CSNbbs

(10-19-2017 06:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Could you link to those personal tax stats? I was under the impression that, even when controlling taxes paid to income we were still relatively low compared to most other industrialized nations.
Speaking from personal experience, all of the expats my fiancé knows in the Netherlands all y’all about how they pay a lot more in taxes in the Netherlands, but their cost of goods, healthcare, etc are all much cheaper, so it evens out.

Here is my source;
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/growingunequ...ntries.htm

It's behind a firewall and very pricey, unless you have access to a university library with a subscription (I do).

Here are some summary data pulled from that source. Since I don’t know how to do tables on here, the data are presented by country as follows:

First three data columns compare concentration of household taxes and market income
First number is Gini coefficient for household taxes
Second number is Gini coefficient for household income
Third number is ratio of coefficients (higher means higher taxes relative to income)
Latter three numbers are percent share of richest decile
Fourth number is share of taxes
Fifth number is share of income
Sixth number is ratio (again, higher number means higher taxes relative to income)

Australia 0.53 0.46 1.16 36.8 28.6 1.29
Canada 0.49 0.44 1.13 35.8 29.3 1.22
France 0.37 0.48 0.77 28.0 25.5 1.10
Germany 0.47 0.51 0.92 31.2 29.2 1.07
Italy 0.55 0.56 0.98 42.2 35.8 1.18
Japan 0.38 0.44 0.85 28.5 28.1 1.01
Sweden 0.34 0.43 0.78 26.7 26.6 1.00
Switzerland 0.22 0.35 0.63 20.9 23.5 0.89
UK 0.53 0.46 1.16 38.6 32.3 1.20
US 0.59 0.46 1.28 45.1 33.5 1.35
OECD Average 0.43 0.45 0.96 31.6 28.4 1.11

Bottom line, US has the highest percentages for both, and substantially higher than OECD average for both.

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

1. What lurch? Specifically what "basic services" do you see on the defensive? Or "basic infrastructure"?
2. The point at which he says "you didnt build that" is one of two things. One is a falsity. The "you didnt build that" is a strong misdirection (a falsity) because in a strict review of the federal tax income that "buil[t] that", the people who are the object of his 'teaching' actually probably did "build that", since the vast majority of income tax revenues came from the evil greedy capitalist mfers that he is supposedly 'teaching to'. Bummer about that fact.
So why else state that?
Yeah, has *nothing* to do with constant chorus of "pay your fair share" scolding that is so incessant from the liberal camp. Nothing at all. He just laid a whopper of msidirection for ***** and giggles I guess....

Exactly. Unless the statement is some kind of dog whistle calling for a collectivist/socialist/communist massive redistribution scheme, what is the point of making the statement?

Well, being that Congress wouldn’t pass an infrastructures plan underneath Obama (even one that wasn’t deficit neutral https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefiscal...-GOP%3Famp) it makes sense that Obama might feel the need to remind Republican voters that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects. And being that out countries infrastructure is getting rather old, and it is constantly sh*t on by ASCE, we need to find a way to fund massive repair and expansion projects soon.

If Reps had assisted Obama on passing infrastructure spending, then I would agree that hey actually care about government being responsible for that. That’s why I hope Trump actually puts together a coherent infrastructure plan - now that Republicans wouldn’t have to give Dems support, we could actually see something get done.

Yes. Thank you.

(10-20-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. The point at which he says "you didnt build that" is one of two things. One is a falsity. The "you didnt build that" is a strong misdirection (a falsity) because in a strict review of the federal tax income that "buil[t] that", the people who are the object of his 'teaching' actually probably did "build that", since the vast majority of income tax revenues came from the evil greedy capitalist mfers that he is supposedly 'teaching to'. Bummer about that fact.

So why else state that?

(10-19-2017 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]My objection is why even raise the point? He's very clearly trying to send the message that those successful people didn't do it, the government did, and therefore the government is entitled to take it all away from them and redistribute it as they see fit.

Don't go playing dumb like you don't see that. It's really not very becoming.

Becoming or not, I don't see that. (The bolded line.) I see:

Successful people are able to do it, in part because government provides necessary conditions such as infrastructure, or core R&D as with the internet, and therefore it's important that we reinvest some of that. Or something like that. I'm not a speechwriter. Obama also talks about teachers and the education system as things the government provides.

Anyway, I will note that of the 2-3 friends I have who are genuinely 'rich' they all totally agreed with Obama on this point. Same with all the MBAs I know. (Except for my Republican brother.) Maybe it has something to do with most of them being in tech. Don't know. But they are all "makers" not "takers" in Romneyspeak.

I think I'm officially done on this subpoint for now. Still need to get back to the snaggly tooth pointy white hat stuff.

(10-19-2017 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the Frieman discussion I referenced above:

Thanks. I appreciate the substantive answer.

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, being that Congress wouldn’t pass an infrastructures plan underneath Obama (even one that wasn’t deficit neutral https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefiscal...-GOP%3Famp) it makes sense that Obama might feel the need to remind Republican voters that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects. And being that out countries infrastructure is getting rather old, and it is constantly sh*t on by ASCE, we need to find a way to fund massive repair and expansion projects soon.
If Reps had assisted Obama on passing infrastructure spending, then I would agree that hey actually care about government being responsible for that. That’s why I hope Trump actually puts together a coherent infrastructure plan - now that Republicans wouldn’t have to give Dems support, we could actually see something get done.

Naming bridges and post offices after congress critters who have outlived their usefulness on the hill is not meaningful infrastructure improvement. We desperately need better infrastructure in multiple ways. But pork barrel politics is not the way to get there. I would privatize (or at least semi-privatize, like in Europe) things like the Interstate Highway System (national toll road system), TVA and the western water and power authorities, Amtrak (really privatize), Air Traffic Control, and other infrastructure activities, to be supported by user fees, so that decisions would be made based upon economics rather than pork barrel politics.

As for Obama's comment, if you think all that he was talking about was infrastructure spending, then bless your little heart. "You didn't build that," as a sound byte, is very hard to differentiate from, "You don't deserve that, so we need to take it away from you." And yes, I think he intended that to be the sound byte.

Again, interpreting that as a call for infrastructure spending strikes me as very odd on several fronts. One, that business has probably already paid its fair share, and more, of the cost of those roads and bridges and other infrastructure. Two, all that infrastructure was there for everyone to use; if it's the infrastructure that is the driver, then why isn't everyone rich?

To me, it's nothing short of a rallying cry for a collectivist/socialist/communist redistribution agenda. I can't see it the way you claim to, and you probably can't see it the way I do.

(10-20-2017 01:25 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Becoming or not, I don't see that. (The bolded line.) I see:
Successful people are able to do it, in part because government provides necessary conditions such as infrastructure, or core R&D as with the internet, and therefore it's important that we reinvest some of that. Or something like that. I'm not a speechwriter. Obama also talks about teachers and the education system as things the government provides.

Well, we just don't see it the same way and I doubt that we will.

Quote:Anyway, I will note that of the 2-3 friends I have who are genuinely 'rich' they all totally agreed with Obama on this point. Same with all the MBAs I know. (Except for my Republican brother.) Maybe it has something to do with most of them being in tech. Don't know. But they are all "makers" not "takers" in Romneyspeak.

They agreed with Obama in what way? If you mean they agreed with the spin you put on it, then I have no doubt. Hell, I agree with the spin you put on it. That's just not what that statement says to me.

At the end of the day, I'm just extremely uncomfortable with collectivism in any of its forms--socialism, communism, or fascism--and for that reason I am probably put more on notice by comments that hint at a collectivist approach than you are. That's probably not going to change about either of us.

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects.

I think this statement is debatable. If fact, I think the government is rarely an efficient entity at all, but for projects that can structured into a for-profit arrangement, they probably are not.

Logically, if they were the most efficient entity for getting things done, wouldn't it make sense for them to control all the means of production of everything? Let's ask a Soviet.

(10-20-2017 03:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects.

I think this statement is debatable. If fact, I think the government is rarely an efficient entity at all, but for projects that can structured into a for-profit arrangement, they probably are not.

Logically, if they were the most efficient entity for getting things done, wouldn't it make sense for them to control all the means of production of everything? Let's ask a Soviet.

So bring the most efficient entity for executing large scale infrastructure projects now means that they must be the most efficient entity to execute everything? I’m not buying that.

And when I say efficient, I mean more than just speed of execution. The benefit (and potential downside) of the government executing large scale projects, or projects like some R&D where ROIs are not guaranteed, is that’s there are no shareholders that they need to derive profit from and they have a lot of capital readily available. Our public highway system, our space program, the technology derived from our military technology all exemplify the benefits that can be gleaned when public funds are utilized correctly.

But please don’t twist my defense of government and government investment as an endorsement that government is always the answer to everything - into isn’t. A healthy mix of public and private efforts is ideal. And I generally think that public effort should go towards supporting and pushing along those private efforts.

(10-20-2017 03:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects.

I think this statement is debatable. If fact, I think the government is rarely an efficient entity at all, but for projects that can structured into a for-profit arrangement, they probably are not.

Logically, if they were the most efficient entity for getting things done, wouldn't it make sense for them to control all the means of production of everything? Let's ask a Soviet.

I want to respond in a separate response to show you how easily your logic falls apart. I mentioned one specific instance where government was most efficient, IMO. You took that one instance and then applied it to all means of production.

That is literally like siggesting that since a tax lawyer is the best lawyer to deal with legal tax issues, they should also represent a person convicted of murder in a courtroom. Or since a mechanical engineer who specializes in car engineers is the best person to design car engines, they should also be responsible for designing motorcycle engines.

(10-20-2017 01:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, being that Congress wouldn’t pass an infrastructures plan underneath Obama (even one that wasn’t deficit neutral https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefiscal...-GOP%3Famp) it makes sense that Obama might feel the need to remind Republican voters that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects. And being that out countries infrastructure is getting rather old, and it is constantly sh*t on by ASCE, we need to find a way to fund massive repair and expansion projects soon.
If Reps had assisted Obama on passing infrastructure spending, then I would agree that hey actually care about government being responsible for that. That’s why I hope Trump actually puts together a coherent infrastructure plan - now that Republicans wouldn’t have to give Dems support, we could actually see something get done.

Naming bridges and post offices after congress critters who have outlived their usefulness on the hill is not meaningful infrastructure improvement. We desperately need better infrastructure in multiple ways. But pork barrel politics is not the way to get there. I would privatize (or at least semi-privatize, like in Europe) things like the Interstate Highway System (national toll road system), TVA and the western water and power authorities, Amtrak (really privatize), Air Traffic Control, and other infrastructure activities, to be supported by user fees, so that decisions would be made based upon economics rather than pork barrel politics.

As for Obama's comment, if you think all that he was talking about was infrastructure spending, then bless your little heart. "You didn't build that," as a sound byte, is very hard to differentiate from, "You don't deserve that, so we need to take it away from you." And yes, I think he intended that to be the sound byte.

Again, interpreting that as a call for infrastructure spending strikes me as very odd on several fronts. One, that business has probably already paid its fair share, and more, of the cost of those roads and bridges and other infrastructure. Two, all that infrastructure was there for everyone to use; if it's the infrastructure that is the driver, then why isn't everyone rich?

To me, it's nothing short of a rallying cry for a collectivist/socialist/communist redistribution agenda. I can't see it the way you claim to, and you probably can't see it the way I do.

For new highway infrastructure, I think user fees may make sense because we already did a great job creating a highway system that spans the country, but even still, I'm not a huge fan of relying on them to connect our growing population centers. The risk with going just on user fees is that you then only connect areas with high population densities and you have the potential to under serve or completely neglect rural areas that can't support the construction of new infrastructure. And I think user fees are bad for existing infrastructure for the same reason.

A place like Houston would have no problem surviving off of infrastructure paid for by user fees. But when you start getting outside of Houston, to the farms that provide goods to Houston, it becomes problematic. So OK, the farmer could then increase their prices so that they can afford to pay the usage fees for their roadways that would likely be considerably higher than people in Houston. But what happens if he has a bad harvest and his income stream is severely restricted, and then his only means of transportation for the goods he has is the long-winding rural roads, that I assume are paid for by taxes and also aren't user-fee based, because if they happen to be user-fee based, there's a chance that he can't even leave his home.

And you are right that Obama was talking about a collectivist agenda, but I don't buy the redistribution part of it. In his speech speech he focused on the idea that when the country unites and works as a collective, we produce better results than if we work as single individuals. He also described many things we have collectively done as a country over the years that have been greater than the sum of the parts. So his comment about how individuals relied on the work of others, even if they didn't realize it, fits in that narrative, not in a redistribution one. Just read the words for yourself.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-did...-unedited/

Obama said, "You'd didn't build that."

We take it to mean, "You don't deserve that."

You take it to mean, "We need to build more roads and bridges."

One of those sounds a whole lot more like what he actually said than the other one does.

(10-20-2017 05:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama said, "You'd didn't build that."

We take it to mean, "You don't deserve that."

You take it to mean, "We need to build more roads and bridges."

One of those sounds a whole lot more like what he actually said than the other one does.

Not at all.

In that one, literal instant he was referencing roads and bridges. So yes, I believe when he said "that" he was referencing the construction of infrastructure.

If you want my inference of what he was talking about, which is what you just gave about yours, it's in my previous response.

(10-20-2017 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 03:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects.

I think this statement is debatable. If fact, I think the government is rarely an efficient entity at all, but for projects that can structured into a for-profit arrangement, they probably are not.

Logically, if they were the most efficient entity for getting things done, wouldn't it make sense for them to control all the means of production of everything? Let's ask a Soviet.

I want to respond in a separate response to show you how easily your logic falls apart. I mentioned one specific instance where government was most efficient, IMO. You took that one instance and then applied it to all means of production.

That is literally like siggesting that since a tax lawyer is the best lawyer to deal with legal tax issues, they should also represent a person convicted of murder in a courtroom. Or since a mechanical engineer who specializes in car engineers is the best person to design car engines, they should also be responsible for designing motorcycle engines.

The government may be the best at building an entire Interstate system, because of the vast scope of it. But the best at building this bridge or that stretch of highway would be private enterprise. I presumed we were talking about bridges.

The best is minimal government control. The best is maximal private enterprise.

A lot on the left think exactly the opposite.

It is but a short leap from the government is the best at big things to they are best at all things. That is the distance between the left in the USA and the old Soviet Union. We edge ever closer to that. I pull to slow that down. The left pulls back.

(10-20-2017 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama said, "You'd didn't build that."
We take it to mean, "You don't deserve that."
You take it to mean, "We need to build more roads and bridges."
One of those sounds a whole lot more like what he actually said than the other one does.

Not at all.
In that one, literal instant he was referencing roads and bridges. So yes, I believe when he said "that" he was referencing the construction of infrastructure.
If you want my inference of what he was talking about, which is what you just gave about yours, it's in my previous response.

If you are going on context, then he was also talking about teachers and mentors and a bunch of other things. So I'm not quite sure why the focus on roads and bridges.

We've batted this back and forth enough that it's pretty clear I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I can see how someone who favors Obama could parse it your way, and I would hope that you can see how someone who hates collectivism could parse it the way that Tanq and OO and I do.

Yes, I disliked Obama, intensely. Even more than I dislike Trump or Hillary. But it's not because of race or any of the other straw men that get bandied about whenever someone expresses an opinion contrary to Obama's. It's because his political philosophy, as expressed here and in other utterances, comes across to me as intensely collectivist and redistributionist, and I reject that philosophy categorically. Not because I hate the poor, but because I don't hate the wealthy. And I reject robbing from either to buy the votes of the other.

(10-20-2017 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For new highway infrastructure, I think user fees may make sense because we already did a great job creating a highway system that spans the country, but even still, I'm not a huge fan of relying on them to connect our growing population centers. The risk with going just on user fees is that you then only connect areas with high population densities and you have the potential to under serve or completely neglect rural areas that can't support the construction of new infrastructure. And I think user fees are bad for existing infrastructure for the same reason.
A place like Houston would have no problem surviving off of infrastructure paid for by user fees. But when you start getting outside of Houston, to the farms that provide goods to Houston, it becomes problematic. So OK, the farmer could then increase their prices so that they can afford to pay the usage fees for their roadways that would likely be considerably higher than people in Houston. But what happens if he has a bad harvest and his income stream is severely restricted, and then his only means of transportation for the goods he has is the long-winding rural roads, that I assume are paid for by taxes and also aren't user-fee based, because if they happen to be user-fee based, there's a chance that he can't even leave his home.
And you are right that Obama was talking about a collectivist agenda, but I don't buy the redistribution part of it. In his speech speech he focused on the idea that when the country unites and works as a collective, we produce better results than if we work as single individuals. He also described many things we have collectively done as a country over the years that have been greater than the sum of the parts. So his comment about how individuals relied on the work of others, even if they didn't realize it, fits in that narrative, not in a redistribution one. Just read the words for yourself.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-did...-unedited/

I've read the words many times. They come across as nothing but a collectivist screed. They don't to you. Neither of us is likely to change.

And where did I say farm-to-market roads should be based on user fees. Perhaps you should read my post as closely as I have read your link.

(10-20-2017 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 03:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects.

I think this statement is debatable. If fact, I think the government is rarely an efficient entity at all, but for projects that can structured into a for-profit arrangement, they probably are not.

Logically, if they were the most efficient entity for getting things done, wouldn't it make sense for them to control all the means of production of everything? Let's ask a Soviet.

I want to respond in a separate response to show you how easily your logic falls apart. I mentioned one specific instance where government was most efficient, IMO. You took that one instance and then applied it to all means of production.

That is literally like siggesting that since a tax lawyer is the best lawyer to deal with legal tax issues, they should also represent a person convicted of murder in a courtroom. Or since a mechanical engineer who specializes in car engineers is the best person to design car engines, they should also be responsible for designing motorcycle engines.

The government may be the best at building an entire Interstate system, because of the vast scope of it. But the best at building this bridge or that stretch of highway would be private enterprise. I presumed we were talking about bridges.

The best is minimal government control. The best is maximal private enterprise.

A lot on the left think exactly the opposite.

It is but a short leap from the government is the best at big things to they are best at all things. That is the distance between the left in the USA and the old Soviet Union. We edge ever closer to that. I pull to slow that down. The left pulls back.

First, I specifically said "large-scale" infrastructure projects. A single bridge is not large scale. And even if it were (like say the golden gate bridge), the government generally awards contracts to private firms to do the design and execute the project. But the government drives the boat. So what you have, in an ideal world, is a private enterprise trying to work efficiently and effectively to maximize the profit on their contract from a public employer who can take on the cost of constructing something that benefits the public good, without consideration of an ROI.

And to the last paragraph, just wow. How is it a short leap from thinking that the federal government is good at one thing to all things? Unless someone is one of the densest imbeciles you have met, there's no way that they would make a logical leap quickly that the government effectively doing one thing means that the government should control all industry. I think the percentage of those on the left who thing the government should seize the means of production is about as equal to the percentage of those on the right who think that we should live with no federal government, just state governments.

I wish language like your last paragraph would stop on both sides. It just leads to unnecessary squabbling and the widening of the chasm between the right and left. Because if you get attacked for suggesting the government has a role to play in public life, then there isn't much room for compromise.

(10-20-2017 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For new highway infrastructure, I think user fees may make sense because we already did a great job creating a highway system that spans the country, but even still, I'm not a huge fan of relying on them to connect our growing population centers. The risk with going just on user fees is that you then only connect areas with high population densities and you have the potential to under serve or completely neglect rural areas that can't support the construction of new infrastructure. And I think user fees are bad for existing infrastructure for the same reason.
A place like Houston would have no problem surviving off of infrastructure paid for by user fees. But when you start getting outside of Houston, to the farms that provide goods to Houston, it becomes problematic. So OK, the farmer could then increase their prices so that they can afford to pay the usage fees for their roadways that would likely be considerably higher than people in Houston. But what happens if he has a bad harvest and his income stream is severely restricted, and then his only means of transportation for the goods he has is the long-winding rural roads, that I assume are paid for by taxes and also aren't user-fee based, because if they happen to be user-fee based, there's a chance that he can't even leave his home.
And you are right that Obama was talking about a collectivist agenda, but I don't buy the redistribution part of it. In his speech speech he focused on the idea that when the country unites and works as a collective, we produce better results than if we work as single individuals. He also described many things we have collectively done as a country over the years that have been greater than the sum of the parts. So his comment about how individuals relied on the work of others, even if they didn't realize it, fits in that narrative, not in a redistribution one. Just read the words for yourself.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-did...-unedited/

I've read the words many times. They come across as nothing but a collectivist screed. They don't to you. Neither of us is likely to change.

And where did I say farm-to-market roads should be based on user fees. Perhaps you should read my post as closely as I have read your link.

I agree it is a collectivist screed - just not that it suggests anything about redistribution. You're creating that argument from your opinion about Obama, not about what he said.

And I didn't suggest you said farm-to-markets should be based on user fees. Please re-read my bolded sentence. I literally assumed that you didn't think they would be a fee-based road and that they would be paid for by taxes.

(10-20-2017 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama said, "You'd didn't build that."
We take it to mean, "You don't deserve that."
You take it to mean, "We need to build more roads and bridges."
One of those sounds a whole lot more like what he actually said than the other one does.

Not at all.
In that one, literal instant he was referencing roads and bridges. So yes, I believe when he said "that" he was referencing the construction of infrastructure.
If you want my inference of what he was talking about, which is what you just gave about yours, it's in my previous response.

If you are going on context, then he was also talking about teachers and mentors and a bunch of other things. So I'm not quite sure why the focus on roads and bridges.

We've batted this back and forth enough that it's pretty clear I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I can see how someone who favors Obama could parse it your way, and I would hope that you can see how someone who hates collectivism could parse it the way that Tanq and OO and I do.

Yes, I disliked Obama, intensely. Even more than I dislike Trump or Hillary. But it's not because of race or any of the other straw men that get bandied about whenever someone expresses an opinion contrary to Obama's. It's because his political philosophy, as expressed here and in other utterances, comes across to me as intensely collectivist and redistributionist, and I reject that philosophy categorically. Not because I hate the poor, but because I don't hate the wealthy. And I reject robbing from either to buy the votes of the other.

The focus on infrastructure was because we were debating the word "that!!!!!!!!"

(10-20-2017 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2017 05:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama said, "You'd didn't build that."
We take it to mean, "You don't deserve that."
You take it to mean, "We need to build more roads and bridges."
One of those sounds a whole lot more like what he actually said than the other one does.

Not at all.
In that one, literal instant he was referencing roads and bridges. So yes, I believe when he said "that" he was referencing the construction of infrastructure.
If you want my inference of what he was talking about, which is what you just gave about yours, it's in my previous response.

If you are going on context, then he was also talking about teachers and mentors and a bunch of other things. So I'm not quite sure why the focus on roads and bridges.

We've batted this back and forth enough that it's pretty clear I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I can see how someone who favors Obama could parse it your way, and I would hope that you can see how someone who hates collectivism could parse it the way that Tanq and OO and I do.

Yes, I disliked Obama, intensely. Even more than I dislike Trump or Hillary. But it's not because of race or any of the other straw men that get bandied about whenever someone expresses an opinion contrary to Obama's. It's because his political philosophy, as expressed here and in other utterances, comes across to me as intensely collectivist and redistributionist, and I reject that philosophy categorically. Not because I hate the poor, but because I don't hate the wealthy. And I reject robbing from either to buy the votes of the other.

The focus on infrastructure was because we were debating the word "that!!!!!!!!"

I understand. But if you are going to rely on context for the meaning of that, then that could mean any of a number of things. Or it could have the most straightforward meaning, which is to refer to an antecedent in the same sentence.

As I say, at this point, no matter how we parse it, it's pretty clear I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. Obama was a master at crafting expressions to be easily weaseled out of.

It's a short leap from, "You didn't build that," to, "You don't deserve that." That's exactly where I think Obama is going with this. You don't.

Words mean things. That's what those words mean to me. And Obama chose to use those words. Maybe it was one of his off-teleprompter moments. Those are usually the most honest ones for most politicians.

I am not saying government should do nothing. My post #2034 this thread (wow, we've had that many) quotes Milton Friedman outlining a very robust government with which I would agree.

(10-20-2017 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree it is a collectivist screed - just not that it suggests anything about redistribution.

Collectivist turns into redistributivist when the vast majority of people whom pay for an item are lectured (in terms of the particular speech, 'chastised' is also a fair description) about how they need to give more.

When one portion foots almost the entire bill (for almost everything, I might add) and that group as a whole is 'lectured' (chastised) that they need to contribute more ("You didn't build that") --- yep, the collectivist message is exactly equivalent to the redistributionist message at pretty much that point.

The 'collectivist' message would be "We all need to do this, we all need to pitch in." The message in the Obama speech was tuned to isolate the evil profit takers and that they need to do more, and *only* they need to do more. And in line with the "professor's" fun form of 'lecture the bad boys' style that he is so adept at. Community organizer-in-chief on full display.

But I guess all you have to invoke the idea 'for the common good' (actually in play for the Obama speech) (or 'pay their fair share' (not in the speech)) and everything is hunky-dory in progressive world.... Got it.