CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
So, our current president gives aspeech yesterday saying if you created a business, you didn't do it on your own. While I believe he meant you did it on your own, but there were likely other things that made it possible for you to be successful! It did not come across that way. So now I am pissed! Here is an excerpt from his speech to,give you context. As a business owner, should I be pissed or just let it slide?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And, you know, there are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me. Because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t – 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 just because I was 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 hard working people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. 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.
I'm assuming you mean unmanned drones, and I had a mental image of Obama sitting behind a drone joystick in the Oval Office with a soda and some cheese puffs, having fun and gaming it up like he's scraping on Call of Duty or something. And I laughed. So thanks for that.
I have never been so pissed at Obama in my life! I can't believe he would say such a thing and alienate all of the hard working business owners out there. I think I understand the point he was trying to make, but he delivered it poorly, ad someone had to do the first thing to get everything else going. I think it is really wrong of him to make a statement like this.
I'm a business owner and my parents were factory workers who had amazing work ethics but had no doors to open for me when it was time for me to create a business and try to be successful. Many business owners came from terrible odds to make it happen.
Yes, this is a "bash Obama thing" because what he stated isn't the truth. He slammed all business owners as people who needed someone to give them a chance to make it. What a terrible message for young people who feel that all odds are against them if they don't have someone who gives them a chance?
Terrible odds is not equal to impossible number one. Your parents were factory workers. What if there had never been in place a minimum wage? What if factories were still allowed to own the local markets and homes and keep their workers in perpetual debt despite their work? What if there were no schools, or only private schools beyond the means of a factory worker? Thanks to society (of the time, less and less since the 80's) factory workers can raise children who have the knowledge and ambition to start a business. This is a product of society, that people have the audacity to think they can do more than their parents and make the world around them a better place.
Pointing out that we are in this together, whether you are a business owner, a factory worker, a teacher, even if you inherited all your money, is not a horrible message, it's inspirational.
The mindset that "I'm all alone," or "I did this by myself," or "I don't owe anyone anything," those are negative messages.
It is only if one is living under the delusion that they are somehow through their lot in life "better" than those who did not start a business or did not get rich, does the message above become a negative one.
The message is that, yes, in the U.S. you can start a business even if your parents don't have money, and we need to ensure those children of factory workers and others have the tools and education to do such. This requires that those who have made it put aside a small portion of their success for the next generation.
There aren't many self-proclaimed Frank Grimeses in America today. People just don't do that. Very few informed, successful people categorically deny determinism to the point that they don't accept simple cause and effect. But the idea that self-sufficiency is good manifested as cries of "Bootstraps! Bootstraps!" and that no individual exists in a vacuum are not mutually exclusive, which the President seemed to be implying (or at least implying that he thought others disagreed with him about).
Apparently people do disagree, and vehemently. Apparently the right wing and libertarians believe they function in a bubble where they taught themselves, built the roads, and police the streets, buy their own goods infact from themselves, etc etc etc all on there own. And should any point out that this is not the case they get an angry barrage of off-subject replies and downvotes based on assumptions of... I don't know hidden coded messages from the manchurian kenyan socialist communist muslim dictator who went to a christian church but not the one they like.
What he said was simple, correct, and straight forward. No implications.
I feel I'm in a room of 6 year olds explaining that Santa isn't real.
The debate subject, misquoted actually, is explaining to 6 year olds that you had your tax break for about a decade now, and it sure as fuck didn't trickle down, so the economy needs it. You're going to have to go back to the 90's tax rate.
Which is actually still a tax cut. It only increases taxes (a fraction I might add) on money over 250k/ year.
It's something like instead of $23,000 a week $21,900 a week.
Because the point that one makes is often bigger than what is said. You're defending what he said. So am I, but i'm offending the reason behind what he's saying.
The reason people are pissed is that we all know why he said that. It's part of a big government agenda. We're not dumb we know that you can't do everything on our own. But this is an issue of big Gov. vs. small. Are you going to tell me that isn't what this is about during these months?
I do understand that he had a different point, but we who pay taxes are the ones who enabled the Government to be able to do the things like build the infrastructure to "help us".
We have the largest chasm between the rich and the poor in over 100 years. A huge deficit (which is a red herring), and half the country who things the red herring is the problem.
Meanwhile kids growing up in middle and lower income families have less opportunity than you had or than I had because all we do is cut, cut, cut. We cut teachers, cut the workers from State and Federal jobs who happen to be those kids parents. We cut domestic projects. We cut science funding that could lead to more jobs.
And we cut taxes.
And what do you get? Predictably even more money flowing up.
During this recession the very richest have become even richer even faster than any time in the history of the country. While everyone else has less opportunity.
The Democratic idea is, okay, tax cuts didn't work. You guys have gotten even richer and everyone else has less, and people are deficit crazy. So do we cut more of the things that give more people opportunity? Or do we cut the tax break that the richest 1% has not used to create jobs.
The choice is a simple one.
So instead of $23,000/ week at the very poorest end of the tax increase, these few will now only make $21,900 per week, or something like that.
And with that we can keep a whole shitload of teachers, firemen, police. And if Republicans don't filibuster (which they will) put some job programs in place to get more people to work, on things like repairing our infrastructure.
... All that makes way too much sense. People get that. So quickly and expertly the right wing distracts from that by attacking the tone the message is delivered in. "Don't listen to what he said, just get offended! He's saying you suck or something."
It's dumb. It also works on the right wing every single time. They not only get offended by the non-offensive thing. They get offended by any who explain it.
I don't think you understand some of the detrimental effects of government spending. Government spending may make the less fortunate even worse off. For example, when my Dad went to college for Computer Engineering, he only had to pay $600 a semester. I have to pay $20,000 a year for the SAME degree at the SAME college. The main reason for this is because of the government grants that are supposed to "help" you pay for college, but in reality they make it harder to pay for college because colleges raise the prices thinking, "Oh, they'll just get government grants, and we'll cash in." Don't believe me? Read Times magazine. They had a whole article explaining how government grants were the direct cause of a nearly 700% increase in college tuition in the last decade. So HA! Looks like your stupid government spending actually made things worse for the poor. But then again, you already proved you don't know jack about economics here when you were stupid enough to say that debt doesn't matter. But then again, anyone delirious enough to defend Obama has something seriously wrong with his head.
Then perhaps regulations should be put in place to curb unfair increases if this is the case.
The fact is though, more people are educated. More people being educated has lead to more growth, more jobs, a better lifestyle for more people. So government spending in this case has done more good than harm. And government spending in many areas does more good than harm.
It is odd how happy you seem to be about a bad situation though. I'd ask why you hate your country so much, why you would plainly and gleefully root against it, but your name and avatar answer that. The traitorous slave-drivers lost, boohoo no more slaves for a few really rich white people who had all the poor people tricked into thinking it wasn't about slavery. Get over it.
As for debt, our debt does not matter that much, because our debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the world. It's a red herring.
Simply saying "you said this so you're dumb" isn't an argument. It shows you're dismissive of a subject and so cannot be trusted to argue fairly or knowledgeably about it.
I find it interesting how you believe in two things that are contradictory. You think you are making people more free by constantly putting more restrictions on them? It's completely contradictory. But then again, you don't even know what it means to be liberal. The liberalism you subscribe to nowadays is "socialist liberalism". Funny thing is, you probably don't even know what the Old Liberalism even was. Read this for an example:
There can be no doubt that the promise of greater freedom has become one of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and that the belief that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere. But this would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised to us as the promise of more freedom was responsible for luring more and more liberals along the socialist road, for blinding them to the conflict which exists between the basic principles of socialism and liberalism, and for often enabling socialists to usurp the very name of the old party of freedom. Socialism was embraced by the greater part of the intelligentsia as the apparent heir of the liberal tradition: therefore it is not surprising that to them the idea of socialism's leading to the opposite of liberty should appear inconceivable. (The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek)
What has happened is that you no longer fight for the freedom and equality of the poor, but instead throw around a slew of socialist propaganda. You think redistribution of wealth will make us more rich not more poor (though it is proven that it will make us more poor). You think more regulations will make us more free, not more enslaved (thought it is proven that it will make us more enslaved). I think this sums up what's going on inside your head:
While to many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. There can be no doubt that most socialist here still believe profoundly in the liberal ideal of freedom and that they would recoil if they became convinced that the realization of their program would mean the destruction of freedom. So little is the problem yet seen, so easily do the most irreconcilable ideals still live together, that we can still hear such contradictions in terms as "individualist socialism" seriously discussed. If this is the state of mind which makes us drift into a new world, nothing can be more urgent than that we should seriously examine the real significance of the evolution that has taken place elsewhere. Although our conclusions will only confirm the apprehensions which others have already expressed, the reasons why this development cannot be regarded as accidental will not appear without a rather full examination of the main aspects of this transformation of social life. That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects. (The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek)
How dare you say I cannot be trusted to argue fairly or knowledgeably when you are trying to combine two things that are complete contradictions. To do that is a completely uneducated and ignorant thing. Therefore, using your own argument against you, none of your arguments are valid.
Well yeah, if you're not going to cut spending (the correct way) of course tax cuts aren't going to help. They'll even hurt. It's not science exploration and all those other things that are going to create jobs and prosperity- don't get me wrong those are good things and they help. But that shouldn't be the focus.The government just shouldn't be the focus. Of course we need roads and schools but what good will they do if everyone is too broke for cars or tuition??
It's production and creativity that should be our focus. That's what America used to be known for. And lately the government has destroyed that. What? You don't think we're capable of preventing corporate slavery with a free market?
Cut taxes AND spending(not necessarily in that order) and let the free market take care of it's self. It's simple.
Most "hard working business owners" don't have multi million dollar companies which are massively financially successful. He's almost certainly referring to the people who are high in the administration of the massive companies like Walmart, for example.
Small business owners don't have that sort of success, but he obviously phrased it very, very poorly
Though, the people who are making their millions today are not the people who did that work, which is his point. Or at least, few of them are, and those people are extremely rare anomalies.
I agree with your point, but every small business owner who,is losing money, breaking even or making money still feels invested in "building" that business. I think Obama and his speech writers didn't think clearly about how the comment would be taken.
I was not challenging the fact that he really didn't mean what he said, even though I do believe he meant what he said. But, I did not take his remarks out of centext. I quoted him verbatim...
Out of curiosity, do you ever question the party you general defend's tendency and seeming excitement at misrepresenting even to the absurd? Misrepresenting so far as to make a clip of a speech sound as if it means nearly the opposite of its intent, then make the misrepresentation the theme of a their convention?
Does that side think that people are just dumb, and the only way to get them to agree with a particular philosophy is to lie to them about what is said on the other side?
I mean, Romney has been taken somewhat out of context, but never has something he said been made to seem to be the opposite of his intent. Birth certificates, religion, socialism, etc.
Why is one side so willing to believe the absurd?
Why don't you see the equivalent on the other side of the political spectrum?
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help."
The way he said it is way too broad. In the end it IS up to that one person. How many people have had the exact same help and opportunities as other, yet haven't ended up the same place?
Hell, my mother and father had me, threw me away and I neer saw or heard from them again. But without them having sex i wouldn't be where i am.
It's called a straw man argument, and this man has dressed the straw man up in a suit.
I am say a quick thanks everyday that i don't live in the US anymore and it's because of this sort of sonsensical pageantry.
Yes he did say that, but he is not an idiot - good government has an enabling role in any economy and it is tough to set up a successful business in a state of anarchy. How many Congolese multinationals are there?
Are you joking? Do you really think that you have earned every single penny of your wealth through your own hard work without luck at all? Because if you do, I suggest you read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It shows how even the richest people in the world did not get there themselves, they got the right opportunities at the right time, and successful people tend to be people who are good at spotting and taking opportunities that come along.
It shows how even the richest people in the world did not get there themselves
Absolutely, they got there because of government interfering with the market and passing legislation that benefits some business while harming all the others.
However, I don't believe that Obama was referring to that.
President Obama is a good example of an intellectual moron. When he makes critiques of free-market philosophy by noting that successful people "didn't get there on their own" and thus need to "give something [more] back," he demonstrates that he literally does not understand what his opponents believe. It's not that he's making a poor critique; it's that he's responding to something nobody says. Nobody thinks that anyone got to where they are without any human assistance. That's ridiculous. The actual contention is that, because successful businesses become so through voluntary exchanges—exchanges that both parties feel they benefited from, by definition—then there's nothing to give back because nothing's been taken. Something that exists because of free, voluntary cooperation is fine as it is; leave it alone. That's what we're contending.
It almost seems like a typical speech that he'll give to try and convey a message to his mindless followers who heard about free market ideals and asked "hey God, what's that?" and he responds "just some evil greedy people who think that you're all slaves."
It's like the 1984 propaganda of Capitalists with top-hats and monocles whom plot to keep the poor from ever becoming anything more than proletariat servants.
"It almost seems like a typical speech that he'll give to try and convey a message to his mindless followers who heard about free market ideals and asked "hey God, what's that?" and he responds "just some evil greedy people who think that you're all slaves.""
Wow, I'm genuinely amazed at how limited your mindset can be at times, granted, you have an interesting perspective, but it seems to be derived solely from your ideological associations which definitely reside on the very extreme end of the very limited political spectrum that exists within your culture, anything that isn't congruent with your ideological standpoint is discarded, usually by employing ridiculous rhetorical device that only further serves to highlight your limited mindset.
"The actual contention is that, because successful businesses become so through voluntary exchanges—exchanges that both parties feel they benefited from, by definition—then there's nothing to give back because nothing's been taken. "
Actually, he's merely stating that the overwhelming majority of highly successful businessmen got to be successful by being granted opportunities, chances, favors, a big break, etc., that were of very little benefit/help to the person who granted them, and were instead (in many cases) borne out of genuine human altruism. His point is that those people should recognise the help they've been given and try to pass it on or 'pay it forward.'
Actually, he's merely stating that the overwhelming majority of highly successful businessmen got to be successful by being granted opportunities, chances, favors, a big break, etc
As I read it, the passage to which you refer is merely a pretext for the defence of government spending. While the necessity of a public sector is obvious to anybody who is impartial to the strangely undemocratic republican model (how either thing can exist without the other is frankly mysterious to me), I do not see why we should defend the speech itself, purely because we may subscribe to some of the principles expressed within it.
that were of very little benefit/help to the person who granted them
Surely it is the duty of those who have the capacity to create such opportunities, that are so vital to the prosperous operation of the American economy, to create them? And surely one in such a position has already benefited enough? A matter of great contention in the present American political arena, is the duty of the wealthy to create employment ("trickle down, I believe they call it), by means of investment. Well I argue "Ut pecunia, sic potestas", "As for money, so for power". If it is the responsibility of the rich to breed prosperity by investment of money, so is it the responsibility of the establishment to accomplish the same ends by investment of power.
A government cannot operate on the maxim of "Quid pro quo", when considering its investment in the people that elected it.
and were instead (in many cases) borne out of genuine human altruism.
As the concept of an altruistic government is ludicrous to me, I suppose you to be speaking in reference to some other source of opportunity. To which source, sir, do you presently refer?
His point is that those people should recognise the help they've been given and try to pass it on or 'pay it forward.'
Once more, I shall doubtless have more to say on the matter, when the source of the help received has been identified.
1. The are trying to tax online purchases. Including those of Amazon.com and games from Xbox Live. In fact, the government is already taxing purchases from Xbox live; and you are supposed to declare all Amazon.com purchases on your taxes. The only reason there isn't a tax on the Playstation Network is that Obama doesn't want to "offend" Japan (sounds a little unfair if you ask me).
2. It's already happening in other countries like in France, but then again; I hear you don't read Time so of course you wouldn't realize this.
If Obama gets reelected, that is probably the first thing he will tax.
No prison who is successful today did so without someone giving them a job, someone teaching them, someone building a road to get to that job, someone buying the product they made.
So yes, no one did it alone. To think otherwise is delusional.
If I open a store and I hire an someone to work for me I owe them their paycheck (and other benefits depending on what the job is) and then I customer walks in and buys my product I owe them whatever product they bought. I would be successful because I opened the store and sold my products, yes people worked for me and bought my goods, but I gave them what I owed them, there paychecks, benefits and products, I don't owe them my success.
If having an education and a road made you successful, we would all be. Just because someone is successful doesn't meant that they had a ton of help and owe it all to the world.
1. You fail logic 101. That everyone is not super successful does not mean that roads and education were not necessary to make most who are successful so.
2. No one said a ton of help. But after receiving that help, whatever amount it is, it is unfair for those who are successful do to that help to turn around and give nothing back. Which is what is happening more and more, and which is what libertarians support happening.
You sound like one of those "pay your fare share" people... alright, heres a lesson, if there is a flat tax rate and someone is MAKING more they are PAYING more, that is fair. But having them pay a hire percentage just because they are successful and you are not is unfair. Let me remind you, when they payed their employees and gave you your product they payed you back, so they are not in debt to you, actually with all the social programs they are being forced to pay for your in debt to them.
Bullshit. First of all the richest people pay a lower percent even with a progressive tax system. If you think a flat tax will get them to pay the amount they are supposed to you are mistaken.
Second, the reason a flat tax is inherently unfair is because money decreases in value as you accumulate it. That is, it is more important when it's only enough to feed yourself. Less important whent it's only enough to feed yourself and pay for retirement. Less important whent it's enough to feed yourself, retire, and go on vacation every few months, etc.
So a 10, 15, 20 percent real tax rate (after write offs etc) is something people on one end of the spectrum would literally not notice. It's dipping into vacation time for maybe their grandkids if the next generations doesn't work. Or it means they have to save an extra month for that new yacht they want.
On the other end it is the difference between eating and going to bed hungry. Or having a bed for that matter.
A flat tax is inherently unfair in any system, especially in a system with such a gaping and embarassing difference between the haves and the have nots.
So you tax the upper end a little more, and with that you pay for all the stuff society needs and you give those children on the lower end opportunity to one day make it to the upper end... and in turn create opportunity for the future by paying a little more, and on it goes.
What you're suggesting and what the right wing wants openly and what libertarians have witlessly bought into, is a system of stagnation.
If you don't already have, well guess what, too bad because we're getting rid of every opportunity you might have had if we taxed fairly.
If you're on the upper end already, you know what, we know most of your money's in foreign tax shelters and you and the next ten generations don't actually have to work a day in your life if you don't want, but let us give you even more.
If your suppliers don't uphold their end of a contract or if you don't uphold yours - do you owe America anything for your right to pursue legal action in the public court system?
If you or one of your employees is having a heart attack, do you owe anything to the paramedics that come to the door of your office (on public roads)?
If the building your business is in catches on fire, do you owe anything to the firefighters who risk their life making sure people are safe and putting the fire out?
If your business fails, do you owe anything for the bankruptcy protection that keeps you out of debtors prison?
for an educated labor-force from which to employ?
for patent and trademark enforcement?
for universal mail delivery within the United States?
for one of the most stable monetary systems in history?
for banking and securities regulation?
for protection against a bank robber stealing your business' money from the bank?
for limitations of personal liability for corporate debts (corporate shield)?
for anti-trust/monopoly regulation?
for defense against foreign invasion?
for reliable weights and measures?
for weather forecasting?
for FEMA response to natural disasters that may affect your business, customers and employees?
for the use of the country's infrastructure (roads, bridges, railways, waterways, air space, spectrum)?
for use of the countries natural resources (water, oil, coal, timber, natural gas, copper, silicon, salt, etc., etc.)?
for government research that that led to the development of computers, transistors, integrated circuits, atomic clocks, audio cassettes, jet engines, the internet, touch-screens, LCD screens, GPS, nuclear power, microwave ovens, cell-phones, etc.
"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive." - Obama
No prison who is successful today did so without someone giving them a job
Employment is an exchange, not a charity. It is necessary for the employer to benefit more from the affair than the employee, else the exchange should be considered unviable. No capitalistic economy can operate upon the principle that one should be grateful to one's employers. It is precisely such a notion that breeds adherence to those social classes, which persons who most commonly support President Obama, most commonly despise.
someone teaching them
The classical maxim applies here: Aristotle said, "Education is the surest provision for old age". When every person benefits from such a provision, no single person bears the weight of gratitude.
someone building a road to get to that job
The person who built that road subsists upon the construction of roads, and therefore benefits in the provision of the service.
So yes, no one did it alone. To think otherwise is delusional.
The point of contention is not whether any person can achieve success on their own, but whether a successful person is, and of a right ought to be, indebted for life to all those who ever provided him with the aforementioned services. I submit that as society as a whole benefits in the most material and tangible ways from these provisions, no person who has flourished, when most about them would flourish also, bears any extraordinary debt.
You're arguing from the assumption that a tax increase on this upper end is some extraordinary repayment of debt it sounds like.
I believe though that this costs the upper end less in terms of "payment" as far as any decrease in lifestyle, then the "cost" to a middle class family, working just as hard, who pays only minimal taxes, even if they pay only sales tax and get a full refund... even worse, the cost to several impoverished mothers, who do work, but need food stamps and must forgo these foodstamps so that this individual may, as stated in another line of this debate, make $23,000 that month instead of only $21,900 that month (aproximately what the numbers would come to at the very lowest end of the tax increase.)
The assumption from your perspective sounds like those who are not rich do not have value to society, they are not paying society. They are. They are paying society in terms of low paying jobs that somebody has to do, they are paying society through sales tax, they are paying through their time and effort. Your assumption seems to be that their sacrifice is less. I disagree.
In fact, I think they are giving society more when it's measured in terms of personal sacrifice, albeit not by choice of course, who doesn't want to be rich? But the point is this tax increase would do a little to equal how much each is giving back, it in my estimate is still uneven, but it's something.
So if fairness is the point, then it is fair for the upper end to pay more. They are not giving more, but in terms of money, they would be paying more. Which is great. I'm not anti-rich. If you are successful it's great that you have more, it's part of what keeps people motivated and createive. I am pro-fairness though, and honest assessment of just how much this would really cost the rich, which is very, very little. It's not a selfless act this taxation.
It's not just about fairness though, it is also about opportunity. Ideally, the money would be used to create more opportunity for others to become the ones paying this slightly higher tax rate.
Obviously some disagree with the entire theory of how societies best work. But this is the theory and I think it is a very viable one. More so than the stagnation I believe the notion that everyone did it all on their own, and no one owes the society they were raised in a penny of their riches or a drop of their sweat.
You're arguing from the assumption that a tax increase on this upper end is some extraordinary repayment of debt it sounds like.
I do not believe that I mentioned any particular increase in taxation. As I read it, the passage in question was a general defence of taxation, and not an argument for the levy of new taxes against the wealthy.
If, however, I am wrong, and Mr. Obama was in fact attempting to persuade his audience that this particular measure was warranted, I do not see why his argument was framed in terms that can only be read as a strange and ill conceived understanding of the social contract.
I believe though that this costs the upper end less in terms of "payment" as far as any decrease in lifestyle
Once more, I am not particularly concerned with the tax about which you argue with such alacrity. I had not mentioned it at all. However I might add that the only such measure that could possibly be met with my own support would affect stagnant moneys, and not the wealthy person's income in general. Money that is spent by anybody is taxed in the form of Value Added Tax, or, as it is known in the United States of America a "sales tax". It is the unspent hoards that the wealthy accrue that chokes an economy and deprives the lower and middle classes of a comfortable subsistence. If a government, which has proven itself at virtually every turn to be bloated and rife with incompetence, is to glean more revenue from the fortunes of its citizens, it should do so in a manner that is not likely to hazard the economy's fragility.
even worse, the cost to several impoverished mothers, who do work, but need food stamps and must forgo these foodstamps so that this individual may, as stated in another line of this debate, make $23,000 that month instead of only $21,900 that month
If it is the government that must provide these food stamps, then it is surely their first duty to attend the affairs of their own houses, before meddling in those of their wealthy citizens. I submit that if the United States were to finance fewer foreign adventures and reduce its extravagant military expenditure, then it would be able to provide its dependants with food stamps without any increase in taxation whatever.
The assumption from your perspective sounds like those who are not rich do not have value to society
I do not believe that anything written within my argument could possible be construed as such. Those who are not rich compose the bulk of society, and perform the majority of the labours of that society, and must therefore contribute the most to it.
they are not paying society
I do not know what you mean by "paying society". As the people in question compose in fact the overwhelming majority of society, I do not see what they should be paying themselves for, or with what they should pay.
They are paying society in terms of low paying jobs that somebody has to do
In comparison to what incomes are these jobs "low-paying"? Surely, when compared to those who are rich, any income, even the national average, may be made to appear low?
Your assumption seems to be that their sacrifice is less. I disagree.
Again, I must enquire as to where I said anything like what you have written above?
In fact, I think they are giving society more when it's measured in terms of personal sacrifice, albeit not by choice of course, who doesn't want to be rich?
I do not believe that unhappiness or frustrated personal ambition are particularly useful to society. I do not think that either of these increase the worth of anybody's labours.
But the point is this tax increase would do a little to equal how much each is giving back, it in my estimate is still uneven, but it's something.
Once more, perhaps if the United States Government did not spend $689'000'000'000 per year on its military, it would be more capable of providing redress to those issues that you have mentioned.
So if fairness is the point, then it is fair for the upper end to pay more.
It has always been my opinion that, as the wealthy do not receive any additional benefits from the governments which rule them, that are not afforded to those who are less fortunate, there is no fairness in the argument that they ought to pay more for these services.
They are not giving more, but in terms of money, they would be paying more.
They would be paying more than anybody else even without these increases. But even so, consider this:
Two men have between them $100, one having $80, the other $20; if both pay 40% tax, the government's income is $40 ($32 + $8). If both men have $50, the money is more evenly distributed, yes? But the government's income remains $40 ($20 + $20). You suggest that the wealthy man with $80 ought to pay 50% tax, say, and that the other man ought to pay 40% as usual. But now the government's income is $48. Behold! By some alchemy, the government has derived more revenue by the wealth tax! However, before the wealth tax, the government's income was not affected by the distribution of wealth. Now it is. But what is the good? The government has not redistributed any wealth. It has simply increased its own income. The rich man is assuredly slightly less rich than he was. But the poor man remains equally mendicant.
My purpose in writing the scenarios above was to illustrate that the welfare of the poor does not depend upon the taxes levied against the rich. It depends entirely upon how the government spends the moneys derived from the taxation. We have no guarantee that the government shall spend this money with any more competence or wisdom than it does the other $3'500'000'000'000.
I do not believe that it can be proven, by historical reference, that an increase in taxation upon the wealth of the nation, when the previous taxation was not unnaturally low, produces a substantial improvement in the wellbeing of the poor.
Ideally, the money would be used to create more opportunity for others to become the ones paying this slightly higher tax rate.
What is the point of forming our taxation policies upon what would ideally be the effects? What is ideal rarely happens. Words such as opportunity are very easily bandied about, but to which opportunities do you refer?
But this is the theory and I think it is a very viable one. More so than the stagnation I believe the notion that everyone did it all on their own, and no one owes the society they were raised in a penny of their riches or a drop of their sweat.
I do not see how the rejection of an extraordinary tax can be construed as a rejection of taxation in general.
I do not believe that I mentioned any particular increase in taxation. As I read it, the passage in question was a general defence of taxation, and not an argument for the levy of new taxes against the wealthy.
Later
I do not see how the rejection of an extraordinary tax can be construed as a rejection of taxation in general.
Ignoring inconsistency, and that indeed, the other side of this argument is the rejection of taxes in general and speach addresses that as well, I'll simply lay out what the speach was about again.
In 2001 Bush put in a tax cut that goes from $100 or so cuts for the median, up to hundreds of thousands of dollars if you make Romney bucks.
This speach was about the repeal of the taxes on the upper end.
Your argument, shortened, is there is no guarantee taxing the wealthy more will lead to more opportunity.
Okay, but we do know some things.
1. The conservatives are going to continue to use the defecit as an excuse to cut programs and distract. Well, you want to cut the defecit? This will, whether it's used to help the poor and middle class or not. Meanwhile, you don't need to cut programs that do help the poor and middle class. These are called austerity measures in Europe, and they don't work as we see. As we saw in the first Great Depression and should have remembered.
2. Those tax cuts which were advertised necessary to boost the economy obviously did not work. The US, managed almost miraculously, to go from the strongest the world had ever seen to the second worst in US history all while these job-creating tax cuts were in place.
I argue I trust government to put in place jobs programs, fix infrastructure, hire more teachers, etc so long as the conservatives who only want to cut more taxes for the rich, cut any program for the poor, and put cameras in women's vaginas get kicked out of office.
And jobs plans have been proposed over and over while the republicans complaining about this speach are busy making lawas about abortion and filibustering any attempt to create jobs.
Perhaps its too American-specific a speach for you to have understood the context. That's okay. It was about a specific tax. It was making the argument from a broad percpective of fairness and opportunity.
He may very well have mentioned that later, but the subject of the debate was, specifically, the import of the quoted passage.
Ignoring inconsistency, and that indeed, the other side of this argument is the rejection of taxes in general and speach addresses that as well, I'll simply lay out what the speach was about again.
I do not believe that I have displayed any inconsistency. I should like to know to which of my statements you refer.
The conservatives are going to continue to use the defecit as an excuse to cut programs and distract. Well, you want to cut the defecit? This will, whether it's used to help the poor and middle class or not.
I am not one of these conservatives, and it is fallacious to suppose that, in rejecting Mr. Obama's sentiments, I am implicitly endorsing theirs. Now, is the issue at hand the welfare of the poor, the distribution of wealth and the merit of a particular tax measure; or the deficit? I neither mentioned nor alluded to the deficit in either of my arguments.
So, is this money to be used in providing these fabled food stamps, or will it merely service American national debt?
Meanwhile, you don't need to cut programs that do help the poor and middle class. These are called austerity measures in Europe, and they don't work as we see.
If austerity measures do not work, then one should never 'need' to exercise them. If this is so, then the use of the deficit as an excuse for their implementation results from a lack of understanding, and not from the financial situation of the nation.
I submit that if the United States were to stop borrowing money that it cannot pay back, the argument would be moot. But so long as the American economy is built upon such uncertain foundations, then no measure that you may care to implement, can do anything but forestall the eventual consequences.
And one certainly does not repair an economy by allowing a government to cannibalize parts of it.
Those tax cuts which were advertised necessary to boost the economy obviously did not work.
Which is not a sufficient reason to suppose that a tax increase will.
The US, managed almost miraculously, to go from the strongest the world had ever seen to the second worst in US history all while these job-creating tax cuts were in place.
As I said, without terminating the reliance of the United States upon borrowed moneys, attempts to repair its economy, by alteration of the system of taxation that its government operates, shall prove largely futile.
I argue I trust government to put in place jobs programs, fix infrastructure, hire more teachers, etc so long as the conservatives who only want to cut more taxes for the rich, cut any program for the poor, and put cameras in women's vaginas get kicked out of office.
But if they are powerful enough to have these austerity measures implemented, even with a democrat as president, how on Earth do you contrive to achieve this?
And at any rate your policy here is dictated by your political affiliations; not informed by economic understandings. You are conforming to the democratic stereotype, even as you condemn the conservative one. These factions are more concerned with the destruction of the other than with the proper exercise of office.
I believe that I have advised you before, to quit your allegiance to the Democrats; an allegiance which you seem to hold by principle, rather than by meditation. The endless feud that exists between them and the Republicans has presently seized this frankly unimportant tax measure as its current pet topic, whilst largely ignoring the more pressing issues of the Nation's broken and corrupt political system, and its ill founded and ill managed financial system.
It is delusional to think, that the situation can possibly be improved in the long term, whilst such egregious faults exist within the twin pillars that support the greater edifice, of American society.
Though I will agree that contemporary Republicanism would make Jefferson weep, were he alive.
And jobs plans have been proposed over and over while the republicans complaining about this speach are busy making lawas about abortion and filibustering any attempt to create jobs.
Governments cannot create permanent jobs except within the civil service, neither of which contribute one extra bean to the wealth of the nation. The government should use the money it has, by wise economy and retrenchment of its unnecessary costs, to create opportunities, as you say. It should not take more money out of the private sector, to inflate the public sector; for such a policy would merely divert blood from what is already a struggling organ.
Perhaps its too American-specific a speach for you to have understood the context.
Once more, the passage that we are actually discussing was a general comment upon the necessity of public services for the advancement of private individuals. While the said services are certainly necessary, I do not know whether Mr. Obama had intended to suggest that it is a matter of personal debt to society that motivates the tax increase that you have mentioned, but if he did then he is wrong.
I am of the opinion that an economy cannot operate upon principles that are so ambiguous and ill reasoned as personal obligations to society. Rather, let it be plainly stated by the government that in order for public services to continue, taxes shall have to be levied. Let them decide amongst themselves what proportion of the nation's wealth they should control, and let them engineer a system of taxation that fairly achieves this end.
However, and this is perhaps the most important financial point that your argument does not consider (and I did, in my own defence, previously illustrate it for you); if taxes upon the majority of the nation's wealth (id est, the 85% held by the top 15%), are not generally applied, then as the wealth of that elite fluctuates, so too shall the revenue of the government.
Therefore, measures which redistribute wealth to the poor shall detract from the governments revenues, and will eventually become necessary for the subsistence of those who are poor. Thus, a government which practices this Robin Hood policy of taxing the rich, to give to the poor, shall be propping up the poor with one hand, and digging away from its own foundation with the other. Both will fall.
It is for reasons such as those above that I am convinced, that before considering an increase in taxes to service a deficit, a government should attempt retrenchment of all costs that will not be intolerably injurious to the poor. In stead of taxing the rich more, one should tax the poor less, and the mendicant not at all. If the government were to enforce a decent minimum wage, and not levy taxes upon those who earn below a certain threshold, they would do much to combat poverty. To prevent a subsequent rise in unemployment, it might behove the government to provide tax breaks, that are dependent upon the number of employees that a person has, and the wages of those employees.
I am persuaded that the most effective means of combating poverty is not to primitively shove money at it, but to make it easier for those who have money, to employ people who need it for a decent wage.
He may very well have mentioned that later, but the subject of the debate was, specifically, the import of the quoted passage.
The quoted passage out of context is being misconstrued, purposefully I'd argue. I refuse to argue a mis-represented quote out of context from the position that it is not mis-quoted and in context. I'll instead put it in context and argue the merits of the actual point of the quote.
I do not believe that I have displayed any inconsistency. I should like to know to which of my statements you refer.
It seems the beginning is an argument that a problem with the quote is that there is no specific policy being debated. It seems the end is an argument that the problem with the quote is the specific policy it is referring to. If the problem is lack of policy, the problem cannot also be the policy it is addressing.
I am not one of these conservatives, and it is fallacious to suppose that, in rejecting Mr. Obama's sentiments, I am implicitly endorsing theirs. Now, is the issue at hand the welfare of the poor, the distribution of wealth and the merit of a particular tax measure; or the deficit? I neither mentioned nor alluded to the deficit in either of my arguments.
So, is this money to be used in providing these fabled food stamps, or will it merely service American national debt?
It is not an either/or argument. (And food stamps aren't a fable, they're a real thing ._. anyway) there is a jobs plan, it includes teachers, infrastructure etc. That is where part of the budget is proposed to go. To meet budget demands conservatives have proposed cuts to things like food stamps. Part of the total budget would help avoid these cuts. Etc. The increased taxes would of course become part of the total budget.
I never said you eluded to the deficit either. I stated to you that the deficit is used as a reason to cut programs. If the deficit is reduced there is no longer a convenient excuse to cut programs I argue are beneficial to the overall economy, not to mention individuals need them.
If austerity measures do not work, then one should never 'need' to exercise them. If this is so, then the use of the deficit as an excuse for their implementation results from a lack of understanding, and not from the financial situation of the nation.
I know. This is the exact case. There are indeed instances when things should be cut, but the reasoning is the lack of progress the program or spending initiates, or there is not need for it, etc. Not deficit though. Deficit is a reflection of the success of lack of success of the whole. Paying all the debt tomorrow solves none of the things which caused the debt, and the debt in turn causes none of the things that lead to the underlying problem. Pay it tomorrow, and it will immediately begin adding up again.
I submit that if the United States were to stop borrowing money that it cannot pay back, the argument would be moot. But so long as the American economy is built upon such uncertain foundations, then no measure that you may care to implement, can do anything but forestall the eventual consequences.
This is a common misconception. The U.S. can actually pay back its debts. Our debt is 30-something percent of our yearly GDP, that is every year our GDP is more than 3x our total debt for forever. This is one of the lowest, or I believe it may be the lowest, debt to GDP ratio of any developed nation.
Now, paying it all at once would in the immediate mean austerity measures. However paying it off over time does not if you increase the income of the U.S. treasury. This can be done through job creation (like the jobs plan).
However, simply paying off the debt does not solve any long term problems. Creating jobs does because you are increasing federal treasury while at the same time decreasing the need for government spending on various social programs.
Simply cutting social programs, education, infrastructure, etc, not only doesn't help long term, it makes people less able to pursue jobs and contribute.
Which is not a sufficient reason to suppose that a tax increase will.
._. not in and of itself, but for the reasons stated it is.
As I said, without terminating the reliance of the United States upon borrowed moneys, attempts to repair its economy, by alteration of the system of taxation that its government operates, shall prove largely futile.
You're still arguing under the false assumption that I'm arguing a tax increase in and of itself is the solution. Why you are doing this is beyond me. I've made it clear. If you want to argue whether or not government is capable of spending money that creates jobs, okay. Don't try to dumb it down though.
But if they are powerful enough to have these austerity measures implemented, even with a democrat as president, how on Earth do you contrive to achieve this?
There have not been austerity measures in the U.S. Spending has been cut, but it's projected spending (again teachers for a growing population, sciences, etc.) Austerity measures have been in effect in Europe, and for quite some time, and while the U.S. economy is coming back (albeit slowly) European nations like Italy with heavy cuts in social programs, are still in free-fall. It appears in fact the fall increased after austerity was in place. Which to me makes perfect sense. That would be my prediction. But to be fair Italy owes way more and their debt is to other nations while our debt is to ourselves by and large (which many are not aware of) so they were somewhat forced.
You are right, with a democratic president austerity measures will not pass in the U.S. How Congress works though is they can simply stop spending additional money. They have done this. I argue as a result growth has slowed. Not stopped, but it would be faster with more spending in the right places (and please, please don't ask where again: teachers, sciences, roads, etc.)
And at any rate your policy here is dictated by your political affiliations; not informed by economic understandings. You are conforming to the democratic stereotype, even as you condemn the conservative one. These factions are more concerned with the destruction of the other than with the proper exercise of office.
I disagree. I'd rather have the tax cuts end and more money spent creating jobs. If a republican were to agree, I'd agree with that republican. That the affiliation is so consistent on the matter does not blind me to the goal. Perhaps your perception of political affiliation has blinded you to the underlying policies represented? It is easier to give up and say "it's all the same, if you're one of the other I'm not listening!" But it is not the same. Argue the policy then, not my affiliation.
I believe that I have advised you before, to quit your allegiance to the Democrats; an allegiance which you seem to hold by principle, rather than by meditation. The endless feud that exists between them and the Republicans has presently seized this frankly unimportant tax measure as its current pet topic, whilst largely ignoring the more pressing issues of the Nation's broken and corrupt political system, and its ill founded and ill managed financial system.
Agreed to an extent. However, I believe that, addressing corruption, off the subject, one side represents more progress in the right direction. That side democratic. Now, take some examples like the Dodd bill, or the Supreme Court ruling on corporate spending in elections. My argument is that in these areas Democrats ideas are the right direction while Republican ideas are the wrong direction.
Should I say fuck it and give up because I don't think Democrats go far enough? I don't think a corporation should be allowed to spend a penny supporting a candidate, only individuals, individuals should have a spending limit that your average person can afford. All of this should be enforced. Free airwaves should allot equal time to the candidate and the candidate only, without any outside voice or "super pact" etc. So I don't agree 100% with current democrats.
It is delusional to think, that the situation can possibly be improved in the long term, whilst such egregious faults exist within the twin pillars that support the greater edifice, of American society.
Is it so dire in your estimate? I think change is slow, but the right direction. Only when worked for though. Is it more corrupt now than in the early 1900s for example? Or are we just more aware of where corruption lies?
Once more, the passage that we are actually discussing was a general comment upon the necessity of public services for the advancement of private individuals. While the said services are certainly necessary, I do not know whether Mr. Obama had intended to suggest that it is a matter of personal debt to society that motivates the tax increase that you have mentioned, but if he did then he is wrong.
I am of the opinion that an economy cannot operate upon principles that are so ambiguous and ill reasoned as personal obligations to society. Rather, let it be plainly stated by the government that in order for public services to continue, taxes shall have to be levied. Let them decide amongst themselves what proportion of the nation's wealth they should control, and let them engineer a system of taxation that fairly achieves this end.
However, and this is perhaps the most important financial point that your argument does not consider (and I did, in my own defense, previously illustrate it for you); if taxes upon the majority of the nation's wealth (id est, the 85% held by the top 15%), are not generally applied, then as the wealth of that elite fluctuates, so too shall the revenue of the government.
Therefore, measures which redistribute wealth to the poor shall detract from the governments revenues, and will eventually become necessary for the subsistence of those who are poor. Thus, a government which practices this Robin Hood policy of taxing the rich, to give to the poor, shall be propping up the poor with one hand, and digging away from its own foundation with the other. Both will fall.
It is for reasons such as those above that I am convinced, that before considering an increase in taxes to service a deficit, a government should attempt retrenchment of all costs that will not be intolerably injurious to the poor. In stead of taxing the rich more, one should tax the poor less, and the mendicant not at all. If the government were to enforce a decent minimum wage, and not levy taxes upon those who earn below a certain threshold, they would do much to combat poverty. To prevent a subsequent rise in unemployment, it might behove the government to provide tax breaks, that are dependent upon the number of employees that a person has, and the wages of those employees.
I am persuaded that the most effective means of combating poverty is not to primitively shove money at it, but to make it easier for those who have money, to employ people who need it for a decent wage.
Outstanding idea about tax cuts dependent on the number of employees for corporations. And absolutely enforcing a descent minimum wage would do more to help the working poor.
Your point about the Robin Hood theory of taking from the rich to just give to the poor is apt. They are decreasing their own income as pointed out if this is simply giving money away.
Poverty is not static though, people go in and out of it, and as less are impoverished, more are paying taxes. If the taxes levied are not just giveaways, but actively take steps to equip individuals to themselves produce, create, make more money, then you're not "Robin Hood" you're "teaching them to fish."
It's the same argument though; "is the money going to go there?"
I trust that it will, much of it at the least. You can argue contrary and may prove to be right over time, but something must be done. This is an idea. That it is not perfect, might not work, might not be used the right way, would be a chance I'd be willing to take considering the minimal cost of it to society as a whole.
The quoted passage out of context is being misconstrued, purposefully I'd argue.
The import of the passage, in any context, is that persons who have achieved success, did not do so without availing of certain services which were rendered unto them by others. I have enquired of others, as I enquire of you now, as to the origin of these services. In my opinion, the president was speaking specifically of governmental services, such as roads and education. In the context that I am informed surrounds the speech, videlicet an argument for the repeal of Mr Bush's cuts to taxation, such an interpretation of the passage certainly makes sense to me.
Considering my agreement with the spirit passage, for what reason I might purposefully misconstrue the sentiments expressed therein, is a matter that is frankly mysterious to me.
I refuse to argue a mis-represented quote out of context from the position that it is not mis-quoted and in context.
I shall reiterate my belief that I have not personally misrepresented anything.
It seems the beginning is an argument that a problem with the quote is that there is no specific policy being debated.
If you review my arguments, you shall find no such suggestion. I first refuted your notion that as "No prison who is successful today did so without someone giving them a job", we ought to feel obliged to those who employed us.
I do not believe, that in my first argument, I made any reference to the passage whatsoever. Rather, the point of contention was your interpretation of Mr. Obama's points.
It seems the end is an argument that the problem with the quote is the specific policy it is referring to.
I only began to debate this policy with you, after you yourself brought up the topic. Having made no reference at all to the lack of any policy in the passage, I do not consider this to be inconsistent.
In fact, I recall being surprised by your mention of the tax increases, when my own original argument had nothing to do with them, made no mention of them, and could not possibly be construed as being either a defence, or a condemnation of them.
And food stamps aren't a fable, they're a real thing ._. anyway
That is a rather pedantic, and at any rate inaccurate, interpretation of the word 'fabled'.
there is a jobs plan, it includes teachers, infrastructure etc.
Splendid. When one is running out of money, enlarge the civil service.
That is where part of the budget is proposed to go. To meet budget demands conservatives have proposed cuts to things like food stamps. Part of the total budget would help avoid these cuts. Etc. The increased taxes would of course become part of the total budget.
It sounds like the government is setting itself up for a fall. One cannot embark upon a policy of taxing the private sector to enlarge the public sector. for the purposes of decreasing unemployment. One can only create stable employment by enlarging the private sector, and not the other way around.
I never said you eluded to the deficit either. I stated to you that the deficit is used as a reason to cut programs. If the deficit is reduced there is no longer a convenient excuse to cut programs I argue are beneficial to the overall economy, not to mention individuals need them.
Don't you think that it is a little stupid to address the deficit (id est, by retrenchment) as though it were the most important issue , just to deny its use as an excuse, to those who argue that it is in fact the most important issue?
This is a common misconception. The U.S. can actually pay back its debts. Our debt is 30-something percent of our yearly GDP, that is every year our GDP is more than 3x our total debt for forever.
If you wish to compare U.S debt to the U.S GDP, then you should really consider public foreign debt as well as intra-governmental. Combined, the come to about 100% of the GDP.
Now, paying it all at once would in the immediate mean austerity measures. However paying it off over time does not if you increase the income of the U.S. treasury.
I do not believe that a government should have the right to take private money by taxation, and export is from the country in which it was raised, by paying of government debt. Policies such as this are obviously injurious to the economy of the nation in question.
Now, paying it all at once would in the immediate mean austerity measures. However paying it off over time does not if you increase the income of the U.S. treasury. This can be done through job creation (like the jobs plan).
How does enlarging the civil service increase government revenues?
However, simply paying off the debt does not solve any long term problems. Creating
I said "stop borrowing", not "pay it all back".
Creating jobs does because you are increasing federal treasury while at the same time decreasing the need for government spending on various social programs.
The truth of that statement is entirely dependent upon the nature of the jobs created. One can only increase the treasury, by increasing the rate of taxation, or by increasing the economy that is taxed. The latter is reliant primarily upon the balance of imported moneys versus exported moneys, not the numbers of people working.
You're still arguing under the false assumption that I'm arguing a tax increase in and of itself is the solution.
I beg your pardon, sir, but I am not. I am arguing, that without an immediate cessation of government borrowing, no policies introduced by the federal government will be of much avail.
There have not been austerity measures in the U.S
Then why are you concerned by the conservatives' demands for them, if they do not have the power to implement them?
How Congress works though is they can simply stop spending additional money. They have done this. I argue as a result growth has slowed.
And you propose to dissuade them by increasing government revenues?
I disagree. I'd rather have the tax cuts end and more money spent creating jobs.
Building roads and hiring teachers may provide employment to those who have been deprived of their livelihoods by these recent troubles, and would therefore constitute a noble investment of moneys, but without fixing the problems that exist within the government's own spending and borrowing policies, and within the American economy; this project will merely exacerbate the government's present fardels, and will not promote the type of growth that the United States needs right now.
The United States has some very strong industries, and needs to support and enlarge those, along with its enlargement of the civil service. Such an enlargement is a gamble, as there is no guarantee that the growth derived from the policy will pay for its investment.
That the affiliation is so consistent on the matter does not blind me to the goal. Perhaps your perception of political affiliation has blinded you to the underlying policies represented?
If I have misconstrued your convictions, sir, then I apologise.
However, I believe that, addressing corruption, off the subject, one side represents more progress in the right direction.
Oh that's certainly true. The Democrats are more consistently correct than the 'Republicans' (whose policies are largely injurious to Republicanism), but it would behove us not to support their every policy without meditation upon it.
Is it so dire in your estimate?
The economies of most of the Western world are built upon very shaky foundations, not just that of the United States. Industry and novel technologies are being ignored, in preference to what are called "tertiary industries" which do not create wealth, but which merely move it around, and are susceptible to sudden and horrible collapses.
It works well enough for individual nations on paper, as it were, but the entire world is suffering because of our fascination with debt and services. Essentially, I am afraid that today we do not create enough, and devote too much of our energy to shunting around what we already have. The most readily perceptible symptom is the growing discrepancy between the incomes of the elite (who accrue nearly everything) and the incomes of the lower and middle classes (who create and spend nearly everything). You might not know much of England's history, but it was industry and commerce here that dragged the world from feudalism; and I fear that today we are doing our very best to return there.
Is it more corrupt now than in the early 1900s for example?
Perhaps not, but we are creating, by yielding power to corporate entities, a new and formidable aristocracy who control both money and political power.
And absolutely enforcing a descent minimum wage would do more to help the working poor.
My primary reason for deprecating the candidacy of Mr. Ron Paul, incidentally, was his notion that the minimum wage should be cut. Fool.
Poverty is not static though, people go in and out of it, and as less are impoverished, more are paying taxes. If the taxes levied are not just giveaways, but actively take steps to equip individuals to themselves produce, create, make more money, then you're not "Robin Hood" you're "teaching them to fish."
Indeed so, and my point was that we cannot trust the government to be as imaginative as we would like.
I trust that it will, much of it at the least. You can argue contrary and may prove to be right over time, but something must be done.
And I think that what the United States need now, is not the blind shunting about of money by the federal government, but the encouragement of industries and novel technologies by investment, and judicious, selective tax breaks (I agree with you in that Mr. Bush's blanket cuts were folly).
You might know the answer better than I do, but does the United States need more teachers and roads? I mean to ask, are the present numbers of teachers, and the present quality and extent of the road networks, insufficient? Or is this simply a way of conveniently reducing unemployment and poverty rates for the immediate future?
would be a chance I'd be willing to take considering the minimal cost of it to society as a whole.
A minimal present cost, supposing the plan's success, but we ought to be careful in creating a new group of workers who are entirely dependent upon government money for their subsistence. The Unites States government might try the idea, but it really should not rely solely upon it.
I just get bored of blind hatred toward a president. The last president managed to tank the greatest economy in the history of the world, squander the second surplus in U.S. history, start two wars without paying for them, and eliminate basic constitutional rights through the Patriot Act. He's treated like the pope compared to the disrespect this president gets... who subsequently has improved the economy and killed the guy who was used as the excuse for two wars. The juvenile hatred doesn't even have a basis, as this debate clearly shows.
Wait just a minute. I am not blind in my hatred of Obama, it has taken the better part of four years for me to get to the point where I think he is really just a puppet idiot. I respected him and his pledges early on, but now we are in a whole different situation. Which, if you hadn't noticed sucks!
1. Your quote is missing chunks of what he said. He didn't say "you didn't build that--" then go on, he explained it. So you're either fueling this idiocy purposefully or have poor sources.
2. Nothing he said there is factually incorrect, even with chunks missing. I have my own business too. I couldn't have my own business had I not an education. I could not if other people were not educated enough to start their businesses and need my expertise. I could not without the internet.
So I'm going to bitch and moan if someone points out the fact that I myself did not build the internet nor educate every client I get?
No, I'm not. I don't base my self-worth on the delusion of 100% independence.
If not being grateful for anything and taking offence to any comment shattering some delusional mindset of total self-suffiency is a pre-requisite to being a business owner than perhaps that in itself is insight into the decline of U.S. business as much as the recession.
1. Your quote is missing chunks of what he said. He didn't say "you didn't build that--" then go on, he explained it. So you're either fueling this idiocy purposefully or have poor sources.
Yes, I copied it from CNN...so bad source.
2. Nothing he said there is factually incorrect, even with chunks missing. I have my own business too. I couldn't have my own business had I not an education. I could not if other people were not educated enough to start their businesses and need my expertise. I could not without the internet.
I agree with you, I was just trying to stir it up al little because I believe he really put his foot in his mouth
LOL. I like how iamdavidh didn't even reply to you. He probably read "CNN" then decided to back off. You see, Democrats can never disagree with their precious CNN. It's all knowing and always right.
Obama didn't kill Osama, the military set up a plan and the soldiers killed him... all Obama did is say "yeah you can do it" when they asked him, what you think everyone else would have said "no don't kill him" really?
The lowest yearly deficit under Clinton was still nearly 18 billion
The surplus referred to is the public debt surplus. Meaning the administration was paying back its debt to the public.
On the point you stated, that 18 billion was down from 430 billion yearly from the first Bush. Considering Clinton took over in a economic recession, this is a pretty incredible feat. Your ability to demean that feat only provides insight to the partisanship that has engulfed the Republican party.
So I agree with you on this, but you have to admit he made a little mistake in his choice of words when he said: "If you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen" (completely different than what he had said a few sentences earlier)
It's: "you didnt build it on your own" vs "you didn't build it." Not the same at all. He said both of those things, which contradict each other. So what we have here is semantics and but hurters.
Don't get me wrong I'm not butt hurt over semantics but I just want to hear you admit that it was a dumb thing to say.
Sure, the order of the words is tragic, and the placement of punctuation when read in transcript form. Here's the transcript of that part of the speech.
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.
He was talking about the roads and the bridges and the American system that helped them get there. That's what he's saying they did not build. It is even more clear that he is talking about the roads and the bridges and the American system when you hear it as opposed to read it.
It was worded in the way to make it entirely too easy to distort though.
I didn't do it on my own because I didn't pave the roads or build the trucks? Fair enough, but when my company fails because I can't afford enough lawyers to by-pass the seemingly endless barriers-to-entry the government has set up for me, are the people going to return all my time and money? No?
Then I guess you're something of a hypocrite, Mr. Obama...
Obama is trying to gain credit for what the free market does, each earning their own share, producing their own capital for their own benefit. The free market is a natural phenomena, to which no single person can claim as their own creation.
My success is not owed to anyone because no matter how much they help me, I must put in the effort to make it happen. The people who helped me did so of THEIR OWN SELFISH BENEFIT.
They didn't provide me roads, sandwiches, computers and books so that I could have a good life, they did it to benefit THEIR OWN LIVES. To pay their own bills, their own taxes, their own comforts.
They DID NOT help me. They helped themselves. The benefit towards me was a coincidence and that's how the free market works. I do not owe them anything for my success, except my continued patronage for being a productive member of society.
I'll put it another way. If all my professors of engineering helped me learn about bomb making and I go blow up a few thousand people. will they ALL be summoned and be responsible for my efforts? Will my barber, grocer, parents, all be sentenced as accomplices in a mass murder?
If all my helpers are to benefit in my success, then they are also liable for all my failures. To cherry pick all the good ones and discard the bad ones is delusional and mentally dishonest.
He has no concept of what it takes to own a business. Yes,... we do it on our own. The government didn't help us, they stood in our way in the form of tax dollars and terrible assistance programs that charge the same if not more in interest on a small business loan. It takes sweat equity, stress and risk to run a business and that statement shows his ignorance.
I think that was his point, but he's not an idiot for making it.
Businesses do not get anywhere on their own without other people, by definition.
You have to hire someone to work for you?
Then your success was not solely on your own.
You're a fool or a pompous ass for believing your business was done solely on your own. You are a piece of your business just as your employees are, just as the buildings you run your business from are, just as your investors are, etc.
Give me a business where one man does all the work ever - built the building, all the furnishings in the building, manages all the labor, manages all the numbers, hires not a single person to help him (which all this together is not physically or mentally possible unless working from home) - and THEN that person can be pissed off at the President's statements.
The fact that anyone is angry with the President's statements is downright sickening. The idea that there are so many people willing to assume that all the work for something as complex as a business was only 100% their own is such a horrendous testament to the piety of this country and society.
This debate within itself makes me loose hope in humanity.
Successful people did nothing on their own and if you believe they did you are either a fool or a horrible person.
Well, this is kind of a dumb question because there is video evidence of him saying "If you have a buisness you didnt build that somebody else made that happen!" if that doesnt scream successful people didnt do it on their own then i dont know what does......he's an idiot.
Yes he did, and worse he tried to reverse positions almost immediately. I interpreted his statement to mean that a persons success is never earned without help either from parents, investors, government, employees mentors etc. No one does it 100% on their own. I agree but I don't think that means you owe every unsuccessful person in society a damn thing. If you want to give back you should make that choice not some socialist / commie politician who wants to redistribute wealth.
Obama is an idiot and sounds like he hasnt left Junior High School where personal cut downs are the key to climbing the social ladder. Anytime someone injects resources (time, talent, treasure) and makes something better than it was before an improvement is made. This takes initiative. His statement is an insult to initiative takers and can only be appreciated by the class of envious haters who realize that once they cant have something they dont want anyone else to have it either.
Andy, I don't think you understand what he's referring to. He's not saying that any of your hard work isn't worth celebrating, or congratulating. He's simply saying that without government services, such as roads, security, and other forms of infrastructure, as well as all of the users that you rely on for income and business, were most probably essential for you to earn the money you did.
I think it refers to you significantly less than most, considering that you founded your own business, and while there is some truth there, he did not phrase it especially well, so I'm hardly surprised that you're offended. Hope you feel better soon.
If there's a money making opportunity for 2 or more people, they will get together and put the infrastructure in place. The government should stay out of it. But that's just me ;)
And they should get credit for their creativity and entrepreneurialism, no one disputes that. They, in turn, need to recognize that those who funded and created the infrastructure that will be put in place deserve credit as well. Currently, government is heavily involved in the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, so it's hard to understand your reasoning that government should stay out of it.
Currently, government is heavily involved in the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, so it's hard to understand your reasoning that government should stay out of it.
Simply put, the government should not be involved in the business of creation and maintenance of infrastructure.
Well, the wealthy 1% got there because of government, no doubt, so I can agree with him there.
However, most business men are hardworking AND smart, and they use capital to get where they are.
Labor is just as responsible for the building of a business as a building.
I'd say that successful business men that are not the result of government regulations choosing winners are responsible for 90% of their success. The other 10% goes to the existence of society itself. Because without existence, those successful business men wouldn't exist, and that would mean that they wouldn't have that business.
As well, many smaller businesses are stamped out by giant businesses like Wal-Mart because of regulations (such as minimum wage) and taxes (including in issues of health benefits).
Wal-Mart being able to make enough money to be a big business is mostly due to rigid competition, but the inability to compete with a business that becomes so large and heavily incorporated comes a lot from government regulation and taxing.
"Wal-Mart being able to make enough money to be a big business is mostly due to rigid competition, but the inability to compete with a business that becomes so large and heavily incorporated comes a lot from government regulation and taxing."
...so you should be on the Obama is an idiot side?
I don't care much about the sides. Neither of them are really concerning what I'm saying, which is the problems with government interfering in the market.
Well, yes, he did say it. But the two options presented clearly show that the "yes" side is completely out of context to what it was that he said.
The truth is, they didn't do it on their own. That is not to say that they don't deserve credit for what they've done, but they must also acknowledge that it is not a 100% individual effort. They received a loan or a grant to fund it. If they paid for their business straight out, then they got the money from either their parents or from previous jobs. All of which mean that they had assistance in some form. There is also the fact that they utilize the police, roads, and various other things which are provided by the taxes of EVERYONE not just their own.
That wasn't his point. The small quote has been exploited. His point is that if you were successful, you had help along the way. A mentor, a teacher, someone who believed in you. The idea is to take a moment and thank those people.
This quote has been taken out of context, and in the way that it is presented here has completely lost the meaning behind it. The idea behind what Obama said is this: that there is always someone that stood behind you and supported you in your ventures. To say that Obama is claiming that the government is the sole reason for success is wildly incorrect. Everyone has a teacher or someone who supported their ventures. No single person has the ability to make a successful business without the help of someone else. The easiest way to correct the outrage surrounding the quote when taken out of context is simply to add the word alone.
We're social creatures, we use and manipulate one another to get what we want. Just because it was hard didn't mean you didn't have any help. Without the people in your life that helped you out, and the social constructs we have in place, these successful people couldn't have been successful.
Go try to start a successful business in Ethiopia or a similarly defunct third-world country and then I'll tell you you did it on your own.
Your point that nobody has success on their own is absolutely true, and as obvious as saying no one lives without air. But the reality is that many small business' are successful because the owner had a great idea, was smart enough to hire the right people, found a healthy customer base, etc. For Obama to say "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." is total BS. Sure, without a road to drive on or water to drink, it can't happen. But business were/are successful without paved roads and indoor plumbing. In Ethiopia of all places. I'd bet there are hundreds of them. Sorry but whatever point he was TRYING to make, Obama placed his foot firmly in his mouth and chewed on it. This will cost him.
Don't forget about education. That's probably important, too. Either way, giving credit where credit is due is a good idea anyways. It's not like we're telling them their great idea or their skills are useless and that their entire work is really just the government's or other people's endeavours. It's more along the lines of recognizing that nobody lone-wolfs in this world and has any amount of success. Paying back to society when society has helped you isn't really something that people should be forced to do -- it's something they should want to.
It is pure insanity to believe in the notion of SELF. There is no point to an individual SELF. What is it? Why is it. Look. Obama has some very legit negatives. Some that should elevate him to sainthood on the right.
I see his comment to be merely a liberal attempt to establish a rule of thumb stating that if you're a wealthy individual, be a little humble. Understand that you've achieved your wealth with the help of other people in some way shape or form.. Thus feeding the narrative especially in the debate regarding taxes that it's not just YOUR fruits of labor in question that the left wants to be taxed. Conservatives I realize are immune to this line of logic, but nevertheless the president did not explicitly go out of his way to commit political suicide.
He was saying you didn't build the roads and bridges. Granted, his speech had poor timing, but to say what you are saying is, quite frankly, mere quote mining.
His point was not at all saying that they didn't build the companies on their own. That was taken out of context from his speech. In the actual speech he explained that the government is a crucial part of making any business work. The government builds roads and bridges that private companies would not want to build for FREE use. The government gives tax breaks to starting small businesses. So what he was meaning is that it would be impossible for a person to start a business without the help of others and that everyone has to work together to form something successful and not just one person could do it all on their own.
The idea that President Obama said people didn't build their own businesses is completely baseless and absurd. President Obama was obviously referring to the bridges and roads that everyone uses to help build there businesses, because they obviously don't have the private funding to build $100 million bridges. My family owns two successful restaurants and one hotel in a tourist destination, and without the infrastructure provided by government... our businesses wouldn't have been built, they wouldn't be able to stay open and we would have no business at all. We built our businesses, but we didn't build the billion dollar interstate leading to our town, the new two million dollar brick sidewalks put in or the drainage that prevents our coastal community from flooding. The bridges and roads, we didn't build that. His words were taken completely out of context. If looked at in context, any person can conclude President Obama was not referencing the actual businesses.
local publications that I needed to advertise in, created them ALL on my own
road networks for me to get to customers and them to get to me, did it ALL on my own.
Educated custoemrs so they could get jobs and then in turn afford my services, did it ALL on my own.
Establish competetive anti-monopolistic telecomunication networks essential to my line of business, did it ALL on my own.
how silly can i go??
lets see, establish nation wide police service to maintain law and order so i could prosper with out fear of crime against me and my family, educated my children with out takeing time off work, set up a road network and educated medical profesionals and built ERs incase I or my family had an accident,. LOL
I agree that I feel I did it on my own, but my country created the conditions.
Yes, but some of these are private institutions. You can do it without any government intervention. I went to a private school. I work at a private business. I'm going to a private college. I'm doing it ALL on my own without any government help.
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 just because I was 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 hard working people out there.
The point is, you pay back society a little more when you've become a little more successful thanks to that society.
It is a very American idea.
Why do you guys hate America?
The point is the Bush tax breaks over the $250,000 watermark need to come to an end. They did not create jobs and at this point it is fiscally irresponsible to continue. Even ending those tax cuts it is still one of the lowest tax rates in the history of the U.S.
So when I succeed, it's thanks to the people and therefore I owe them money -- and when I fail, it's also thanks to the people and therefore they owe me money, correct? No?
When you succeed its thanks in part to others, and various combinations to luck, motivation, intelligence, circumstance, hardwork, etc. And when you succeed you can buy a nice car, house, go on cool vacations, and retire comfortably. You can do all of that and still help others in society also get to where you are. These things are not mutually exclusive as hundreds of years of history show.
When you fail it is thanks in part to others, bad luck, circumstance, sometimes lack of intelligence sometimes not, sometimes lack of motivation sometimes not, etc. You cannot afford all of those things a successful person can afford, okay, we accept that as a society. What we should not accept is that this person and their children now no longer have any opportunity to try again.
Which is precisely what happens when you give all of the richest all of the breaks at the expense of every program, project, and investment that helps those without.
I'm sorry that the situation is not as simple as you would like it to be, but it is not.
Yes, but I think in this case, Obama is trying to say that the government is the one responsible for your success. This is not the case. You can become successful "all by yourself" if you consider that you didn't receive the help from the government.
I'm often struck by this idea of "giving something back." The notion that, as one's life progresses, he accumulates a sort of deficit balance with society that must be neutralized by charitable works and financial outlays is facially absurd. Are one's daily transactions throughout life a form of theft? If so, why not just prevent anyone from making them in the first place rather than punishing success?
Here's the point
The point is the Bush tax breaks over the $250,000 watermark need to come to an end.
This thread, and the outrage the President's comments have caused more generally, rely on extrapolation. We know the argument he was making, but even in-context, it is indicative of a whole range of beliefs that may not be appropriate to the holder of the highest office in America. That is what people are trying to divine. The philosophy that led the President to make these comments is what's at issue; not the particular policy he was referring to. If he can make this argument here, he can make it anywhere.
I'm often struck by this idea of "giving something back." The notion that, as one's life progresses, he accumulates a sort of deficit balance with society that must be neutralized by charitable works and financial outlays is facially absurd. Are one's daily transactions throughout life a form of theft? If so, why not just prevent anyone from making them in the first place rather than punishing success?
Giving something back is not punishment. Is paying for anything to start with punishment? You are paying society for the opportunities you had, and in turn ideally this goes toward ensuring the others have similar opportunities, and so on. It's very simple. It becomes confusing only when you try to twist it into something it is not.
This thread, and the outrage the President's comments have caused more generally, rely on extrapolation. We know the argument he was making, but even in-context, it is indicative of a whole range of beliefs that may not be appropriate to the holder of the highest office in America. That is what people are trying to divine. The philosophy that led the President to make these comments is what's at issue; not the particular policy he was referring to. If he can make this argument here, he can make it anywhere.
So then, you must read into anything he says some larger conspiracy, then, then you'll understand why it's evil and scary or whatever... got it ._.
The fact is there is nothing nefarious about this president, nothing inappropriate about him, and nothing hidden or scary within the speech. It was a speech stating the truth about how society works. If you want to discuss conspiracies about the president perhaps begin another debate. At the least have the courtesy to state plainly what these conspiracies are instead of innuendos.
As for it not being about policy, I'm afraid it is. It was about ending the Bush tax cuts over the 250,000 mark, and why they need to end. That is all. Nothing hidden or scary. Just policy and why. You can stop trying to Da Vinci Code the speech now.
So let me get this straight. You go around saying "Why do you hate America?", and yet you think taxing the rich is somehow "American"? If the whole point of the American system is to make you rich through the labors of your own hands, then why do you all of a sudden turn around and say that we should tax their brains out? Seems contradictory to me.
Yeah but why would Obama come out talking about some old American Idea? To appeal to his ever patriotic supporters...? His point, we all know it, is that we need government(true) and lots of it(not true). He's got this sort of discouragement campaign going on. It's all about "you can't do it let us do it". A VERY un-american idea.
No, the point is not "you can't do it let us do it". The point is this thing called SOCIETY is something we're all in together. You can't make a society work by yourself. Neither can I. No one can. Society working together is a very American idea.
You're confusing the POINT with what he said. What he said does not necessarily = the point.
Yeah that's what he said and I agree mostly. But why is the president of the united states talking about how we need help. The point of the greatness of our society is with the people and our Independence. Barrack has attacked everything that contains creativity and production in this country. His point is to say that we need help and lots of it. It's the lots of it part I have a problem with.
Do you not think that you should apologize for certain things that America has done? Do you think that America is inherently correct in all it does? Do you believe it's foreign policy is perfect, and has caused no damage or pain to anyone?
Interesting that Obama's the only one who's apologizing. I don't see your country apologizing for it's atrocities (and your country has done some pretty bad things in the past). So until I see your leader doing it, you are kinda acting like a hypocrite.
Interesting that Obama's the only one who's apologizing.
Interesting that Romney's the only one making an absolute fool of himself abroad right now.
I don't see your country apologizing for it's atrocities (and your country has done some pretty bad things in the past). So until I see your leader doing it, you are kinda acting like a hypocrite.
Wait, so is this your logic:
1. He supports Obama apologizing
2. His country isn't apologizing
3. He therefore doesn't support his country apologizing
4. He is therefore a hypocrite
Or what?
I would fully support my country apologizing for its occupation, its empire, and all the deaths it's incurred. But, unfortunately, I'm 17 and live abroad, I don't think it's within my power to affect my country's foreign policy. So I completely reject that I'm a hypocrite, that's a baseless and unintelligent accusation (among other reasons). Something you're much better than, in all honesty.
Fair enough, but it seems that Obama has this particular hate for America itself. After all, look back to what was said when he got elected, and I quote:
This is the first time, in my adult life, that I am proud of my country.
The main point was not that they didnt have the idea, but the success didnt come from them alone. Mitt Romney's rant about how "papa john started papa johns pizza" was as ignorant as it was irrelevant. Did Bill Gates build my computer? no, some factory worker did. Did he form the company that allows the OS to run? sure, but he didnt do it all alone. No one has built their business alone. There was someone behind you pushing you along, giving you the education you needed, building your road to drive on, actually building the product, shipping it, etc. etc. no one got there alone.
This is pretty clear if you aren't an Obama hater. Of course he meant the "system" for creating the American dream was set in place by those who came before us. That is why it's called the "American Dream." That is not to say that people in other countries can't be successful; he was only speaking about Americans.
So, yes he did say that successful Americans did not become successful on their own; he just happens to be correct. Just ask Bill Gates who freely admits it to be the case.
Fine, then Romney said he likes to fire people. He said it, just completely ignore the context around it. If you work, he likes to fire you. He flat out said it.
Ok so I had to go watch the video because people were quoting two different sentences and I was confused.
What he says first is that you don't get success by yourself. True I agree with that (out of context)
But a few seconds later he says, and this is what all my friends have been quoting on facebook: "If you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen"
This is where he chose his words poorly. That's different than saying "you didn't get there on your own" That's saying that you did not build it. Completely different. And that's what my conservative friends are choosing to quote.
But beyond his words the underlying message seems to be that we just really need government. (to be fare we sure the heck do, but for our current situation as of right now, we need the government out of the way) He's using the truth; that we help each other, and he's mixing that in with the whole "we need government" stuff.
So it's not about the semantics of what he said it's about the fundamentals of what our priorities are.
Successful business people didn't do it on their own, literally speaking. Figuratively speaking, maybe. Both sides waffle back and forth between literal and figurative interpretation to suit their own agendas. After reading and rereading Obama's comment, which I think was awkwardly worded leaving it open to misinterpretation, I determined that "...you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen" was referring to his previous statement about who built the roads etc. etc. To believe that he would really mean "If you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen" is absurd, and a blatantly exploitative literal (out of context) interpretation. Sentences within a speech do not exist in a vacuum, either. The ability to connect thoughts that form a larger point is an essential skill in becoming a successful entrepreneur.
I know this kind of flies in the face of the Western Cowboy mentality that we like to thump ourselves on the chest with in this country, but see the whole point of civilization is people working together. That's why your grandparents came out of the cave. And the point is NO ONE DOES IT ALL ON THEIR OWN. That's why live in societies. I know we all have our pride and shit and we like to think we do every all on our own, but we don't. Even if you start with nothing (and most successful people that I've known discount the fact their families help them get started) you still live in a town where there's infrastructure. There's roads for you to handle logistics and railways and planes. And yo live a town with a police force that keeps people from stealing your shit. And there's cell phone towers and phone lines. And there's banks where you can borrow money. And there's government programs to help the banks be able to lend to business. And there are laws to keep them from ripping you off. So, even if you're a self-starter, NO ONE DOES IT ALL ON THEIR OWN. If you can't accept that, see how well your business does in the Congo. In the meantime, we live in Societies, it has certain advantages.
He did say that, but what he MEANT to say was that there is not a single person anywhere who has nobody to thank for anything. Your up-bringing? Your support? Your schooling? All come from somebody else who is dedicated to their job or their duty. Even then, they're only there because they got help along the way.
I will gladly change my opinion if you can name JUST ONE person who has no-one to thank for their success.
No. I think what really said was "bitch, please.... I'm talkin' here. Now, don't go gettin' all up in here with that pajizzle. Dang, nigga! Now, ge' on outa hea."
"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, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service."
Question - which pro-work person said these remarks:
- we're not guaranteed success, but we're guaranteed the right to work hard for success.
- at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try.
- her dad had MS, so he had to wake up an hour earlier than everybody else just to get to work because it took him that long to get dressed, and he could barely walk. But he never missed a day’s work -- because he took pride in the idea that, you know what, I’m going to earn my way and look after my family.
- your kids can get a great education, and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving.
- Our goal isn’t just to put people back to work -- although that’s priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded.
- I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well.
- I went to Washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class
- I believe in American manufacturing. I believe in making stuff here in America.
- when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
He's saying that business owners couldn't do what they did without infrastructure and team work, which is the government's responsibility. It would be silly to say that you could have a business without roads, bridges, post offices, etc.
He's not saying that you can't succeed without a bunch of help from other people, making successful people seem like manipulative people who just got lucky- he's saying that you need collaboration with others in order to be successful, which is true. My dad created a successful small business and he got help from others and collaborated with others (and is still collaborating with others).
It's sort of like doing a Chem lab. Sure, you can get it done by yourself, but it will take a hell of a lot longer, you'll be unsure of your results, and will probably just get a B on it. Now if you're doing a Chem lab with two other people who are maybe more mathematically inclined and a bit more creative, you can get it done quicker, will be sure of your results because you were able to bounce your ideas off of each other (and maybe the one better at math did most of the conversions), and you'll get at least a 97 because each of you checked your answers individually and then compared them.
Also, the excerpt up there doesn't even include the part where he says, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires"
So if everyone didn't actually watch the speech/ read the whole thing (I watched the video on youtube, because I was sure that people were taking it out of context), then a lot of this debate isn't very valid, because most of you don't have the full story.
In its entirety, he isn’t saying literally that successful people didn't build there business. Its the juxtaposition of others that create a successful big business in addition to the great idea of one individual. In reality, it is the Romney equivalent of “I like to fire people”. The Democrats did chastise Romney for that mistake so I will not engage in the same affair.
He meant to give credit to the middle class, saying that, like the country, it takes a universal effort to create a large success. If you entirely believe exxon mobil is the result of one man, you need to stop believing in Super Hero’s.
I had yet to see a full transcript of his remarks, and this really helps clear the issue up for me.
Obama's point was simple. If you are successful, you had help. Whether it was your mother, pushing you to get into a good college. A teacher who connected with you and made the subject fun. A friend, who lent you a sum of money and never asked for it back. You've had help.
Perhaps his remarks were poorly phrased. One apparently shouldn't deny anything to anyone in politics -- you didn't do that. Yes, I did. But I had help from hundreds of people along the way. I didn't build it on my own, and I'm proud to admit that.
He got caught in a soundbite where he talked about the infrastructure needed to even be able to have a business - the roads, ie. "you didn't build that." B
