Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

"You didn't build that"


F3SS

Recommended Posts

I respect the office of the presidency. Doesn't mean I have to respect the presidents every word. Obama gets hammered, as a president should when he's trying to fundamentaly transform my country. Bush got hammered way worse. I have yet to see a film, and hope not to, about Obama being assassinated, which was gleefully accepted by liberas abroad. Now that's disrespect.

As for taking things out of context, I don't think so. If you have a business you didn't build that....he meant what he said and said what he meant. Yes, credit was given to society as a whole but it was a condescending businesses suck fair share same old crap speech he always gives. How about one time, just once, he gives businesses credit for all they do pay and all they do provide? Just once. Instead, it's ALWAYS painted in a negative light. I own a business and it p***ess me off. I have opinion. Sue me.

Edited by Is it for real
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So technically, the Batman Massacre guy couldn't have murdered 12 people without Roads.

Don’t forget that Holmes was receiving federal funds at the time for “education”, but most likely used that money to buy weapons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect the office of the presidency. Doesn't mean I have to respect the presidents every word. Obama gets hammered, as a president should when he's trying to fundamentaly transform my country. Bush got hammered way worse. I have yet to see a film, and hope not to, about Obama being assassinated, which was gleefully accepted by liberas abroad. Now that's disrespect.

As for taking things out of context, I don't think so. If you have a business you didn't build that....he meant what he said and said what he meant. Yes, credit was given to society as a whole but it was a condescending businesses suck fair share same old crap speech he always gives. How about one time, just once, he gives businesses credit for all they do pay and all they do provide? Just once. Instead, it's ALWAYS painted in a negative light. I own a business and it p***ess me off. I have opinion. Sue me.

Yep, that's fair. I agree with much of what you say....

However, my bigger point is simply that regardless of which side we lean, we ALL, as a society, need to call out those that go past the threshold of decency.

Obama does deserved to be hammered on policies, unfullfilled promises, and playing the same old games he campaigned to change. Not for something that is taken out of context. He doesn't hate or loathe business owners, he's simply saying that we are all part of a much bigger picture. And funnily enough, as I was typing Obama's new ad just came on and does just that.

I consider myself an independent. I've voted for both parties in the past. Obama's vision of rebuilding the middle class of America happens to jibe with what I feel is the biggest issue in this campaign...so as of right now, I'm leaning towards him. Middle class people certainly contain the lions share of 'self made' business folks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama promises a living wage for everyone that wants to work. This election is pretty simple, social compassion or greedy capitalism.

Social Compassion. that's a pretty easy concept to get behind, when you are the one receiving the $$...ahem..$$ ahem.. compassion.... eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you suppose no businesses are ever started in Somalia?

I'm saying that if you think that a business has no advantage for being based in the United States - then you should look at conditions around the rest of the globe and rethink that conclusion.

I see what you probably mean... Everyone in the US uses the infrastructure. But if someone wants to take credit for the infrastructure, then maybe they should also take credit for all the other various things the infrastructure supports. Maybe someone should give a speech, "All that Porn on the internet? I did that!"

But no-one in Obama's speech is taking credit for the infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Compassion. that's a pretty easy concept to get behind, when you are the one receiving the $$...ahem..$$ ahem.. compassion.... eh?

It's a pretty easy concept to get behind when the alternative is letting people sink further and further into poverty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty easy concept to get behind when the alternative is letting people sink further and further into poverty.

That's just it though, it's not truly "compassion" if it's being paid for by someone else's money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty easy concept to get behind when the alternative is letting people sink further and further into poverty.

No one in this country, outside of a workplace or parental rule, is here to LET anyone do anything. LET implies a chain of command. We should help others first if we can, second if we want to. Never because we HAVE to. I let nobody fall into poverty. I let nobody succeed. It is not within my power to LET or stop anyone from doing anything. Success is your responsibility along with a bit of luck. Failure is your responsibility sometimes do to bad luck. It is no other citizens duty to pick you back up off of your feet. Perhaps though, you could get lucky and run into some generous people personally or through a charity. That type of help is voluntary on the part of the helper. Thats the only type of help that should be expected. Other than that, accept personal responsibility and give credit for it when you see it.

Edited by Is it for real
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just it though, it's not truly "compassion" if it's being paid for by someone else's money.

Who do you think the Government's money belongs to, if not all of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one in this country, outside of a workplace or parental rule, is here to LET anyone do anything. LET implies a chain of command. We should help others first if we can, second if we want to. Never because we HAVE to. I let nobody fall into poverty. I let nobody succeed. It is not within my power to LET or stop anyone from doing anything.

LET implies allowing something to happen whilst having the power and resources to stop it from happening. I personally see the provision of a social safety net as a basic Human Right:

From Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Success is your responsibility along with a bit of luck. Failure is your responsibility sometimes do to bad luck. It is no other citizens duty to pick you back up off of your feet. Perhaps though, you could get lucky and run into some generous people personally or through a charity. That type of help is voluntary on the part of the helper. Thats the only type of help that should be expected. Other than that, accept personal responsibility and give credit for it when you see it.

The idea that it is people's own responsibility as to whether they succeed or fail is overly simplistic.

The vast majority of the poor are heavily handicapped through their position in society and their access to opportunities and a lack of knowledge, employment skills, education and resources. It should be obvious that someone with those initial disadvantages will find it much harder to succeed than someone who comes from a background of privilege and opportunity.

Statistically, that's indeed the case. The larger the gap in income between the richest and poorest in a society, the lower the amount of upward mobility in that society.

In short - in America, the Zip code you're born in shouldn't determine your destiny - but more and more these days, it does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LET implies allowing something to happen whilst having the power and resources to stop it from happening. I personally see the provision of a social safety net as a basic Human Right:

From Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The idea that it is people's own responsibility as to whether they succeed or fail is overly simplistic.

The vast majority of the poor are heavily handicapped through their position in society and their access to opportunities and a lack of knowledge, employment skills, education and resources. It should be obvious that someone with those initial disadvantages will find it much harder to succeed than someone who comes from a background of privilege and opportunity.

Statistically, that's indeed the case. The larger the gap in income between the richest and poorest in a society, the lower the amount of upward mobility in that society.

In short - in America, the Zip code you're born in shouldn't determine your destiny - but more and more these days, it does.

Maybe you should forward that declaration over to the middle east. We don't need that lecture here. Americans are the most generous and helpful on the planet. Besides, I could care less what the united nations thinks. We offer plenty of help to those in need but people should only be helped out and not just given handouts.

The idea that all of society is to be blamed or given credit towards each individuals circumstance is overly general.

We don't have an old age class system in America. Meaning that if you are born poor you are able to achieve greater things. You aren't stuck in the "class" you're born in. You can go up or down. There are no garauntees in life no matter how perfect a society is. That's the way it has, is and will be. If your zip code sucks, then leave. You can do that, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should forward that declaration over to the middle east. We don't need that lecture here.

Well - I'd send it to Iran, but it seems fairly pointless, as they've already ratified the declaration and have social safety nets and Universal Healthcare in place.

Americans are the most generous and helpful on the planet.

Which is obviously why only 23.1 percent of children in the United States are living in poverty.

Besides, I could care less what the united nations thinks.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by American Representatives at the UN and ratified by the members of the United Nations. But feel free to keep telling yourself that the vast majority of the world's opinion on what Human Rights are is largely irrelevant compared to your opinion.

We offer plenty of help to those in need but people should only be helped out and not just given handouts.

Which handouts would those be?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) comes with time limits and work requirements and extremely strict eligibility criteria. Many of those people have jobs which are so poorly paid that they need Government assistance just to survive.

The idea that all of society is to be blamed or given credit towards each individuals circumstance is overly general.

We don't have an old age class system in America. Meaning that if you are born poor you are able to achieve greater things. You aren't stuck in the "class" you're born in. You can go up or down. There are no garauntees in life no matter how perfect a society is. That's the way it has, is and will be. If your zip code sucks, then leave. You can do that, you know?

What I'm telling you is that the American dream of social mobility has been fading as income inequality has been growing. Or let me put it another way:

social-mobility.jpg

Here's some articles on the decline in US social mobility from Time, the Washington Post and the LA Times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triggs, you should know not to bring facts in too a debate. But this is why, I like your post I've given up debate this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

Posting as a Reference. I hope you don't mind Acid?

I'm saying that if you think that a business has no advantage for being based in the United States - then you should look at conditions around the rest of the globe and rethink that conclusion.

But no-one in Obama's speech is taking credit for the infrastructure.

I guess you are right Tiggs. The President was not trying to gather cudos for the government, he was trying to tell people that no one can accomplish anything on their own.

That is chewing at the root of Republican philosophy that if someone works hard enough, individually, they will succeed. But clearly President Obama believes that people cannot succeed without help, usually a lot of help. He does not say, "If you need help, you can ask and recieve", he is saying, "Line up, because you cannot succeed without help.". Pure politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is chewing at the root of Republican philosophy that if someone works hard enough, individually, they will succeed. But clearly President Obama believes that people cannot succeed without help, usually a lot of help. He does not say, "If you need help, you can ask and recieve", he is saying, "Line up, because you cannot succeed without help.". Pure politics.

The fact of the matter is that that is a fallacy, if you don't have a society supporting you the best you can hope to achieve is to gather enough food not to starve. And most will fail miserably at that, even if we consider them successful businesspeople.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm telling you is that the American dream of social mobility has been fading as income inequality has been growing. Or let me put it another way:

social-mobility.jpg

I tend to agree with IIFR (it is for real) on this. Just as personnal opinion anyway. As most people have, I've known many people who are crushingly poor, many who are middle class and a few who are well off. And it does seem to me that Drive does come into the equation. Those who keep going and finish that 4 year degree, even if it takes 10 years, will eventually reach a higher social position and/or job. I've also seen a lot of people "give up" and be happy enough sitting on the couch and watching TV, rather then working to get things moving.

Part of what makes those countries at the high end of the social mobility scale be there is that they have a smaller ladder to climb, and also because their economies do not foster super rich tycoons. So it is not that the average Swede is richer, or better off then a comparable American (except arguably with various social issues, like healthcare), but that since all of them are the same sized fish in a smaller pond, they statistically come out with a better ratio. That is my opinion anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that that is a fallacy, if you don't have a society supporting you the best you can hope to achieve is to gather enough food not to starve. And most will fail miserably at that, even if we consider them successful businesspeople.

But Obama is not saying that the aid is there for the asking, he is saying it is required. Sure most everyone uses social systems and infrastructure, but they have the choice not to. Obama is saying, indirectly, that there is no choice. You use the infrastructure or you Must Fail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Obama is not saying that the aid is there for the asking, he is saying it is required. Sure most everyone uses social systems and infrastructure, but they have the choice not to. Obama is saying, indirectly, that there is no choice. You use the infrastructure or you Must Fail.

Try to build up a successful business without streets, law enforcement, scientific research (where the basics research is and was always paid by the government as it brings no income) and whathaveyou.

Besides that, you are every day using so many services provided by the government without noticing that you would be shocked making a list.

It does not matter how many government services you want to use, you are still doing it unless living in a hut in Alaska or Montana... and I don't know of many successful businesses ran out of one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to build up a successful business without streets, law enforcement, scientific research (where the basics research is and was always paid by the government as it brings no income) and whathaveyou.

Besides that, you are every day using so many services provided by the government without noticing that you would be shocked making a list.

It does not matter how many government services you want to use, you are still doing it unless living in a hut in Alaska or Montana... and I don't know of many successful businesses ran out of one of those.

I still don't think anything other then the various things we take for granted are needed for success. We use the internet, roads, health services, and various other stuff if we work or if we don't. And those would be there if we were alive or dead. So, I don't think that those should be added into the equation on chosing to use "aid" from the government. It is not like you have to go request the gov to use a street, or a street lamp, or breath the air, so why do those need to be added in as aid from the government?

Like I said before, if that is true, then since the Republicans were in charge (US President) most of the last 20 years, then are they responsible for everyone working now and every business that is now running. Shouldn't we then vote Republican, since they are responsible in the majority, over time, of all activities, infrastructure and programs that have fostered Business?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't think anything other then the various things we take for granted are needed for success. We use the internet, roads, health services, and various other stuff if we work or if we don't. And those would be there if we were alive or dead. So, I don't think that those should be added into the equation on chosing to use "aid" from the government. It is not like you have to go request the gov to use a street, or a street lamp, or breath the air, so why do those need to be added in as aid from the government?

Like I said before, if that is true, then since the Republicans were in charge (US President) most of the last 20 years, then are they responsible for everyone working now and every business that is now running. Shouldn't we then vote Republican, since they are responsible in the majority, over time, of all activities, infrastructure and programs that have fostered Business?

In a cabin in Alaska (or Montana for the case) you will not have internet unless the lines are subsidized by the government. No private company will put a line in the wilderness for 2 subscribers. Just as an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with IIFR (it is for real) on this. Just as personnal opinion anyway. As most people have, I've known many people who are crushingly poor, many who are middle class and a few who are well off. And it does seem to me that Drive does come into the equation. Those who keep going and finish that 4 year degree, even if it takes 10 years, will eventually reach a higher social position and/or job. I've also seen a lot of people "give up" and be happy enough sitting on the couch and watching TV, rather then working to get things moving.

I'm not claiming that Social mobility in the United States doesn't exist. Nor am I claiming that success doesn't take drive. I'm claiming that Social mobility from poor to rich is currently lower in the US than pretty much anywhere else in Western civilization.

People are not failing because of lack of drive. People are failing because - for the poorest in American society - the odds of success are heavily stacked against them.

In the 19th Century - the idea of an American Meritocracy was more or less true. In the early 21st - not so much.

Part of what makes those countries at the high end of the social mobility scale be there is that they have a smaller ladder to climb, and also because their economies do not foster super rich tycoons. So it is not that the average Swede is richer, or better off then a comparable American (except arguably with various social issues, like healthcare), but that since all of them are the same sized fish in a smaller pond, they statistically come out with a better ratio. That is my opinion anyway.

I don't have the figures to hand for Sweden and America - but courtesy of the New York Times (and Mother Jones) I do have them for Denmark and America.

blog_mobility_usa_denmark.jpg

As you can see - mobility across the quintiles are actually all pretty much the same - except the very lowest quintile - where you'll notice that if you're born poor - you're much more likely to stay that way in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said before, if that is true, then since the Republicans were in charge (US President) most of the last 20 years, then are they responsible for everyone working now and every business that is now running. Shouldn't we then vote Republican, since they are responsible in the majority, over time, of all activities, infrastructure and programs that have fostered Business?

Last 20 years would be Clinton for 8, Bush for 8 and Obama for the rest...but it's still a terrible argument :P

Truth is that no-one side or the other can take credit for the American infrastructure. It's something that's been built over centuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are not failing because of lack of drive. People are failing because - for the poorest in American society - the odds of success are heavily stacked against them.

I'd say many people are failing by choice. But like Obama said, somebody else made that happen, and there he is right. Yes, you uncle Sam. There are entire communities addicted to handouts. I know there are true cases of hardship out there whom I don't mind helping, but give me one good reason I should be happy to keep giving my money to people in these videos. Some of these videos are of rampant addiction, abuse ad pure laziness. Others are news clips supporting my case. Handouts breed laziness and laziness is apparently highly addicting.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. And if he realllly can't fish, well, I'll see what I can do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.