Heh. Purple's got fanboys.

Purple wrote:FYI, since I don't think anybody has bothered to post the full text so CONTEXT can be considered, here's what Obama actually said:

Fascinating, I think, that some here slap you on the back so hard for posting a link to an opinion by Jake Tapper with a portion of the speech when I posted the entire freakin' speech. I'm so jealous!

President Obama wrote:We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

Where are the supposed trillion in cuts already accomplished? I don't want to hear about "cuts" in Iraq. That was already baked in. Where are actual budget cuts? The man has had trillion dollar-plus deficits since he came into office and can't even get a single DEMOCRAT to vote for his budgets. I digress, but you posted it.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.

If true, show me the receipts! They can give to the treasury. Have they? If they haven't, then THEY don't want to give something back unless THEY and EVERYONE else are FORCED to do so.

They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

There are smart people out there. True.

Smart + lazy = poor.

Smart + drug-addicted = poor.

Smart + bad luck = poor.

So what?

There are many hardworking people out there. There are many who aren't. Why doesn't he address that? Maybe because a good part of his core would be upset. After all, the OWS crowd weren't exactly on the pathway to individual success--who knew that being a protester and hooligan was not a legitimate means to wealth?

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

Maybe. There were also some bad teachers.

So, I should reward society? How about I reward the teacher? How about the bad teachers have to pay me?

Who hired the teacher? "Government?" Again, who is "government?" Don't the hardworking, intelligent, entrepreneurs pay taxes? Didnt their parents?

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

Who is "Somebody," Mr. President? Is it not the very taxpayers you now say should reward government for their hard work?

That is the very definition of a circular argument: taxpayers fund government; taxpayers succeed; government is, in part, the cause of your success; therefore, you should reward government.

Mr. President, we ARE the government! There aren't a group of "somebodies" off in the corner paying money into a "government" who are not subject to the taxes and restrictions of government. Government isn't some independent, autonomous entity.

If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Infrastructure alone does not guarantee a successful business. More businesses fail than succeed. Does that mean the infrastructure was not good enough?

No, it means the idea, the location, the marketing, the personnel, or the execution of the idea, or maybe more than one of these factors, were not good enough. In many cases, government is more of a hindrance than a help.

Btw, the Internet was not designed so that Amazon and E-Bay could be birthed. It came into existence and some smart, hardworking people had an idea and made it happen. The way the President describes it, government should get credit for everything.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Just wrong. Basic infrastructure does not guarantee the success of a business. The fact that there are roads, fire departments, and police departments, etc., did not make McDonald's or Wal-Mart a success. Now, apart from the infrastructure existing, they would not succeed. Then again, they would not have started. And, we'd all be living on farms.

That is a weak argument, Mr. President. We, the people, built the infrastructure. Some people understood the implications and took advantage of it. Others were satisfied with 40 hour a week jobs. That is not the fault of the risk-takers.

There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Does anyone think this is really more than a "duh?"

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

"We" created the middle class? What does that mean? Where is the legislation that "created" the middle class? Was that the "middle class bill" from 1935?

We don't rise or fall as a nation in terms of financial success. We all make individual decisions. Some people don't save money. Some people leverage themselves into bankruptcy. Some people are responsible with their money, but those are not societal decisions.

Btw, he still believes in the trip to the Moon? He's the one who outsourced outreach to the Muslim world to NASA and virtually killed the space program.

Now if you take the worst line out of that and stand it on its own, it sounds very bad. Awful.

NB: I didn't do that. Look at what I posted and try to make the argument that I isolated the worst line.

I posted plenty of context. His point was that if you work your butt off and are successful, you owe the government because it put the infrastructure in place to help you.

That is un-American. I'll say it over and over again, because it's true.

The American dream is not: with hard work, ingenuity, good ideas, and a bit of luck, you and the government can succeed.

Americans, generally, have a healthy mistrust of government. Why? Because government has ceased to be limited and has become limiting. The government, beyond reasonable environmental concerns (e.g. no dumping toxins on your own land), tells you what you can do on your own property. The government can tell you who you must consider to hire, who you can fire, what sort of accommodations you must offer, etc. Some of those things are reasonable in some cases and some are not. However, to pretend that government is always a help and therefore deserves a reward is rubbish.

Not just that, but it would be such a stupid thing to say that you'd have to wonder if the Prez had had one too many martinis. Please allow me to impart a small lesson: when you see a short soundbite, clearly removed from a larger context, that sounds like it was said by a complete idiot, but was in fact said by a smart guy, whisper to yourself: smell test.

Please allow me to impart a big lesson: don't assume you know what I did or didn't do, especially when you can't be bothered to notice that I posted a link to the whole speech. Taken as a whole, it was an attempt to justify raising taxes by claiming that government helps make your success possible. That is an argument that doesn't pass the smell test.

It also ignores what the President said in 2009, when growth was 3x what is now. He said you should not raise taxes on anyone during a struggling economy. So, now he thinks the economy is going great guns?

Nope, doesn't pass the smell test. So, what does it "smell" like?

Class warfare.

This is a classic example of something not passing the smell test. Powerline blog, which Dr. Fate links to often, is extremely partisan. When they reproduce a brief few words that sound ludicrously bad and then don't provide a link to the full text - the smell test has been failed. I wish Dr. Fate would develop a better sense of smell - it would save us all a lot of time and effort.

I wish you would actually read my posts rather than being so smarmy. It would save us all a lot of time and effort. When freeman2 jumped on it, I cited the whole speech. And, taken as a whole, it says exactly what I said it does. That's why Obama was out yesterday trying to explain what he "really" meant.

Pres. Obama chose a bad collection of words to string together to express the thought he was trying to express. But consider the rest of the words he said. I'll extract those which most confound the far right's misrepresentation:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive."
"...when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
"...there are some things we do better together... That’s how we sent a man to the moon."

That's the general - he was not saying that government does more to build business than entrepreneurs, he was saying that entrepreneurs alone do not make a country like the USA, and he's right.

Wrong. He was not giving some "America is . . . " speech. The thrust of the speech was an explanation of his desire to raise taxes on the "rich." So, to justify that, he had to explain that the "rich" don't get "rich" on their own.

Now for the specific - let's add one sentence from before the oft-quoted line, and one after (underlining added):
Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.

Now look at the word I underlined. Does the "that" refer to the business, or to the roads and bridges (and internet)? Only a blindly partisan person could fail to recognize that he wasn't saying that a person can't build a business, that he was saying that businessowners didn't build the infrastructure that contributes so much to our national success.[/quote]

In my response to freeman2, I said, "It's arguable whether he meant businesses do not build roads or bridges or whether he meant you don't build a business yourself."

So, I didn't ignore it. I think it's "arguable." Reading it, it would appear to favor your interpretation. However, speeches are not essays. Listening to it, it seems more likely that my understanding is correct.

However, in either case, the overall thrust of the speech does not change: the "rich" owe the government and he's going to see to it that the "rich" pay up.

Pure politics, not economic policy.

SMELL TEST. Obama is not an idiot, and if he's a Marxist he's smart enough not to go around in a campaign year spouting off ridiculous anti-capitalist lines. This line, taken in isolation from its context, could be construed as ridiculously, absurdly, insanely anti-capitalist. Obama is not insane.

Believe what you want. He didn't have a script. He was parroting what Elizabeth Warren said some months ago. And, I think he is a quite intelligent man with a definite ideology. If you want to characterize it as "insanely anti-capitalist," I'm fine with it.

SMELL TEST

This is the same man who thinks venture capitalists exist to eliminate companies. This is the same man who thinks government knows better than the private market which companies and technologies will succeed. He has a long history of being less than favorable toward the marketplace.

How long?

We don't know. In the interest of protecting himself, we don't have access to a lot of his early thought. We do know that, beginning with his parents, the President has a long history with mentors who are anti-capitalism. His college associations and his first autobiography displayed a good deal of antipathy toward capitalism. We don't have a single moment of his life where we can say, "Ah, so this is the moment he shed his Leftist ideology and embraced capitalism."

You can believe what you like.

The "clipping of a sound bite" is a Hannity like tactic that only works if the audience only watches Hannity and Fox and never gets the entire quotation and the complete contextual meaning. Its the kind of thing John Stewart lives for...

As for what Obama claims; I would urge anyone to read "Why Nations Fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson...

They say, that Nations fail when governments fail to provide the enviroment and infrastructure that provides its populace a way to develop their talents and abilities to their fullest. That infrastructure includes the roads, and airports and communications. . But it also includes a justice system, an education system, a fnancial system and a system of governance that allows a maximum of opportunity but doesn't allow any group to sustain a systemic advantage.
The authors make a compelling case that eliminates most of the other factors that have been opined. (geography, climate, resources etc.).
Comparing Nogales Texas with Nogales Mexico, just across the border was a compelling ilustration.
So was a comparison of how Carlos Slima became one of the worlds wealthiest men with how Bill Gates got there....
Slima was handed a communications monopoly... Gates competed to produce the best computer operating systems..
By the way, Gates got there with more than just the normal infrastructure that successful entrerprises need in a modern society. He also was dependent upon government selection of his computer operating system, with his partner IBM, and its acceptance as an industry standard. Without an industry standard, speedy and sure development of computers would have been impossible. And he was wholly dependent on the development of the computer wafer, also originally developed for government computers...
Entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley built upon that...

No man is an island. No successful business man either.

fate

Basic infrastructure does not guarantee the success of a business.

No. But LACK of basic infrastructure almost certainly dooms a business.

Doctor Fate wrote:For the record, you're wrong. I posted the link for the entire speech FROM THE WHITE HOUSE'S OWN SITE.

You're right. I missed your second post completely. My bad and I apologize.

But I am amazed you could have been aware of enough context to judge the point Obama was making and still choose to misinterpret it so badly. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that six years ago you complained bitterly about people who suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome. (I know I did.) Do you remember how those people were unable to recognize their own tendencies to suffer cognitive distortions? They could only think the absolute worst of GWB regardless of the facts of any particular case or circumstance. Well you appear to have a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. But feaqr not Doctor Fate, Doctor Purple will try to cure you.

First: you have got to stop believing every single thing said by Mitt Romney. (I'm just kidding - I doubt you literally do so.) From the AP today:

"To say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motors, that Papa John didn't build Papa John Pizza ... To say something like that, it's not just foolishness," Romney said from a campaign rally outside Pittsburgh. "It's insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America."

Romney added: "I tell you this. I'm convinced that he wants Americans to be ashamed of success."

Fate: did Obama imply (not to say "say") that Steve, Henry and Papa didn't build their businesses? Now I will admit this: he chose a locution for part of his speech that opened the door to a misinterpretation. That "bad" sentence was awkwardly spoken. (Obama is indeed apt to make such mistakes when off-teleprompter.) I'll even go a step farther: Obama certainly is not above waging class warfare and inciting resentment of the rich. But he's not so stupid as to say that Henry didn't build Ford. His political base is middle-class Americans, particularly the ones with a college education. In Roanoke he was speaking at a fundraiser, not a rally of poor people. Not a group of Marxists. And he knows that American lionization of great entrepreneurs is a strong theme, even for Democrats. And so one of the lines he delivered at Roanoke was: "...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try."

Now let's get nuanced. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm no big fan of Obama (I'm just a fan of accuracy and truth). When criticizing someone as wily and subtle as Obama, you have to have a nose for nuance. The "you can make it" line I just quoted above was followed by this:

That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you won’t go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love. Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. (Applause.) That your kids can get a great education, and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back. (Applause.)

That’s the idea of America. It doesn’t matter what you look like. It doesn’t matter where you come from. It doesn’t matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. That’s what binds us all together.

This seems to me like a subtle shifting of the "American Dream". (Factoid: the full title of Obama's "Memoir" is The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.) I'm particularly struck by the fact that Obama felt compelled to add "nothing fancy" when mentioning the "little" vacation that "maybe" you can take. In general, what he describes is a decidedly middle-class American dream.

There's no official definition of The American Dream. For the sake of argument, I'd like to separate it into three elements. The first is equality: the belief that anyone can "make it" regardless of where he started or what he started as. The second is the belief that "making it" means achieving middle-class status, much as outlined by Obama as quoted above. The third, which isn't so much a contradiction of the second as an expansion or refinement of it, is the belief that "making it" means amassing some substantial wealth. Not "That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy..." but rather that for sure you can take regular vacations, and the fancier the better.

It may be that if you grew up poor, the second element is more salient for you but if you grew up middle-class the third seems like the real dream. I don't know. And now that I think of it I'd like to add a fourth element: the belief that no matter how far you've gone in "making it", there's nothing to prevent you from going farther - there are no limits on success.

Obama's shifting of the American Dream toward element #2, a purely middle-class dream, isn't Marxism, or Marxism in disguise, but it is a mild form of class warfare designed to win him votes at a time of economic difficulty, and when his opponent is richer than Croesus. Shame on him, and shame on Romney for that silly reference to Ford, Jobs and Murphy. (Murphy??)

rickyp wrote:fate

Basic infrastructure does not guarantee the success of a business.

No. But LACK of basic infrastructure almost certainly dooms a business.

Nice straw man.

Please do come back if you have a real argument about something that was said.

President Obama's premise is that successful businesses owe society a debt. My premise is they already pay taxes. For Obama, they don't pay enough.

47% of Americans pay NOTHING toward infrastructure (save gasoline taxes, which was not the thrust of his speech). Zero.

kay, can you show us rich people who did not get there without some assistance from government or infrastructure that the government provided? And of those, did not already start out wealthy.

We'll start with the top of the Forbes list (last updated in Sept 2011) http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

1 Bill Gates - government contracts, the internet

2 Warren Buffett - son of a Congressman, educated at a public university (Municipal U of Omaha)

3 Larry Ellison - Public University (Illinois), Oracle database designed for a CIA contract, the internet

4&5 Charles and David Koch - inherited Koch Industried from Fred Koch, government contracts (Georgia Pacific)

6 Christie Walton - inherited Walmart stock from her husband, who inherited from his father, First Solar relied on government contracts and grants.

7 George Soros - ah, well here we are. Seems self-made and spent his youth in Hungary and the UK.

8 Sheldon Adelson - in the Army, Comdex relied on the computer industry, which was heavily reliant on government investment and contracts

9&10 Jim and Alice Walton - inherited Walmart stock from their father

So, that's the top 10. Apart from that self-made billionaire George Soros (a great hero to all the right, I'm sure), the rest all had either inheritance or some government help on their way. Walmart of course would have a bit of a logistical problem were it not for all those roads that are built and maintained by governments. Those who have interests in computing, particulalry the internet-based side, have been operating in an industry that has been heavily invested in by the government. The internet is kind of like roads - the basic trade and commerce infrastructure.

I don't see how it's 'Marxist' to point that out. I don't see what's 'un-American' to suggest that those who benefit most from a system contribute a little more to it.

Doctor Fate wrote:47% of Americans pay NOTHING toward infrastructure (save gasoline taxes, which was not the thrust of his speech). Zero.

Really? Are Federal Income taxes the only source of infrastructure funding (except gasoline tax)?

Of course, the only reason that the number of Americans who pay no Federal Income Tax is so high is because of a series of tax cuts in the early 2000s. The people who supported them (and still do) are using them as a stick to beat the lower-middle classes who were lifted out of tax by them. Classy. And of course it's Obama's fault into the bargain...

fate

Nice straw man.

Please do come back if you have a real argument about something that was said.

President Obama's premise is that successful businesses owe society a debt.

Do successful businessmen owe society a debt?
Absolutely. Anyone who has tried establishing a branch business in a third world country can tell you that statement is absolutely true.
Try operating a business when services that you require every day aren’t reliably provided… Try operating in an environment where you can’t get a staff with a qualified education. Or where the staff has health issues they take into work…
At one time all businesses had to train employees from the ground up. The idea of educating a pool of qualified workers to hire from both reduced the costs to employers and provided them with greater flexibility in hiring decisions. They needn’t suffer the less diligent employee simply because replacing the years spent training him to do his job was an investment the employer was unwilling to lose….
Try operating a business in a society where laws are subject to the whim of a dictator, or where the courts and legal system offer no protection whatsoever for intellectual property.
Try operating in a society where gaining credit through reliable and trustworthy financial systems is nigh impossible…. All of these things are provide largely through the auspices of government either directly or indirectly.
Fate

My premise is they already pay taxes. For Obama, they don't pay enough.

Well, strictly speaking since the federal government, most state governments and most municipalities run operating deficits annually, so Obama right isn’t he? So either you reduce what is spent, reducing the societal infrastructure (including entitlements like Medicare) or you generate more taxes. Taxation at the level of Bill Clinton, or Ron Reagan’s administrations weren’t deemed socialist then, and yet returning to those levels is now somehow a Marxist proposition?

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:For the record, you're wrong. I posted the link for the entire speech FROM THE WHITE HOUSE'S OWN SITE.

You're right. I missed your second post completely. My bad and I apologize.

Thanks.

But I am amazed you could have been aware of enough context to judge the point Obama was making and still choose to misinterpret it so badly.

I didn't. What was the larger point he was making?

Answer: why taxes going up on the rich are justified.

I missed nothing. Maybe you did.

First: you have got to stop believing every single thing said by Mitt Romney. (I'm just kidding - I doubt you literally do so.) From the AP today:

"To say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motors, that Papa John didn't build Papa John Pizza ... To say something like that, it's not just foolishness," Romney said from a campaign rally outside Pittsburgh. "It's insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America."

Romney added: "I tell you this. I'm convinced that he wants Americans to be ashamed of success."

Fate: did Obama imply (not to say "say") that Steve, Henry and Papa didn't build their businesses?

No, and I didn't reference Romney. I view this as nothing less than a change of topic. You want to convince me Obama wasn't trying to justify higher taxes, go ahead, but don't drag Romney into it.

Now I will admit this: he chose a locution for part of his speech that opened the door to a misinterpretation. That "bad" sentence was awkwardly spoken. (Obama is indeed apt to make such mistakes when off-teleprompter.) I'll even go a step farther: Obama certainly is not above waging class warfare and inciting resentment of the rich. But he's not so stupid as to say that Henry didn't build Ford.

I'm not going to defend Mitt, other than to say it's a rather mild stretch compared to what Obama has been doing to Romney.

His political base is middle-class Americans, particularly the ones with a college education. In Roanoke he was speaking at a fundraiser, not a rally of poor people. Not a group of Marxists. And he knows that American lionization of great entrepreneurs is a strong theme, even for Democrats.

If true, they would not be supporting Obama. I'm sorry, but this is all your theorizing, not an analysis of what Obama said.

And so one of the lines he delivered at Roanoke was: "...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try."

Right, and I agree with this. If this was all he said, I would applaud.

Now let's get nuanced. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm no big fan of Obama (I'm just a fan of accuracy and truth). When criticizing someone as wily and subtle as Obama, you have to have a nose for nuance. The "you can make it" line I just quoted above was followed by this:

That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you won’t go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love. Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. (Applause.) That your kids can get a great education, and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back. (Applause.)

That’s the idea of America. It doesn’t matter what you look like. It doesn’t matter where you come from. It doesn’t matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. That’s what binds us all together.

This seems to me like a subtle shifting of the "American Dream". (Factoid: the full title of Obama's "Memoir" is The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.) I'm particularly struck by the fact that Obama felt compelled to add "nothing fancy" when mentioning the "little" vacation that "maybe" you can take. In general, what he describes is a decidedly middle-class American dream.

There's no official definition of The American Dream. For the sake of argument, I'd like to separate it into three elements. The first is equality: the belief that anyone can "make it" regardless of where he started or what he started as. The second is the belief that "making it" means achieving middle-class status, much as outlined by Obama as quoted above. The third, which isn't so much a contradiction of the second as an expansion or refinement of it, is the belief that "making it" means amassing some substantial wealth. Not "That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy..." but rather that for sure you can take regular vacations, and the fancier the better.

No problem so far.

It may be that if you grew up poor, the second element is more salient for you but if you grew up middle-class the third seems like the real dream. I don't know. And now that I think of it I'd like to add a fourth element: the belief that no matter how far you've gone in "making it", there's nothing to prevent you from going farther - there are no limits on success.

Obama's shifting of the American Dream toward element #2, a purely middle-class dream, isn't Marxism, or Marxism in disguise, but it is a mild form of class warfare designed to win him votes at a time of economic difficulty, and when his opponent is richer than Croesus. Shame on him, and shame on Romney for that silly reference to Ford, Jobs and Murphy. (Murphy??)

Right, except you miss the punch line: "And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back."

That is not the American dream. I never for a second thought, "If I can avoid eating cat food and living in a poverty-stricken neighborhood and volunteer at the soup kitchen when I retire, that would be awesome."

The American dream ends with leaving something to your kids. It's only when one has massive wealth that one starts being concerned about "giving something back." No one in the middle class thinks like that. We pay plenty in taxes, thanks.

The thrust of Obama's speech was that the rich are obligated to "give back." Why? Because they could not have become rich without the government's largess.

No matter how you slice, dice, or spin it, that denigrates the efforts of those who work to create successful businesses. Of course, since the Man has never had to do it, why would he appreciate it?

danivon wrote:kay, can you show us rich people who did not get there without some assistance from government or infrastructure that the government provided? And of those, did not already start out wealthy.

We'll start with the top of the Forbes list (last updated in Sept 2011) http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

1 Bill Gates - government contracts, the internet

2 Warren Buffett - son of a Congressman, educated at a public university (Municipal U of Omaha)

3 Larry Ellison - Public University (Illinois), Oracle database designed for a CIA contract, the internet

4&5 Charles and David Koch - inherited Koch Industried from Fred Koch, government contracts (Georgia Pacific)

6 Christie Walton - inherited Walmart stock from her husband, who inherited from his father, First Solar relied on government contracts and grants.

7 George Soros - ah, well here we are. Seems self-made and spent his youth in Hungary and the UK.

8 Sheldon Adelson - in the Army, Comdex relied on the computer industry, which was heavily reliant on government investment and contracts

9&10 Jim and Alice Walton - inherited Walmart stock from their father

So, that's the top 10. Apart from that self-made billionaire George Soros (a great hero to all the right, I'm sure), the rest all had either inheritance or some government help on their way. Walmart of course would have a bit of a logistical problem were it not for all those roads that are built and maintained by governments. Those who have interests in computing, particulalry the internet-based side, have been operating in an industry that has been heavily invested in by the government. The internet is kind of like roads - the basic trade and commerce infrastructure.

I don't see how it's 'Marxist' to point that out. I don't see what's 'un-American' to suggest that those who benefit most from a system contribute a little more to it.

Wow, that is such deep analysis. I mean, gee whiz, Warren Buffett is the son of a Congressman? Well then, his dad never earned a cent! Take all of Buffett's money! He went to a public uni? Throw him in debtor's prison!

Superficial.

Lots of people go to public universities. They don't all become rich. You've not established causality.

Next.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:47% of Americans pay NOTHING toward infrastructure (save gasoline taxes, which was not the thrust of his speech). Zero.

Really? Are Federal Income taxes the only source of infrastructure funding (except gasoline tax)?

Of course, the only reason that the number of Americans who pay no Federal Income Tax is so high is because of a series of tax cuts in the early 2000s. The people who supported them (and still do) are using them as a stick to beat the lower-middle classes who were lifted out of tax by them. Classy. And of course it's Obama's fault into the bargain...

Hey, he's the guy crying about "balance" and "fairness." Why not really be "fair." Everyone who makes anything should have some (possibly minimal) skin in the game. What has been lost is the sense of "shared sacrifice." Obama says we "share" when only the rich pay. I disagree.

rickyp wrote:fate

Nice straw man.

Please do come back if you have a real argument about something that was said.

President Obama's premise is that successful businesses owe society a debt.

Do successful businessmen owe society a debt?
Absolutely. Anyone who has tried establishing a branch business in a third world country can tell you that statement is absolutely true.
Try operating a business when services that you require every day aren’t reliably provided… Try operating in an environment where you can’t get a staff with a qualified education. Or where the staff has health issues they take into work…
At one time all businesses had to train employees from the ground up. The idea of educating a pool of qualified workers to hire from both reduced the costs to employers and provided them with greater flexibility in hiring decisions. They needn’t suffer the less diligent employee simply because replacing the years spent training him to do his job was an investment the employer was unwilling to lose….
Try operating a business in a society where laws are subject to the whim of a dictator, or where the courts and legal system offer no protection whatsoever for intellectual property.
Try operating in a society where gaining credit through reliable and trustworthy financial systems is nigh impossible…. All of these things are provide largely through the auspices of government either directly or indirectly.
Fate

My premise is they already pay taxes. For Obama, they don't pay enough.

Well, strictly speaking since the federal government, most state governments and most municipalities run operating deficits annually, so Obama right isn’t he? So either you reduce what is spent, reducing the societal infrastructure (including entitlements like Medicare) or you generate more taxes. Taxation at the level of Bill Clinton, or Ron Reagan’s administrations weren’t deemed socialist then, and yet returning to those levels is now somehow a Marxist proposition?

When you start making sense, I might pay attention to you again. I don't make an argument and you spend many electrons defeating something you've constructed in your head.

No thanks.

rickyp wrote:The "clipping of a sound bite" is a Hannity like tactic that only works if the audience only watches Hannity and Fox and never gets the entire quotation and the complete contextual meaning. Its the kind of thing John Stewart lives for...

Funny, I didn't do that--I linked the whole speech.

No one's yet tried to explain how he really was not trying to justify raising taxes by saying that hard work is nice, but it's really the government that makes the rich successful.

I didn't claim causality in terms of the government causing all of their riches. I was pointing out that they got at least something from government that will have helped in some way.

It was indeed superficial. I invite you to do better.

However, your response is just as superficial and, unfortunately, typically hyperbolic and misrepresentative.

I (and Obama) did not call for the appropriation of all of their wealth. I (and Obama) did not call for their imprisonment. What Obama is making the case for is that the rich should not be so hostile to paying a bit more in tax than they do now. A few pennies on income tax rates for high earners. Reducing loopholes that the rich can exploit. Hardly revolutionary stuff.

What's funny is that the guy you picked from the list agrees - he thinks high earners should be asked to pay more in taxes. If you really want to make the case that Warren Buffett is also 100% self-made, go ahead. If you can do it, we'll have Soros and Buffett together as paragons of the American Dream. Maybe they are the sort of people we should listen to, ahead of any effete elitists who inherited daddy's company or grew fat on government largess?