"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together" ---President Barack Obama 13 July 2012
The above quote from last Friday sent the right into a fit of adolescent hysterics. Cries of "Nanny State" were heard all over the right wing blogsphere as conservative pundits rebelled against "Dad" and screamed, "No fair! I can do whatever I want on my own!! I don't need anyone's help. ANYONE!!!" (stomp...stomp...stomp...door slams to teenager's room).
The president is correct, of course, and Sally Kohn's recent piece over at Fox News illustrates just how accurate the president is on the role of government in our lives.
My grandfather was a small business entrepreneur. He owned a clothing store in Penns Grove, New Jersey, and families came from across the southern part of the state to get slacks and blouses and jumpers for their kids. My grandfather employed two people who earned decent, middle class wages and made a good living for himself, probably upper middle class for that region.
And good for him. He worked hard and earned it.
But there were things that helped my grandfather’s business that he didn’t have to pay for. The roads trucks drove on to bring him products to sell. The court system that incorporated his business and protected the patents of what he sold. The police force that made it safe for people to shop there. The public schools that taught his employees how to read and do math, so my grandfather didn’t have to teach them. Make no mistake about it — my grandfather succeeded because of his hard work and initiative. But government played a supporting role.
Yeah, that's exactly right. For all their talk of "nanny states," the right count on government support just as much as anyone else. Ridiculous as these adolescent ravings are, this is even worse.
Today, hedge fund managers and big business CEOs pay lower tax rates than middle class families. In fact, the tax rate for the very wealthy is the lowest it’s been in over 60 years.
That’s right: We’re not even debating whether the wealthy should pay more than middle class workers. President Obama wants the very rich to pay the same rate as the rest of us. Those who have succeeded in our country, in part with the help of our public infrastructure, should just bury their money in off-shore accounts and loopholes? That’s un-American. Those who do well in America should do well by America — and pay their fair share of taxes so others have the same opportunity to succeed.
Can we at least start with the same rate? Conservatives used to champion the flat tax but now any talk of "paying their fair share" results in howls of socialism and nanny state waste. Kohn's right. This whole conversation is completely ridiculous.
We succeed because of our individual initiative but also because of the public investments that help springboard that success. Don’t believe me? Then go start a business in Pakistan or Russia. American entrepreneurs succeed in part because they’re in America. And in America, we don’t get ours and then yank away the ladder of opportunity for the next generation.
We can slash Medicare and Social Security and public schools and college grants and all of the stepping stones that poor and middle class families have historically relied on to help climb the ladder of prosperity. Or millionaires and billionaires can pay the same tax rate as the middle class.
One of the greatest lies that has been perpetuated by the right (and sadly believe by far too many) is that we have to gut government to save the middle class from socialism. In truth, this lie is told to further protect the wealth of people that wouldn't have it without the support of the federal government.
Perhaps the federal government should stop giving them handouts if they are going to continue to bite the hand that feeds even them.
42 comments:
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
Page One, Chapter Nine.
...and 6Kings gets the standing O.
Your defense of the accusation of an adolescent power fantasy is...an adolescent power fantasy?
Rand (in 1959)
"I feel that it is terrible that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until and unless all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected."
Mega post war boom...man on the moon...bill gates, warren buffet, steve jobs, mark zuckerberg...the largest economy in the world...the defeat of communism and the spread of free market capitalism around the world...some disaster.
Of course, she may have been talking about corporate welfare so...:)
All of these things were accomplished with the government playing a role. Sorry, 6Kings, but you are going to have to explain to me (and do so with facts) as to how any business person could have been successful without government. Start with property rights, the court system, roads, and the police force. You as well, dave. Let's see if we can build from there.
Well, we can start there. But the problem is you don't want to finish there.
Mark, you are so thoroughly corrupted by liberal ideology, I constantly wonder whether its worth my time or if you've the brain power to understand.
Let me break it down for you and speak to you like a small child or a labrador.
We both go to our tax payer funded public school.
We both grow up & live in relatively safety with our taxpayer funded police force.
We both acquire modest jobs.
You spend your evenings listening to music, frequenting bars & playing volleyball.
I spend my evenings creating business plans & beating up on you in volleyball.
In the end, you have a good middle class lifestyle and an unhealthy obsession of the Beatles.
I start my own business, make a bunch of money & can't stand the Beatles.
I owe you nothing. We've both utilized the same serviced and had the same opportunities, but applied ourselves differently. The services were bought, paid for and consumed no differently than a gallon of milk. The police didn't protect me over you and my roads have no less pot holes.
"I constantly wonder whether its worth my time..."
No. It's not.
Right on cue M, you just couldn't stop yourself - even if you tried (and you don't).
This is about as good a deconstruction of Obama's arrogance and stupidity as you can get. And it doesn't even reference Rand.
And I would swear that this was a right wing parody but goshdarnit, she seems to be pretty sincere. I especially love "the exploiter class" - wow. What a left-wingbat toad.
Oh I suppose I shouldn't pile on - but how can I refuse? You remember all the praise you heaped on Charles Murray don't you?
Okay, just one more - for today.
Well, we can start there. But the problem is you don't want to finish there
You're missing the point, GD. Even stopping there means that we should be grateful to the government and admit that any business person did not, in fact, do it all alone. That is Ms. Kohn's point and it is most definitely the president's point. Will you admit that this is true?
dave, I appreciate your humor (as always:)) and you are indeed a better volleyball player than I am. I am not, however, "corrupted by liberal ideology." That's another "heading off at the pass" type comment that sadly is more applicable to conservative ideology. After all, any sort of admission that the government is helpful is a sin and all liberals are now communists. You are sadly redirecting when you talk about corruption.
Even stopping there means that we should be grateful to the government
Bullshit. You are conflating again.
Grateful does not equal owing.
That's another "heading off at the pass" type comment that sadly is more applicable to conservative ideology.
You mean like asking me about something not being consistent with my alleged "libertarian ideology"? You just never even think about how hypocritical you are, do you?
Grateful does not equal owing.
You're right, actually. Now that I think about it, it's both. People that own businesses should be grateful and they do owe the government if not financially then certainly in other ways.
Either way, I'd like an admission. People did not build their businesses alone. They needed the government. Yes or no.
Government didn't build the roads without the wealth created by people.
That's true. And people didn't build their wealth without the freedom that our government provides. That's what you call a synergistic relationship.
You little lying weasel. Who the fuck except anarchists has ever said government isn't needed? Let me give a clue here: neither conservatives nor libertarians nor classical liberals nor even Randroids are anarchists. For you to pretend otherwise, especially after having been called on this bullshit repeatedly, is breathtakingly dishonest. Well, it would be breathtaking for anyone else, but with your head stuck so far up your ass, I don't know how you could take a breath. Maybe some kind of methane mutant?
Who the fuck has ever said government doesn't provide some needed functions? For that matter, who the fuck here has ever defended corporate welfare? And why didn't Obama and his Democratic Congress even try to do something about that when they had both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse under their control? Could it be that they actually like it? There's lots of reasons some businesses would much prefer to compete based on who has pull in Washington.
But otherwise, there are so many strawmen in this post that it ought to be declared a fire hazard. Government didn't create the Internet so businesses could make money. Until (with the assistance of VP Gore) the privatization of the Internet, any kind of commercial use was strictly verboten. It was strictly government and universities until then.
Your great conceit is that since government has done some good, if it does even more then that would be better. Notwithstanding the history of governments who feel entitled "to do the Right Thing at any cost."
I prefer to call it a parasite. Depending on the nature of the parasite it could either benefit the host or harm it. But seeing one case of parasitical benefit and extrapolating that all parasites are beneficial is just silly.
Bravo Larry, bravo.
That's another of his ridiculous exaggerations - that anyone that doesn't agree with his amount of govt doesn't want any. I recall something about "childish" and "dishonest".
The problem here...well, one of the problems...is that we have a language barrier. You see, I'm speaking English. So, for instance, when I say I'm in favor of limited government, well, I actually chose the words for their meaning and I'm actually in favor of limited government. You speak Raving-Mad-Liberal and as such, when I say "I'm in favor of limited government", you hear, "I hate government. I don't want any government services." Difficult to converse in different languages, no?
And on a side note (now that the dander is up)...let me just say what a sad, sad state of affairs is the country in which we live that the high achievements of others is no longer taken as inspiration for imitation, if not for the achievement, at least for the qualities required, but instead, de-emphasized and actually attacked.
Up to date National Review fans will of course realize I'm plagiarizing Thomas Sowell.
For the full article, go here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309891/elizabeth-warren-s-underlying-social-contract-thomas-sowell
He sums it up nicely...
"Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the Left, and a threat it goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality."
If you are the champions of personal responsibility, then take it for all of the mistakes conservatives have made and stop blaming liberals for all your woes. It rings hollow when you bloviate about the victim culture and then behave exaclty like one.
Hmm...let's see...some foaming at the mouth...
You little lying weasel. Who the fuck except anarchists has ever said government isn't needed?
Who the fuck has ever said government doesn't provide some needed functions?
That's another of his ridiculous exaggerations -
there are so many strawmen in this post that it ought to be declared a fire hazard.
followed by...
I prefer to call it a parasite.
...a pitch perfect illustration of my point. Like I have always said, I'm not the one saying this stuff...you guys are.
Obviously, your feelings about government simply won't allow you to admit that they do serve an important role in our society and that people can't succeed in business without it performing these functions.
when I say I'm in favor of limited government, well, I actually chose the words for their meaning and I'm actually in favor of limited government.
What does that mean, exactly? Can you give me a number?
Mostly I'm just kidding about the second question because it's not something that is easily quantifiable. I hope that you and the others would recognize this and cease with the childish taunting about inequality.
But I would like a definition of what limited government means.
I've never met a conservative yet who has taken responsibility for their actions. Cool blog!
Ahhh, I see you failed biology Mark.
that the high achievements of others is no longer taken as inspiration for imitation
Funny thing is you get that strange brand of Brooksian-conservatism (neo-liberalism?) that laments how we just don't worship heroes like we used to. If only David Brooks could see how furiously M worships Obama, he might feel there is hope for this country.
Obviously, your feelings about government simply won't allow you to admit that they do serve an important role in our society
You really do have a reading disability, don't you M?
What does that mean, exactly?
Unlike you and income inequality - I can tell you exactly what this means. It starts with Article I of the Constitution and ends at the Tenth Amendment. Or as Madison put it, the powers granted to the federal govt are few and specific and those retained by the states are numerous and general.
It also means our national defense is not selectively policing the world. We could cut our Defense budget probably in half by refocusing on defense of the country.
It means the national parks which I love as much as the next person need an amendment authorizing the federal govt to establish and maintain such - not a whole cloth progressive grant of a non-existent power from Congress to the President with a wink and a nudge from the Supreme Court.
It means Congress can regulate commerce amongst the several states and with other sovereign nations - not down to whether I can grow wheat or pot for my own consumption.
Let's see you ever get that specific about income inequality - you can't even say why 45% is a bad number. You are just like the Supreme Court on porn: you know it when you see it. Pure bullshit.
Sure enough, you bring back up income inequality and whatdo I find.
Finally, there’s the never-mentioned possibility: that the best-educated, most-affluent, most politically influential Americans like this result. They may wring their hands over inequality, but in everyday life they see segregation as a feature, not a bug. It keeps out fat people with bad taste. Paul Krugman may wax nostalgic about a childhood spent in the suburbs where plumbers and middle managers lived side by side. But I doubt that many of his fervent fans would really want to live there. If so, they might try Texas.
Yes, it is a bit long, but I think you can actually manage to read the whole thing.
To be fair, I believe Markadelphia has stated that he thinks the unlimited government of North Korea is too much government, but that the US doesn't have anywhere near enough government to meet his definition of "limited", especially since he makes just slowing down it's rate of growth sound like dangerous radicalism. To actually cut back to levels of Federal spending and regulation not seen since the dark days of Clinton would apparently unleash the hounds of hell. Golly.
Y'know Frog, he is always making lots of noise about anyone who says the country is going in the wrong direction (never mind him saying that just 4 years ago) - and the whole "boiling pit of sewage". Given what you just pointed out - this country must've been a boiling pit of sewage until the New Deal.
You didn't earn that.
Appears that M is too busy to explain why 45% is too much income inequality. Let alone that if income were distributed differently (less unequally) it would result in less tax receipts.
Much better to live in a fantasy world of moral superiority that needs no explanation.
Let's look at this another way, juris. You and some others say you want smaller, more efficient government. OK...what's the number for that?
Not so easy, is it.
Moreover, suppose I say that I agree with Cornia/Court when they say that too much equality (below a Gini coefficient of .25) negatively impacts growth due to "incentive traps, free-riding, labour shirking, [and] high supervision costs" and that high levels of inequality (above a Gini coefficient of .40) negatively impacts growth, due to "incentive traps, erosion of social cohesion, social conflicts, [and] uncertain property rights".
You can then proceed to question the numbers (to a certain extent, rightfully so) and then we're in the same mess as we are with climate change.
This is why other factors such as fertility, education, and investment must be considered. But even then, are the studies looking at the short term or long terms effects that inequality has on a society? It's not always as simple as one number.
Let's look at this another way
Why - why can't you discuss your own point clearly and coherently? Is it because you are unable to do so? It is because even you realize that there is no reason, just emotion behind it?
OK...what's the number for that?
I already posted a description of what smaller govt would look like.
What does that mean, exactly?
It's just a couple of comments back up.
This is something you do not do with regard to income inequality - just a bunch of handwaving and pants wetting.
You can then proceed to question the numbers (to a certain extent, rightfully so) and then we're in the same mess as we are with climate change.
That's right - it is no longer a moral imperative. That is a rare moment of candor for you Preacher.
It's not always as simple as one number.
It doesn't have to be one number. No one ever said it had to be one number but you. You failed on the "many factors" attempt too. You don't want it ever to be any quantitative basis because then you can't whine about how awful the rich are - that is an out you always need.
You say that the current income inequality is too much and you say that there must be some inequality, but you can't even begin to define what the transition zone is from one to the other. And you expect anyone to think your ideas have validity - just because you say so.
Why - why can't you discuss your own point clearly and coherently? Is it because you are unable to do so? It is because even you realize that there is no reason, just emotion behind it?
Because I'm trying to get you to understand that you are being unreasonable.
I already posted a description of what smaller govt would look like.
A description isn't a number.
No one ever said it had to be one number but you.
I guess I didn't understand clearly when you guys said, "give me a number." "A" means one, correct?
And I offered more than one number and you guys went YOUR pants.
You say that the current income inequality is too much and you say that there must be some inequality, but you can't even begin to define what the transition zone is from one to the other.
Again, you aren't being reasonable. Obviously, there are going to be many more posts on this issue as I get through more of Stilitz's book.
Nor are you admitting the obvious. We have a lot of inequality in this country right now so a smaller number of people can buy things. With less people buying things, our economy isn't growing and businesses aren't hiring.
Because I'm trying to get you to understand that you are being unreasonable.
I'm being perfectly reasonable and staying on the topic of discussion - not straying off in hopes of distracting from my inability to actually discuss something.
And I offered more than one number and you guys went YOUR pants.
So 33% was okay - at one time (maybe), but 45% is not okay now. Those are the only two numbers you've put up. You didn't put any numbers up for the other factors. You want the rich to pay a higher tax rate even if they pay a smaller share of total income tax collected. I admit, you have problems with numbers that most other people don't.
Again, you aren't being reasonable.
Really? What is unreasonable about my re-statement of what you said? Was I inaccurate?
Nor are you admitting the obvious.
So obvious that you can't actually explain it.
We have a lot of inequality in this country right now so a smaller number of people can buy things.
Really? What can't you buy because someone else has more money than you? Or am I being unreasonable by asking?
Recall this post?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/search?q=Nick+Hanauer
Filled with numbers and a pointed testimonial from one of those "job creators" of which you so often speak, Nick Hanauer.
Now what happens in your mind when you see this information? Do you pretend that it isn't real?
Hanauer drives home what I am saying here...
"One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.
I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the tens of millions of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages."
This is a simple truth and if you don't want to accept this, then there is certainly nothing I can say to change your mind.
"job creators" of which you so often speak
No, you are the one that often speaks of them. I have not. Why do you have so much trouble understanding what I actually say (or don't) versus what you wish I was saying?
You might also recall, if you aren't actually brain-damaged, that I previously pointed out the irony in a progressive calling for more materialist consumption. That's actually a piece of common ground between left-wing and right-wing spiritualists - the hollowness of a consumption based economy/society.
Here's the deal - rich people like Hanauer will always be able to buy stuff you can't. Always. That is okay with you though because you have said that capitalism will have income inequality, it is only a matter of the degree of that inequality that concerns you. Right? [Go ahead and say "right" - it doesn't matter, I am in fact setting you up on your own contradictions.]
Those aren't "contradictions" in the proggy mind, juris, they're nuances. You just don't understand. Sigh. The dialectic of the nuance explains all, and only poopy-heads call them contradictions.
And Mark, I call you a liar because you are provably a liar, and in the most dickweasel of ways. Your so-called "riposte" was based on one word taken out of context, the explanatory meaning following, which makes clear that "parasite" is the word he wanted (because it doesn't have the meaning ascribed). But poor reading comprehension and dishonest disputation are your trademark.
Isn't the word he wanted, I mean.
that I previously pointed out the irony in a progressive calling for more materialist consumption.
Well, maybe I'm not the proggy statist that you have labeled me to be juris. And Larry. You guys bitch about my painting with a broad brush and yet still do it to me.
You don't want it done to you, then stop doing it to others. Hypocritical asshole. I'm not a pacifist, verbal or otherwise, so I'm not going to turn the other cheek.
And yes, you are a statist by your own long history of statements. No, you're not a totalitarian, but you're definitely a statist. Unless you've been lying about your own beliefs all this time, too.
Well, maybe I'm not the proggy statist that you have labeled me to be juris.
I only go by your own statements. You see, I actually do read and comprehend what you write and don't insist on imputing positions to you that you don't hold. If I did what you do I would be running you down about teachers unions all the time. But I know that you have actually staked out a place outside of the typical union sycophant (**cough** nikto **cough**).
The irony, which is so typically lost on you, is that you preach a true progressive line about the MJ generation - and then turn around and demand that consumers consume more to keep the economy humming. It just doesn't dawn on you that those are contradictory positions.
Post a Comment