A lot of conservatives misinterpreted something Obama said as meaning much of what you've said, even though if one reads the entire paragraph, the "that" in his sentence was infrastructure such as the Internet, roads and bridges.
No one questions that other people built roads etc. (Govt didn't provide the resources - it only collected them.)
The only way that Obama's comment is not a non sequitur is if he meant more than that, that people who "built" were treated differently than the people who didn't wrt those resources.
I get that you think that Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt, but don't other people get that same benefit?
For example, one of the most common sentiments expressed to people trying to concieve is "you've got to keep a positive mental outlook", the implication being that a negative mental outlook reduces the odds of conception. I have no idea whether or not mental outlook has that effect but we're damning a US senate candidate who said that it did.
I don't think that was quite what he said, if you are referring to Tod Akin.
> I don't think that was quite what he said, if you are referring to Tod Akin.
Actually, it was. He said that women who were raped were less likely to concieve. He didn't specify the mechanism, but mental state is the only plausible candidate.
Like I said, a huge fraction of the population believes that mental state affects conception. Moreover, I'll bet that I can find at least one law protecting women that was enacted based, at least partly, on that theory.
Or, do you want to argue that how he said it matters?
Or, do you want to argue that the mental distress associated with rape has different effects than other mental distress?
It was a monumentally stupid thing to say, but not because of the scientific truth or lack thereof.
And, if a Democrat had said it, it wouldn't have been an issue and you'd have defended said Democrat. See, for example, the near-daily gaffes of VP Biden. Or, Obama's "you didn't build that".
They'll tell you your successful because you got lucky somehow (lottery of an idea, picked for a promotion, right place right time, etc). It wasn't because of something you did.
Likewise, their situation is usually because of external forces as well. Their boss doesn't like them, they didn't get hired for that good job because of X, they couldn't go to/finish/get good grades in school because of Y.
It's really kind of sad to see in person.
First of all, infrastructure is not built for a particular business or businesses. It's was built --with a HUGE emphasis on "was"-- because it was identified as a necessity for progress and other factors. Most roads in the US were built decades ago. The project started in 1956. It's interesting to read the "Financing" section on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
This and the railroads were not built for any particular business but rather for reasons spanning from national defense to, yes, economic growth. The system was paid for and is being paid for by everyone in some form or another and everyone benefits from this.
Obama's statement, to paraphrase, went something like: "If you have a business...and are successful...you didn't build that". Some argue, probably correctly, that he was referring to infrastructure rather than the business itself.
In isolation that might be the case. But there was more. He also said a few things to the tune of, again, paraphrasing: "if you are successful...it isn't because you work hard or you are smart...lots of people are smart and work hard". And, right after that, he wen't into the "you didn't build that" paragraph. The implication is that your success is due to, in large part, to government.
I would argue that unscripted comments like this one tend to reveal how someone thinks. And the not-surprising revelation in this case is that Obama has deep socialists beliefs. How else would you even consider the idea of equating the success of any business TODAY with the construction of infrastructure DECADES AGO? You have to construct a certain model of reality before you'd even utter such words. Someone like myself, an entrepreneur through and through, would never, ever, even consider saying something like that. Government has never been the source of my success or failure.
His statement is like arguing that a fellow launching a web development business today owes his success to government because the desk he bought was shipped via railroad and the highway system. That statement would be deemed ridiculous to a ten year old, much less intelligent adults.
Yes, infrastructure benefits everyone. Millions of people use (and pay for it) every day to conduct their lives. Not one person owes their success to infrastructure alone. Once in place it is deemed a given. Infrastructure was a natural side effect of the exploration and expansion that took place in this continent. Today, there's far more that goes into becoming successful in life privately and in business than the pre-existing infrastructure.
There's a reverse side to this argument. If government is the source of my and your success because it built infrastructure (that we paid for). Then, they ought to also be responsible for my and your failures. You can't have it both ways. The infrastructure in Los Angeles, as an example, is in a dire state of disrepair. Just drive on the 405 or 5 Freeways --to name a couple-- and you'll know what I mean. I have not seen government make a concerted effort to really maintain and repair these roads in probably twenty years. I used to drive sports cars with stiff suspensions. Your bones would rattle when going over these roads. In sharp contrast to this, the last time I was in Munich, the Autobahn felt as smooth as a billiards table.
So, if government is responsible for your an my success then it is also responsible for your and my failures. I don't mean this seriously. It's a ridiculous argument, of course. Just as dumb and ridiculous as Obama's claim that businesses owe their success to "the collective".
If you built a country, and were successful, you didn't build that! It was the Spanish with their ships and all of their national infrastructure that enabled you to be able to have a successful country and, yes, enabled that guy today to open a taco stand and experience success. Ridiculous.
The fellow you mention launching a web development business today may not owe his success to government because his desk was shipped using infrastructure, but he does owe his success (in part) to the research investment that created ARPAnet.
Also, if you're hiring for a technology business, you're relying on the network of universities across the country to produce competent graduates. You also depend on taxes you pay for police, fire department, and the military to maintain a rule of law that enables your business to exist.
If you travelled in time back to the 1500's you would use whatever infrastructure in place wherever you land. It isn't any different today.
The government didn't create the Internet as we know it today. Yes ARPAnet was the genesis of what eventually became the modern Internet. Private entrepreneurs investing massively in both time and money carved out the the modern Internet.
The modern Internet would have happened without ARPAnet. Services such as Compuserve and a myriad of BBS's were already carving out that space. France had an Internet-like system before the Internet. As things happened the modern Internet evolved from ARPAnet, but I do not, for one second, subscribe to the idea that we owe the modern Internet to the US government. And much less so that the aforementioned web designer has anything to thank the US government for.
We elect officials to run the country, uphold laws and provide agreed-upon services. And we all pay for the cost of those services (dearly, I might add). Everyone benefits from this. That businesses spring up and use the available infrastructure is only natural. To propose that businesses somehow owe government for the existing infrastructure is preposterous. Part of the political game is, of course, to pander to the unions, which are very receptive to these kinds of messages.
Does Apple owe its success to the Chinese government for putting into place the infrastructure that allowed them to bring the iPhone to market? I don't think so. Apple used the best infrastructure it could find in order to meet their goals. If the Chinese didn't have it they would have gone elsewhere.
Do we, then, also blame the US government for not building the infrastructure necessary to compete with China and keep millions of jobs in the US? Of course not. But you can't play it both ways. If the government is the source of our success and achievements then they also get to own our monumental failures. Examples of this abound: The destruction of the light aircraft industry due to regulations and litigation; the destruction of the automobile industry due to unions; the destruction of our financial well-being as a nation due to over-spending, unnecessary wars, government unions, ridiculous pensions, entitlement programs and, in general crappy partisan thinking on all sides.
As degenerate and incompetent as our government has become I fail to see how anyone can think that they can be or are the source of anyone's success unless you work for a union. Today I heard on the radio that sa government worker is retiring with a pay of $301,000 pension FOR LIFE. Yes, that guy owes his success to government as I can almost guarantee you that he did nothing to have earned or deserved that pay.
I just looked up the speech as well. The 'that' would seem to be referring to the 'somebody' who built infrastructure. You could read it the other way I suppose, but only if you thought it was a separate statement meant to stand apart from the rest of the paragraph that is enclosing it, which wouldn't make much sense.
His actual, broader point is that you can't take credit for building a business or claim to own it or deserve its profits, because you built upon a foundation of capital, infrastructure, and knowledge that was there before you.
This is a common viewpoint on the egalitarian Left, where Obama has his roots, and which he clearly still represents.
To interpret his comment any other way than I did, is to ignore the broader ideological context.
But even not ignoring that ideological context, it's a huge stretch to claim that he meant "those" when he said "that," or to claim that he meant something else, other than what he said.
Lots of people in the media have been outright dishonest about this (John Stewart comes to mind - he had a pretty ridiculous segment on this).
