EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 197
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:01 WhiteDog wrote: I just listened at Obama's speech. I'm interested in understanding why anybody did not agree with him. Yeah, most if not all things made by humans are the result of collectiv work, what's so shocking about that ? I think you just don't understand American conservatism. They would be reactionaries by European standards. Not to mention every politician uses anything and everything to bury their opponent. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:01 WhiteDog wrote: I just listened at Obama's speech. I'm interested in understanding why anybody did not agree with him. Yeah, most if not all things made by humans are the result of collectiv work, what's so shocking about that ? That's your mistake. You are assuming that Americans ACTUALLY LISTEN. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:01 WhiteDog wrote: I just listened at Obama's speech. I'm interested in understanding why anybody did not agree with him. Yeah, most if not all things made by humans are the result of collectiv work, what's so shocking about that ? It was worded in a shady way that made it super easy to sound bite and pick apart. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom. Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective. Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive. Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad. Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes. The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives. More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government. The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure. Source. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit? cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote: Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:20 xDaunt wrote: The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure. Source. Yeah, I feel pretty sorry for Americans. Canada's Pension Plan is paid for for the next 75 years, our average household wealth is higher, we have socialized medicine, a mandatory 2 weeks paid vacation (not great, but still better than US), decent social entitlement programs overall, and an unemployment rate of 6.3% (using US methodology). Even if America wanted to be like Canada, you couldn't afford it. You're too broke. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote: No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote: No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote: So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. Hey man, it's not my fault the American election cycle has become The Biggest Loser: Presidential Edition. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote: Link to BO's text + Show Spoiler [Text] + The context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort. It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state. Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that. But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”. More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right” “it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful. Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before. Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss. Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on. I am getting increasingly annoyed at your posts. You posted the exact same Ayn Rand quote a few pages earlier, and at least two people - including me - replied to you by explaining why it was a fallacy to compare what Obama was saying to what the person in Atlas Shrugged is saying. Yet you decide to completely ignore those replies to you and post literally the same quote with absolutely no other explanation. And you did the same thing a few days ago with the debt statistics that you posted once, received replies about, and then posted again while completely ignoring the replies. Are you at all interested in discussing these issues? If so, could you stop ignoring the replies to your posts and copy/pasting the same things over and over again? | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:42 Defacer wrote: Hey man, it's not my fault the American election cycle has become The Biggest Loser: Presidential Edition. And you wonder why the Tea Party even came about.......of course it may have also made the problem even worse. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:42 Defacer wrote: The Biggest Loser: Presidential Edition. *sigh* it's funny because it's true... | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote: So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On July 21 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote: Your post about Japan slightly mischaracterizes the situation but it might just be semantics. But the thing about Japan and the other Asian countries is that their societies developed by finding the 100 smartest people in the country and putting them in charge of everything. The underlying justification is that society isn't developed enough to let the people decide what's best for the country. And for the early stages of modern development, the system can work brilliantly, as it has in Asia. The 100 smartest people in Japan, a country of 125 million people, are pretty fucking smart. The big problem you're talking about is what happens when the economy gets too big, society closes the knowledge gap, and the elite start making mistakes. The problem with an elite-dominated system is that the elite can be very reluctant to admit they've made an error and the problem with a more developed, better educated society is that people are quicker to realize when mistakes have been made. This is when you get lots of friction where the elite can either make concessions and society moves forward with a more empowered society or the elite simply learn to manipulate the system and stay on top, often at the expense of the rest of society. Japan is currently in the strange phase where they kind of have both. Their political system is one of the ugliest and most broken in the OECD, but the Japanese people are also too proud to admit they're watching the world pass them by. The Japanese economy is 25% bigger today than it was in 1992. America's is 4x bigger. China's is 9x bigger. Korea's is 6x bigger. The US is currently at the crossroads where we decide whether we should put more trust in elites to know what's best for us or more trust in the people and say majority elections provide a strong mandate. You've gotten it mostly right here. The real solution, as I say, is to promote decentralization. True decentralization. Don't look to the center to do anything--whether it be leveling the economy by progressive taxation or by providing tax breaks or by doing stimulus packages. Instead, direct the energy of the American people toward localized solutions towards their problems. Break up over-centralized institutions like TBTF banks and unprofitable auto companies--make institutions small again, and let institutions experiment. That's how you will eventually create the sort of marketplace of ideas that will find the solution to move us forward. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:09 Lightwip wrote: I think you just don't understand American conservatism. They would be reactionaries by European standards. Not to mention every politician uses anything and everything to bury their opponent. That's a mischaracterization. Obama's quote had one logical implication: that if you aren't the only one with moral responsibility for the fruits of your labor, then the state has a moral right to determine how much of that goes to other people and how much of that you can keep. When you give taxation that air of moral certitude, you lead to a very dangerous place indeed. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote: I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. Oh give me a freaking break. I am deeply frustrated with the current state of Republican Party, but your assertions here are only lending credibility to xdaunt's statement. Academics, journalists and intellectuals don't act "fair" to conservatism because of some stupid sense of hindering responsibility, they act fair because...wait for it, half of them are actually conservatives! edit: maybe they're not Tea Pary Conservatives (thank god), but they certainly aren't Democrats. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote: I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. We also have a party in this country that plays political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare (by stealing from their coffers, and promising more than we can ever hope to afford in the name of fairness). No, the extreme left is just as bonkers if not more bonkers. xDaunt already harkened back to the ecstatic woman that said Obama would pay off her mortage from his stash. His stash is gonna pay her mortgage. People were saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine all up to the point where they failed. That the rich are profiting off the backs of the poor, that the rich ARE the ones impoverishing them, that they price gouge, that they manipulate oil prices through speculation, that they aren't taxed enough, and that more taxes will not affect the rich in the least bit. I've been hearing nice notions of social justice and income equality being parroted about as the rationale behind every last doomed pork barrel spending program on the planet for so many years now. I don't retreat from the idea that a smaller government is key to future American prosperity, more than any welfare program will ever help it. The culpability for the financial mess is on the backs of Democrats in Congress and moderate Republicans that want a little pork for themselves. The sustaining feature is a voting public that likes the pork barrel projects, and will run the first politician, Republican or Democrat, that suggests spending cuts in their private interests out of office. Okay? Your myth that the extreme left are on the side of the angels compared to their counterparts is just that: a myth. Romney finally getting some good speeches out there, not swatting back everybody talking about Bain Capital. + Show Spoiler + www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9sbQf9MQ4&feature=player_embedded Health Care reform, end of liberal policies on the economy, end of Obamacare, stimulus not working to combat unemployment thus far, increased regulations eg Dodd-Frank, government investment in private businesses. That's a platform I can vote for and pray he actually holds true to his word in the face of opposition. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On July 21 2012 14:18 1Eris1 wrote: Oh give me a freaking break. I am deeply frustrated with the current state of Republican Party, but your assertions here are only lending credibility to xdaunt's statement. Academics, journalists and intellectuals don't act "fair" to conservatism because of some stupid sense of hindering responsibility, they act fair because...wait for it, half of them are actually conservatives! edit: maybe they're not Tea Pary Conservatives (thank god), but they certainly aren't Democrats. Acadmics and intellectuals "entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completley bonkers" and "half of them are actually conservatives"? How on earth did a person on each side of the aisle agree to such statements? What academics have you been talking to? edit: I mean, what ever happened to hatred for all those lefty intellectuals being a conservative talking point? I thought they were more despised than the "liberal media". | ||
| ||
