I think it’s kind of stupid that we’re busy debating the exact meaning of certain vague words someone said or when a plant closed or exactly what closing a plant means, instead of the overall policies of each candidate.
Also, it’s stupid for the GOP to criticize Obama for not doing something that they wouldn’t do either.
That’s not the criticism. No one blames Obama for the plant closing. Ryan was pointing out that Obama didn’t do what he said he would. This is really a tiny issue and only became an issue because the jackals on the left were too quick to pounce on Ryan with accusations of lying.
The “You didn’t build that” comment still fails at whatever level you want to place it.
We are all the beneficiaries of public roads, utilities, common defense, infrastructure and all other good things in society.
But if I wake up and drink whiskey all day, and you go out and build a successful business, the distinguishing factor is not the public infrastructure, but YOUR own work. You did build that.
For Obama to marginalize successful people with the observation that they drove to work on public roads is terribly insulting to people who bust their asses to be successful. And the left doesn’t realize this.
This issue is like a Rorschach inkblot for conservatives.
If you’re upset about “you didn’t build that”, you might do well to question your objectivity. It was a minor line from a speech taken out of context. It just wasn’t that big a deal. For people to obsess over it just seems quite silly.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dude, before you get angry about something you may want to look it up. Look that stuff up, look it up. Lookity look look it up.
Save you a lot of absurdity.
It’s not the line.
It’s the proposed public policy.
I say that public tax policy should reward, or at the very least not treat poorly in comparison to the rest of the population, those people who have created business success. The left seems to urge that, in contrast, their very success justifies treating them more harshly in this context, as a way of ensuring they “give back” to the community. And this “giving back” seems to be justified because it was the community infrastructure which made it possible for them to succeed as dramatically as they did.
So let’s discuss the public policy. For you to emphasize and exaggerate and deliberately misunderstand the rhetoric of “You didn’t build that” for red-meat, charging-up-your-base purposes, and then expect a civilized and calm discussion of the issues is to seriously misunderstand how rational discussions take place. For now, the best thing Obama can do is defend his “didn’t build that” line by showing how the dorky, evil Republicans are lying to the voters about that line and how the voters are smarter than the dorky, evil Republicans think they are.
It’s not a very enlightening discussion, but that’s the discussion that Romeny insisted on having, so you’re stuck wtih it.
And I think you lose votes on it, finally. A bad call for you, I’d say.
Yes. What is the proposed public policy you mentioned, Bricker?
I agree with Bricker. The public tax policy should be based on this notion: we should all support infrastructure for the basic utility it provides everyone. No one has a greater obligation, an obligation incremental in any way, when considering the success one has realized.
ISTM, that Obama means something different, unless the statement he made is meaningless, inarguable in its connotations. Why would he make such a statement, if all he meant was “successful people get to use the roads, too”? Successful people owe nothing more by virtue of their success in the building of infrastructure. Nothing. They should pay their taxes in support of infrastructure like everyone else. That’s it. And they already do (they actually pay more).
If the argument is that rich people owe a greater debt in support of social policies (not infrastructure like roads) by virtue of their ability to pay more, that’s a different argument and irrelevant to whether or not the rich person went to public school or uses the road systems.
It’s a common and unobjectionable rhetorical strategy to state a truth which everyone knows is true, when one is making a point that one’s opponent’s view seems to be incompatible with that truth.
(I kind of did it just now in fact.)
You’re not getting it, Stratocaster. The argument is intended as a political counter to the GOP’s narrative that everything the rich have is due to their own efforts entirely, their own heroism, their own moral superiority, with no help of any significant sort from anyone else, that they are “job creators” when sufficiently motivated by low-enough taxes, and that anyone else can either be just as morally superior or just go lie in their own filth. It’s a counter to the divisive lie that we are not, after all, one society and one people, that we don’t depend on each other, that anyone who claims otherwise is a “socialist” or “un-American”.
Naturally there’s a sector of the populace that believes strongly in those things and cannot be made aware of what their humanity fully means. But the target audience is, as always in politics, those who may be susceptible to the Randian fantasies that control the GOP today but still can be dissuaded.
So, this was just a “the sky is blue” statement, eh?
What exactly from his opponents is incompatible with the truth spoken here then? Which of his opponents think that they get no advantage from roads and schools, and shouldn’t have to pay taxes for them? How is a speech encouraging the privileged to give something back because of the help they’ve received from infrastructure they’ve already supported supposed to mean anything other than what it does? This is completely consistent with his politics–he should own it, and you should too, if you agree.
The “help” we’ve all received from this infrastructure was already paid for and is already paid for from taxes. Any success someone achieves necessarily is attributable to something other than the common infrastructure, or else we’d all be equally successful. Nobody needs to “give something back.” They’ve already paid for what they received, and continue to. In a speech where he’s pitching his “tax the rich” ideas, I don’t see how anyone could take something different, except in that they recognize what a toxic sentiment it is.
You are quantifying sacrifice and participation. Double the taxes on a guy making $20K yearly, you have dealt him some serious hurt. Double the taxes on Mitt Romney, and he’s still rich.
No, that’s a different argument. If you want the rich to pay more because they can with less pain, say so. Don’t attribute it to some nonsensical “you owe society a payback for all we’ve given you that contributed to your success” concept.
2 x 0 = 0.
The vast majority of people making $20k/year pay no federal income taxes.
You might want to pick a better example. Just sayin;. 
ETA: Since the personal exemptions is $3,700 and the first tax bracket doesn’t kick in until $17,400 no one making that amount of money pays any fed income tax unless their parents or someone claims them as a deduction.
I didn’t say “income taxes”, just “taxes”. Its right there, you can read it.
They pay no federal income tax, true. That is the sum of all taxes, then? That’s all of it, then? Pretty sure you already knew this, John.
Scratch the ETA part. I missed the 10% bracket. Still, most people making that amount don’t pay any taxes.
Oh. OK. The rich should pay more taxes because they can with less pain. Happy now? And you’re rebuttal is…?