patrick.net

CaptainShuddup says

Every speech Obama does is to divide the country. His speeches always have an "Us against them" under tone and theme. He starts every speech with "The mess he inherited".

President Romney wont engage in such skulduggery.

Yeah right, that "divide" exacerbated itself with Sarah Impaled's comments about "real americans." If that's not divisive, I don't know what is. At no point during any of Barack's speeches did I feel any divisiveness at all.

Honest Abe says

That straight A student didn't do it on his own, someone else made that happen.

I agree that the student is the one who earned their success.

But if the students was poor, thank goodness there were good public schools where his or her gifts could take root where he or she could get the support they deserve.

(yeah, yeah, I know...public schools aren't all good. True. All private schools aren't good either. It is very tough in some neighborhoods for a public school to work miracles. They take everyone that the private schools don't get. But even there, in those worst neighborhoods, a lot of children in unfortunate situations are given opportunities that they deserve and that they ( yes THEY) take advantage of, at least sometimes.

Damn! The trolls almost brought me down to their level made me respond.

Amazing how a little bit of misdirection can send a discussion thread careening around like the (late) Ted Kennedy behind the wheel of a car.

On Thursday July 19, the good Captain posts a blog entry from May 11, citing it as "proof" that Romney is winning and will win

The source for this claim is from the Rasmussen organization, based upon their polling data. Only one problem: Rasmussen, as of July 20, now has Obama in the lead in the popular vote, based upon their, ummm, shall we say, slightly more recent polling data:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting 47% of the vote, while Mitt Romney earns 46%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) more are undecided.

Indeed, since the information at that link changes daily, it is (until the next update) what you see when you follow the link provided at the blog entry to Rasmussen. Ciggy man Obama (wonder what his brand of choice is?) ahead. Holy Underwear dude trailing.

In any event, presuming Rasmussen as a reliable source, what we've seen is Holy Underwear dude dropping in the polls (by 4%) and Ciggy man Obama rising (by 4%). From May 11 to July 19. If the trend is your friend, it sure looks like Romney is losing ground and Obama is gaining it. And this, please note, is using nothing but the same source as the good Captain.

Inquiring minds are curious why a May blog entry is being posted on July 19th. Excessive sugar consumption, perhaps? An inability to read the calendar? Something else? I did accuse the Captain of "misdirection" at the start of my post. But perhaps that is unfair. I await an explanation of the three month disconnect with greatest curiosity. And if the Captain needs help with figuring which month follows which month, I will be happy to tutor him, free of charge.

So has Mittens done enough good deeds to get his own planet?

Elwood just layeth the smack down.

Obama had a real chance to go to bat for the American people but didn't. I also think he will be re-elected.

HRHMedia,

Point #1: when Obama took office I felt he had a chance to show leadership but all he did was blame Bush. as the leader of the free world you do not blame your former or current government anyone for anything.You simply address the problems and deal with it. Blaming is NOT leadership.

Point #2: we had more pressing problems in the country and all it seemed like Obama forced healthcare in Congress in 2000+ page bill that nobody read. As the leader of the free world it is more important to tackle the nations problems at hand above your agenda..

Point #3: the national debt almost doubled under Obama in 4 years than Bush ran it up in 8.

#1 HRH Media says:
Who wouldn't , the whole word did. Will you blame Obama for killin Bin Laden or blame bush for not killing him? How about ending the Iraq war.

- the USS Cole was attacked under Clintons watch ... we had a wide open shot at him. Neither president got Bin laden, our Navy SEALS did.

#2 HRH Media says:
Healthcare is very pressing, a family of four is paying as much as $20k a year. For the past 80yrs they have been trying to fix it. To place blame on Obama for trying to fix a problem bankrupting millions of Americans is stupid.

- There was a lot more in that bill then simple healthcare reform. It doesn't take 2000 pages to mandate insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions or force them not to raise rates effective immediately not in 2014. Unfortunately ObamaCare is a TAX... we will be paying for it one way or another.

#3 HRH Media says:
$5 Trillion unfunded by BUSH, 2 wars, healthcare, tax cuts and much much more.

- gratefully we have not been attacked again and it seemed like any additional plots after 9/11 have thus far been foiled.

regardless of who is president, you should not blame

both parties deserve a failing grade...

CaptainDB you can get great odds on Romney. Way better than even money.

So if you really believe he will win you should put your money where your mouth is.

Obama's point is well taken.

But the way he phrased it is a direct insult to everyone who's ever taken the risks involved in starting up a successful business.

So the bigger question is, why did he insult small business owners? He's intelligent enough to know exactly what he was saying.

One likely answer: To demean them in the eyes of the public, making it easier to garner support to increase the tax burden on them.

"likely" due to his well established proclivity to raising taxes.

bdrasin says

How anyone can say this is an insult to anyone is totally beyond me

xrpb11a says

Obama's point is well taken.

But the way he phrased it is a direct insult to everyone who's ever taken the risks involved in starting up a successful business.

So the bigger question is, why did he insult small business owners? He's intelligent enough to know exactly what he was saying.

You find it insulting when someone says: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together"? I think that's either great arrogance on your part, or a sincere desire to find something to be offended about.

HRHMedia says

How is Obama the worst president?

He's just the worst one in a long time, FDR was worse.

So what part of "Obama's point is well taken" is it that you don't understand?

bdrasin says

xrpb11a says

Obama's point is well taken.

But the way he phrased it is a direct insult to everyone who's ever taken the risks involved in starting up a successful business.

So the bigger question is, why did he insult small business owners? He's intelligent enough to know exactly what he was saying.

You find it insulting when someone says: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together"? I think that's either great arrogance on your part, or a sincere desire to find something to be offended about.

No. I find it insulting to insert a Business Owner Demeaning sentence in the middle of a normal stump speech, just to jazz up his base.

bdrasin says

You find it insulting when someone says: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together"?

What OBama said made sense, in fact it's something everyone knows roto be true, but there are a lot of extremely stupid people on the right that are more than willing to gobble up the most ridiculous ways that NewsCorp spins things.

xrpb11a says

OB could have phrased it differently. But he did not. Why?

Because in he sees the world through the eyes of an elite university professor...
Thats his world.. certainly not from the view point of the small, med or large business owner.

xrpb11a says

When I started my business

You like many business owners owe the government your fortunes...

You've missed the boat completely.
OB said that directly to me, without any other media outlet's help.

marcus says

What OBama said made sense, in fact it's something everyone knows roto be true, but there are a lot of extremely stupid people on the right that are more than willing to gobble up the most ridiculous ways that NewsCorp spins things.

don't worry. It looks like the government is coming to collect....

thomaswong.1986 says

xrpb11a says

When I started my business

You like many business owners owe the government your fortunes...

I'm not sure where you found this poll, but from what I''ve seen Obama is well ahead of Romney in the polls - even from the highly respected Fox "News"

Pollster Dates Pop. Obama Romney Undecided Margin
Rasmussen 7/17 - 7/19 1,500 LV 47 46 - Obama +1
Gallup 7/13 - 7/19 3,000 RV 48 44 - Obama +4
FOX 7/15 - 7/17 901 RV 45 41 11 Obama +4
Rasmussen 7/14 - 7/16 1,500 LV 44 47 - Romney +3
YouGov/Economist 7/14 - 7/16 742 RV 47 44 5 Obama +3
CBS/Times 7/11 - 7/16 942 RV 46 47 5 Romney +1
DailyKos/SEIU/PPP (D) 7/12 - 7/15 1,000 RV 48 46 7 Obama +2
Rasmussen 7/11 - 7/13 1,500 LV 46 45 - Obama +1
NPR 7/9 - 7/12 1,000 LV 47 45 5 Obama +2
Gallup 7/6 - 7/12 3,000 RV 46 46 - -

The funny thing is, that even if Obama slipped up in the way he said what he was saying, even the critics know full well what he meant.

It's getting to the issue of the taxes paid by high income people. Taxes should be more progressive for a number of reasons, including the fact that the government, the infrastructure, the law (actually the country itself) and market environment are all interconnected, and yes they help make success possible. No true conservative questions this. And yet while they get it, they love to jump on one out of context sentence that was basically a slip.

It's basically: "Let's see, I get his message, but I'm pretty sure I can jump on the way he said it and we can misconstrue and have a good ole time."

You know the point he was trying to make. "Every man for himself" is not what made this country great. And some big important decisions are going to have to be made soon, about spending priorities and taxation.

If you want you can argue that the real reason for our governments debts is greedy unions and out of control government workers.

But it also might have a little to do with:

1) Costly tax cuts that were given mostly to high incomes
2) Off book wars, that cost trillions
3) GDP and revenues being lower than expected, due to a financial crisis that was brought about largely by financial markets and lending practices run amok

xrpb11a says

Oh? Who did Pierre Omidyar cooperate with when he started Auction Web, the precursor to Ebay, as a sole proprietor?

The enterprise value of what became ebay was built on the legal system as provided by the State, and also of course the internet itself, which was also initially created by the State, partially thanks to Al Gore, who took the initiative in its creation, before being handed off to private entities to commercialize.

marcus says

GDP and revenues being lower than expected, due to a financial crisis that was brought about largely by financial markets and lending practices run amok

this is . . . incorrect. It's not the crisis or the "bad lending" that is killing "growth", it's the fact that the growth of the Bush years was predicated on the bad lending in the first place.

This lending was essentially "stimulus" spending, $7T mainlined right into the middle class. When it failed, so went the Bush Economy, such as it was.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=8WZ

blue line is year-on-year borrowing, red line is YOY job growth.

Helloeeze says

am not claiming Obama is against business. I am saying he doesn't understand what it takes to start a business and have employees, etc, or he wouldn't make statements that glibly toss off the hard work and personal sacrifice that business owners go through.

that's just right-wing bullshit and not what Obama in his speech said at all.

xrpb11a says

Taken in context with the whole paragraph, it is understood that a business is a cooperative effort between labor and management.

Not at all. Here's the offending paragraph:

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.

He's talking about all that's come before and exists today. The schools, the teachers, the legal system, the general social capital of honest dealing and lack of graft, and the actual infrastructure.

The "building" is referred to the above, not the business itself.

Anybody reading it "that" to refer to the business is being intentionally dense, or a conservative, but I repeat myself.

It's precisely what he said. you know it. I know it.
Delurking says

that's just right-wing bullshit and not what Obama in his speech said at all.

the right and left wing put out a lot of bullshit...
but the comment below holds water.
Obama never created and ran a business. Like most other things in life, unless you have gone through the process, it is close to impossible to accurately describe and appreciate the experience.

That is why he tossed out the offending sentence, without a second thought.

Delurking says

Helloeeze says

am not claiming Obama is against business. I am saying he doesn't understand what it takes to start a business and have employees, etc, or he wouldn't make statements that glibly toss off the hard work and personal sacrifice that business owners go through.

that's just right-wing bullshit and not what Obama in his speech said at all.

I have no problem going back to paying 39%, or even a little more.
As long as spending is harnessed, which it has not been up to this point.

marcus says

It's getting to the issue of the taxes paid by high income people.

xrpb11a says

I have no problem going back to paying 39%, or even a little more.
As long as spending is harnessed, which it has not been up to this point.

It's astounding how this sentiment is not echoed by Liberals.
This is what they are saying...
"Hey let's tax, let's tax, let's tax!"

"Well what are the plans with that revenue?"

"Tax the rich!"

Delurking says

He's talking about all that's come before and exists today. The schools, the teachers, the legal system, the general social capital of honest dealing and lack of graft, and the actual infrastructure.

Of course that is correct but what I think Obama may not completely understand is the level of identification people have with their businesses and their "story". Obama is looking at the overall picture but the individual is looking at his/her life and how much time, energy and money they have put in to the creation and running of their business. Very few businesses are 9 to 5 jobs, there is no guaranteed salary you can get rich or go bankrupt or as is often the case just make the same living as a wage slave but with a lot more work and stress. So I think the fail in his words is not acknowledging the extra effort that is a part of business creation and management. On the other hand the republicans by using the term job creator have elevated business people to a God like status which is absurd. As I have said in other posts job creation is a side effect of being in a for profit business, not its goal.

rdm says

On the other hand the republicans by using the term job creator have elevated business people to a God like status which is absurd.

You sound like one of those clowns that have no respect for hard work, or the desire let alone the wherewithal to work and save to realize your own dreams as a business owner.

But I bet you feel entitled to an executive level salary.

Interesting perspective....got any examples?

rdm says

On the other hand the republicans by using the term job creator have elevated business people to a God like status

CaptainShuddup says

You sound like one of those clowns that have no respect for hard work, or the desire let alone the wherewithal to work and save to realize your own dreams as a business owner.

You have no clue about me though in other threads I have mentioned I started, owned and operated a business for 23 years 1981 through 2004, hired hundreds of people. Went from nothing to doing millions of dollars a year in business. Worked far more hours than my employees who were unionized and well paid with good benefits. Damn right I was entitled to an "executive" level salary, though I never took one, most profits were retained in the business. I hired lots of people but my motive was to make money not create jobs. So I don't buy this Hallelujah choir that ques up when the sacred words "job creators" are used

And you Capt. Schmutz what's your story? What life experience gives you your perspective, which seems rather bitter, no?

Sorry. Precedent has been set.
Post 10 years of your corporate tax returns, or be pegged as a MasterBullShitter...

rdm says

You have no clue about me though in other threads I have mentioned I started, owned and operated a business for 23 years 1981 through 2004, hired hundreds of people. Went from nothing to doing millions of dollars a year in business.

xrpb11a says

Sorry. Precedent has been set.
Post 10 years of your corporate tax returns, or be pegged as a MasterBullShitter...

rdm says

Fortunately, unlike Mitt I don't require your vote for the most powerful position in the world.

xrpb11a says

Interesting perspective....got any examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity

"Job Creator" is weapons-grade bullshit