Yeah... I was bent out of shape back in mid July when he first said it,

http://autotrend.activeboard.com/t50033459/is-obama-jealous/

Since then the Big Zero has tried to back pedal that statement. Amazing the gull of this man to assume that since he has thrived off a life of public dole that everyone else must have too! I wonder if he thinks the only tax revenues that the government has taken in have been during his administration?

Still to this day it's just crazy talk!

gerryvz wrote:

---

Based on your comments here and what you've said to me in the past, you seem to be bitter and jealous of people who inherited wealth, PowerStroker. You've accused me of being a trust fund baby, when I have yet to receive anything from my parents than a good share of a college education (nearly half of which was funded by me).

I funded my entire education, I guess that means I'm more self made than you.

Do you resent Obama for being a multimillionaire, despite his never having truly worked in the private sector?

So the paycheck he earned as a professor wasn't in the private sector?  Or his book sales?

Who paid for Obama's education at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law? Wanna bet it was private citizens who paid for scholarships and/or the US taxpayer funding Affirmative Action grants? You think your boy Obama ever paid a penny for his education or to get where he is today?

His family provided most of it from what I understand, which is fine because he isn't claiming to be self made like you fools.  I'm sure he earned scholarships too...  Get that, EARNED.

You've BOT to be feeling hella disillusioned these days compared to 4 years ago....

Actually, I still love the guy!  It's not Obama's fault that I'm not a trust fund baby.

-- Edited by gerryvz on Sunday 2nd of September 2012 11:00:30 AM

---

gerryvz wrote:

---

You are really hung up on inherited money. Do you think the person who actually inherited wealth is guilty of having rich ancestors? They didn't ask to be born into a rich family. So why should they be penalized for it through huge inheritance taxes? What is your obsession with this philosophy that every man should have the same amount of wealth? That's been tried. Look at Communism, Socialism, Marxism, etc. None of these philosophies work -- greed is human nature and even in those types of so-called "egalitarian" economic schemes, there are people who end up with more .. an "upper class" if you will. 

I don't think someone who inherits money is guilty, I just think they shouldn't expect special privledges, and actually, they should expect to pay more in taxes.

There is nothing wrong with having a society where some people are wealthier than others. More than any country on earth, the US is where (through hard work, good decision-making and persistence) one CAN make something of themselves, and 100% without the help of the government to do it.

I agree with you that a "self-made" person is not someone who solely has inherited wealth; however I would definitely consider a person who inherited $100K, and through good business sense and decision-making parlayed himself into a millionaire, to ABSOLUTELY be a self-made man.

I don't.  I think if he made a million with only money that he earned by himeself, then he would be self-made.

Employment is a two-way street, PowerStroker. He had need for your services, and YOU had need for HIS wages he's paying you.

I have a need for wages, not necessarily from him.  So too, does he not necessarily need me personally, just someone who plays at my level.  There are a few people in my area who do just that, but none of them are looking for a job.

>> If you really want to stimulate the economy, create policies that put more money in the pockets of consumers.

You nailed the Republican philosophy 100% with this statement, PowerStroker, and at the same time bludgeoned the Democrat philosophy. Because you see, the Dem philosophy (particularly under Obama) is to TAKE money from the pockets of consumers and either use it for government programs, or "redistribute" it to others who are less fortunate. And why not, seeing as "You didn't earn that!" yadda yadda.

Actually I nailed the Demand-side Keynesian economic theory which the Democratic party agrees with.  Republicans want tax cuts for corporations as a means to implement the failed supply side economic theory proposed by Milton Friedman.  When was the last time the Republican party proposed a tax cut only for working class people?

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

And your statement exactly fits with Republican economics and philosophy. Tax the consumer less, so he/she has more money in their pocket. Tax the business owner less, so they have more money to invest in their business to create more jobs (or in your twisted-logic parlance, "broker" more jobs as the middleman). You see, you just admitted that you believe in the Republican philosophy of letting consumers and business owners have more of the money that they earn, and less of it going to a hungry, bloated government. Because even you know that a smaller government requires fewer dollars to run, meaning there is more money that stays in the taxpayer's pockets.

I never agreed that business owners should have more of the money they earn, just working class consumers.  I think the corporate tax rates should all go up.

What do you think Republicans have been espousing these last 30 years ?!? You just summed it up in one sentence ! Good job PowerStroker !!! You get a gold star !

Thanks, but you're assuming I place working class consumers in the same category as businesses, I don't.


A professor at a university is NOT a private sector job. Universities are subsidized and/or funded by the government. Book sales? Anyone can write a book. Is that a 9-5 office job where he had a boss? Nope .. he wrote a book (cashing in on his rising fame as a PUBLIC figure) and some publishing company gave him an advance, and a royalty percentage on copies sold. NOT a "real" private sector job.

Who cares if someone has a govenrment job?  Is a mail carrier or police man any less noble than a private accountant beause their payroll comes at least in part from the government?  I don't think so.  If you don't think Obama's teaching or book sales qualify for a real "9-5 office job" please explain to me the last time Mitt Romney had such a thing.

Nice try on both of those, though. It's sort of close, but definitely no cigar for you PowerStroker.

Ah shit, I gave back my gold star, and I didn't even get to keep the cigar either.

EARNED scholarships? You mean by being a minority? Like his dad was able to do, to come to the USA? Since no one has ever seen Obama's grades, we just don't know HOW he earned the scholarship.... but very likely it was an affirmative action type of deal.

One doesn't become Editor of the Harvard Law Review by being an average student, regardless of race.

But, but, but .... remember? "You didn't earn that!" It was given to you by the largesse of the state/government. So you are wrong PowerStroker. By Obama's own words, he would not have earned a scholarship.

Correct, and Obama never claimed to be a self-made man either.

Your blinders are getting thicker by the day. Hopefully they will be stripped or shocked off of you in November.

I can tell you're really looking forward to lowering the corporate tax rate even more than it already is.
At what point will you feel satisfied that corporations are getting subsudized enough by the tax payers?

---

SELLC wrote:

---

My question - What will have Obama done outside of raising the inheritance tax in terms of helping build Gerry's inheritance?

Better yet, what has Obama done to "help build" the business PowerStroker works at? I am pretty sure the guy PowerStroker works for was in business well before Obama took office.

There can be no denying that his statement of "you didn't build that" was unhinged! Not only is he disrespecting the owener/owners, he is dis-respecing the life blood of the business aka "employees" who REALLY have worked to build a thriving company.

I can only imagine that Obama is so embedded in a "government" life that he slipped up and showed us his hand with that little boondoggle of a statement.

-- Edited by SELLC on Monday 3rd of September 2012 03:20:58 PM

---

 Obama didn't say He built it, he just said nobody builds it by themselves.  There is a difference.

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Government provides the soil in which businesses can grow.

No! NO! You got it all wrong tit-fed government boy! THE PEOPLE FORMED GOVERNMENT AND PAID THEM to keep track of the land so it could be sold. The people PURCHASED land for their businesses to grow, and these same PEOPLE pay tax on said purchased land. The GOVERNMENT did not provide SHIT dumb jackass!

Before you start spouting off, let me explain. Government provides Roads and bridges for citizens to engage in commerce.

WRONG! The tax payers PAY for these roads and bridges! Thru gasoline tax and many others. People were conducting business LONG before any "Roads" in fact back then they called them "Trails" and they were made by people coming and going engaging in commerce. If the government did not make roads the PEOPLE would find a way to get where they wanted to go. The GOVERNMENT is in charge of looking after these roads and bridges and they are paid to do so. The kick backs, juice and everything else that goes with large contracts is just gravy by nature, but the bottom line is it's the PEOPLE who pay and provide these roads. Government is just supposed to be a bean counter, both in terms of $$ and Votes. Thats it! It's no secret that Clinton was "Cooking the books" and Bush had to clean up that mess. Fucking Democrats!

Government provides police and fire protection for businesses.

Again, the people pay for and provide these services. Jackass!

Government provides a court system to enforce contracts. '

The people pay for the services of these courts, who more often times than not charge a fee and collect revenue in addition to allocated government disbursements. 

Government provides Miliary protection to prevent your business from being conquered by Lithuanians.

Thats pretty funny, but once again jackass it's the people who are on the hook for that too! Now maybe if the military would start cashing in on some of these wars they too could become self sufficient, but then again I am not privey to high power dealings between national leaders, and that's just fine; providing the guy whos in charge has this countries best interest at heart and isn't a complete moron.

Government provides a postal service so you can bill your customers.

And how's the Post Office doing PowerStroker? If it were a private company it would have gone bankrupt long ago. Poor oversight has lead to this problem. It's not acceptable considering we are PAYING someone to look after this organization that benefits us all. I think the REAL problems with the post offices money being funny has a lot to do with Unions forcing pre-funding of pensions. So we have big organized labor to thank for that problem.

 Government provides a central banking system to create and regulate the currency your business tries so hard to earn.

Yeah well they failed me when I got robbed at a bank for $10K. Useless if you ask me. Still it's the wild-wild west when it comes to banking. Banks always get to skate when they rob someone. But the people are still PAYING for these officials to do nothing. Thanks for nothing!

 Government provides you limited liability so you can take a risk without being personally responsible for the debts of a failed business.

Sorry... Government failed at this when they allowed someone else to register a similar business name as mine even though at the time I was in good standing. Now they have a mess, and instead of honoring their obligation they welch on it. Again... We the business owners are PAYING for this kind of poor accounting. It's hurting everyone and everything when your regulatory administration is not accountable.

Government educates your employees through high school.

Sorry PowerStroker, but my property taxes pay for that. I get the bill twice a year JACKASS!

Government also creates regulations on businesses to keep you honest.

We pay them to do that. Are they doing it? It's pick and choose with this administration.

 Without government, it would be like a baseball game without an umpire to call balls and strikes, without a grounds crew to maintain the field, without a highway and public transit to transport fans to the stadium, and most of all without a currency or means of selling tickets.

I dont disagree that this nation needs a government, I am just saying it has gotten WAY out of control. Yet some fringe group of jackasses thinks we need more! LOL!

There are places in the world right now today that don't have a government. If you'd like, I'll buy you a one way ticket if you really believe you'd like it better there.

Thats such a bullshit statement and really we both know YOU could never make it in this other places in the world without being hung. As it stands you are in no position to offer up plane tickets to others when you drive a POS Saturn, upside down on your home. Best put that money towards paying off your debts because if I want to go anywhere I can pay for that trip myself. JACKASS!

---

PowerStroker wrote:

---

In many small communities the USPS is the only carrier that even delivers there.  They are actually very efficient, and would be very profitable were it not for a law that was jammed through in the 2006 lame duck session by Republicans which forces the USPS to pre-fund 75 years of it's medical and retirement benefits in a 10 year window (Retirement benefits for employees that haven't even been born yet)... A burdon no private company has to bear, and intentionally so, because the Republicans who passed it, couldn't bear to see a successful government agency, so they passed a law to try and bleed it to death, and it's working.  If you have to cheat like that to win, it's not really victory in my mind.

---

 Supporting link from a credible source or ban! LOL

So just to be clear PowerStroker... You are actually bitching about Bush looking out for postal workers retirement?

Because the language of PAEA states "The PAEA stipulates that the USPS is to take any surplus at the end of a fiscal year, and put that amount into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund to prepay for employees retirement".

How in the hell the current Administration fell asleep behind the wheel in 2008 and 2009 is beyond me. Looks like a temporary stop gap measure to build up a retirement fund with "surplus" funds. The only problem is in 2008 the Democrats were all too busy going on vacation and making deals for health care votes to pay any attention to the post office. Hell! Bush had two wars going on and still was able to tend to business at home, even if it was a stop gap fix. 

How in the hell the Post office could have gone $8 billion dollars in debt when only using Surplus funds is beyond me, but then again I chalk it up to Washington style arithmetic. In my layman's view it amounts to some Post office accountants draining the company to fatten their retirement fund and waiting until it got over $6 billion before saying anything. Typical government strategy to ensure the tax payers are on the hook.

I am sure at the time (2006) it was a good idea, but two years later Obama wasn't about to hear shit Bush had to say and it went on and on for several more years. One would have to imagine the Post office WAS doing a profit back in 2006 for such a proposal to use "Surplus" funds.

Any check the Post office deposited to this retirement fund which was NOT surplus should have to be returned to the post office at ONCE! The term "Surplus" is quite clear! Bottom line the problems are on Obama's watch! PERIOD! You blaming Bush for the current Administrations lack of action the past 3 years is crazy talk!

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Um, it's not just surplus funds, it's a 5 Billion dollar a year mandate whether they have that much surplus or not.

C'mon PowerStroker! WTF are you smoking? As per YOUR links the mandate was effective as of 2006. Also per your links it said the retirement fund currently had $6.5 billion. If the post office was under a mandate to deposit $5 billion a year the fund would have $30 BILLION right now. No, the language was clear... "Surplus" means profit. Someone working for accounting at the USPS screwed the pooch. PERIOD.

If they were able to just fund these benefits at the same rate as any private company or other government agency in existance, they would have made a Billion dollar annual profit.

Yes, well if that nonsense above ^^^ were true the USPS would not be $8 billion in debt. As it stands the USPS is $8 billion in debt with $6.5 billion in a retirement fund for people who havent even been born yet (according to you and YOUR links). Perhaps you should actually READ them? Naw, Democrats dont bother READING stuff.

---

YALL BUNCH OF FUCKIN QUEERS....................... FUCKIN 99%ERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HATIN ON ME CUZ IMMA SELFMADE MILLIONAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRE...........................