published Thursday, August 9th, 2012

Disdain for success

As President Barack Obama continues to build his campaign around envy and disdain of the successful — known as either "pay your fair share" or class warfare — it can only be deduced that the Democratic Party of Thomas Jefferson and Bill Clinton is now an homogenous lot who clamors against those who work and pursue achievement.

The manifestation of that un-American and unsustainable ideology came in the form of the now-famous declaration by the architect of the United States' failed economic policies: "If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Translation: If you work hard, chase America's Dream of opportunity and success, you're not grateful enough to the state and the entitlement class living off of your labor.

It's time for Americans be to Americans first and reject such drivel. After all, it has been the downfall across the line of time of socialist nation after socialist nation.

November's election, when heated in the crucible of truth to the most basic elements, will be a referendum on whether America is free, based on true individualism or a socialist, collectivist state that rules, vacant of any rule of law but aimed to standardize mediocrity.

65
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
jazzman said...

The main guy in the republican 'we build that' ad received either SBA, State/local grants or federal money., the same is true for other people republicans trotted out on the same subject.

re: socialist

Can you do some 'deducin' about Willard's healthcare plan in Mass., the one that 'mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level

August 9, 2012 at 3:29 a.m.
EaTn said...

Most "successes" would be failures without the money supply, infrastructure and other amenities provided by the fellow taxpayers. Taxes are the means by which the successful taxpayer pays back this obligation, unless of course he/she is too greedy to see what is fair.

August 9, 2012 at 6:37 a.m.
librul said...

The Mondragon Corporation in Spain shows this writer's drivel for the lie that it is.

August 9, 2012 at 8:22 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

librul said... The Mondragon Corporation in Spain shows this writer's drivel for the lie that it is.

Thanks for the info. I had not been aware of the Mondragon Corp.

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG/Who-we-are/Introduction.aspx

To the tin foil hat wearer that wrote the article..........

The talking point that liberal, democrats, or independents have disdain for wealth is just a huge lie. I find it utterly amazing that anyone believes the nonsense. But it sure does point out the ignorant among us.

from the article...... "If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Listen closely....A business transaction means at least two people or companies doing some business together. Business COULD NOT EXIST without a two-party transaction. President Obama is right. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

It is fully evident that the educational dumbing down of the South has worked on those that rely on others to teach them. Do some research. Surely you can use a dictionary!

August 9, 2012 at 9:11 a.m.
chatt_man said...

To the people that can't understand...

Obama's statement in general (no matter how you interpret it) is demeaning to anyone that has mortgaged their home, put the assets of their family out there to gamble, and worked tiresome hours to have something. Obama comes along and says, paraphrasing... You should do more for the ones that got you here. Without business people willing to gamble their assets (that you all despise), the poor, the needy, the people that can't take care of themselves, and the just plain slackers wouldn't have producers creating the environment to help take care of them.

And Just One Not Southern Woman... take your ass back to where it came from, if all you have to say puts down the South.

I hope you're typing from afar, or you're just as big a hypocrite as you seem.

You and Obama never seem to have anything positive to say about this country. Take your ass out of it too, if it's made up of such greedy people.

August 9, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
timbo said...

chatt_man....These goofy socialist libs just don't get it. It is a waste of time trying. Even if they are right that government had a role, it is very small. Not only that, all of the "government help" is available to everyone and it is only a small percentage of people that start and successfully manage businesses. Why, because we do all the EXTRA things it takes to be successful. These extra things need to be rewarded because they enable us to create wealth and jobs.

These ignorant libs are jealous that they don't have the balls to take a risk. They want our money to "equal" everything else out. It is standard national socialist behavior of income redistribution. They get our money and take no risk.

These fools just don't understand and never will.

August 9, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
timbo said...

jazzman...The SBA loans very little money to small business. They do guarentee 50% of a bank loan. This doesn't protect the small business man, it protects the bank and makes it a little more likely that the bank will take a risk.

This all has changed with Obama's new banking rules. It is almost impossible for small business to get money now. Ask anyone who runs a business.

At least learn a little bit about the subject before commenting.

August 9, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

This article is pure trash and the typical comments from chatt_man and timbo are right on cue, parroting their usual right wing drivel.

It is clear to anyone with half a brain that Obama does not hate the successful or the wealthy. Nor do I or any liberals that I know. It is the greed and an utter contempt for civic duty that is detestable and which should be disdained by liberals and conservatives alike.

But today's conservatives have been brainwashed by the tea party radicalism and the Randian philosophy - if one dare call it a "philosophy" - that greed is good, that government is nothing but an agent of the devil, and that any taxation at all is "stealing" from the rich and an attempt to "redistribute" the wealth. How can we have an honest and open discussion about how to proceed from here when the core elements that make up any society (government and taxation) have been made to appear evil just by their very existence?

Obama was not at all trying to smack down the rich and successful; he was only trying to make the point that nobody in our country got where he/she did alone. This modern-day right wing mindset of "rugged" individualism, Randian objectivism, and lust for uber-wealth has taken hold and taken over the thinking of so many people on the right that it is necessary to remind them/us that we are all in this together. We are going to stand or fall, going forward, as a nation, collectively, not as a country comprised of mere individuals, greedily doing their own thing.

August 9, 2012 at 11:47 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Any derivation of the word "Socialism" has ceased to have meaning. Conservatives have used the word to describe EVERYTHING. Taxes, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. These things ARE NOT "Socialist". The vast majority of Liberals ARE NOT "Socialists".

You discredit yourself by making ignorant associations like this. Do some research. Understand the meaning of words. Any attempt to use the words "Socialism", "Marxism", "Communism" or any derivation thereof to describe any of the afore mentioned programs and/or Obama/Liberals is a blatant disregard of facts and reason.

August 9, 2012 at noon
Rickaroo said...

Well said, Easy. You are exactly right.

August 9, 2012 at 12:32 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"These ignorant libs are jealous that they don't have the balls to take a risk" - timbo

Sir, you have the audacity to simply lump every liberal out there into a pile of nothing but jealous socialist slackers? You don't have a clue what other people - liberal or otherwise - have experienced or endured in their lives. There are all manner of risks in life and goals to be attained. But you have the haughty and mistaken notion that no achievements matter unless they come in the form of business ownership. It must be nice to entertain such delusions of grandeur about yourself, especially considering the fact that you are such a nobody in the grand scheme of things. I don't know what you've achieved in life or how much wealth you've amassed, but if you think I'm jealous of even the tiniest fragment of your life, you are sadly mistaken. Actually, the more fitting word would be grateful. I am eternally grateful that I don't have to go through life as someone like you.... with an ego so big but a mind so small.

August 9, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.
conservative said...

Good job! concise, and on the mark.

You mentioned envy of Demoncrats/Liberals - true!

You mentioned disdain of Demoncrats/ Liberals - true!

I will mention greed of Demoncrats/Liberals - true!

I will mention thievery of Demoncrats/Liberals - true!

Demoncrats/Liberals want the wealth/property of others and resent them for having it. This is the very definition of envy.

Demoncrats/Liberals have disdain for business/corporations and self-righteously feel/claim these got their wealth unfairly.

Greed is a word constantly thrown around by Demoncrats/Liberals in attacking corporations but they are the ones who are most greedy in that they intensely desire the wealth/property of others.

Demoncrats/Liberals are thieves for they will only vote for the Demoncrat who will redistribute the wealth/property of others to themselves. They had this Socialist "spread the wealth around mentality" long before Obamination vocally said the same.

August 9, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
EaTn said...

Easy123 said...

"Any derivation of the word "Socialism" has ceased to have meaning. Conservatives have used the word to describe EVERYTHING. Taxes, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. These things ARE NOT "Socialist". The vast majority of Liberals ARE NOT "Socialists".

Well, if the right-wingers would expand their reading base they would find other terms for the left, like maybe compassionate, generous, caring, sharing, broad-minded, negotiable, etc. The term "socialist" can best be described by the original Christians in the Book of Acts in the Bible, but then you have to read the whole book to find specifics like that.

August 9, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

chatt_man said... And Just One Not Southern Woman... take your ass back to where it came from, if all you have to say puts down the South.

From the King's prespective aye? Only a holier than thou man would say such a thing you JERK! and what you say puts down women. My ars is from here, probably long before yours was born. Get over it! I will be and say as I please. And there is not a darn thing you can do but stew! LOL

timbo said... These ignorant libs are jealous that they don't have the balls to take a risk.

And another man thinks he is king. LOL Balls? they are way too fragile. The bible says crushed testicles are a way to hell. The vagina is much stronger, takes a pounding, and is in much more demand. (Thank you Betty White) Take those balls and limp on out of here, I will keep my vagina. And come November, you will be shown that most people in the nation just don't think like you.

August 9, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

EaTn said... Easy123 said...

"Any derivation of the word "Socialism" has ceased to have meaning. Conservatives have used the word to describe EVERYTHING. Taxes, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. These things ARE NOT "Socialist". The vast majority of Liberals ARE NOT "Socialists".

Well, if the right-wingers would expand their reading base they would find other terms for the left, like maybe compassionate, generous, caring, sharing, broad-minded, negotiable, etc. The term "socialist" can best be described by the original Christians in the Book of Acts in the Bible, but then you have to read the whole book to find specifics like that.

And THAT is the point. Make the word have less meaning as to confuse the masses into anything they want. Follow the money on that one. Traces right back to the six people running the Heritage Foundation and the Koch Brothers, you know, the hidden god kings of the GOP. (I only say "hidden" because they seem to be hidden form the average Republicans I know.)

August 9, 2012 at 2:20 p.m.
chatt_man said...

JustOneWoman, If your ars is from here, than why don't you write about it as much as you do that vagina? Are you not as proud of it as you are that vagina you talk about in half the posts you write? Damn, that thing must really get around.

No room for Kings around here, this is America. We never had a king until Obama decided to treat us all as his subjects. And make no mistake, his ass will be out of here in November.

You sound like most of the democrats alright, you have no appreciation of your heritage, the place you came from, or the country you live in, and all that it has provided you and people around the world. You're like someone that rents a house... you have no regard for its condition because you have no sweat and equity in it.

Were you also never proud of your country until you're Boy King was anointed for his short, temporary position?

August 9, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn...

Speaking for myself, I view those who seek some form of equality by advocating the redistribution of wealth by government force, as Socialists. These also use/want/advocate government control of the economy to achieve equality.

You wrote : "other terms for the left, like maybe compassionate, generous, caring, sharing, broad-minded, negotiable, etc."

Now, nearly all of those virtues you listed are to be practice by YOU EaTn, and not an impersonal government. This is especially true in America under our Constitution, the law of the land. This side of the paper has spoken out about those unconstitutional federal programs you listed for the aproximately 30yrs I've been reading it.

Liberals need to repent and quit seeking and getting the wealth of their neighbor through the vote.

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. .Frederic Bastiat

August 9, 2012 at 3:17 p.m.
EaTn said...

conservative said..."Liberals need to repent and quit seeking and getting the wealth of their neighbor through the vote."

Need I remind you that the Bush tax cuts purpose was to redistribute the wealth to the wealthy, which has accomplished just that. About all I can say is that only the greedy wealthy and gullible others would continue to be happy that the current tax situation will only further push middle class down into poverty while redistributing the wealth upward.

August 9, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo....Brain-washed????.....and you guys aren't. I know you fancy yourselves as free thinkers but your diatribe is 80 years old.

The fact still remains that libs want someone else's money to make their lives better. Maybe they don't deserve it but they get it anyway. So, you define greedy by your standards which are basically socialist ideals. In other words, in a free country you or your liberal buddies don't define what is "fair." Individuals decide for themselves.

August 9, 2012 at 3:54 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

chatt_man said... ...... Boy King was anointed for his short, temporary position?

Screwdriver you and your high horse! The above statement shows your racists attitude. I don't hear anything like that except from you faux watchers. Who do you really think you are working for? Never mind. You wouldn't know if it was signed on a paycheck. Up is down to you guys. From now on, you are blah blah to me. Post if you wish, but I will not read it. You have no power here. You are just another shrill spewing poo.

timbo said... ........ The fact still remains that libs want someone else's money to make their lives better. Maybe they don't deserve it but they get it anyway. So, you define greedy by your standards which are basically socialist ideals. In other words, in a free country you or your liberal buddies don't define what is "fair." Individuals decide for themselves.

The fact remains that while you profess yourself anything but a liberal, you spout that you know inside the mind of a liberal. You do not have a clue. You know nothing. You just repeat talking points and script. I actually think you Timbo are getting paid to do this.

August 9, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.
EaTn said...

timbo...nobody creates wealth (money) except the government. Everybody else just shares in the redistribution based on their efforts and abilities. The Bush tax cuts had the pretense of creating jobs with this redistributed wealth, which would have worked fine if the job creators had played the game instead of hoarding the wealth.

August 9, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn., you wrote "Need I remind you that the Bush tax cuts purpose was to redistribute the wealth to the wealthy,"

To begin, a tax cut does not "redistribute wealth", you have believed a lie. A tax cut means a taxpayer has to part with less of his money to government. A government never receives the amount of the tax cut so it can not redistribute it to anyone.

Nearly everyone who paid taxes received a tax cut not just the wealthy. Your envy, greed and disdain, for the wealthy is showing when you single out just wealthy recipients Furthermore, Owebama extended these tax cuts, so why aren't you calling them the Obama tax cuts? Obamination even sent stimulus checks to people who didn't pay federal taxes and called these checks tax cuts, another lie.

The wealthy already pay more than their fair share and as group carry the burden of federal income taxes while around 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes, as widely reported by the Liberal mess media.

August 9, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn, you wrote this nonsense - "About all I can say is that only the greedy wealthy and gullible others would continue to be happy that the current tax situation will only further push middle class down into poverty while redistributing the wealth upward."

Since 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes, as widely reported in the Liberal mess media, how will the middle class be pushed into poverty? How do you even justify such a statement considering that a tax cut for a person rich or middle class means he gets to keep more of his money and no distribution even takes place.

" redistributing the wealth upward." How does this happen? How is money taken from people who don't even pay taxes and then distributed upward to the wealthy?

August 9, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
rick1 said...

Ea Tn. since you have such a strong conviction against the tax rate implemented by Bush and continued by Obama, does that mean you continued to pay the higher tax rate from the Clintion years?

August 9, 2012 at 6:49 p.m.
gjuster said...

Eatn - if the government is the one that creates wealth (and not people) then why isn't everyone in America rich. Just have the government create more wealth and keep giving it away - you've solved the problem.

I suggest that you go out and start a business that requires you to put in 16 hour days, risk everything you own, meet all the government regulations, figure out how to meet payroll, not pay yourself much of the time - and then come back and remake your argument in a few years.

August 9, 2012 at 7:05 p.m.
jazzman said...

timbo said...

re: 'learn a little bit about the subject before commenting.'

you should take your own advice.... this, but one example

Ball Office Products hosted the “We Did Build This” event in Richmond, Virginia. The company received a loan of $635,000 through the Small Business Administration in 2012, according to USASpending.gov. The company was also awarded a lucrative $52,525 contract with the General Services Administration just a year after its founding.

August 9, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.
jazzman said...

chatt_man said.

'his ass will be out of here in November'

keep checkin' those electoral projections..... don't cry too long in yer beer, assuming yer old enough to have one

August 9, 2012 at 7:12 p.m.
jazzman said...

bears repeating for the republican/conservatives here....

re: the 'socialist' meme

Willard's healthcare plan in Mass., the one that 'mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level

August 9, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
gjuster said...

Jazzman -

In the last several years it has become almost impossible to obtain bank financing without an SBA loan (which guarantees 90% of the loan to the bank) the money doesn't come from the government. As for companies working with the government - much of it is not capitalism or free markets - it's crony capitalism - something most conservatives are against. However, many governments need to buy things in order to operate - is it wrong then, to sell required products to the government - I think not, they are a legitimate buyer just like another business. As long as it's done fairly without special deals for friends.

August 9, 2012 at 7:33 p.m.
EaTn said...

EXAMPLE: Consider the federal tax system has an account labelled "Bush tax cuts pool" that has an amount equal to $1000 per taxpayer. Two taxpayers have $2000 of this account. One middle-class taxpayer gets a 10% cut of his normal taxes and gets $200 back from the account; another more wealthy taxpayer gets his 10% back in the amount of $1800. The difference of $1600 gain for the more wealthy. Over ten year period of this Bush tax cut for just two individuals, $16,000 has been redistributed to the more wealthy person.

August 9, 2012 at 8:22 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn...

Your latest is so bizarre, so loony, so ridiculous.

First you are pretending, you have left the real world. Your math is pretending, to say the least. 10% of your pretend middle-class tax cut on $2000 is $200. Then you figure the more wealthy taxpayer's 10% tax cut on $2000 is $1,800!!! Bizarre, loony and ridiculous.

Then under your pretend scenario and pretend math (10% of $2,000 is 1,800) you claim $16,000 is REDISTRIBUTED to the the more wealthy one. You keep repeating the same lie that a tax cut wherein the tax payer keeps more of his money is a REDISTRIBUTION.

Pretending is not reality no matter how many times you repeat your loony scenario

August 9, 2012 at 9:06 p.m.
EaTn said...

conservative...true, this was a hypothetical example, but relatively accurate. You missed the math example, and that a 10% tax cut is the same as a 10% rebate. And over the approx ten year period the wealthier taxpayer had in effect pocketed $16,000 more than the poorer taxpayer would have pocketed from the tax pool. The point is that an equal tax cut percent, eg. 10%, is not equal in dollars, as this example showed, and is in effect a redistribution to the wealthier.

August 9, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
raygunz said...

.

in the words of Founding Father Tom Paine, who wrote - in his own version of "you didn't build that":

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist, the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilisation, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."digby
August 10, 2012 at 1:43 a.m.
jazzman said...

gjuster

the point:

  • Romney used specific businesses/ companies to illustrate that they received 'no support', aka 'help' with their business, 'they built it on their own'... but they did receive 'help' via financial assistance, doesn't matter whether it was direct/indirect government financial assistance.

  • Gilchrist Metal Fabricating Co. touts how they built their business on their own, while actually receiving $900K in tax exempt revenue bonds from the government.

I don't begrudge a business for pursuing finance or funding and I agree with your comment: 'As long as it's done fairly without special deals for friends'.

Romney's ad is plainly wrong., as well as his 'characterization' of what the Pres said in his speech. The original post of this thread is also wrong on the facts.

re: conservatives and 'crony capitalism'

"The private sector that Romney and his fellow Republicans love to celebrate became large and prosperous only with aid—financial, legal, even regulatory—from public officials. The real political question has never been, should government be large or small but whose interests should it serve?"

August 10, 2012 at 1:49 a.m.
fairmon said...

The number paying no taxes has grown from 19% under Reagan, 25% under Clinton, 30% under Bush and now over 47% under Obama. No government can create wealth. Wealth is created when something of less value is converted to something of more value. There are only 4 ways to create wealth, manufacturing, mining, farming, fishing. All other activities are services which only move the wealth around. Bankers use the wealth of some to make loans to others and skim some off as profits as they move the wealth around. The same is true for doctors, lawyers, insurers, educators, unions, etc. and governments plus those that may not realize a profit but provide a service. The countries dependent society will not be reduced unless more activity occurs in those truly wealth creating activities that employ people to create wealth.

August 10, 2012 at 5:05 a.m.
joneses said...

Grim Milestone: Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years – And the Liberal Media remains silent. Where did all the war protestors go? Cindy Shehan? Where are you hiding? I guess our troops are not as important under Hussein Obama as they were under President Bush.

August 10, 2012 at 6:01 a.m.
joneses said...

Why does Obama hate the Middle Class so much?

Obama wants to destroy the Middle Class You! Since Obama and the Democrats have taken over the leadership of our country, the Debt has grown by by 43%, the price of a gallon of gas is up over 80%. And worse of all is employment. Why does Obama & Co. continue to lie and deceive?

The truth, though, is the job climate in America is miserable.

While the media and the administration portray the most recent jobs number — 8.3% unemployment — as good economic news, more sober minds understand what's really going on. The facts show a jobs slump.

Sure, the jobless rate is falling. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, we are going through the longest stretch of high unemployment since the Depression. The rate has been higher than 8% since February 2009, the month after Obama took office.

And, says the CBO, it is expected to stay above 8% through 2014.

Even worse for an administration straining to make the case that it deserves to be around for another four years is the real unemployment rate. It's not 8.3%, but closer to 15%, a figure that reflects those who "would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part time but would prefer full-time work," says the CBO.

Another White House problem comes from this in the CBO report: "The share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months — referred to as the long-term unemployed — topped 40% in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since."

The CBO data aren't isolated. Gallup reports that its unemployment rate based on weekly surveys stands at 9%, while underemployment is at a hefty 19%.

August 10, 2012 at 6:28 a.m.
chatt_man said...

harp3339 - Great accurate post. The last sentence should be read slowly be everyone, as that is about as well as I've ever heard it stated.

"The countries dependent society will not be reduced unless more activity occurs in those truly wealth creating activities that employ people to create wealth."

August 10, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.
conservative said...

EaTn, you made a mistake on your math in your 8:22pm comment, no big deal everyone makes mistakes.

However, your "tax pool" is a fantasy simply because when anyone gets a tax cut that money never goes to government to be sent back to the individual or redistributed to someone else. Your 10% tax cut for the "rich" man means that person doesn't owe that amount, he never sends it in to the IRS and the IRS never receives it. Therefore it is impossible that that 10% money was redistributed to him. This money belongs to the "rich" man and was never taken away from the middle class man in your scenario. Again, no distribution took place.

August 10, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
raygunz said...

in the words of Founding Father Tom Paine, who wrote - in his own version of "you didn't build that": "Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist, the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilisation, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

August 10, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
timbo said...

jazzman....you still don't get it. The SBA guarantees loans and gives out very few themselves. The fact that the government does this helps the bank, not the business. The banks funds are guaranteed but the business is still liable to pay back the loan in full.

Do you run a business? If you do, you know we are right. If you don't you live in liberal la-la, theoretical land and are ignorant.

August 10, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
timbo said...

raygunz.... weak try buster...Thomas Payne was talking about the same thing we are talking about. Society is not synonymous with government. He didn't mention government one time. He obviously was just making the point that living in a society increases your chances of doing well. It had nothing to do with your GOD, government.

This is the type of liberal, loony, double speak, lying that has made you guys into a joke.

August 10, 2012 at 11:45 a.m.
timbo said...

Justonewoman....My parents are liberal so I grew up with this absurd stuff. That is how I know how your brain works.

As far as "talking points" you lemming liberals don't make a move with being told by MoveOn. org or MSNBC.

As far as getting paid to do this, thanks for the compliment. I see this as my civic duty to anihilate you libs.

Conservatives are individualists who don't like the "group" or government dictating to them. Liberals want most of their lives taken care of by someone else and love the government. Now who do you thing would be more likely to "ust repeat talking points and script?"

August 10, 2012 at 12:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"It had nothing to do with your GOD, government."

Obama wasn't just talking about government aid. He specifically mentioned teachers as well.

"He obviously was just making the point that living in a society increases your chances of doing well."

And that is exactly the message Obama was conveying.

"This is the type of liberal, loony, double speak, lying that has made you guys into a joke."

As opposed to your Conservative ignorance and misinformation?

August 10, 2012 at 12:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"Conservatives are individualists who don't like the "group" or government dictating to them."

And their ideas are a pipe dream. You bite the hand that feeds you. Less government aid means more state taxes. Less police, firemen, teachers, road workers, etc. You want less government but you don't want the consequences of less government. You just like to whine.

"Liberals want most of their lives taken care of by someone else and love the government."

False. Liberals and Conservatives live under the same government. Both are afforded the same opportunities, programs, etc.

Love? How about "appreciation"? Government isn't the evil entity you make it out to be.

"Now who do you thing would be more likely to "ust repeat talking points and script?""

You. You spew out the same Right-wing propaganda everyday. Mostly misinformation with some lies thrown in. But always wrapped with ignorance.

August 10, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
jazzman said...

timbo

I don't think you understand the concept of 'direct' or 'indirect' financial assistance.

re: 'The fact that the government does this helps the bank, not the business'

So, according to you, the SBA guarantees loans the bank would make to a business, and the business that receives the money/loan doesn't benefit from that?, only the bank benefits? If a business needs capital to expand, and receives that capital via the SBA/bank method, you say the business doesn't benefit from that ?

re: 'The banks funds are guaranteed but the business is still liable to pay back the loan in full'

What you're describing is the banks acting as a 'middleman' between the SBA and a business that seeks funding, You seem to understand that the government via SBA is providing some of the money., and you seem to also understand that the banks are making out pretty good for being a 'middleman', and that the business that gets the loan/funding, is responsible for the loan. You might not like the arrangement, but that doesn't mean the loans don't happen indirect, or directly from the government.

Many of the 'we built it ourselves' businesses that Willard touted shows that people might claim (for their ego or politics) that they did everything on their own without financial assistance, facts, show otherwise.

August 10, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

timbo said... Justonewoman....My parents are liberal so I grew up with this absurd stuff. That is how I know how your brain works.

Your posts show you know nothing of MY mind. You spout the same talking points just like the rest of the croanies here. no thought, no research, just poo.

August 10, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
joneses said...

The hateful intolerant democrat/liberal/socialist party hates profits, corporations, success, wealthy people, oil, oil companies, banks, blacks, women, Wall Street, of course they do not mind taking money from Wall Street, people with differing opinions, Israel, letting babies have a chance at life, guns, physical contact sports, Christians, The Bible, the middle class, self reliance, individualism, hard work, stuff they have to pay for, pickup trucks, facts, The Ten Commandments, private schools, freedom, less federal government intrusion, lower taxes, people that do not depend on the government, closed borders, the military, the American soldier, hunting, the ability to defend yourself, The Catholic Church, freedom of choice, and many other things that are healthy for America. The hateful liberals have no solutions but to just continue to hate everything that is good for America.

August 10, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
EaTn said...

conservative said....."Your 10% tax cut for the "rich" man means that person doesn't owe that amount, he never sends it in to the IRS and the IRS never receives it. Therefore it is impossible that that 10% money was redistributed to him."

It's common for accounting to make adjustments without physical flow of cash. But for this example, assume two taxpayers pays their full amount of taxes due on say Jan 15, then on Feb 1 the congress approves the 10% tax cut retroactive to the previous year which means most have not filed and wouldn't pay. However, these two example taxpayers have paid and will probably do an amendment to their taxes and get a check in return. For my earlier example the less wealthy taxpayer will get $200 back and the more wealthy taxpayer will get $1800 back, both from the same equal 10% tax break, which means the wealthy gets a redistribution of $1600 greater than the less wealthy. The later filers will keep the 10% , with the wealthier keeping more in proportion than the less wealthy, and will be reflected in places like their bank account, hence the tax break effectively transferred the wealth in that amount. All following years the 10% tax break is in effect will have the same redistribution of wealth added to the prior years.

August 10, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
joneses said...

For left-wing politics, lying goes back to the Russian Bolsheviks or earlier. The masses were lied to because the ruling elite (or the ruling elite to be) felt that the ends (Marxism) justified any means, and the masses were too stupid and ignorant to know what was good for them. But the ruling elite knew exactly what was good for them. Leftists have a rather low opinion of the masses, the average citizen.

Liberalism is like a religion, and it has zealots as fanatical as any other religion. But unlike most religions, liberalism has no moral code. The closest thing to a moral code in liberalism is “don’t get caught”. Ethics are situational, and totally up for interpretation. The truth is subjective, and the truth is merely what you want it to be. To the fanatic the leftist cause is so noble, so sacred that any lying or cheating for the leftist cause is justified.

When a liberal lies to the American public, he is in effect saying,

“You are too stupid to know what is good for you. I know what is good for you. I will say anything I need to say to convince you my way is the right way.”

If liberals were honest about their vision for this country few people would ever vote for them. Liberals must lie to us in order to impose the tyranny of liberalism upon us.

August 10, 2012 at 2:17 p.m.
Leaf said...

Why do I keep seing this weird assertion that all conservatives are wealthy business owners and all liberals are their poor minimum wage employees or on welfare? If that were true, every business would have at most two employees and there would be 100 million of them.

I'm pretty well off and I'm a liberal. If the ONLY thing I cared about was my personal tax rate, I would vote Republican. But believe it or not, there are more things in the world than money.

August 10, 2012 at 3:13 p.m.
timbo said...

jazzman..you still don't get it. There is no money that changes hands from the SBA to the banks or the SBA to the business. An SBA guarantee just makes it less risky for a bank to loan money. There is no less risk for the business. That might be some small amount of government help but it still takes risk.

I will repeat, let's say for arguments sake that you libs are right and all of this government help is out there. It is available to everyone. It is the people who do the extras that make this country work. Anyway you slice it, an entrepenuer makes it happen.

August 10, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
EaTn said...

joneses said....."Liberalism is like a religion, and it has zealots as fanatical as any other religion. But unlike most religions, liberalism has no moral code. The closest thing to a moral code in liberalism is “don’t get caught”.

You don't have to go back that far to remember the Watergate affair with one of the more infamous conservative zealots Richard Nixon, very paranoid and surrounded by his nazi-like henchmen. He and his VP both resigned in disgrace. And the more recent lie of all--WMD's in Iraq to justify that trillion dollar war. So much for ethical conservatives.

August 10, 2012 at 3:32 p.m.
EaTn said...

joneses....regarding Iraq. Before the Bush invasion of Iraq there were nearly a million Christians living relatively secure among the other religions. Soon after the war started, and while we were suppose to be the security force of the country, the Christians began to be harassed and some killed by the anti-Christians, many fleeing for their lives to other nearby countries. While Christians and others in this country were supporting the unjustified war, that Iraq Christian population is estimated to have been reduced by at least half.

August 10, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn, you are persistent but you are persistently wrong!

You began yesterday with this lie - "Need I remind you that the Bush tax cuts purpose was to redistribute the wealth to the wealthy, which has accomplished just that"

The Bush tax cuts did not REDISTRIBUTE money from the middle class to the "wealthy" as you claim.

Your latest comment is the worst yet. You created a scenario that has not and will not happen.You keep saying under your fantasy that there will be a redistribution when there will not be a redistribution even if your fantasy became true.

According to your fantasy the middle class person would only get a $200 tax cut while the "wealthy" would receive $1,800 using your 10% tax cut and you call this a REDISTRIBUTION. Even under your fantasy scenario no money is transferred from the middle class to the "wealthy."

You are envious/disdainful of the wealthy so you created this fantasy to somehow justify it. EaTn, you can't.

Now here is the elephant in the room, please pay attention. In your created fancy the middle class person only gets a $200 tax cut. This means his original tax bill was $2,000. Are you with me? Here comes the elephant. The "wealthy" man receives a $1,800 tax cut at your 10% rate. The wealthy man's original tax bill was $18,000!!!

The "wealthy" man paid 10 times, 10 times, 10 times the tax of the middle class man!!!

Now what are you gonna do?

August 10, 2012 at 4:47 p.m.
joneses said...

The difference between liberals and everyone else is liberals think everyone else is evil and everyone else thinks liberals are just stupid.

August 10, 2012 at 5:23 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Joneses, nothing you say has any basis whatsoever in reality. I don't know where you get your notion of liberals and liberalism but it is so far removed from the truth that your posts leave me scratching my head and saying "WTF." I'm curious how far up your butt you have to crawl to pull out that crap you come up with.

August 10, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
EaTn said...

conservative said...."Now here is the elephant in the room, please pay attention. In your created fancy the middle class person only gets a $200 tax cut. This means his original tax bill was $2,000. Are you with me? Here comes the elephant. The "wealthy" man receives a $1,800 tax cut at your 10% rate. The wealthy man's original tax bill was $18,000!!! "

This is true, the wealthy man's original tax was $18,000 and was reduced by $1800 after the tax cut. The poorer guy's taxes were $2000 and reduced by $200. The net result was that after the tax cut the wealthy guy gained ($1800-$200) $1600 more than the poorer guy. Said another way, in this example the Bush tax cuts redistributed $1600 more to the wealthy.

August 10, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn, you wrote "Said another way, in this example the Bush tax cuts redistributed $1600 more to the wealthy."

Yes, you could say that but you would be wrong, again. You are hung up on the meaning of redistribution. No money is moved from the middle class to the "wealthy" on a tax cut. No money is even moved concerning the "wealthy" man either, it is a lie! If you don't have a dictionary use the internet to find the meaning of the word.

Under a 10% tax cut the wealthy man would pay $16,200 and the middle class man would pay $1,800. Now are you going to continue to "disdain" the "wealthy" man in your scenario and envy the same because he pays $14,400 more in taxes?

August 10, 2012 at 6:56 p.m.

Translation? How about Fabrication? Really, putting your own spin on somebody else's words?

Do you want somebody doing that to you? Oh wait, your other editorial speaks out against that. So I guess you don't want to live by your own standards/

August 10, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.
EaTn said...

conservative...obviously we can't agree, but the fact is since Bush's tax cuts the wealthy have gotten wealthier and the middle-class have gotten poorer. If we had a stable money supply there would be no argument about the transfer of wealth from the tax cuts, but since the feds have injected billions into the system I can't argue that it went disproportionate to the wealthy. Regardless, the middle-class has been shafted in the deal, and to continue the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy will only make the gap wider with both classes chasing the same commodity supply.

August 10, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn, you wrote "obviously we can't agree" which is an obvious way of saying I'm going to continue to believe the lie and I am going to continue to spread the lie that a tax cut redistributes "wealth" form the poor and middle class to the "wealthy."

"since Bush's tax cuts the wealthy have gotten wealthier and the middle-class have gotten poorer". Prove that, not just parrot what the same liars told you about the redistribution lie you are also so willing to spread.

It is also quite obvious that you envy the "wealthy" and you disdain the wealthy.

August 10, 2012 at 8 p.m.
conservative said...

Liberals/Socialists/Demoncrats want their supporters to hate the wealthy so they constantly spew the lie that money is redistributed from the poor and middle class to the "wealthy" when tax cuts are enacted. Exploiting the ignorant by Obamination and the Demoncrats about this non existent redistribution is just evil.

August 10, 2012 at 8:20 p.m.
jazzman said...

timbo said...

re: 'There is no money that changes hands from the SBA to the banks or the SBA to the business'

Which is why I said: 'the SBA guarantees loans the bank would make to a business'.

re: 'That might be some small amount of government help'

You should be very careful, as your 'regressive republican conservative' buddies won't approve of your admitting the government helped anyone in any way.

Did the people who started the business or company take a risk,.. usually that is true. Does the government take a risk by guaranteeing loans,.. usually that is true.

re: 'and all of this government help is out there. It is available to everyone.'

I never said that, or implied that, your comment isn't based on what I posted, which was about Romney's ads and how they were factual wrong. You might not like the fact, that the folks in Romney's ads received financial assistance from the local, state or federal government via direct or indirect means, but they did. I'm not saying that those folks who received financial aid are 'suspect' in any way or diminishing their accomplishments, other than the strange and needless claims that they never received financial assistance, which is a very common and sometimes necessary aspect of doing business.

August 11, 2012 at 4:02 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.