On September 18 2012 08:24 rogzardo wrote: Wanting even tax rates = attacking the rich? On what planet does that make sense?
They actually do pay higher tax rates.
They are given tax breaks to invest in things that are "for the public good". So even though they may not be "paying their fair share", they are investing in ways that are effectively equal (or at least should be).
So, while their effective tax rate may be lower, they are only lower because they're taking actions we as a collective have incentivized. This argument is incredibly misleading.
Sure, there are reasons that one could argue for a more progressive income tax rate (probably a good thing), higher corporate tax rates (very bad idea), or higher taxes on everyone (probably a bad idea). But to say it isn't an even or more expensive tax rate is just flat out misleading.
On September 18 2012 08:24 rogzardo wrote: Wanting even tax rates = attacking the rich? On what planet does that make sense?
They actually do pay higher tax rates.
They are given tax breaks to invest in things that are "for the public good". So even though they may not be "paying their fair share", they are investing in ways that are effectively equal (or at least should be).
So, while their effective tax rate may be lower, they are only lower because they're taking actions we as a collective have incentivized. This argument is incredibly misleading.
Sure, there are reasons that one could argue for a more progressive income tax rate (probably a good thing), higher corporate tax rates (very bad idea), or higher taxes on everyone (probably a bad idea). But to say it isn't an even or more expensive tax rate is just flat out misleading.
Property tax almost seems criminal it is absurd and makes it so hard for anyone to actually afford to buy a house without being wealthy.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
EDIT: To clarify further, implying that rich people paying higher taxes makes society more fair is dumb. Sure, it makes things fair, in one dimension. But what about allowing people to maximize their potential? How is it fair that someone who squandered their opportunities gets taxed at a lower rate than someone who turned it into something successful? This is a subtle and sophisticated equation and I think it's dumb for Obama or anyone else to act like a simple fix will make the scales go even.
Why does it make sense to increase taxes on middle-class and lower income people during a recession, when you need them to have enough disposable income to purchase the goods and services that make successful people successful?
For me, it's not just about 'fairness', it's about making sure the largest and strongest consumer base stays that way. I wish Democrats made that argument more often.
I wish EVERYONE made that kind of argument more often. We can disagree but at least we're having a reasonable discussion about both the costs, the opportunity costs, and the benefits of tax policy. Politicians are always guilty of selling their policy by muddying or obfuscating at least one of those.
As for your initial question, it's a non-issue. We're not in a recession (yet) and neither wants to raise taxes on the non-rich.
Reminds me of this:
Both sides are right in this debate, to be honest. The rich are paying quite a lot in taxes, and they cover for those who are unable to pay much in taxes or pay no taxes, so we should be grateful (even though we're in need of tax reform to make sure they pay more as a %). To me there's a more fundamental problem, and that's capitalism. At the heart of it all, capitalism is basically, "Pay your workers as little as you can get away with. Charge your customers as much as you can get away with," which creates obscene profits for the wealthiest. There really isn't a better system than capitalism at the moment though, so it can't be helped, but we should at least acknowledge how many people get screwed by this kind of system and help them when they're in need.
And to be honest, fuck fat cats. They are what they are. If you think guys like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs make their money through honest investments, you're insane.
That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview.
You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you.
For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already.
My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post:
The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general.
Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"?
Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it.
That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist.
Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently.
Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack.
Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack.
You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me".
He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't.
For one thing, please stop telling me to not discuss perception. My post was about perception, we can't set it aside because that changes the context of the word "attack". If you don't want to discuss perception then you shouldn't have responded to my post.
I'm not discussing perception. If you want to discuss perception, do so with someone else. Your post contained something else than your statement about perception, I explained what, and I'm discussing that. If I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively.
Yes, and I gave examples of where Obama called bankers "fat cats". That was an attack on certain bankers. If you want more examples to give a broader picture then too bad - I'm not spending hours compiling an exhaustive list - nor should I have to.
My statement was the sentiment behind "you didn't build that" comes from attacks Obama has made on certain groups. I have since demonstrated that Obama has, in fact, levied attacks on those groups. Your arguments that they are not attacks are weak - either that they are only attacks on a segment of that group (just some bankers) or a thing that the group possesses (money).
Whatever. Attacking a segment of a group or an aspect of a group is the same thing as attacking that group. Granted, it is much more forgivable on its own, but over time a multitude of small attacks will add up to something significant.
I think I'm done discussing this with you. I'm trying to explain why people have a certain opinion and you seem to want to argue that your opinion is the 'correct' one.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all. In fact, in that same video is the quote:
"As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
Sounds like they got it backwards.
Aside from that, I see nothing wrong with any of the things Romney said. There ARE way too many people who are dependent on the government.
Just curious what people think of Mitt Romney's plans for immigration changes?
Here is an interesting article to give people an idea of what his plans are:
LOS ANGELES—Mitt Romney made a direct appeal to Hispanic voters on Monday, arguing they haven't benefited from President Barack Obama's economic policies and, if given the chance, he would work with both parties to "permanently fix our immigration system."
In a speech billed by Romney aides as an unofficial reset to his campaign, the Republican presidential nominee reiterated themes he's mentioned before on the campaign trail, arguing that Obama's policies haven't made things better for Americans, especially Hispanics.
"In 2008, candidate Obama promised us a world of limitless hope. What we got instead is a world where hope has painful limits—limits that make it harder to start a business, to grow a business, or to find a job," Romney declared.
While he noted "no one is exempt from the pain of this economy," Romney cited statistics showing the unemployment rate among Hispanics is higher than the national average.
Romney argued that Republicans can turn things around, describing the GOP as a "party of prosperity" and "the party that will restore America's prosperity."
"I am convinced that the Republican Party is the rightful home of Hispanic-Americans," he said.
On immigration, Romney slammed Obama's decision in June to allow the children of illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and work without fear of deportation as a purely political move. He argued efforts to offer amnesty "will make it harder, not easier, to strengthen" the nation's immigration system.
"Instead of playing immigration politics with these children, I will pursue permanent immigration reform," Romney said, "and I will start by ensuring that those who serve in our military have the opportunity to become legal, permanent residents of the country they fought to defend. Those who have risked their lives in defense of America have earned the right to make their life in America."
Romney vowed to work with both Democrats and Republicans to achieve "a legal immigration system that is fair and efficient," and would start by strengthening security on the nation's borders. He said he would also "shift" diversity visas to "instead bring together immediate family members" and would allow immigrants who achieved an "advanced degree" to stay here.
"I want them to stay here, so I'd staple a green card to their diploma," Romney said. "America is a nation of immigrants, and immigration is essential to our economic growth and prosperity. One million immigrants legally enter America every year—the largest number of any country in the world. I like that," he added. "I want to preserve our heritage of robust legal immigration. And I want to make sure that those who abide by the law and wait in line to immigrate here legally are not at a disadvantage."
The GOP has stepped up its efforts to woo Latino voters ahead of November. Polls show Obama has a significant advantage among Hispanic voters, leading Romney by 42 points, according to a poll released by Latino Decisions on Monday.
The GOP candidate also used his speech to take a shot at Obama's decision to bring trade sanctions against China, suggesting the move was motivated by politics.
"President Obama may think that announcing new trade cases less than two months from Election Day will distract from his record, but the American businesses and workers struggling on an uneven playing field know better," Romney said. "If I'd known all it took to get him to take action was to run an ad citing his inaction on China's cheating, I would have run one long ago."
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all.
TOP OHIO DONOR: 'It Wasn't Like This Under Clinton'
As President Barack Obama rolls across Ohio and Pennsylvania on his two-day swing state bus tour, his campaign is struggling to spin today's disappointing jobs numbers, as well as reports that Mitt Romney raised more than $100 million in June, a staggering number that will likely trounce Obama's take for the second month in a row.
The GOP's fundraising totals confirm Democrats' fears that they are quickly losing the money race, shoring up the liberal narrative that Obama is facing an uphill battle to compete with deep-pocketed conservative special interests and "dark money" donations.
The reality, of course, is a little more complicated.
To find out more about where Obama stands with his potential donors, Business Insider spoke with fireworks magnate Bruce Zoldan, a prominent political fundraiser from Ohio's Mahoning Valley, where Obama campaigned Friday morning.
A major Clinton backer who has raised money for candidates from both parties, Zoldan was an early supporter of Obama in 2008, and even hosted the candidate for a fundraiser at his home in Canfield, Ohio — but he was noncommittal about whether he would be supporting the Democratic nominee this time around. He told Business Insider that he has been turned off by the Obama campaign's rhetoric on class war and income inequality, which he sees as unnecessarily divisive and antagonistic toward business owners.
"They talk too much about taxing the rich," said Zoldan, founder and CEO of the multimillion-dollar Phantom Fireworks empire. "Tax is not an issue with me — I pay my taxes and I'm happy to do it. But they are too focused on the idea that it is the rich people who are keeping down the poor."
"I'm not opposed to Democrats on this issue," he added. "What bothers me is to hear that he is making employees — my team members — feel that I am somehow being unfair to them, like I am the bad guy."
The attacks against Mitt Romney's wealth and record at Bain Capital fit into the message that "anybody in business who is successful has done something unfair to make them successful," he said. "I'm looking for more common ground."
Zoldan also said that he was surprised by the Obama campaign's lack of outreach to business leaders in Ohio. He said was invited to attend Friday morning's event in Poland, Ohio, but was told it was unlikely he would get any one-on-one time with the President.
"That doesn't happen with this administration — I don't think he has reached out to the community in the way that he should," Zoldan said, adding that "it wasn't like this under Clinton."
"It wasn't this divisive, and I'm not sure that he [Obama] helps himself," Zoldan said. "The business community wasn't pro-Clinton, but it was never this hateful."
Obviously, Zoldan's comments represent just one perspective on the 2012 money race. But his view does highlight the underlying Catch-22 of Obama's central campaign message: While the attacks against Romney's money and business record may work with rank-and-file voters, they may also make it harder for the President to convince potential donors that they wouldn't be acting against their own economic interests by contributing to his campaign.
Conversely, the more Obama is perceived as anti-business, the easier it may be for Romney to convince on-the-fence donors to come over to his side, or at least hold on to their money for this election.
On September 18 2012 08:24 rogzardo wrote: Wanting even tax rates = attacking the rich? On what planet does that make sense?
They actually do pay higher tax rates.
They are given tax breaks to invest in things that are "for the public good". So even though they may not be "paying their fair share", they are investing in ways that are effectively equal (or at least should be).
So, while their effective tax rate may be lower, they are only lower because they're taking actions we as a collective have incentivized. This argument is incredibly misleading.
Sure, there are reasons that one could argue for a more progressive income tax rate (probably a good thing), higher corporate tax rates (very bad idea), or higher taxes on everyone (probably a bad idea). But to say it isn't an even or more expensive tax rate is just flat out misleading.
Property tax almost seems criminal it is absurd and makes it so hard for anyone to actually afford to buy a house without being wealthy.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all. In fact, in that same video is the quote:
"As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
Sounds like they got it backwards.
Aside from that, I see nothing wrong with any of the things Romney said. There ARE way too many people who are dependent on the government.
You really think that literally saying all 47% of the country that is going to vote for Obama is dependent on the government is a good, positive, or intelligent thing to say? I mean, I'm a little insulted that Romney believes that I am dependent on the federal government because I am not going to vote for him. More than that, I think it's pretty silly to assert that those who believe healthcare is a human right all believe they are victims.
On September 18 2012 08:20 Defacer wrote: But what do you guys think? Does the link hurt or help Romney win the election?
I think I'd have a greater chance of winning the lottery than finding someone who was going to vote for Romney, but changed their mind based on those comments.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all. In fact, in that same video is the quote:
"As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
Sounds like they got it backwards.
Aside from that, I see nothing wrong with any of the things Romney said. There ARE way too many people who are dependent on the government.
You really think that literally saying all 47% of the country that is going to vote for Obama is dependent on the government is a good, positive, or intelligent thing to say? I mean, I'm a little insulted that Romney believes that I am dependent on the federal government because I am not going to vote for him. More than that, I think it's pretty silly to assert that those who believe healthcare is a human right all believe they are victims.
It's difficult to claim a right to the personal services of someone else. Nobody is compelled to provide such services. Health care is quite different from free speech, bearing arms, unreasonable search and seizure, due process, etc. How do you have a right to something that requires someone else to provide it to you ? If there is a doctor shortage, rights are being violated ? Interesting position.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all.
I'm not sure what the issue is. His job, as a campaigner, is to win the election. Why waste time, resources, energy trying to convince a sector that will vote against you no matter what ? That's all he's saying and I don't see much controversy with that campaign strategy.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all. In fact, in that same video is the quote:
"As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
Sounds like they got it backwards.
Aside from that, I see nothing wrong with any of the things Romney said. There ARE way too many people who are dependent on the government.
You really think that literally saying all 47% of the country that is going to vote for Obama is dependent on the government is a good, positive, or intelligent thing to say? I mean, I'm a little insulted that Romney believes that I am dependent on the federal government because I am not going to vote for him. More than that, I think it's pretty silly to assert that those who believe healthcare is a human right all believe they are victims.
It's difficult to claim a right to the personal services of someone else. Nobody is compelled to provide such services. Health care is quite different from free speech, bearing arms, unreasonable search and seizure, due process, etc. How do you have a right to something that requires someone else to provide it to you ? If there is a doctor shortage, rights are being violated ? Interesting position.
I don't really want to go into depth on the issue, but yes if there is a shortage of medical professionals to provide their services then the rights of the population are being violated. There is no compulsion of people to work in polls at election day, but if your local government doesn't get anyone and as a result you cannot vote your rights have been directly violated. Affirmative rights exist in government. Probably the best example is a right to a public education.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all. In fact, in that same video is the quote:
"As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
Sounds like they got it backwards.
Aside from that, I see nothing wrong with any of the things Romney said. There ARE way too many people who are dependent on the government.
You really think that literally saying all 47% of the country that is going to vote for Obama is dependent on the government is a good, positive, or intelligent thing to say? I mean, I'm a little insulted that Romney believes that I am dependent on the federal government because I am not going to vote for him. More than that, I think it's pretty silly to assert that those who believe healthcare is a human right all believe they are victims.
It's difficult to claim a right to the personal services of someone else. Nobody is compelled to provide such services. Health care is quite different from free speech, bearing arms, unreasonable search and seizure, due process, etc. How do you have a right to something that requires someone else to provide it to you ? If there is a doctor shortage, rights are being violated ? Interesting position.
It's not difficult at all. Almost every other country in the world does it.
On September 18 2012 08:20 Defacer wrote: But what do you guys think? Does the link hurt or help Romney win the election?
I think I'd have a greater chance of winning the lottery than finding someone who was going to vote for Romney, but changed their mind based on those comments.
I'm sure it alleviates the concerns of those who wondered if he was conservative enough.
He's beyond conservative, really. He's a dead hooker away form Patrick Bateman territory.
On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote: [quote] That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview.
You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you.
For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already.
My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post:
The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general.
Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"?
Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it.
That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist.
Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently.
Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack.
Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack.
You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me".
He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't.
For one thing, please stop telling me to not discuss perception. My post was about perception, we can't set it aside because that changes the context of the word "attack". If you don't want to discuss perception then you shouldn't have responded to my post.
I'm not discussing perception. If you want to discuss perception, do so with someone else. Your post contained something else than your statement about perception, I explained what, and I'm discussing that. If I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively.
Yes, and I gave examples of where Obama called bankers "fat cats". That was an attack on certain bankers. If you want more examples to give a broader picture then too bad - I'm not spending hours compiling an exhaustive list - nor should I have to.
Indeed, that was an attack on certain bankers - those bankers who, according to Obama, don't accept their share of responsibility for the financial crisis and get big bonuses while the economy is still recovering. If your initial statement had been that Obama had attacked certain bankers for practices he was condemning, that example would have been spot-on. Unfortunately, your initial statement was that he had made attacks on "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", and your example therefore is hardly helpful in supporting that claim. Of course, you can choose not to support your claim - I didn't think you could anyway.
On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: My statement was the sentiment behind "you didn't build that" comes from attacks Obama has made on certain groups. I have since demonstrated that Obama has, in fact, levied attacks on those groups. Your arguments that they are not attacks are weak - either that they are only attacks on a segment of that group (just some bankers) or a thing that the group possesses (money).
You have absolutely not demonstrated that Obama has levied "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". Like I said, there's a clear and fundamental difference between wanting to reform the tax system because of a belief it will help with the budget and wanting to punish people for being rich (see below for an answer regarding your "segment of that group" argument). I find it funny that you try to pass off my arguments as "weak" when you did not even try to address the part of my post you just replied to that actually contains the said arguments.
On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Whatever. Attacking a segment of a group or an aspect of a group is the same thing as attacking that group. Granted, it is much more forgivable on its own, but over time a multitude of small attacks will add up to something significant.
No, attacking a segment of a group is very clearly not the same thing as attacking that group. If, among the group "human beings", I single out mass murderers and call them "bloodthirsty bastards", I'm obviously not calling every human being a bloodthirsty bastard.
On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I think I'm done discussing this with you. I'm trying to explain why people have a certain opinion and you seem to want to argue that your opinion is the 'correct' one.
I announced from the start, and in pretty much every single one of my posts, that I was not discussing your explanation of "why people have a certain opinion". I was discussing a specific assertion that has an existence independent of the causal relation you inserted it in. To repeat my example, "if I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively".
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/17/article-2204664-1510C074000005DC-670_233x409.jpg)
