Why "You Didn't Build That" Resonates

The 'free lunch' found in most of their talking points is enough to remove them from the realm of serious consideration

 

I wouldn't know. Obviously you enjoyed it.

 

Actually you need to get your reading comprehension straight. It is the fact he advocates mandating the current amount he pays is INCREASED by law.

 

I figured you right then, basement dweller.

 

Yeah, we all need 40 hour annual courses for all that...

 

His context was worse as it sort of forgot to mention the millions who get to use the very same government provided infrastructure but fail in their every activity or survive on the government dime.

 

I don't believe he was referencing the courses, but the removal of asbestos and mold.

 

It "resonates" because it matches the right wing formula. That formula is this:

Obama said/did/implied X, therefore X is bad.

Now... it does not matter whether or not Obama actually said, did or implied it. It also does not matter if what he said, did or implied would have been considered conservative just moments before. If Obama is involved, it has magically become bad simply by association.

 

its always have been big business vs small business, the way to not fall under OSHA is to have fewer than 12 employees...

 

It is because of the double standard demonstrated by the question...the folk who get the 'help' Obama speaks of and are successful are 'teat suckers' while the folk who use the same system of government 'help' and remain simply democrat parasites living on the dole, are 'the deserving poor'....

I reject the premise.

 

You clearly don't understand. Conservatives are defending our god-given right to drink from the creek downstream from where other people are peeing. It is the burning civil rights issue of the early 21st Century.

 

correct.

 

Her well? Good Lord I hope she didn't collect rain water illegally.

 

When Obama says, officially, that he is against human trafficking I suspect that Republicans will:

a) Dismiss it as a political stunt

b) Say Obama is anti-business : human traffickers need to make a living too you know

c) Say that human trafficking is a human right and that obama should get his grimy hands out of the private sector

 

yea, that's all I hear...de-regulation!, de-regulation!, but when people get sick and sue, then they want to restrict tort liability, and the way to restrict tort liability is to regulate..... it is a sick cycle...

 

It's you who don't understand. There is a 35,000 sq ft 19th Century building in my town that is in excellent condition. It was an asylum and has been closed for decades. A company wanted to rehab the space but pulled out after the EPA did their little walk through. See, it's not enough to simply fix things, now you have to dismantle and destroy, and then when that's all done, retro fit the place for the two crippled people who MIGHT stop by every other year.

So now, the landmark building will sit, until it rots enough to be condemned, and is razed. Brilliant strategy, courtesy of Captain Fed and the Nazis.

 

Of course the biggest failing in BoBo's argument was in forgetting that those same greedy rich folk who only made it because of government pay most of the taxes that keeps that government building and growing. It is the 90% non hackers who get to use the infrastructure the rich's taxes built who should be thankful, for the rich.

 

There definitely is a big disconnect among certain conservatives regarding civil law.

If you're going to have a system where regulation of industry is sparse, there should be no regulation of torts, because that's the only real countermeasure to the power of industry without things like environmental and labor protections in place.

 

Exactly! Loosen up ALL regulations. Let evil businesses choke on their stupidity, and quit hurting legitimate good businesses because of the evil businesses, and for the sake of government jobs.

 

I do not see how that is any different than a federally guaranteed student loan, home loan, etc aside from the fellow in question paying it back and making more?

 

I like using the analogy of guns.

Guns are neither good nor evil -- they simply can be used for either.

Regulation is the same. Regulation itself isn't a bad thing -- it's only a matter of how a regulation is designed and enforced.

Regulating that a building must be devoid of asbestos makes sense. Regulating that a pool has to have a mechanical lift for handicapped people -- not so much.

 

It would at least be more consistent. If you're against most regulations in industry, you should also be against regulation of torts.

That's the libertarian stance anyway.

 

I understand your frustration, however, just take an asbestos course (which is probably the reason why they simply cannot do renovations and move in) then you will understand why policies are put into place. Asbestos is a very nasty natural substance that does untold harmful things to your body, and won't show up for 15 - 30 years.

you cannot just demolish walls with asbestos, you have to dismantle

 

I'm just saying I was raised my entire life with engineers and architects ... OSHA is a pain-in-the-ass for anybody in the practice ... but to whine & cry about sole or partner-proprietorship business fundamentals as accounting, taxes, SS & Healthcare ... well ... you're incompetent

 

it's not, however, the talking heads here are not being consistent when complaining about federal programs, there are some they like, and others they don't like.