Obama - 'spirit of innovation is key to our future'

Story Here

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, citing fresh evidence the recession is winding down, says the country's future economic prosperity depends on building a new, stronger foundation and recapturing the "spirit of innovation."

"Innovation has been essential to our prosperity in the past, and it will be essential to our prosperity in the future," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

If he wants people to be innovative then he'd best throw away his marxist 'redistribute the wealth' mantra and adopt the more fair 'you earn it, you keep it' American way of doing things. The only main reasons people are innovative are to fulfill a dream they have AND to earn money. Obama's 'soak the rich' wealth redistribution scheme is the exact opposite kind of policy this country needs if it wants to bring back the American 'spirit of innovation'.

If people can't keep the money they earn through being innovative, then they won't bother. Take away the money and you take away the incentive.

Obama's policies are more in line with Directive 10-289 from Atlast Shrugged. His policies are more in line with freezing the economy in place and punishing the innovative, rather than promoting them. It looks like his mouth is writing checks that his policies can't keep.

The president cited Friday's Commerce Department report showing that in the last few months the economy overall has done "measurably better than expected." He credited his $787 billion economic stimulus program for much of that progress.

So then call the bank and order a 'stop payment' on the rest of the faux-stimulus money that is going out. Last I heard, only 13% had been spent. Much of it on junk (like Nancy Pelosi's rats, etc). If we are now doing soooooooooo well (with unemployment at 10% ) then there is no need for the faux-stimulus checks to be sent out.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If we are now doing soooooooooo well (with unemployment at 10%

) then there is no need for the faux-stimulus checks to be sent out.

Don't be a jackass. You can't fix the economy in 6 months. He's only saying that we're better off than what was predicted.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Don't be a jackass. You can't fix the economy in 6 months. He's only saying that we're better off than what was predicted.

wow
Umm......Ovomit predicted that if we did not pass his stimulus plan the unemployment rate would reach a staggering 8%. Since now we are at about 10% and climbing, I guess he was wrong right? His stimulus plan sucks ass.

So according to Ovomit's own words we would have been better not introducing his plan because if we would have done nothing we would be at 8% instead of 10% and climbing.

Didnt hear him say the recession was over. The economy is improving faster than what was expected however we are still in a recession, and nobody is denying that. I disagree with "newsweeks" declaration that the recession is over, and Iv heard various economic institutes declare the recession over, but this is just a ploy to fasten the recover, to get people confident. The economy is recovering, but we will only out of this by midway next year. For now we first have to allow the markets to recover, then employment, then consumer confidence. Right now the markets are recovering faster than expected so its good.

I dont think we should be asking ourselves whether the economy will recover. I think we should be asking ourselves "what then?" When the economy recovers next year what will the excuse be from the rightwing? That this was just a "cycle"? That all the talk of a full blown 10 year depression indefinite under this presidency was just a minor miscalculation? Tell me what will your excuse be when we find ourselves in a healthy booming economy? That should be the question.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Didnt hear him say the recession was over.

Not in those exact words but that is what he implied.

The economy is improving faster than what was expected

What?
The economy is just as bad as ever and getting worse. The only thing going up is Wall Street. And we all know that means nothing because when Bush was in office, Ovomit kept saying that he was for Main Street and NOT Wall Street. Wow, guess he was wrong again.

Originally posted by PieKeeper


Don't be a jackass. You can't fix the economy in 6 months. He's only saying that we're better off than what was predicted.

You are right Einstein. Redistributing wealth, creating higher taxes, subsidize your union buddies, prop-up politically connected business, create further regulations, spend taxpayer dollars like there was no tomorrow, give more power to the FED, increase government outlays and programs...will CREATE WEALTH and get this country going again.

Instead of calling people names, goofball...add something of value to a conversation...besides constantly praising your can-do-no-wrong Messiah.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Gateway]

reply to post by PieKeeper


Hes not being a jackass. The media, democrats and Obama suddenly have a new way of reporting the economy.

1% GDP Decline Good for Obama, 0.4% Drop Bad for Bush

Economy, battered by slowdown, terror attacks, shrinks by 0.4 percent in third quarter

Yes, a one percent decline when Obama is in office means happy days are here again.
Yet, when the Commerce Department announced a 0.4 percent decline on October 31, 2001, Aversa saw it as the end of the world as we know it:

The economy, battered by a yearlong slowdown and the jolt of the terror attacks, shrank at a 0.4 percent rate from July through September, a decline that could signal the end to the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
The drop in the gross domestic product - the total output of goods and services produced in the country - was the biggest since the first quarter of 1991 when the country was in the depths of the last recession, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.

The weak performance reflected a sharp pullback in spending by consumers, which slowed to the weakest pace in more than eight years, and a continued plunge in investment by businesses in new plants and equipment.

Originally posted by Gateway
You are right Einstein. Redistributing wealth,

Really? Einstein you say? So I suppose redistribution of wealth is only... redistribution of wealth when righty says so? Are you so blind to figure "redistribution of wealth" is an Obama administration thing? Can you mention one single government over the last few decades that has even held an economy that didnt dependent on redistribution of wealth?

So long as we have taxes there will be some form of redistribution of wealth. So long as there is a need for police, fireman, there will be a need for redistribution of wealth. So long as conservatives continue to be war-drunk over talk of "strong defence", with their billions into the military, no questions asked, where does that money come from?

It is amusing to see you fellas demonize "redistribution of wealth" when you fail to recognize howmuch you depend on it. I was laughing the other day. Some fair tax teabagger was going on about "fair tax" and how we should end this "socialist redistribution of wealth in favour for the fair tax system". Right, and I suppose moving reditributing the wealth from one end to another is an exception?

I advise you to stop fear mongering the "redistribution of wealth" subject, your not going to win that argument.

creating higher taxes

Oh really? Obama increased taxes "in pennies" for top 4% of the population. The wealthy are paying the same amount of taxes they paid during the Clinton administration. It works out fair as well, considering how significantly their taxes decreased more than the other classes below them during the Bush administration. It appears its only acceptable when the wealth get the lions share eh?

the FED

The fed is an agency that handles taxes. You get rid of the fed, you'll just be inevitably replacing it with another similar agency to hand your "fair tax" or "flat tax" programmes (which are still redistribution of wealth might add).

SG

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Really? Einstein you say? So I suppose redistribution of wealth is only... redistribution of wealth when righty says so?

Souther Gardian, I'm assuming you have a job...and therefore are taxed a portion of your wage, that means a portion of your income is taken. If then this portion of income is used to pay for social programs to others. Regardless of the government program or its good intentions, then is this not the redistributing of wealth, from one group to another. Since income is taken, by government and expropriated to another group. I care not, which administration you have in the White House, or who is in the majority of congress, this goes beyond partisan politics. Taxation or the proposed increase in taxation that is being discussed in this current administration is the act of discussing an INCREASE in the distribution of income, from again one group to another. And therefore an INCREASE of the REDISTRIBUTION of Wealth.

Are you so blind to figure "redistribution of wealth" is an Obama administration thing?

This goes beyond the "Obama". Again you are letting your own subjective preference for the current administration blind you to what I'm saying.

Can you mention one single government over the last few decades that has even held an economy that didnt dependent on redistribution of wealth?

No...but I can certainly direct you to the empirical evidence that points to larger redistribution of wealth as the leading cause of destroying sound economies. It's simple really, I never understand how people do not understand cause and effect. If I increase your taxes HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE BETTER OFF?

So long as we have taxes there will be some form of redistribution of wealth.

This is actually incorrectly stated. I think you meant; so long as government EXISTS you will have taxes, and hence a redistribution of wealth, where government will decide what to do with expropriated funds.

So long as there is a need for police, fireman, there will be a need for redistribution of wealth.

The need for police, fireman, or even courts are not really needed in the sense that people need to be taxed for them. I think most people will be willing to live with a form of payment for these services. In fact even if society were to choose an anarchist form of government, hypothetically speaking. Where people got rid of government altogether. I'm sure these institutions, ie police, fire, courts, jails, etc...would develop in the private sector, BECAUSE there would be a demand. Even now..are there not private security that people can pay for, ambulances are private companies as well, there are also private roads etc.

But please explain how the creation of the CIA, Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, Education Department..so on and so forth with endless government programs are a NECESSARY, not to mention part of the intent of the CONSTITUTION.

So long as conservatives continue to be war-drunk over talk of "strong defence", with their billions into the military, no questions asked, where does that money come from?

Now you are barking up the wrong tree. I question, furthermore I despise all forms of government growth. Back at you...I find it amusing when Neo-liberals despise the growth of the STATE, when it comes to MILITARY spending is increased. Is not the Military part of the STATE. Is the military not government? You liberals should be cheering...and in fact you do. Since the current Administration is continuing the war spending.

It is amusing to see you fellas demonize "redistribution of wealth" when you fail to recognize howmuch you depend on it.

So, I depend on being taxed? No not really...I would rather pay for toll roads, private police, courts, and other institutions I WOULD really deem important. Rather than be taxed and given sub-par and unimportant services.

I was laughing the other day. Some fair tax teabagger was going on about "fair tax" and how we should end this "socialist redistribution of wealth in favour for the fair tax system".

Hahaha...Please, explain to me the concept of "fair tax". How is taking money...any form of MY money fair to ME? This is term "fair tax" is a silly euphemism.

Right, and I suppose moving taking money from citizens from one end and hiding it behind the prices of products in another end "will end redistribution of wealth".

Sorry, I didn't bite. Please see, above. I regard all forms of taxation unfair, since you are expropriating people's fruits of their labor.

AGAIN...regardless of your good intentions. Expropriation is expropriation...and this is expropriation with the threat of a GUN AND JAIL TIME. Just try and not pay your taxes...and see what happens.

I advise you to stop fear mongering "redistribution of wealth", your not going to win there.

And I'd like to advise you on not trying to SUGAR COAT what taxes ARE. You don't like the term "fair tax" and neither do I because it is deceptive, but you also do not like the name "redistribution of wealth" either and prefer to call it "social help" or "helping children" or helping pay for "health care". It sounds like you do not like the term or euphemism of "fair tax" because you claim it distorts what it really is, that simply put TAXES is expropriation of income from one group and redistributed to another group.

Oh really? Obama increased taxes "in pennies" for top 4% of the population.

Excuse my math, but is not 4>0 ? Is not the number 4 higher than 0?

Also, spending on money you do not have is also a form of taxation. What this means is that ALL the new money being created out of thin air for the bail-outs, the new proposed health care over haul, new regulations, new government departments is a hidden tax. Why is it a hidden TAX on EVERYONE. Because government is SPENDING money that was not in the economy initially, but are still buying up resources that WE all use. Therefore they enjoy the benefits without the new prices adjusting to the increase in money in the system. WE therefore see prices go up...because this money will bid up the resources. So go on and keep thinking that the SPENDING that government has not financed through "wealth redistribution" is not a tax that YOU pay anyway, in higher prices for goods and services.

The wealthy are paying the same amount of taxes they paid during the Clinton administration. It works out fair as well, considering how significantly their taxes increased more than the other classes below them during the Bush administration. It appears its only acceptable when the wealth get the lions share eh?

Fair....huh? I don't buy the argument that TAXES and FAIRNESS go together. I don't understand how taking the fruits of my labor equates with fairness to you.

Fairness to me and you are obviously two different things. To me it is wrong and therefore unfair to take away anyone's income. To you fairness is having the RICH pay a HIGHER PORTION OF taxes because they have money. This is the only, way which you judge fairness, and for which seems to me rather arbitrary. Because what's fair? 10% 40% 50% of Rich people's income? What's fair for you maybe unfair to someone else. Therefore, what rate will people be charged?

The fed is an agency that handles taxes. You get rid of the fed, you'll just be inevitably replacing it with another similar agency to hand your "fair tax" or "flat tax" programmes (which are still redistribution of wealth might add).

SG

Oh oh...
Are you from the U.S? The FED or Federal Reserve Bank of the United States is a quazi-government agency that distorts interest rates and decreases or increases the money supply at what it seems appropriate

Originally posted by Gateway
You are right Einstein. Redistributing wealth, creating higher taxes, subsidize your union buddies, prop-up politically connected business, create further regulations, spend taxpayer dollars like there was no tomorrow, give more power to the FED, increase government outlays and programs...will CREATE WEALTH and get this country going again.

Right, because I obviously said all of that.

Originally posted by Gateway
Instead of calling people names, goofball...add something of value to a conversation...besides constantly praising your can-do-no-wrong Messiah.
[edit on 1-8-2009 by Gateway]

I never said anything about a Messiah, did I?

I'm just being realistic as opposed to some people who think that everything should have been fixed by now. Obama was only saying that things are looking better than what was predicted, and that it's a good sign. He never said "We did it. Everything is ok."


reply to post by Wimbly


Same thing would have happened with any other president who would be serving the current term.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Right, because I obviously said all of that.

You didn't need to, it was implied. Your obvious support for the administration assumes that all of these things he is doing will make things better, and lead us to prosperity.

I never said anything about a Messiah, did I?

You may have not, but again your belief or faith I should say, that A PRESIDENT has the power to make economies sound is naive. The economy's recovery is only dependent upon the people that trade or exchange goods and services everyday.

Governments since all they do is tax or spend, therefore are not the productive class and cannot be part of the ingredient which will FIX ANYTHING.

I'm just being realistic as opposed to some people who think that everything should have been fixed by now.

Realistic is accepting that the only way for the economy to fix itself from A GOVERNMENT induced DEPRESSION. Because that's what this is....is to leave the economy and its participants alone.

Unrealistic is to assume that those that have caused this DEPRESSION will be the ones to FIX IT.

Obama was only saying that things are looking better than what was predicted, and that it's a good sign. He never said "We did it. Everything is ok."

Obama is saying, things are not as bad as predicted...as if this is depression is over. This by far is not over we all know things are going to get worse because there is still growing unemployment and foreclosures happening...

What I'm trying to say is:
For example, claiming that the rate of unemployment is only 9.5% and not the 10% that some people predicted...and putting a spin on such horrible news and claiming that as GOOD news is MISLEADING at the very least.

Same thing would have happened with any other president who would be serving the current term.

I agree. Whoever would be in office would still have these same economic dreadful economic numbers. Having said that, the problem is, the policy WHICH HIS administration has put in place the PAST 6 months ALONE...according to SOUND economic theory is GOING TO MAKE THINGS WORSE...not better. Increasing taxes, regulations, propping up businesses that make poor business decisions, and increase spending on gov. programs that we do not have money to pay for is not going to make people better off.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Gateway]

Bloomberg Story Here

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said it will take "many more months" for the U.S. to fully recover from the recession as employers continue to eliminate jobs.

The president said in his weekly address on the radio and the Internet that yesterday's government report on the gross domestic product showed the recession was "even deeper than anyone thought" when he took office in January. The stimulus legislation passed by Congress in February and measures to stem home foreclosures have helped stem the slide, he said.

"Important steps that we have taken over the last six months have helped put the brakes on this recession," Obama said. "But history shows that you need to have economic growth before you have job growth."

Flip flop flip flop
It's over .. it's going well ... don't pay attention to the 10% unemployment rate that will get higher. Oh wait ... it's not over. It's deeper than we thought ...

Freak'n moron. :shk:

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Don't be a *******.

Don't be a *-***.

You can't fix the economy in 6 months.

He can't fix it at all. He's making it worse.
Wake the hell up and stop drinking the koolaid.

He's only saying that we're better off than what was predicted.

Oh? Your messiah flip flopped (again). Take a look at the last post.

Oh ... and you missed the entire point of the thread genius ...
Obama said the future lies in our 'spirit of innovation'. Those are his words.
But then he taxes the hell out of the innovators and forces them to 'spread their wealth'.
That leaves NO INCENTIVE for innovation.
Why slave away just to hand it to those who don't/won't work? No reason to.

Your messiah is talking out both sides of his mouth.
His mouth is writing checks that his policy can't keep.

edited to add -

Originally posted by Wimbly
Hes not being a ...

Pssssssssst ... I'm a girl.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by FlyersFan]

Can't we just all get along?

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Gee, I didn't mean to kill your thread I was only joking.

Let the arguing resume.

Originally posted by Gateway
You didn't need to, it was implied. Your obvious support for the administration

Originally posted by Gateway
You may have not, but again your belief or faith
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Gateway]

Way to make assumptions.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by PieKeeper]

so rhetorical. that's all obama does, just echo lincoln and then do whatever the NWO nuts tell him to.