No, I disagree, both with the claim that refusing to raise taxes would necessarily gut investment, and with the claim that infrastructure investment was what Obama was talking about. He was absolutely alluding to the proposed tax hike on the upper income earners.
No, no, no, no, no no, yes, no. Damn, so close. If I quit my job and get all 8, do I win a prize?
Perhaps you could quote the portions of that article that you believe are relevant to the current discussion?
And then his comments were taken completely out of context so the right could accuse him of shitting on small business – which is what I thought this thread was about in the first place.
This is, I believe, pretty much the claim Obama himself would make. It’s certainly the general tune I hear from the left.
Before I comment on it, though, I’d ask if my primary interlocutor agrees with, or rejects, this thesis from BobLibDem. What say you, Richard Parker?
Even before Ryan was selected as VP, Romney’s surrogates have said he would sign the Ryan budget if it came to his desk. He has also said that he will increase defense spending and not cut Medicare. When you add those premises together (and this isn’t including Romney’s preposterous tax proposals which every nonpartisan expert has said will massively cut revenue), you get a complete elimination of federal spending on infrastructure and research.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2012/03/paul-ryan’s-fiscal-year-2013-budget-details
But, again, whether Obama is right or wrong is beside the point for this particular discussion. You understand that, right?
But my point is that they are not completely out of context. My point is that, much as BobLibDem has helpfully illustrated, the underlying thesis of Obama’s comments is precisely that the presence of infrastructure creates or justifies an obligation on the part of businesses – small, medium, and large – to somehow “pay back” society for that infrastructure.
I, and the Republican party, disagree. We all paid for that infrastructure when it was built. The fact that someone was able to use his own intelligence, talent, and initiative to wrest greater profits from the business world does not create some larger obligation to pay more back.
Well, that’s fine. But you’re just obviously wrong on both points based on the actual transcript. If there’s nothing more to debate here, what do you think about their other pillar of attack, welfare?
ETA: I misread your first point. You’re attacking a straw man on that one. No one is saying “refusing to raise taxes would necessarily gut investment.”
I reject his thesis. I understand why you would believe Obama thinks that, because it is a stereotype of liberals that some liberals actually believe. But there is absolutely no evidence that Obama agrees with the hyperbole in BobLibDem’s post.
Sorry, I should have also asked you to quote the part that proves it will “gut” infrastructure. Those are some very long documents.
Yes and no. Yes to the discussion you are trying to have, no to the one Bricker is trying to have. You might suggest that he start his own thread, but it is a valid discussion.
He’s talking about Romney raising those taxes! Seriously Bricker, re-read it carefully.
I’m not going to do that for you. The very first page of each document describes how the Ryan budget would cut discretionary spending down to a level below what we currently spend on defense alone. They aren’t very long, and this is a very important topic. You should read them.
No, it is relevant to both. Bricker’s argument is that Obama must have been trying to justify raising taxes. He obviously was not doing so, as he was clearly explaining why further cutting taxes while endorsing a budget that cuts spending has the effect of gutting infrastructure. Whether Obama is correct or not has nothing to do with whether Obama was talking about raising taxes.
That’s exactly what Romney is saying…
Math is pretty dispassionate. Romney has promised to cut spending to 20% of GDP without raising taxes by eliminating tax loopholes. But there aren’t enough loopholes to do the job, so basically, after promising to increase defense spending and not touch SS, well, from the report:
It’s pretty obvious that if you cut 40 - 60% from Federal discretionary spending, that infrastructure is going to take a pretty big hit.
I have a hard time believing you can’t understand the difference in the two passages. But, once more with feeling:
“[P]eople who build enterprises like this really aren’t responsible for it” is not the same as “people who build enterprises like this are not solely responsible for their success.”
some more on Ryan’s speech
Quoted for truth.
It amazes me that so many on the left truly think this is a line taken out of context and that’s all it is.
It’s not.
Tomato to-mA-to.
There’s no substantive difference between the two.
Obama’s quote is no better in full context then it is when you play just the “you didn’t build that” line. Any normal American who hears him making those statements in full context will disagree with them.
It’s unfortunate that the SDMB has become such an echo chamber of the left that people here can’t even understand something so basic.
On reflection, maybe conservatives really don’t understand the difference because of fundamental differences in the way both sides conceive of what it means to be responsible for something. Debaser, do you acknowledge the difference in the above two quotes, and just think Obama said the first one. Or do you not see a difference?
ETA: Aha! Now we’re getting somewhere. And just as we are, I’ve got to run. But this is very interesting to me that you don’t understand the difference. I want to flesh that out.
I simul-posted an answer right above, Richard. Just to make sure you don’t miss it.
It’s taken weeks, but I think some of you are starting to get it.
It’s traditional to insert sufficient filler between mutually exclusive statements to maintain a pretense, however thin, of respect for the reader’s intelligence.
The difference between “employers should not have to cover contraception” and “employers with religious or moral objections should not have to cover contraception” is that the latter requires proof that the alleged “religious or moral objections” are genuine, just as (to cite my example again) the difference between “the draft should be abolished” and “persons with religious or moral pacifist scruples should be exempt from the draft” is that the latter requires a presentation of evidence. For obvious reasons, the latter statement in each case is de facto equivalent to the former in the absence of an evidentiary requirement.