"if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W:804

[CJ 2.0]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

What parts would you reduce/eliminate, and why, and what repercussions do you foresee?

Or was that statement simply an empty platitude? :2razz:

yeah, a little bit of an empty platitude, but not entirely. I'm not a policy analyst, and I have not dug into the numbers, but I would say as a general matter, most consumption and production subsidies can go (e.g., biofuels, agricultural production, etc), government benefits for higher income people can be clawed back significantly (don't know how it works down there, but no need to pay much SS to someone pulling more than a certain level of investment income), subsidies for various medical producers and drugs (again, not sure what you guys have, but there are all different sorts of things we pay for here that make no sense while we don't pay for things we absolutely should), various UI and welfare amounts that are not tied to increasing productivity.

And for me one of the biggest opportunities I see right now is education. Too much money is spent in education, and it is being spent in the wrong ways. We don't need more victims studies majors or art historians or even historians (and I really like to read and study hisotry). We need more engineers, business and economics students, professionals. We need more brick layers and welders and plumbers and various other skilled technical college workers. But we don't need to subsidize an entire ivory tower class and students who get no material usable skills (other than those which could be acquired while also learning something productive).

So you know what, you want to major in 18th century French poetry? Good for you. Great even. And you should be free to do so. But there is absiolutely no justification why anyone else should pay anything to help you do that. Cause they are paying with money that otherwise would be available for welfare, or food stamps, or paying down your children's debt, or ANYTHING that the person who actually generated that wealth wants.

There are lots more, but I would hope this is a good faith start on my end.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

To the second paragraph, if you are living under a repressive government are you better off? Of course not. You say people cannot survive without a government, but then you back up and say "that says nothing about weather the government is net positive or negative." This is what I'm talking about, there many people in history that could not survive under one. When you have a government killing it's own people is that surviving, no. You're being slaughtered.

Obama wants to take credit for government building businesses. Yet we have more poor under Obama than any other president, we have business failures, does he take credit for them. If government is so great under Obama why do we have so many business failures? Why do we have over 8% unemployment, why do we have the poor, etc etc.

I don't think people can survive without government not because I think the government is what creates that survival but because I think people who are surviving naturally gravitate towards government of some sorm to manage common affairs.

And government, like all forms of human interaction, involves net winners and net losers. But civilization as we have it is a result of many of the horrible repressive governments that have come before, from the Assyrians to the Macedonians to the Romans to the various middle ages monarchs. Even in a world with very restricted govenrments who were not capable of projecting power much further out of their own borders and where trade formed the backbone of growth and prosperity (e.g., the Phonecians), you still saw governments building on what others did to "advance" civilization, even though such advances totally f'ed things up for a whole bunch of people.

As for Obama, my view is he cannot take credit for anything except the fear of private businesses to invest and the inability of the US economy to recover. Obama, is perhaps the worst president you could have had at this juncture, though the democrats in your legislature don't seem much better.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So you know what, you want to major in 18th century French poetry? Good for you. Great even. And you should be free to do so. But there is absiolutely no justification why anyone else should pay anything to help you do that. Cause they are paying with money that otherwise would be available for welfare, or food stamps, or paying down your children's debt, or ANYTHING that the person who actually generated that wealth wants.

The real issue buried here is that tens of thousands of dollars in student loans for an 18th century European art history degree is a subprime loan. We're unquestioningly loaning millions of kids tens of thousands of dollars each who will have little luck paying it back very quickly, if ever. Negative consequences follow scenarios like these.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

The question had everything to do with what YOU thought the President said.

That "question" was one of you semantic juggling acts that I am not playing.....so try again.

"Honey"? Whatever fantasies you have, please leave me out.

And no, you're just totally and utterly wrong. Regulation is not "infrastructure." That's completely idiotic.

It is understood as "idiotic"....by those who don't understand that infrastructure is not limited to physical objects.

So, you're saying that a non-trivial number of Obama's opponents -- indeed, apparently the entire "RW" -- want to slash all spending and government having to do with all infrastructure, everywhere.

There is that juggling act in play again. Um, no deary, I did not say that...and I'm sure that it won't be the last time you will try to put words in my mouth.

There really isn't a response for such astonishing paranoid fantasy.

And yet, paranoid as you think it is, you DID respond to it. Ironic.

No, you're just making things up. Really hysterical things.

You just refuse to understand the definition of infrastructure as it is being used.

No one doesn't so recognize.

So, again, you are of the opinion that large numbers of people disagree with the idea that no one succeeds alone. Apparently, also, you think Obama thinks this.

What's funny is that you've got Boo and AdamT on one side who insist that Obama's WHOLE, ENTIRE, FULLY-COMPLETE POINT is this:



And that anyone who claims it's one iota beyond those words is pretending he said something he didn't say.

YOU, on the other hand, well, you've given me a whole volume of things which OF COURSE HE MEANT AND WAS GETTING AT, which aren't in his words even a little, and that one has to be stupid not to see it.

Perhaps you guys and other Obama supporters should confer amongst yourselves and come up with a unified theory as to what the speech meant, and get back to me, 'coz you're contradicting each other like crazy.

Of course, if you can't agree on what he meant, then perhaps other interpretations of it aren't so offsides after all.

Your false portrayal of my statements, your absolutist twisting of my words, does not make your attack legitimate or change my words. This last paragraph is nothing more than the creation of multiple straw arguments and is not worth my time to dissect.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

That "question" was one of you semantic juggling acts that I am not playing.....so try again.




It is understood as "idiotic"....by those who don't understand that infrastructure is not limited to physical objects.




There is that juggling act in play again. Um, no deary, I did not say that...and I'm sure that it won't be the last time you will try to put words in my mouth.

And yet, paranoid as you think it is, you DID respond to it. Ironic.




You just refuse to understand the definition of infrastructure as it is being used.




Your false portrayal of my statements, your absolutist twisting of my words, does not make your attack legitimate or change my words. This last paragraph is nothing more than the creation of multiple straw arguments and is not worth my time to dissect.

You know what?

I don't think you can successfully repeat the things you've said, because I don't think you even know what you said. The level of incoherence is staggering.

(And no, "infrastructure" is not "regulation." It isn't, and never will be.)

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

You know what?

I don't think you can successfully repeat the things you've said, because I don't think you even know what you said. The level of incoherence is staggering.

(And no, "infrastructure" is not "regulation." It isn't, and never will be.)

Infrastructure is basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise,[1] or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function.[2] It can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. It is an important term for judging a country or region's development.
The term typically refers to the technical structures that support a society, such as roads, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]
Viewed functionally, infrastructure facilitates the production of goods and services, and also the distribution of finished products to markets, as well as basic social services such as schools and hospitals; for example, roads enable the transport of raw materials to a factory.[4]

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Infrastructure is basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise,[1] or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function.[2] It can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. It is an important term for judging a country or region's development.
The term typically refers to the technical structures that support a society, such as roads, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]
Viewed functionally, infrastructure facilitates the production of goods and services, and also the distribution of finished products to markets, as well as basic social services such as schools and hospitals; for example, roads enable the transport of raw materials to a factory.[4]

Dude. You're delusional.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Dude. You're delusional.

Tranlation: I have nothing. :coffeepap

 

[Karl]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

And for me one of the biggest opportunities I see right now is education. Too much money is spent in education, and it is being spent in the wrong ways. We don't need more victims studies majors or art historians or even historians (and I really like to read and study hisotry). We need more engineers, business and economics students, professionals. We need more brick layers and welders and plumbers and various other skilled technical college workers. But we don't need to subsidize an entire ivory tower class and students who get no material usable skills (other than those which could be acquired while also learning something productive).

The federal Dept. of Education is budgeted at $79 billion for 2012, out of a budget of $2.5 trillion, or 3.2%[sup][1][/sup]
Defense spending is nearly 10 times that amount.

Unless you can provide some figures on the current production of useful degrees versus those you consider useless (this time I'm not going to look it up for you), your argument again is little more than an empty platitude... but the conservative base will like cutting education, if it's 3% of the budget or 0.3%. Perhaps they're jealous

I will wholeheartedly agree on the means testing, but you must keep in mind that currently Social Security pays for itself. The right will howl, but it is true (of course there will be some issues down the road).

Edited to add: There is one area of educational cost that should be looked into... reportedly major colleges are sitting on tons of cash while jacking up tuition rates to astronomical levels. This does not directly affect the budget, but it puts the graduates into a long term financial bind that can have no good implications for the economy.



1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

 

[CJ 2.0]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

The federal Dept. of Education is budgeted at $79 billion for 2012, out of a budget of $2.5 trillion, or 3.2%[sup][1][/sup]
Defense spending is nearly 10 times that amount.

Unless you can provide some figures on the current production of useful degrees versus those you consider useless (this time I'm not going to look it up for you), your argument again is little more than an empty platitude... but the conservative base will like cutting education, if it's 3% of the budget or 0.3%. Perhaps they're jealous

I will wholeheartedly agree on the means testing, but you must keep in mind that currently Social Security pays for itself. The right will howl, but it is true (of course there will be some issues down the road).

Edited to add: There is one area of educational cost that should be looked into... reportedly major colleges are sitting on tons of cash while jacking up tuition rates to astronomical levels. This does not directly affect the budget, but it puts the graduates into a long term financial bind that can have no good implications for the economy.



1. 2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is just one example. I am not a budget wonk, and even more specifically not a US budget wonk.

I suspect you will neeed to go much deeper into your various entitlment programs in order to fix the issue, which I believe Paul Ryan has proposed. Otherwise, ultimately the system will not be sustainable.

Defence is probably another area where the US will need to get a lot smarter in its spending.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

The federal Dept. of Education is budgeted at $79 billion for 2012, out of a budget of $2.5 trillion, or 3.2%[sup][1][/sup]
Defense spending is nearly 10 times that amount.

Unless you can provide some figures on the current production of useful degrees versus those you consider useless (this time I'm not going to look it up for you), your argument again is little more than an empty platitude... but the conservative base will like cutting education, if it's 3% of the budget or 0.3%. Perhaps they're jealous

I will wholeheartedly agree on the means testing, but you must keep in mind that currently Social Security pays for itself. The right will howl, but it is true (of course there will be some issues down the road).

Edited to add: There is one area of educational cost that should be looked into... reportedly major colleges are sitting on tons of cash while jacking up tuition rates to astronomical levels. This does not directly affect the budget, but it puts the graduates into a long term financial bind that can have no good implications for the economy.



1. 2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education doesnt mean untouchable. Targeted reforms to the teacher' pension systems that increase contributions so they are more inline with the private sector that actually pays for them doesnt seem like a tough target to hit.

Politicians have been overpromising benefits and pay to teachers for literally decades now. Because the unions were lining the politicians pockets come election time. Its got to stop and if Dems or Republicans dont start making the tough choices, they are going to get voted out and replaced with people that will.

 

[Karl]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

this is just one example. I am not a budget wonk, and even more specifically not a US budget wonk.

I suspect you will neeed to go much deeper into your various entitlment programs in order to fix the issue, which I believe Paul Ryan has proposed. Otherwise, ultimately the system will not be sustainable.

Defence is probably another area where the US will need to get a lot smarter in its spending.

It (education) is an example with no substance. It is also a vapid talking point championed by the anti-intellectual right. Current average scholastic performance, and entitlement programs in general, are a result of societal issues that are quite simply beyond control of the government. You might fix the problem with additional government programs (actual jobs or a real minimum wage), but the fanatical right would never tolerate such a 'government expansion'. The only non-sustainable issue on the table is the cost of healthcare in general, but the government portion of this projected cost is minimal compared to the overall picture (see graph below).

Defense could easily be cut in half; it is not a matter of being smarter, it's a matter of dispensing with the imperialist ideology fostered by the right who, ultimately, want to control the world and enforce its ideology upon it. They want this so badly that, in concert with their near-demonic fascination with taxes, they are willing to starve the rest of society in order to achieve it. In that, they are really not much better than their foreign so-called enemies.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-healthtestimony.pdf (Jan. 31, 2008)​

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

It (education) is an example with no substance. It is also a vapid talking point championed by the anti-intellectual right. Current average scholastic performance, and entitlement programs in general, are a result of societal issues that are quite simply beyond control of the government. You might fix the problem with additional government programs (actual jobs or a real minimum wage), but the fanatical right would never tolerate such a 'government expansion'. The only non-sustainable issue on the table is the cost of healthcare in general, but the government portion of this projected cost is minimal compared to the overall picture (see graph below).

Defense could easily be cut in half; it is not a matter of being smarter, it's a matter of dispensing with the imperialist ideology fostered by the right who, ultimately, want to control the world and enforce its ideology upon it. They want this so badly that, in concert with their near-demonic fascination with taxes, they are willing to starve the rest of society in order to achieve it. In that, they are really not much better than their foreign so-called enemies.

I give you Wisconsin. No layoffs, no loss of teachers, smaller class sizes, balanced budgets.

Response to bold: Nice bait. You do realize with such a wide tar brush you tend to splatter some on yourself right?

Defense is the only item in the federal government that has ever been cut. Lets try a few others now and see how it goes. Government is currently trying to do too much. That needs to change.

 

[Karl]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Education doesnt mean untouchable. Targeted reforms to the teacher' pension systems that increase contributions so they are more inline with the private sector that actually pays for them doesnt seem like a tough target to hit.

Politicians have been overpromising benefits and pay to teachers for literally decades now. Because the unions were lining the politicians pockets come election time. Its got to stop and if Dems or Republicans dont start making the tough choices, they are going to get voted out and replaced with people that will.

There is nothing there to touch, at least at the federal level and that is what this thread is about. The right simply dislikes educated people and literally hates unions as they run, pell mell, in a race to the bottom in intellect and standard of living. Your post is the perfect example of that ideology.

As the right wing corporate nationalists take more and more from the middle class and the poor they will be the architects of their own eventual destruction at the hands of those they abuse. It has always happened that way throughout history, and there is no reason to think that it will not repeat.

 

[Karl]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

I give you Wisconsin. No layoffs, no loss of teachers, smaller class sizes, balanced budgets. [...]

You are giving me Kool Aid. I don't like the taste. Here's a tall glass of truth instead:

[...] In fact, the document shows that based on GAAP accounting, the state would have been left with a deficit of $3 billion by 2012-13 under Walker's budget. That compares to the $2.9 billion GAAP deficit he inherited at the end of Doyle's term, the state's financial statements show. [...]

The governor's office told us to judge this promise based on the next budget -- for 2013-15. Walker, though, promised to balance "every” state budget on the more stringent GAAP principles. He did not do that in his first budget.

We rate this as a Promise Broken.

PolitiFact Wisconsin | Walk-O-Meter: Require use of accepted accounting principles to balance all state budgets

Of course, the feds could balance the budget tomorrow -- they could simply eliminate Social Security and Medicare (while still collecting those taxes, of course). Is that plan you would endorse? It would balance the budget, which seems to be your only criteria, so how could you oppose it?

 

[Karl]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

[...] Government is currently trying to do too much. That needs to change.

What is government currently trying to do that it has not done in the past? Say, during Republican administrations . . . .

Are you in favor in the some $3 trillion wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or is that not 'too' much?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Tranlation: I have nothing. :coffeepap

Heh. So you agree with him that regulation is infrastructure, as referred to by Obama's speech?

If not, then what should I "have"?

Do you agree with his other statements concerning Obama's speech, and Obama's intent?

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Heh. So you agree with him that regulation is infrastructure, as referred to by Obama's speech?

If not, then what should I "have"?

Do you agree with his other statements concerning Obama's speech, and Obama's intent?

What I agree with is you did not rebutt him at all. You could try to do that. But yes, regulation contrinbutes to the workings, of how things get done, which make them part of the infastructure. Without proper regulations monoploies and things like the housing market crash happen.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

What I agree with is you did not rebutt him at all. You could try to do that. But yes, regulation contrinbutes to the workings, of how things get done, which make them part of the infastructure. Without proper regulations monoploies and things like the housing market crash happen.

:roll: Was Obama referring to regulations in his speech, when he talked about teachers, roads, and bridges? This is, after all, about what Obama was saying.

 

[washunut]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

What I agree with is you did not rebutt him at all. You could try to do that. But yes, regulation contrinbutes to the workings, of how things get done, which make them part of the infastructure. Without proper regulations monoploies and things like the housing market crash happen.

Was it the regulations or the regulators enforcing rules already written that were part of the housing crisis? The chief regulator of the niggest institutions involved happened to be Geithner. If I remember correctly Obama promoted him to secretary of treasury, shocking!

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Was it the regulations or the regulators enforcing rules already written that were part of the housing crisis? The chief regulator of the niggest institutions involved happened to be Geithner. If I remember correctly Obama promoted him to secretary of treasury, shocking!

Deregulation as I understand it. And yes, both presidents kept the people who casued it in charge. This people have too much influence. And they have it in both parties.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

:roll: Was Obama referring to regulations in his speech, when he talked about teachers, roads, and bridges? This is, after all, about what Obama was saying.

He was very general. But, it is true that regulations are part of the infastructure. And if you were concerned with what Obama was saying, you'd hear the part where he says what the point was. :coffeepap

 

[washunut]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Deregulation as I understand it. And yes, both presidents kept the people who casued it in charge. This people have too much influence. And they have it in both parties.

I agree with your last point. I disagree with the first. The Fed had the power to call out the no down payment loans so that banks would have had to carry a lot more capital on these types of loans. They could controlled a lot of off balance sheet activities that made the banks a lot more risky than their financial statements reflected.
They could have taken CEOs and CFOs of financial companies to task under our Sarbanes-Oxley law and am still surprised that has not been done.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

He was very general. But, it is true that regulations are part of the infastructure. And if you were concerned with what Obama was saying, you'd hear the part where he says what the point was. :coffeepap

And there's your problem, Boo.

You're giving him (Gimmesometruth) a pass for reading things into it which just aren't there, yet you're being a word fascist about sticking the absolute literal text when it's not someone who's on your own side. "Non-partisan"? Riiiiiiiiiight.

And of course, whenever the coffeepap or winkie comes out, that's when you know you're on the thinnest ice.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

You are giving me Kool Aid. I don't like the taste. Here's a tall glass of truth instead:


Of course, the feds could balance the budget tomorrow -- they could simply eliminate Social Security and Medicare (while still collecting those taxes, of course). Is that plan you would endorse? It would balance the budget, which seems to be your only criteria, so how could you oppose it?

Your source rah rahd the unions dude. Its Politifact and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. They have a dog in that hunt, they are partisan as hell.

Bolded: WOOOO DOUBLE STRAWMAN FOR THE LOSE/FAIL! Did I argue that for the elimination of SS and Medicare? No you, serial misrepresenter, I did not---although Im 100% for means testing. Did I say that balancing the budget was my only priority? No, I did not. Note what I said about what happened in Wisconsin school districts: smaller class sizes, no layoffs, no loss of teachers and balanced budgets.

How about you just refute what Im arguing instead of offering up fake arguments.
Was the overall Wisconsin budget balanced? Please stick with a yes or no if you can manage it.