Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

He may very well have mentioned that later, but the subject of the debate was, specifically, the import of the quoted passage.The quoted passage out of context is being misconstrued, purposefully I'd argue. I refuse to argue a mis-represented quote out of context from the position that it is not mis-quoted and in context. I'll instead put it in context and argue the merits of the actual point of the quote.I do not believe that I have displayed any inconsistency. I should like to know to which of my statements you refer.It seems the beginning is an argument that a problem with the quote is that there is no specific policy being debated. It seems the end is an argument that the problem with the quote is the specific policy it is referring to. If the problem is lack of policy, the problem cannot also be the policy it is addressing.I am not one of these conservatives, and it is fallacious to suppose that, in rejecting Mr. Obama's sentiments, I am implicitly endorsing theirs. Now, is the issue at hand the welfare of the poor, the distribution of wealth and the merit of a particular tax measure; or the deficit? I neither mentioned nor alluded to the deficit in either of my arguments. So, is this money to be used in providing these fabled food stamps, or will it merely service American national debt?It is not an either/or argument. (And food stamps aren't a fable, they're a real thing ._. anyway) there is a jobs plan, it includes teachers, infrastructure etc. That is where part of the budget is proposed to go. To meet budget demands conservatives have proposed cuts to things like food stamps. Part of the total budget would help avoid these cuts. Etc. The increased taxes would of course become part of the total budget.I never said you eluded to the deficit either. I stated to you that the deficit is used as a reason to cut programs. If the deficit is reduced there is no longer a convenient excuse to cut programs I argue are beneficial to the overall economy, not to mention individuals need them.If austerity measures do not work, then one should never 'need' to exercise them. If this is so, then the use of the deficit as an excuse for their implementation results from a lack of understanding, and not from the financial situation of the nation.I know. This is the exact case. There are indeed instances when things should be cut, but the reasoning is the lack of progress the program or spending initiates, or there is not need for it, etc. Not deficit though. Deficit is a reflection of the success of lack of success of the whole. Paying all the debt tomorrow solves none of the things which caused the debt, and the debt in turn causes none of the things that lead to the underlying problem. Pay it tomorrow, and it will immediately begin adding up again.I submit that if the United States were to stop borrowing money that it cannot pay back, the argument would be moot. But so long as the American economy is built upon such uncertain foundations, then no measure that you may care to implement, can do anything but forestall the eventual consequences.This is a common misconception. The U.S. can actually pay back its debts. Our debt is 30-something percent of our yearly GDP, that is every year our GDP is more than 3x our total debt for forever. This is one of the lowest, or I believe it may be the lowest, debt to GDP ratio of any developed nation. Now, paying it all at once would in the immediate mean austerity measures. However paying it off over time does not if you increase the income of the U.S. treasury. This can be done through job creation (like the jobs plan).However, simply paying off the debt does not solve any long term problems. Creating jobs does because you are increasing federal treasury while at the same time decreasing the need for government spending on various social programs.Simply cutting social programs, education, infrastructure, etc, not only doesn't help long term, it makes people less able to pursue jobs and contribute.Which is not a sufficient reason to suppose that a tax increase will.._. not in and of itself, but for the reasons stated it is. As I said, without terminating the reliance of the United States upon borrowed moneys, attempts to repair its economy, by alteration of the system of taxation that its government operates, shall prove largely futile.You're still arguing under the false assumption that I'm arguing a tax increase in and of itself is the solution. Why you are doing this is beyond me. I've made it clear. If you want to argue whether or not government is capable of spending money that creates jobs, okay. Don't try to dumb it down though.But if they are powerful enough to have these austerity measures implemented, even with a democrat as president, how on Earth do you contrive to achieve this?There have not been austerity measures in the U.S. Spending has been cut, but it's projected spending (again teachers for a growing population, sciences, etc.) Austerity measures have been in effect in Europe, and for quite some time, and while the U.S. economy is coming back (albeit slowly) European nations like Italy with heavy cuts in social programs, are still in free-fall. It appears in fact the fall increased after austerity was in place. Which to me makes perfect sense. That would be my prediction. But to be fair Italy owes way more and their debt is to other nations while our debt is to ourselves by and large (which many are not aware of) so they were somewhat forced.You are right, with a democratic president austerity measures will not pass in the U.S. How Congress works though is they can simply stop spending additional money. They have done this. I argue as a result growth has slowed. Not stopped, but it would be faster with more spending in the right places (and please, please don't ask where again: teachers, sciences, roads, etc.)And at any rate your policy here is dictated by your political affiliations; not informed by economic understandings. You are conforming to the democratic stereotype, even as you condemn the conservative one. These factions are more concerned with the destruction of the other than with the proper exercise of office.I disagree. I'd rather have the tax cuts end and more money spent creating jobs. If a republican were to agree, I'd agree with that republican. That the affiliation is so consistent on the matter does not blind me to the goal. Perhaps your perception of political affiliation has blinded you to the underlying policies represented? It is easier to give up and say "it's all the same, if you're one of the other I'm not listening!" But it is not the same. Argue the policy then, not my affiliation.I believe that I have advised you before, to quit your allegiance to the Democrats; an allegiance which you seem to hold by principle, rather than by meditation. The endless feud that exists between them and the Republicans has presently seized this frankly unimportant tax measure as its current pet topic, whilst largely ignoring the more pressing issues of the Nation's broken and corrupt political system, and its ill founded and ill managed financial system.Agreed to an extent. However, I believe that, addressing corruption, off the subject, one side represents more progress in the right direction. That side democratic. Now, take some examples like the Dodd bill, or the Supreme Court ruling on corporate spending in elections. My argument is that in these areas Democrats ideas are the right direction while Republican ideas are the wrong direction. Should I say fuck it and give up because I don't think Democrats go far enough? I don't think a corporation should be allowed to spend a penny supporting a candidate, only individuals, individuals should have a spending limit that your average person can afford. All of this should be enforced. Free airwaves should allot equal time to the candidate and the candidate only, without any outside voice or "super pact" etc. So I don't agree 100% with current democrats.It is delusional to think, that the situation can possibly be improved in the long term, whilst such egregious faults exist within the twin pillars that support the greater edifice, of American society.Is it so dire in your estimate? I think change is slow, but the right direction. Only when worked for though. Is it more corrupt now than in the early 1900s for example? Or are we just more aware of where corruption lies?Once more, the passage that we are actually discussing was a general comment upon the necessity of public services for the advancement of private individuals. While the said services are certainly necessary, I do not know whether Mr. Obama had intended to suggest that it is a matter of personal debt to society that motivates the tax increase that you have mentioned, but if he did then he is wrong.I am of the opinion that an economy cannot operate upon principles that are so ambiguous and ill reasoned as personal obligations to society. Rather, let it be plainly stated by the government that in order for public services to continue, taxes shall have to be levied. Let them decide amongst themselves what proportion of the nation's wealth they should control, and let them engineer a system of taxation that fairly achieves this end. However, and this is perhaps the most important financial point that your argument does not consider (and I did, in my own defense, previously illustrate it for you); if taxes upon the majority of the nation's wealth (id est, the 85% held by the top 15%), are not generally applied, then as the wealth of that elite fluctuates, so too shall the revenue of the government. Therefore, measures which redistribute wealth to the poor shall detract from the governments revenues, and will eventually become necessary for the subsistence of those who are poor. Thus, a government which practices this Robin Hood policy of taxing the rich, to give to the poor, shall be propping up the poor with one hand, and digging away from its own foundation with the other. Both will fall. It is for reasons such as those above that I am convinced, that before considering an increase in taxes to service a deficit, a government should attempt retrenchment of all costs that will not be intolerably injurious to the poor. In stead of taxing the rich more, one should tax the poor less, and the mendicant not at all. If the government were to enforce a decent minimum wage, and not levy taxes upon those who earn below a certain threshold, they would do much to combat poverty. To prevent a subsequent rise in unemployment, it might behove the government to provide tax breaks, that are dependent upon the number of employees that a person has, and the wages of those employees.I am persuaded that the most effective means of combating poverty is not to primitively shove money at it, but to make it easier for those who have money, to employ people who need it for a decent wage.Outstanding idea about tax cuts dependent on the number of employees for corporations. And absolutely enforcing a descent minimum wage would do more to help the working poor. Your point about the Robin Hood theory of taking from the rich to just give to the poor is apt. They are decreasing their own income as pointed out if this is simply giving money away.Poverty is not static though, people go in and out of it, and as less are impoverished, more are paying taxes. If the taxes levied are not just giveaways, but actively take steps to equip individuals to themselves produce, create, make more money, then you're not "Robin Hood" you're "teaching them to fish."It's the same argument though; "is the money going to go there?"I trust that it will, much of it at the least. You can argue contrary and may prove to be right over time, but something must be done. This is an idea. That it is not perfect, might not work, might not be used the right way, would be a chance I'd be willing to take considering the minimal cost of it to society as a whole.