And to expand on that, someone is there to pass the ball to Jordan. There are other good batters so that teams have to pitch to Babe Ruth instead of just walking him every time. Eight other guys take the field on defense with Babe Ruth, so that the score isn’t 99 to 0 in the first inning.
And more importantly, there are consumers of the product so that sports stars have a chance to excel. Who has posters of the world’s greatest curling star on their wall? People with enough money buy tickets (using common currency and a legal system to support those activities) and use a variety of modes of transportation to get to a stadium that more than likely has been paid for using some public funding. Alternatively, they watch on television, generating revenue for the team, the league, the network… The ad buyers benefit from attention to their product…
And so on and so forth. But let’s stop chastising Michael Jordan here. Clearly we’re antagonistic to his greatness.
Obama says that people are successful because of their own initiative, and because we do things together. Why do you keep altering the words?
Why are you “factoring” all the things that you just acknowledged are important out of the picture? The point isn’t about relative success, which is what you’re getting at here. Nobody is pitting Bill Gates against Joe the Plumber in this discussion. The point is that neither Bill Gates or Joe the Plumber will have success without the infrastructure in place.
You’re “factoring out” the dirt, water and sunlight and saying that we’re antagonistic to the seed for the success of the flower.
Not exactly. I’m saying that the message seems to be that there’s nothing particularly special about the flower, because the dirt, water, and sunlight were already there.
Why is he making it? Obviously he’s making it to bolster his argument that tax cuts on the wealthy should be ended. If you disagree here, we’ll need to back this truck up. But I assume you’re aware of the context in which this speech is given. Therefore, the most accurate reading of this part of the speech is that it ought to support the “end-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy” argument.
If he’s saying, “Rich people ain’t all that,” it doesn’t make sense within his overall argument, especially since he specifically calls out individual initiative as something that makes successful people (e.g., business owners) special.
But if he’s saying, “taxes support infrastructure, and successful people depend on that infrastructure to succeed,” then it goes directly to his overall argument. He’s countering the Randian nonsense about how the Ubermensch don’t need to society to succeed and how taxes are just deadweight placed by the plebes about the Ubermenschen’s necks.
Successful people may be distinguished by individual initiative, but even they need the infrastructure that we plebes need. Given their success that’s predicated on the infrastructure–it makes sense to ask them to give back accordingly.
Why would you factor out the playing field? The point is that the playing field is very important, and the players need to chip in to make sure it’s being maintained.
Part of the government’s job is maintaining that field. Some folks who play on the field and make serious book are grousing about having to pay into that maintenance, because they earned their money “all by themselves”.
To me, the counterargument here seems to be that there is nothing particularly special about America. The collective strength of Americans working together should be “factored out.”
I thought we looked at those without sufficient regard for an exceptional America as pariahs. I thought we were supposed to show respect for the flag, for the troops, for the work ethic of American laborers.
Why should it be controversial then to suggest that this collective strength is the fertile soil for American successes? Is American exceptionalism really supposed to mean that some Americans are exceptional in and of themselves?
Fuck this noise. I’m a successful small business person, and got this way without one single bit of help from anyone–particularly the government. I work from home and use the Internet to do all my business. Did Microsoft benefit from the Feds? What about the Linux servers I built? I don’t meet with clients–did Skype have a Fed handout? Did our VOIP provider start with any help from the government? I’m sure that FedEx and UPS drive and fly all over the country for me without any ‘support’ or assistance, least of all by the Feds. Lastly, did the Feds have anything to do with helping me cram all this fail into one little post?! Did they?!
They want it both ways. The free market prospers because American Exceptionalism is unique in all the world, but the evil government has nothing to do with creating that exceptionalism; it just happens because of the star spangled banner.
Those things are not just there. A lot of work has gone into making sure that the land is not fallow, that there is adequate irrigation, and ample exposure to sunlight. The flower in this case turns to the gardener and says “Go fuck yourself. I did this shit all on my own.”
I was surprised to see the OP wasn’t a first time fly by poster. He semmed to have no understanding of business, politics or economics. Strange for someone who’s been around awhile.
Didn’t Obama steal that line almost word-for-word from Elizabeth Warren? And like her, he is absolutely right. Nobody builds their business in a vacuum without benefiting from public spending somewhere along the line.
I think if it were line for line, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. She said it a bit more artfully than Obama. However, it’s not exactly like it’s her own novel idea.