Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:43 PM
Number of posts: 1,374
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:43 PM
Number of posts: 1,374
I came up with this one on a caption Romney thread that can be found here:
I thought it was clever enough (if I do say so myself) to have its own thread. Enjoy!
Posted by RedStateLiberal | Wed Jul 18, 2012, 01:26 PM (4 replies)
“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
This despicable attack is gaining traction. I've seen "friends" on Facebook posting about this one sentence from Obama's speech and complaining without bothering to read the entire part of the speech that puts it into context.
Conservatives Selectively Edit Obama's Speech To Claim He Hates Small Businesses
The sound bite soon reverberated throughout conservative media outlets. Fox News later ran the headline, “Obama Insults Small Business Owners,” and House Speaker John Boehner scoffed, “He said that because he has no idea what it takes to build or run a small business.”
The quote also prompted talk show host Rush Limbaugh to declare that President Obama “hates this country.”
Of course, Obama’s supposedly insulting comment is somewhat different in context. The full text of his speech, rather than denigrate small business, challenged the idea that wealthy and successful individuals have never benefited from government programs:
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
It is clear to me that in the one sentence they are taking out of context that Obama was literally talking about physically building your business location and how you can't do that alone. He probably should have worded it better but he is NOT saying that others are responsible for the success of your business. How anyone could believe he would say such a thing baffles me, especially when he summed up his point with the following:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
So, if you see someone posting that one sentence to attack Obama as somehow being anti-business, give them the full section of that speech so they'll know the context. People should form their opinions based on all the information, not a just sound byte of a single sentence taken out of context.
UPDATE: Well, it looks like I did a pretty bad job explaining what Obama meant by this sentence that conservatives are taking out of context. The Obama Truth Team does a much better job of explaining it:
The President’s full remarks show that the “that” in “you didn’t build that” clearly refers to roads and bridges—public infrastructure we count on the government to build and maintain.
They also include facts that show Obama's record clearly prove he is anything but anti-small business.
Next time I'll review the audio of the speech to better analyze based on inflection and not just a written transcript. Or, I'll probably just leave this kind of thing up to the professionals. I think my frustration over seeing someone on FB spread this out-of-context lie got the better of me and I didn't focus as sharply as I should have. Oh well, it's not like anybody Rec'd this mess of an article anyway.
Posted by RedStateLiberal | Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:45 AM (8 replies)
That's what the Repugs are basically saying to try to defend Mitt Romney's record of outsourcing American jobs overseas. It's a sorry attempt to deflect criticism of his Bain record because they are desperate to change the subject and have no rational defense. This is a typical response from those who have no legitimate argument. They love to pretend that the other side is just as guilty as them to somehow try to justify their own wrongdoings. Two wrongs don't make a right unless you're a pathetic spin-meister.
They are saying that President Obama's jobs council is full of businessmen who outsourced jobs. This may be true, but what they are ignoring is that the president is "The Decider." (How could they forgot that?) The record of his advisers isn't nearly as important as what he actually does based on their advice and he clearly hasn't made decisions that caused jobs to be outsourced offshore. Romney claims that his experience as a businessman will help him make the decisions for our economy that will create jobs. His experience is in making profit, not creating jobs here in our country. He will be "The Decider" so HIS record on job creation is what's important.
Of course, Repugs are also lying to try to claim that President Obama is the real outsourcer. This morning Jon Kyl claimed on Meet The Press that it is Obama's policies and high tax rates that are causing corporations to ship jobs overseas. To believe that drivel you have to ignore the fact that the effective US corporate tax rate is lower than other developed countries and that overall taxes are at a 30 year low. You also have to ignore the fact that corporate profits are at a all-time high. President Obama and Democrats are proposing a change in the tax code to end loopholes that reward companies that move jobs overseas and they want to give those who keep jobs in America a tax break. Republicans refuse to support that legislation.
So, beware of these false right-wing talking points and be prepared to refute them with facts and common sense.
Feel free to give more examples of this pathetic "But Obama does it too!" defense and smack them down as the ridiculous excuses that they truly are whenever you can.
Posted by RedStateLiberal | Sun Jul 15, 2012, 06:07 PM (0 replies)
Mitt Romney has basically admitted that his only qualification for being president is that he's such a great businessman. Maybe I don't know how corporations work but if Mitt Romney had no influence whatsoever on anything Bain did after he supposedly left in 1999, wouldn't that make him a horrible businessman?
The Boston Globe article today shows that he was indeed listed as CEO and president of Bain well past the time he claims that he resigned. So, if what Romney says is true, then he let others run a company in his name without any influence. Just think how risky that would be. If they did anything illegal, even without his knowledge, he'd still be responsible. If they mismanaged his company then he could be ruined and his reputation would be destroyed. He must have REALLY trusted those buddies who were running the company he owned. What kind of smart businessman does something so risky?
It's pretty clear to me that Romney is lying about the inconvenient facts of his involvement at Bain past 1999 to try to avoid being held responsible for outsourcing, killing jobs, and making very questionable investments (fetus disposal). If he wants to keep doubling down on this lie then he should answer exactly why he kept his name on a company that he supposedly had no involvement in and tell us how that's a good business strategy. It sounds like the opposite of good business sense to me but hey - I'm not rich - so maybe someone can enlighten me. He claims this is just a "legal quirk" but I highly doubt anything from this habitual liar.
Posted by RedStateLiberal | Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:39 PM (4 replies)
I just heard someone on Faux News say this during a "debate" over voter id laws Repugs are using to disenfranchise voters. I understand there is a technical legal argument that voting is not a right because you have to be a certain age and it can be taken away from you for being convicted of committing certain crimes but it's NOT a privilege. A privilege is a benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. Do they want most Americans to NOT have the ability to vote?
Every person who is eligible to vote has a RIGHT to cast their vote. This is yet another of their pathetic excuses to try to pass these egregious laws that are clearly designed to reduce Democratic votes and the privilege claim is absolutely ridiculous. It just tells me these people are pure fascists who only want citizens who vote for THEIR SIDE to have the ability to cast their vote and that's exactly what they're trying to do.
UPDATE: Media Matters has a great blog post on this segment.
Posted by RedStateLiberal | Mon Jul 9, 2012, 02:11 PM (21 replies)
I doubt most people really care whether you call the individual mandate part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) a "tax" or a "penalty." They probably care a lot more whether they'll have to pay it or not so here are the facts that the bickering pundits never mention.
When the individual mandate part of the ACA goes into affect in 2014 the only people who will be required to pay the penalty-tax are those who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it. Why some people wouldn't purchase something that everyone should want so they won't have to pay the outrageous full-price cost of health care is beyond me. Regardless, they are clearly being irresponsible and if they happen to get sick or injured in an accident, and they can't pay their medical bills, then those costs are passed on to consumers and everybody pays a little more. That's why some people are calling them "free-riders."
The vast majority of the American people will be exempt from the mandate penalty-tax and many without insurance will either get greatly reduced health care costs through Medicaid or they will receive tax credits to help them buy a plan. If the cost of the lowest available plan is greater than 8% of income there is no penalty for not having coverage. There are additional hardship and religious exclusions and you won't pay the penalty-tax if you are without insurance for less than three months in a year. People who make up to 133% of the poverty line - for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $23,344 - will be eligible for Medicaid at no cost. Families that make up to 400% of the poverty line - for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $70,208 - will be eligible for some form of discounted insurance rate, scaled to their income. According to a report from Families USA, 28.6 million Americans, most of them middle-class, will receive tax cuts due to entering health care exchanges and receiving affordability credits. Most of those eligible for these tax credits will probably take advantage and buy coverage. Every reasonable person wants health insurance for themselves and their family don't they? Of course, if you already have insurance then you will not pay the penalty-tax.
The number of people who will pay the penalty-tax is relatively small. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates between 4-6 million Americans will end up paying the penalty-tax. That will be less than 2% of the U.S. population. In Massachusetts, under a nearly identical mandate plan passed by Mitt Romney, less than 1% of state residents paid the penalty-tax. This is not nearly the "massive tax increase" as Republicans are claiming because so few will ever pay it.
Our pathetic media will continue to play this "penalty or tax" game because that's a lot easier (and more entertaining?) than getting into the details of what this health care reform law actually does. I believe they are engaged in a dangerous narrative because the focus is off the benefits of the law and they are making people think that everyone will be paying either a "penalty" or a "tax." Even MSNBC is distracted by this unnecessary debate over semantics. If only some of the facts mentioned above were reported more by the media then maybe the popularity of the PPACA would increase. Then again, I recently saw that almost half of Americans surveyed didn't even know the Supreme Court had upheld Obamacare as constitutional. I don't know if that's the media's fault or pure apathy, probably both.
Posted by RedStateLiberal | Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:53 PM (2 replies)
I'm from Alabama where it's hot as hell and full of too many stupid people. You'd probably be surprised by how many liberals actually live here but they are not very vocal due to the overwhelming number of wingnuts. I recently had a cousin on Facebook tell me that Obama is "evil" person who calls people "racist" and that I am a "baby killer." Another relative and I just had a good, long and civil debate about 'Obamacare' which revealed his reasons for opposing the law were based on misinformation and assumptions that ended up with me being blocked for no reason and no explanation. Needless to say, it's hard being a red state liberal!
I've been engaged in online advocacy through Facebook for several years but I have determined that is not a useful platform for politics. Too many haters and fact-free idiots who can't handle the truth. That's what led me to DU. After lurking for quite some time, I've found this to be a much more useful way to engage in civil discourse. I'm looking forward to contributing and learning more from you all. The issues matter a lot to me and I'm a tenacious fact-checker. Thanks for such a great online community of like-minded people!
Posted by RedStateLiberal | Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:02 PM (18 replies)