IGX

What came first infrastructure, or the business that paid the taxes that created the infrastructure?

I agree that the speech as a whole sounds less bad than the statement in isolation. But to claim that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn’t build that" require a level of "clumsiness in phrasing" that would have embarrassed W.

grip junky wrote:What came first infrastructure, or the business that paid the taxes that created the infrastructure?

Is what came first most relevant to what happened afterwards?

American capital requires the security of the American state - so the infrastructure came first. You can build enormous wealth here (and in other Western states) without the need for a private army to protect your holdings.

Pinky wrote:I agree that the speech as a whole sounds less bad than the statement in isolation. But to claim that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn’t build that" require a level of "clumsiness in phrasing" that would have embarrassed W.

Not really. Add one word: "you didn't build that alone."

protobuilder wrote:

grip junky wrote:What came first infrastructure, or the business that paid the taxes that created the infrastructure?

Is what came first most relevant to what happened afterwards?

Yes, very much so, it was created and it is maintained from doing business and we all have equal to it. So to some how say that without our help you could not have done what you have. I see it as the opposite of that.

milosz wrote:

Pinky wrote:I agree that the speech as a whole sounds less bad than the statement in isolation. But to claim that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn’t build that" require a level of "clumsiness in phrasing" that would have embarrassed W.

Not really. Add one word: "you didn't build that alone."

Or add five words and make it sound worse: "Somebody else made that happen."

My take on this is that he completely flubbed that sentence. If you watch the speech, you'll see that the transcripts are wrong. What he said was "If you've got a business,...that...You didn't build that." It sounds like he got ahead of himself and said "If you've got a business" when he didn't mean to. He then stumbled as he attempted to recover.

Btw, you have to love the faux-folksiness of "If you've got a business". It's ridiculous, but he still fakes being relatable better than Romney does.

grip junky wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

grip junky wrote:What came first infrastructure, or the business that paid the taxes that created the infrastructure?

Is what came first most relevant to what happened afterwards?

Yes, very much so, it was created and it is maintained from doing business and we all have equal to it. So to some how say that without our help you could not have done what you have. I see it as the opposite of that.

That's a brutal rabbit hole to go down. The reality is that the "infrastructure" that makes the US a favorable business environment is far more than roads and schools, one of which is often paid for concurrent with development the other of which is not paid for at all by business but by individual households.

The fact is you cannot build a business in vacuum and there is a massive reliance on taxpayer funded services and infrastructure. By the same token, small business often pays a larger share of its costs than corporations do and they contribute significantly to a resilient and stable communities.

I think all reasonable people can agree that success requires smart, hard working entrepreneurs AND a government that provides security and consistency within which businesses can thrive.

What's also equally reasonable is that most people are entirely UNreasonable when it comes to throwing the political football and cheering on their team, which leads to an election cycle filled with silliness and strawmen.

We shouldn't be debating what Obama meant by one stupid sentence in Roanoke. We should be debating why the fuck we're stuck with Obama or Romney.

The fact is you cannot build a business in vacuum and there is a massive reliance on taxpayer funded services and infrastructure. By the same token, small business often pays a larger share of its costs than corporations do and they contribute significantly to a resilient and stable communities.

Bingo. Not to mention "externalities" which are extremely common, especially when it comes to larger corporations; state tax breaks or favorable legislation, public funding for roads connecting vital private business supplies/deliveries, etc.

I think all reasonable people can agree that success requires smart, hard working entrepreneurs AND a government that provides security and consistency within which businesses can thrive.

We shouldn't be debating what Obama meant by one stupid sentence in Roanoke. We should be debating why the fuck we're stuck with Obama or Romney.

I agreed with Kraj yesterday, and now proto today. What the fuck is going on?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Bob, did she watch the speech or the clip?

She watched the majority of the speech as archived on youtube - not just a quick clip.

My point is not to debate about what he did or did not mean; semantics are irrelevant, IMO, when the words come from the mouths of people paid to artfully lie. Rather, I wanted to show that perhaps this was not a shining moment for him. That's all.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck who gets elected or not. Whichever douchebag does get elected won't completely ruin the country before I'm dead. After that, I really don't give a fuck.

I'd like to see us on a slower glide path to destruction.... I'm not so worried about my grandkids because I don't yet have any. But I'm concerned about Andy's future.

i hear romney is now featuring small business success stories and, hold on, it turns out a bunch of them benefit from govt support in one form or another.

no one is going it alone.

protobuilder wrote:We should be debating why the fuck we're stuck with Obama or Romney.

You know why we're 'stuck with them.' Why there isn't a viable third party, and what platform would that party have to have to be successful in the national debate, is a question-- but it won't matter this election.

Heh
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... cal-gaffes

I dont click links but is Stewart pretending gaffes shouldn't be political fodder now? That seems disingenuous coming from a guy who's show thrives on such stuff.

Why was the speech a gaffe, because it did not play out well and he has tried to back away from it. The speech seems to be in line with liberals ideas on collectivism. We should be talking about this speech, it difines him and the way he thinks about governing.

Stewart actually does a good job of hashing through the entire argument.

protobuilder wrote:I dont click links but is Stewart pretending gaffes shouldn't be political fodder now? That seems disingenuous coming from a guy who's show thrives on such stuff.

No. He's not pretending that at all.

grip junky wrote:Why was the speech a gaffe, because it did not play out well and he has tried to back away from it. The speech seems to be in line with liberals ideas on collectivism. We should be talking about this speech, it difines him and the way he thinks about governing.

This is exactly how the cultural-Marxists behave. They'll happily let you believe all nonsense about them, as long as it's false. But the moment you rumble them on what they actually and really think in reality, in other words call them out on the 'truth' of what they propose, they shit themselves, back track, and eventually try and shut you up by fair means or foul (which is essentially what Political Correctness is intended to do - to close down honest debate).

It's behavior that's pretty much the antithesis of what good democracy should be all about.

Herv100 wrote:The whole statement is just as bad, IMO. Just a bunch of collectivist, statist rhetoric. What he is essentially saying is "You couldn't do shit without the govt as it exists now, so keep the taxes coming. And don't be mad if we raise taxes and increase the size of govt even more."

No, it's pointing out the blatant fact that we are an interdependent society where even the successful individual depends on the group for the basic predicates of success.

Fat Cat wrote:No, it's pointing out the blatant fact that we are an interdependent society where even the successful individual depends on the group for the basic predicates of success.

The truth of this is born out by the many public private "partnerships" scams where taxpayers pay for some ball stadium on the extended rubric of making that money back partially in increased sales tax revenue. Even when it works, this interdependence is always asymmetrical, sometimes in favor of business, sometimes in favor of the state, and very rarely in favor of individual households.

Perfect example is the light rail thread where we talked about how Portland's light rail loses money overall, received federal funding and really has had its largest net effect of increasing property values of the communities it serves but not necessarily the communities it taxes. At it's base, it is true that no business creates or controls its own ecology.

the brouhaha resulting from obama's remark might be explained by the awkwardness of his phrasing but mostly is further evidence of the irrationality of humans, as if we needed more evidence.

This is from the ultra-left wing PolitiFact:

PolitiburoFact wrote:Our ruling

In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning.

The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses.

Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

By leaving out the "individual initiative" reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False.

Article

Fat Cat wrote:

Herv100 wrote:The whole statement is just as bad, IMO. Just a bunch of collectivist, statist rhetoric. What he is essentially saying is "You couldn't do shit without the govt as it exists now, so keep the taxes coming. And don't be mad if we raise taxes and increase the size of govt even more."

No, it's pointing out the blatant fact that we are an interdependent society where even the successful individual depends on the group for the basic predicates of success.

If what you say is true-- then it was either a mistake by a politician going off script (and someone who talks as much as a POTUS does is likely to make a few mistakes) or a major speechwriting and speech vetting mistake (which shouldn't happen at this level-- ever).

They all should have known that a mistake like this would be taken advantage of by Republicans-- small businesses are not to be taken lightly in the public square.

No, what he said wasn't a mistake it was 100% verifiably accurate. And LOL at "should have known" that Republicans have no loyalty to fact or common sense. Nice admission dummy.