(10-19-2017 08:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 08:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At best he's saying, "you couldn't have done it without those roads and bridges" (which of course your taxes paid for).

It's not "at best," it's exactly his point.

What I'm not clear on, is why you find that so objectionable. Do you object to the government building roads and bridges? Fire departments? I'm asking an honest question.

From my perspective and the perspective of many in the center and left it seems the Republicans have gotten to a point where they have an issue with basic "public good" type infrastructure and services. When is it evil collectivism and when is it justifiable? Was Eisenhower's interstate highway system acceptable? The GI bill?

It's understandable that people on the left and right have different ideas of where the line on what's necessary is drawn but you seem to have declared a point where it's not just a difference of degree but of kind. That's what I'm trying (and failing) to get my head around.

It is not objectionable to build and maintain infrastructure. The tone and tenor of the passage is one that I paraphrased in an earlier post.

Quote:What Obama said was "Since the infrastructure was already built, you didnt fully build your business by yourself, you mfing greedy bastards. Give me more of what is collectively *our* rent from your risk for that infrastructure to spread around to those who did not help in any way, shape, or form."

That context is quite clear. The fine art of community organizer slut-shaming.

And that constant redistribution message is crystal clear throughout modern progressivism and liberalism.

If you think that 'all taxes' go to building bridges and infrastructure, by all means you interpretation above might be correct. But you run the risk of glossing over the main use of the tax code by progressives as a redistribution mechanism. And that, sir, is the reason why this conversation is taking place (the roots being the overarching and highly focused collectivist nature and bent of modern liberals and progressives)

I highly doubt that conservatives have a problem with basic infrastructure spending. That basic services and maintenance is a highly efficient means of addressing large scale issues. Schools, roads, etc. very much fit the role of a minimal impact government program that actually helps large scale (and small scale) capital formation and operation.

Defense, police, and fire are all community wide 'helps' and make a great deal of sense being borne by large segments of the populace who are able to bear the cost (i.e. the people who 'didnt build it')

But the liberal and progressive messaging on a lot of other issues is simply raising class animus (which I know they would *never* do). Think about it. Every message on taxation from the left is "the evil mfers need to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".

At what point do the 55 per cent of people who pay Federal income tax PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE relative the 45 per cent of people who pay nothing in Federal income tax?

The problem might be in messaging, but Obama's screed on 'you didnt build that' simply (in many respects) hits that button square on especially with the vast overriding principle in liberal and progressive philosophy that taxes really should not implemented for actual government spending, but simply as: a) an animus-whip in order to stir a political divide that benefits them; and b) a means for the simple goal of redistribution.

So the underlying implication that the liberal policies for taxation are 'simply for capital improvements, dog catchers, defense, and infrastructure' really are not taken very seriously given the messaging that the liberals bombard with the redistribution, emotive tie in.