Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Nobel Peace Prize
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 1848469" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>MoBoost is clearly right when you listen to the exact quote in a full clip. </p><p>However, he is missing the main point which is that the president's speech wasn't simply about how we should support the building or roads and/or bridges. The President essentially used the road argument - with which no one disagrees - to argue that an ever increasing tax burden is owed to a government that has shown it either cannot, or more likely, will not control spending or recognize historical limits to the reach and spending of the federal government.</p><p></p><p>I will grant that Mr Obama really has chutzpah to stand up and say it's your (our) duty to let me (him) spend more by feeding the beast indefinitely and laying a moral claim to even more of one's personal wealth.</p><p></p><p>Sorry MoBoost - while I agree with you on the technical question I think you have missed the bigger picture here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 1848469, member: 18914"] MoBoost is clearly right when you listen to the exact quote in a full clip. However, he is missing the main point which is that the president's speech wasn't simply about how we should support the building or roads and/or bridges. The President essentially used the road argument - with which no one disagrees - to argue that an ever increasing tax burden is owed to a government that has shown it either cannot, or more likely, will not control spending or recognize historical limits to the reach and spending of the federal government. I will grant that Mr Obama really has chutzpah to stand up and say it's your (our) duty to let me (him) spend more by feeding the beast indefinitely and laying a moral claim to even more of one's personal wealth. Sorry MoBoost - while I agree with you on the technical question I think you have missed the bigger picture here. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Nobel Peace Prize
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom