(10-21-2017 08:36 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Sigh. I thought we had least gotten to the point where we were no longer arguing that he was trying to say that YOU specifically didn't build THAT (your business). If I could do it over, I'd just save myself some time and post this politifact summary:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ild-truth/
The key quote: "Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.""
Taking that as "Obama is too collectivist for my tastes," fine. But taking it as "Obama personally said I didn't work hard and disrespected me." No.
Regarding entrepreneurs and businessmen: I think Republican entrepreneurs and small businesspeople may think there is some attitude on the left about them, but again, almost all the entrepeneurs and small business people I know, other than my chiropractor, are Dems, ranging from moderates who 20 years ago might have been CoC Republicans to bernie supporters.
As an aside, I find Politifact to be far more "Politi" than "fact" most of the time. I'll read what they have to say, but I'm not taking it at face value, not any more than I take anything from Fox or CNN or BBC or NPR at face value. Everybody has an agenda, sometimes disclosed and sometimes hidden.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone take it to mean, "Obama said I didn't work hard and he disrespected me." I don't think anyone takes it that personally. I think the message, "Obama is too collectivist for my taste," is sufficient to support any and all of the opposition that I've seen and heard, here or elsewhere.
I think the distinction that some of his defenders are trying to make, that, "you didn't build that," means that you didn't build the roads and bridges, not that you didn't build your business, is pretty superficial and neglects the real problem. It's a short trip from, "you didn't build those roads and bridges," to, "you didn't build those roads and bridges, and without them you wouldn't have succeeded," to, "because those roads and bridges made you successful, we're entitled to take away the rewards of that success as your 'fair share,' and we're here to take it from you now." And it's that latter construction that drives the objection. As I've said above, the two counters to that progression seem to be to be 1) the successful entrepreneur pays more taxes than the rest of us, and thus has already paid his "fair share" of the cost of those roads and bridges, and 2) everybody else had use of the same roads and bridges, and they didn't have the same success, so obviously the roads and bridges weren't the primary drivers.
As long as, "you didn't build that," means simply that we are all in this together, I have no problem. But when it morphs into, "you didn't build that, so we're entitled to take away the rewards of your building that and redistribute it to people whose votes we can buy with it," then I have a problem. And it takes nothing more than, "Obama is too collectivist for my tastes," to get me there.
I don't think anyone objects on the personal level that you are suggesting. But there is substantial (and IMO justified) objection to the inevitable financial consequences of collectivism. And that is where the problem with Obama's words lies.
(10-21-2017 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Heck, one of the reasons many on the left support stronger social safety
nets is so that people can take more risks and be more entrepreneurial without having to worry about losing their healthcare, having total financial ruin that puts them into poverty, etc.
Absolutely. I've heard Richard Branson specifically address this point in speaking to a group. That's why I favor a stronger safety net than we have now--universal health care based on the Bismarck model, guaranteed minimum income based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund. Where I differ from democrats and collectivists/socialists/communists is that I would pay for it with across-the-board flatter taxes rather than using a "progressive" tax code as a redistribution channel.
There's a reason why a large number of countries (like basically the rest of OECD) with far less "progressive" tax codes than ours have far less unequal dispersions of income and wealth. And at least part of that reason is that "progressive" tax codes don't work, at least not when there are other options available.