to their base. The democrats are doing it now with Romney as they work hard to paint him as an evil blood sucking capitalist

heh-heh Both statements are probably true!

mynameisjim · 07-18-2012, 02:17 PM

So many people falling for the scam.

The super-wealthy ruling class keep pushing the idea that the whole system is broken and people are believing it, despite the system working perfectly not much more than 10 years ago when we had budget surplusses and everyone had a job. It wasn't until the banking industry bankrupted the whole planet that things took a shit.

The reason they want you to think the whole system is broken is because it opens you up to accepting all kinds of crazy schemes, but the thing is the super rich are still in charge and still have the politicians in their pocket, so they are going to rewrite everything totally in their favor, even more than it is now. So basically if they convince you the whole system is broken, then they get to rewrite the system however they want since the people have ZERO representation now.

People generally enslave themselves, they don't get enslaved, and that's what Americans are doing with all this infighting. When there is infighting and chaos and confusion, these evil people come out of the woodwork and capitalize.

The banks gutted the middle class and sucked out all the equity, now they want to rewrite the entire system of government so they can gut out what's left then move on to whatever is next.

Americans need to realize that all this political in-fighting is exactly the plan, it will allow a ruling class to take over and rewrite the system totally in their favor. That's how it always works.

Go read the comments on a news story about dogs or something totally random and it's not 5 comments before it gets political, that's how crazy it has become.

Relentless · 07-18-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

When I say culture war I guess I don't mean it in a literal sense but more as a broad statement. For example sports teams often talk about building and developing a culture of winning. I see it, in these terms, as more a statement of overall ideals.

Right. "Culture War" has been a term co-opted by red shirts trying to say the government is dividing us based on who is rich and who is poor. Believe me, if we were all suddenly rich or suddenly poor they would quickly find a new dividing line to use. They don't care which demographic they need to use, only that it divides us evenly... the same way that bookies don't care which team will win, only what point spread will divide the pool of gamblers to the benefit of the house.

kane · 07-18-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Right. "Culture War" has been a term co-opted by red shirts trying to say the government is dividing us based on who is rich and who is poor. Believe me, if we were all suddenly rich or suddenly poor they would quickly find a new dividing line to use. They don't care which demographic they need to use, only that it divides us evenly... the same way that bookies don't care which team will win, only what point spread will divide the pool of gamblers to the benefit of the house.

Very true.

A while back I read something about Karl Rove and how his philosophy for running an campaign was that you crank up the culture war to get the hard right wingers scared that the democrats are going to hire sex offender teachers for all schools and those schools will rape your daughters, get them pregnant then force them to have abortions. Then you move just enough to middle to get the more right leaning independents and you hope for rain on election day because a low turnout favors the republicans.

Sadly, he is right.

Bringing it back to the topic of this thread you can see Obama doing it now as well. In his speech he is basically telling people that the government can and will help them succeed in life so just vote for him and he will help you get rich.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-18-2012, 02:28 PM

Well I am glad to know that the banks and wall street did not crash the economy. It was the workers and the government that did that. Without the help of the workers or government there would have been no great recession.

kane · 07-18-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Go read the comments on a news story about dogs or something totally random and it's not 5 comments before it gets political, that's how crazy it has become.

That is a very true statement. It seems like no matter what the news story is about it doesn't take long and someone sees it as a political ploy and infighting starts.

Paul Markham · 07-18-2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Huh?

No they did not! Companies did.

The American Electric Power company built the very first long distance lines in 1911. And the utility companies built the rest because it's cheaper for some areas to buy electricity from other areas than it is to produce it locally. Free market...buying and selling. That is the "power grid".

Who built the Hoover Dam and many of the electricity generating stations?

Robbie, with respect. If you advocate tax cuts, where would you like the savings to be made in the Budget. So the US doesn't borrow even more money to keep the system from sinking?

Also the financial crisis, isn't just down to the Government. A lot of the blame lies with Private Enterprise. Shipping jobs over seas, a banking sector that wasn't governed enough. And when the shit hit the fan the Government had to step in to save the country from a recession that would of made the 30s look like a tea party. While the Bankers, private enterprise, ran off to the Bahamas with their money.

Watch this to understand clearer.

Many take for granted what Governments do to keep the wheels turning. It might be the local Town Hall, State Government or Federal. Without them, it would be even worse chaos than it is.

What Obama was saying is "No Man is an Island".

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Who built the Hoover Dam and many of the electricity generating stations?

A group of companies that formed a single company for the project called "Six Companies"

This was a project that was undertaken by Pres. Coolidge in the middle of the GREAT Depression.

The govt. hired The Six Companies (who brought in the lowest bid) to do the job as part of a way to get people working again.

In 2012...our govt. won't even allow the Keystone Pipeline (which would be a huge economic boom) to be built.

IF the Hoover Dam were to be attempted today...it would never be built because of the E.P.A. (environmental protection agency) And Congress wouldn't even consider it because Democrats would NEVER vote against environmentalists groups (thus the loss of jobs and money from the Keystone Pipeline)

I watched all of that on The History Channel by the way. lol
And yes, they said that it would not be built in "modern" times because ecologists would block it.

Hope that answers that for you.

OErotica · 07-18-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's a pretty broad statement.

There are still a few actual individualistic people left in this world.

My grandfather for instance.

He never knew his parents and went to work for the railroad at age 15. Married my grandmother at 17. Built his own house by Peace River in central Florida and fished and hunted to feed them.

Then through his own intelligence and work ethic became friends and business partners with other hard working smart men. One turned out to be the local bank president a few years later. The other became the biggest real estate agent in central florida.

Together the three of them formed a loose partnership and all became millionaires in the citrus and cattle industry.
My grandfather was like a mathematical genius. Any figures put in front of him he calculated damn near instantly....

Not "Each and every one of us" are dependent on the govt.
...

Not to downplay his tremendous efforts or anything, but isn't this exactly the point President Obama was getting at? He never once has mentioned anything about people needing to depend on the government for anything, and I've listened to / read all of his speeches since even prior to his election.

There are certain media channels, radio spokespersons, etc... that wish for millions of people to feel a certain way about this President, because, well, isn't the reason obvious? Rather than just coming out and saying it, people tend to beat around the bush, twist his words, plant words in his mouth, and play soundbytes that are just long enough for the listeners/viewers to be fooled into thinking he is this bad person.

I'm not saying he's the perfect person or anything, but President Obama makes a lot of valid points. Nobody that has truly become successful, has gotten there on their own. He never says or implies that it's the government's fault that people become successful, but he persistent with the idea of other people in general -- helping others to become successful.

Your store wouldn't be a success without customers. But then again, your customers wouldn't purchase your products unless you were selling them... Did you make them? Did you create all your products to sell by yourself? Even if you did, again... You needed customers to actually buy the product, otherwise, you would not have achieved success, right? You own a massive company? Do you complete all the work yourself? Does Mr. Best Buy or Mr. Target single-handedly run each and every store by himself? Probably not. What does he have to do? Hire employees? Sure, they get paid, so why should he worry about their health insurance? I mean, if they're earning $9/hr, that should be enough to cover $200/month for themselves to be insured, right? It's not like they have a family or anything to provide for... These people don't matter, anyway, right? All they do all day is eat, sleep, shit, and take care of your business at the ground level... That's not important... Fire them all. Do everything by yourself, after all, that is why you're successful, right? President Obama feels this way, but since Mr. Radio-personality says these things are bad, and because President Obama feels that people that can afford to do more, should be willing to do more to help out those that help them, then he must clearly be evil. Let's call him by his middle name, as a scare tactic, because we don't have anything else both true and bad to say about the man. Let's talk about how badly he hates rich people, because we know that pisses people off.

Basically, whether you like President Obama or not, if you really listen to him, you'd understand that the man clearly is intelligent, and clearly has the best intentions in the world for bringing a positive change to the USA. The problem is that people can't get over their prejudices and racisms enough to even consider acknowledging the truth. Let the man do his fucking job! You don't like it? Why don't you run in the next campaign, Mr. Internet User, Mr. News Reporter, Mr. Radio Personality, Mr. Pussy behind a fucking microphone. Why don't you run, since you know everything. Surely you'd win, right? No? Then STFU and GTFO.

DWB · 07-18-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

We already have competing currencies. You can trade all your dollars right now for Euros, Yen, Gold or the currency of any other nation. You just can't trade your 'State currency' for the currency of any other State because only the federal government can mint money. Just a quick note, if States each had their own currency, over the last 200 years the rest of the nation would have been financially enslaved by New York, Texas and California.

Are you suggesting a state currency?

They already tried that back in the 1700s (colony currency) and it didn't work out so well. But if your local neighborhood wants to trade in their own currency, by all means they should be allowed. It would just be a nightmare to have to change currency for those who do a lot of interstate travel (truckers, businessmen, and so on).

No one who travels across any border wants to deal with multiple currency. It's a pain in the ass. It is 100x easier to just go back to a method that works, a currency backed by a commodity, a mix of commodities, or a percentage of a commodity, and be done with it. Switzerland had a 40% gold backed Franc until 2000, had zero inflation, and was considered a very safe currency. Just a decent percentage of a currency being backed by something tangible would be a HUGE step forward. Gold, silver, palladium, copper, whatever. We have options. Why not use 25% of each?

EpicPanda · 07-18-2012, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

He was just repeating this sentiment, but the delivery was a bit botched...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

Morons think he's got some scary anti-American Muslim Kenyan agenda, but that's just what Rush and Fox tell them to think, so what are you going to do, argue with idiots?

Exactly. Saved me a post.

In fact, I think the "--" in the key part of this supposed 'quote' might be the missing "..." explaining the roads, police, public education point.

Robbie · 07-18-2012, 04:27 PM

OErotica...I think you are interpreting what you hear and see to match what you already think.

When I hear people saying that if it weren't for the GOVERNMENT that you or I wouldn't be able to be successful..I just can not disagree more.

As for you underlining that my grandfather made partners and friends and together they formed an awesome team... So what? He didn't NEED them. And they didn't NEED him.

But they saw the work ethic and intelligence in each other that was higher than the common unambitious people around them.

Just like you have in your life and I have in my life. That's called 3 individuals recognizing certain qualities in each other and taking advantage of that.

Next you'll tell me that since my mom and dad fucked 9 months before my birth that THEY are responsible for my success? Or the fact that I breath air...it must be Mother Nature.

No...my business? I didn't build that! Everybody I ever knew in my life must be responsible for it right?

I'm sorry, but that is just child-like and ridiculous to me. I don't fuck around at business. I work more hours than anyone I know and I focus like an arrow. 99% of the people work for OTHER people and work for the weekend. They get done at 5 p.m. and go home and don't even THINK about work until the next day.

Me? I work all hours. All holidays. On family vacations. Just like all successful people. I am DRIVEN.

07-18-2012, 06:56 AM	#52
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,912	You owe them and they owe you. I think the point is that its not fair for the CEO to be banking Millions and hundreds of millions and laying people off that were instrumental in making the business that money. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

07-18-2012, 10:45 AM	#67
TheSquealer BANNED Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In Your Head Posts: 25,083	A government has money for schools, hospitals, roads etc only because entrepreneurs create business and jobs which is where the government derives the majority of revenue to provide those things __________________ . Yes, fewer illegal immigrants working equates to more job opportunities for American citizens. Rochard

07-18-2012, 02:00 PM	#86
TrafficRush See My SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sunny Paradise Posts: 2,099	i cant wait till that mofo is outta office.. damn __________________ INTRALINK DSP \| SIGNUP TO MAKE BANK NOW Skype: Traffic-RushHour \| ICQ: 467617514

07-18-2012, 02:17 PM	#90
mynameisjim Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,985	So many people falling for the scam. The super-wealthy ruling class keep pushing the idea that the whole system is broken and people are believing it, despite the system working perfectly not much more than 10 years ago when we had budget surplusses and everyone had a job. It wasn't until the banking industry bankrupted the whole planet that things took a shit. The reason they want you to think the whole system is broken is because it opens you up to accepting all kinds of crazy schemes, but the thing is the super rich are still in charge and still have the politicians in their pocket, so they are going to rewrite everything totally in their favor, even more than it is now. So basically if they convince you the whole system is broken, then they get to rewrite the system however they want since the people have ZERO representation now. People generally enslave themselves, they don't get enslaved, and that's what Americans are doing with all this infighting. When there is infighting and chaos and confusion, these evil people come out of the woodwork and capitalize. The banks gutted the middle class and sucked out all the equity, now they want to rewrite the entire system of government so they can gut out what's left then move on to whatever is next. Americans need to realize that all this political in-fighting is exactly the plan, it will allow a ruling class to take over and rewrite the system totally in their favor. That's how it always works. Go read the comments on a news story about dogs or something totally random and it's not 5 comments before it gets political, that's how crazy it has become. __________________ jim (at) amateursconvert . com Amateurs Convert Last edited by mynameisjim; 07-18-2012 at 02:20 PM..

07-18-2012, 02:28 PM	#93
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	Well I am glad to know that the banks and wall street did not crash the economy. It was the workers and the government that did that. Without the help of the workers or government there would have been no great recession. __________________

07-18-2012, 11:39 AM	#71
DudeRick Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Tobacco Road Posts: 1,568	http://didntbuildthat.com/.

07-18-2012, 04:27 PM	#100
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	OErotica...I think you are interpreting what you hear and see to match what you already think. When I hear people saying that if it weren't for the GOVERNMENT that you or I wouldn't be able to be successful..I just can not disagree more. As for you underlining that my grandfather made partners and friends and together they formed an awesome team... So what? He didn't NEED them. And they didn't NEED him. But they saw the work ethic and intelligence in each other that was higher than the common unambitious people around them. Just like you have in your life and I have in my life. That's called 3 individuals recognizing certain qualities in each other and taking advantage of that. Next you'll tell me that since my mom and dad fucked 9 months before my birth that THEY are responsible for my success? Or the fact that I breath air...it must be Mother Nature. No...my business? I didn't build that! Everybody I ever knew in my life must be responsible for it right? I'm sorry, but that is just child-like and ridiculous to me. I don't fuck around at business. I work more hours than anyone I know and I focus like an arrow. 99% of the people work for OTHER people and work for the weekend. They get done at 5 p.m. and go home and don't even THINK about work until the next day. Me? I work all hours. All holidays. On family vacations. Just like all successful people. I am DRIVEN. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com