Jon Lovitz responds to Obama
- Thread starter virginjohn
- Start date
Lovitz is a moron.
I guess no one has ever explained to him what speaking in "context" means.
Obama has made a good point. Microsoft Windows, Apple, Facebook, all the biggest companies in the world come from the US. The entrepeneurs who started them come from the US.
There's a reason - it's called infrastructure, safety, police, a stable society, education, roads, the internet and access, etc...
I guess no one has ever explained to him what speaking in "context" means.
Obama has made a good point. Microsoft Windows, Apple, Facebook, all the biggest companies in the world come from the US. The entrepeneurs who started them come from the US.
There's a reason - it's called infrastructure, safety, police, a stable society, education, roads, the internet and access, etc...
Gee, what a point, all those dumb people ignored the infrastructure ... seriously? You think people miss something obvious like that?Lovitz is a moron.
I guess no one has ever explained to him what speaking in "context" means.
Obama has made a good point. Microsoft Windows, Apple, Facebook, all the biggest companies in the world come from the US. The entrepeneurs who started them come from the US.
There's a reason - it's called infrastructure, safety, police, a stable society, education, roads, the internet and access, etc...
1. We need infrastructure but it is not clear why all of it should be provided by the US government.
2. Lets concede the point to Obama (US government should build infrastructure), what is he driving at? He wants to raise the income tax on high earners so that they pay their "fair share". But in 2008, the top 5% earned 31.7% of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7% of federal individual income taxes.
3. Finally lets go on with Obama's line of argument: you did not put your DNA together (that include intelligence capacity to work hard, character, ...), you did not come up with your religious beliefs or your political views either. You see the point, we own things we definitely didn't build ourselves.
4. Obama's quote is ambigious, here is the full text:
Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. 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.
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. The point is, that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
So we agree on that.Not all infrastructure needs to be provided by the federal government, some by the provincial level & some by the local, and yes there is some infrastructure that is best provided by private industry.
The top 5% pay roughly 60% of all income taxes and it is not enough for you?? You realize that people can leave US, right? (remember one of facebook founders wanted to become a Singapore citizen?) There is a point after which increasing the top marginal tax rate will actually lower revenues. At any rate either the US government should cut down some expenses (and that means Medicare and Social Security; defense will be peanuts compared to those two in a decade) or the middle class should start paying more in taxes. There is no third option.Seems to be a bit low to be fair. The taxes should rise a bit more for them. No seriously, you throw apples and bananas out there and ask for folks to compare them as equal? What percentage of their income is fair to take from a person who's earnings are below poverty line? Any more than zero? Should the taxes taken from a person reduce their income to below the poverty line? Probably not.
Now take that income out of the current 100% of which the 5% highest earners earn 31.7% of and recalculate their percentage of the take from total income except poverty line. That will move them up a bit in percentage of the take, but really not a huge amount. But now somebody has to pick up the slack for the forgone taxes on the poor people and pay for the services and programs that allows those poor people just a high enough standard of living that they don't start rampaging, looting and killing rich people, like say the upper 5%. Who best can afford to pay to keep the poor people far, far away from the 5%'s homes? The middle class?
You did not put your DNA together, your parents did. And I said lets take Obama's logic to its natural conclusion, Jim Jones & L. Ron Hubbard did not create their beliefs in a vacuum, every single book they read and every conversation they had, the government provided education they got, all were instrumental in the creation of their beliefs. Same goes for your political ones.Well, according to the Roman Catholic Church, we all did put our DNA together, since personhood begins at conception (when the sperm enters the egg) and the assembly of complete chromosomes from the half sets from the two zygotes occurs after that, the "person" exists and assembles their own DNA from the parts provided.
As for religious beliefs, I'm pretty sure that Jim Jones & L. Ron Hubbard among others came up with their own beliefs. And my political views have changed and evolved over the decades of my life based on my own thoughts & experiences and the choices that I have made in who I've met and spoken with and whose writings I've read. So no, I've come up with my own political beliefs that have chunks and nuggets from across the political spectrum.
Well the whole fight was about this sentence: If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that now does that mean your business or the infrastructure?I see little that is ambiguous in that excerpt.
Last but not least I have not even started about the businesses that government prevents from happening due to unnecessary regulation, protectionism, ...
Here's an interesting article http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/07/24/what-president-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-canada/
Please tell me you are not really this stupid.Well the whole fight was about this sentence: If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that now does that mean your business or the infrastructure? ...
no business leader wants the government to stop spending on the public production and supply of water, electricity, transportation, security and educated labour... they just want someone else to pay for their increased need to use these facilities.
If you made 30 million dollars this year and you pay 10 million in tax that's a lot to pay but you still have 20 million left. You are far better off than someone who only made 30,000 but paid 10,000 in taxes.
I think that's the underlying point people try to make when they say the rich need to pay more taxes.
I don't think we are the right people to discuss this as anyone who can afford to spend $300 an hour for sex is not hurting for money.
I think that's the underlying point people try to make when they say the rich need to pay more taxes.
I don't think we are the right people to discuss this as anyone who can afford to spend $300 an hour for sex is not hurting for money.
Come on, it depends on what he forgot. It could be: If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that [in a vacuum] or it could be If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that [infrastructure].Please tell me you are not really this stupid.
