You Didn't Build That

Obama has two daughters but Michelle said he didn't make that happen, someone else did.

yippee.gif
 
You'd have a point if Romney was arguing that the Olympians were greedy for not melting down their medals and sending 40 percent of it to the government.
 
As one who has no dog in the hunt, Mitt's message sure does read to me like Obama's when viewed contextually.

Both Obama's and Mitt's observations, however clumsily or with however much polish they were delivered, are attempting to make the entirely obvious point that no person builds anything by himself. Michael Phelps didn't build his swimming career alone. He had help from his mother, his coach etc....

Much ado about nothing.

While y'all are spending your time on such nonsense, another 100 innocent people died in Iraq today and the United States will add three billion dollars to its debt.
 
Prod, I never really answered your points because they do not seem to be the points in question int he media. You talk about straw men? The dominate straw man out here with this is that Obama said business owners did not build their own businesses, and the federal government is the prime driver of success. This is what Romney and most of the conservative commentators have been attacking, and for reasons previously, is way off.


To the points you take issue with -- which again have not been the source of the mileage this line has gotten -- I don't really see them as issues in the speech. I think you see what you want in the speech to fit your preconceived notions of the President.

Nonetheless, here's my take on what I think are your problems with what was said:


a.) That the no one does it on his own argument is irrelevant to Obama's promotion of tax increase on those who already pay a substantial percentage in taxes.

The whole point of the President's argument is a reminder of the justification for taxes in general. The government does have some very essential roles and these have to be paid for by taxes. In a lot of the rhetoric out there, from the tea party and others who feel they are being overtaxed, this basic reality, seems to be forgotten. Many believe the government could be whittled down dramatically, entitlements cut and society would be better off. Obama's speech is pushing back against what he's sees as a false depreciation of government...his statements are intended to serve as a reminder of the role and value of government in our society and through that society, in our individual success. We are now facing choices on how to close a massive budget deficit and the major choice being debated is cuts versus revenue increases. Reminding the population of the general purpose of taxes and government, no matter how obvious the argument to you, rhetorically supports the view that "hey, maybe we shouldn't slash it all away, maybe some tax increase to balance the cuts are justified." This is debatable, and should be debated thoroughly but the President's statements were not far out there and appropriate for his argument. They do not justify the hyperbolic judgements on his political philosophy.

b.) I think your second beef is that, like what a lot of people are attacking, that Obama views the government as the sole or at east primary driver of success?

He's making an argument for the value of government in the bigger picture. Of course, he's going to emphasize examples of the importance of government over the individual. That DOES NOT, as is apparent to me based on Obama's life, policy and speeches, mean he thinks the government solely determines success. As he states in the quoted speech, "we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." It is the individual and the society he lives in, which cannot government makes possible, that makes success possible. Obama acknowledges all of these factors in his speech,but you claim he only believes one, the government matters, or that it matters more than all other factors. The speech does not show any indication of this preference except that it emphasizes government more because of the perspective he's arguing. None of what the president said is mutually exclusive with individual traits also being instrumental to success.


Were those the issues Prod? You made different ones across different posts.

It was no doubt a political mistake. While the argument can be understood clearly, it was made clumsily and was open to misinterpretation and distortion, which is what's happening.
 
Cyclist, there are those of us that believe that we see the true man when the teleprompter is off.

I think everyone on here understands the importance of infrastructure. The problem is not nor has it ever been spending on infrastructure. The problem is that we have a massive deficit and a massive debt and over half of the country is collecting checks from the government. We have an ever growing dependency class and a president who derides the one group of people who can lead the country out of its impending economic disaster.
 
Obama wants to build his entire campaign around class warfare and "tax the rich". When will the democrats on this board call him out for extending the dreaded "Bush Tax Cuts" that he campaigns against all the time? If you think we need to raise taxes, quit talking about it and do it. You don't seem to let Congress get in the way of anything else you do. It is BS and we should expect better from our leaders.
 
I am fine with automatic cuts coming into play and the also the automatic ending of the evil Bush tax cuts. The recession that follows should be interesting.

To hell with Washington.
 
PH,

I happen to be a centrist that will likely vote for Romney at this point. However, I have been around this board enough that I'm not debating you, LLL, 6721 or a few others. The whole talking point from the 'Pubs is just politics. It was a statement taken out of context. The 40% includes public sales taxes, etc. that everyone pays. Please get off the talking point that some don't pay taxes. We all pay taxes. Many just don't pay income taxes.
 
Many get "refunds" from the IRS that far exceed what they contributed. Hell of a way to fund the government and build infrastructure.
 
Calculations assume that the employee also pays the employer portion of the payroll tax in the form of reduced wages.

wtf.gif


So does this fall under the heading of lies, damn lies, or statistics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top