We did? So now that it’s built, we can just stop? Nothing should ever change? There will be no advancements to discover? All the roads and bridges that have already been built and paid for will just last forever?
Infrastructure is an ongoing project. We didn’t pay for it when it was built because it’s not done *being *built.
On another lie of the RNC, let’s discuss Paul Ryan’s claim that a Janesville WI GM plant that closed in 2008 was Obama’s doing. Not so much the facts of the case, which seem clear enough, but what it means for Ryan to be using a factually simple lie to buttress his case against Obama. I mean, you’d think he’d be able to find a few examples that are actually true to illustrate his case. The fact that he has to use an example that he knows to be false tells you (it certainly tells me) that he’s desperate to find any evidence that he can briefly make plausible, even if it’s certain to be quickly and definitely exposed as false.
Of course if you want to make the argument that this was an innocent mistake, then what does that tell you about a policy wonk’s familiarity with his own district in recent times? I know what it tells me. If I were on Ryan’s side, I’d opt for “bald-faced liar” over “totally incompetent doing his job,” but it’s a close call.
Yes. There is.
Republicans started out saying that the credit for the success of a business goes 100% to the owner and 0% to society, hence we need to lower taxes because that money is rightfully the business owner’s.
Obama said no, that’s not true, it’s more like 61% owner and 39% society, and it’s perfectly reasonable to keep some of the money the company or owner make in taxes to pay America back for its aid. (I’m half-assing the numbers here, mostly for illustration, they’re not precise in any way.) That’s ‘the owner isn’t solely responsible’ - he did indeed make the company, but he couldn’t have done it without society’s help. This is uncontroversial and obvious, even Bricker stated as much, though I’m sure we’d differ on the exact proportion.
The Republican response, including yours, has been to scream their heads off that Obama claims it’s 0% owner and 100% society and that no credit at all goes to the owner. Can’t you see how that’s bullshit?
A further link on Ryan’s bald-faced lies last night arehere. Is there anyone willing to argue that any of these are not simply lies?
This is a perfect example to me as to why this is an important point to reiterate, rather than a tautology or an obvious fact. You say that the infrastructure has been built. You see it as static. It’s already done, so we can just sit back and reap the benefits.
Where would we be if the infrastructure was complete in 1990? We would be lagging behind the rest of the world who have moved on to develop the utility of the internet and wireless communication devices. Where would our national defense be, if we regarded it as fixed and static? Would we need a patent office? Would we need the Supreme Court? Infrastructure is not static, it has to be maintained and developed over time.
And in terms of the real point of what the individual owes to America, America is more than just hard infrastructure. We’re all seeing clearly what the effects of low levels of revenue are for current success. A successful person in America benefits from having a population of people who are in a position to consume or support whatever the successful person is doing to succeed. An ignorant, poor population is not going to foster the success of the provider of handheld e-reader content.
America is a dynamic thing. America exists today because of yesterday. Sure, perhaps you and the Republicans think that it’s fine to come in here and use what America provides to help create Facebook and then split. But I - and the non-Republicans - love America and want it to continue to be successful even after I am gone. I want to continue to support it so that not only will we have great examples of very successful Americans, but we’ll have more people whose success involves nothing more than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
While you and the Republicans may feel that helping people with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just charity and should be disdained, the nice thing is that the more of them there are, the more chances for people with greater talents to succeed.
This wasn’t a debate. Obama was talking to a friendly audience. This was an unforced error.
What Republican, specifically, “started out saying that the credit of a business goes 100% to the owner and 0% to society” that Obama was referring to?
Wow. Even Fox??
They go on to tear apart some of the lies.
No, you mistake the thrust of my comment. We built it, and we jointly will continue to build (and repair, and improve) it. That does not create a greater obligation from somebody who became successful to contribute more than others. His additional use of the roads is already covered by his additional gasoline tax, his additional payment of tolls, his additional weight payments for his trucks. He does not incur some generalized obligation to pay more because he used his talent and drive to become successful.
The reviews on Paul Ryan’s speech are in and it is a BLOCkBUSTER!
Fox News: Paul Ryan’s Speech in three words
Answered in my previous post.
You’re absolutely right: this is a basic question of philosophy, of what the proper role of government is. I don’t agree that the proper role of government is to take something more from the most successful, even for the noble goal of trying to create an environment where even more can be successful.
I don’t dispute the claim that many people disagree, and see it as an entirely proper role of government. This is why we have elections.
Since **Bricker **continues to assert that Obama was trying to justify higher taxes on the rich, rather than contending that Romney’s plans for taxes and spending are a bad idea, I’ll just continue to flag his actual words:
Out of context? Hell, his statement is actually WORSE when you put it in context!
Out of context you can laugh “oh ho ho, look at the rich guy saying he likes to fire people.”
In context he was specifically talking about health insurance companies. Don’t like your health insurance company? Fire them and get a new one! Ta da!
Except it doesn’t work that way and everyone in the United States except for Mitt Romney realizes this. You get health insurance in this country one of three ways:
Through your place of employment. But you accept what you’re given because you have zero negotiating power, and zero power to switch to another health insurance carrier if you want to “fire” this one. Oh sure, you can quit and find a new job solely because you want better health care coverage, but nobody does this. It would be time consuming, possibly futile and thoroughly insane.
On the open market. Your job sucks and doesn’t even give you health care. Or you don’t have a job. Well, better hope you don’t have a pre-existing condition making you completely uninsurable. And better hope they don’t drop you when you get sick (and yes, I get that these have changed under the ACA, but since the Republicans fought like bastards to make sure we didn’t get these rights, they don’t get to claim these newfound powers as benefits in our ability to “fire” people). But either way, a single person has zero negotiating power.
Through the government. And why would you fire them? Satisfaction with government health care for those who have it is fucking through the roof.
Is this a tangent to the thread? You betcha. But I needed to vent. The Romney quote isn’t taken out of context. The context is this: Romney has zero understanding of what life for the average American is like. We don’t get the option to “fire” our health insurance company even if we’d really really like to.
John Mace, please answer as to how a budget plan can call for lower total spending than we presently spend on defense alone without gutting, well, everything?
This has nothing to do with how the Republicans are distorting Obama’s words – they are distorting them to make it seem like the business owner had nothing to do with building his/her business. “If you have a business…you didn’t build that” is all they quote. They are not making a nuanced argument about whether taxes at the high end should be 30% or 33% or 39%, they are bluntly lying by implying that Obama hates business.
In any case, the infrastructure and social support we have today is NOT paid for – we still have $14 trillion in debt to work down.
[bright cheery mystical voice] tambourine shake Because they have magic beans… tambourine shake [/bcmv]
Well, at least responded to, if not answered.
At some level it becomes pragmatic. The money has to come from somewhere. You can pretend that it is moral and desirable if it comes equally from everyone. Similarly you can say that the desired amount of milk production should come from all members of the herd contributing the same amount. You’ll be scratching your head though, wondering why the bulls produce so little when you milk them.
Not only is it pragmatic, but it’s empirical as well. We can look over history and we’ll see that individual household income is higher for all groups (or equal for the filthy rich) under Democratic presidents.
It may make you feel like you’re climbing a rope in gym class to see the wealthy get tax cuts, but the math and the history says that it is better for America to get the revenue necessary to keep on keepin on.
Ryan’s lie-fest isn’t getting a lot of attention here. Objective journalists pretty much agree that if he was Pinocchio, his nose wouldn’t have fit in the arena. It’s amazing the power that he credits to Obama- such as being able to close a factory while still running for president, for failing to adopt the debt commission recommendations that Ryan voted against, for the drop in the credit rating that was brought on by Ryan’s party holding the debt ceiling hostage. This on top of the welfare lie that has been repeatedly debunked. Not to worry- their campaign isn’t going to be constrained by factcheckers!
That surprises me. Maybe there is some hope for them yet.:dubious:
I jumped around from channel to channel to see how Ryan’s speech was being reported (but didn’t bother with FOX), and almost universally people were saying, ‘It was a great speech. Full of lies and half truths, but lies are easy and the truth is complicated. The people he needs to win over don’t fact check.’
Sad if true.
It is post-truth. It is a dare in the face of the American people. They are asking us, “Do you care if we have nothing to offer but bald faced lies?” It’s a challenge to their base, asking "How little integrity do you have? How much deceit are you personally willing to stand up for, in return for nothing but out team ‘winning?’ "
William Saletin is breaking up with Paul Ryan. Here’s his Dear John letter.