Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

The quoted passage out of context is being misconstrued, purposefully I'd argue.The import of the passage, in any context, is that persons who have achieved success, did not do so without availing of certain services which were rendered unto them by others. I have enquired of others, as I enquire of you now, as to the origin of these services. In my opinion, the president was speaking specifically of governmental services, such as roads and education. In the context that I am informed surrounds the speech, videlicet an argument for the repeal of Mr Bush's cuts to taxation, such an interpretation of the passage certainly makes sense to me.Considering my agreement with the spirit passage, for what reason I might purposefully misconstrue the sentiments expressed therein, is a matter that is frankly mysterious to me. I refuse to argue a mis-represented quote out of context from the position that it is not mis-quoted and in context.I shall reiterate my belief that I have not personally misrepresented anything.It seems the beginning is an argument that a problem with the quote is that there is no specific policy being debated.If you review my arguments, you shall find no such suggestion. I first refuted your notion that as "No prison who is successful today did so without someone giving them a job", we ought to feel obliged to those who employed us. I do not believe, that in my first argument, I made any reference to the passage whatsoever. Rather, the point of contention was your interpretation of Mr. Obama's points. It seems the end is an argument that the problem with the quote is the specific policy it is referring to. I only began to debate this policy with you, after you yourself brought up the topic. Having made no reference at all to the lack of any policy in the passage, I do not consider this to be inconsistent. In fact, I recall being surprised by your mention of the tax increases, when my own original argument had nothing to do with them, made no mention of them, and could not possibly be construed as being either a defence, or a condemnation of them.And food stamps aren't a fable, they're a real thing ._. anywayThat is a rather pedantic, and at any rate inaccurate, interpretation of the word 'fabled'. there is a jobs plan, it includes teachers, infrastructure etc. Splendid. When one is running out of money, enlarge the civil service.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.It sounds like the government is setting itself up for a fall. One cannot embark upon a policy of taxing the private sector to enlarge the public sector. for the purposes of decreasing unemployment. One can only create stable employment by enlarging the private sector, and not the other way around. 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.Don't you think that it is a little stupid to address the deficit (id est, by retrenchment) as though it were the most important issue , just to deny its use as an excuse, to those who argue that it is in fact the most important issue?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.If you wish to compare U.S debt to the U.S GDP, then you should really consider public foreign debt as well as intra-governmental. Combined, the come to about 100% of the GDP.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.I do not believe that a government should have the right to take private money by taxation, and export is from the country in which it was raised, by paying of government debt. Policies such as this are obviously injurious to the economy of the nation in question. 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).How does enlarging the civil service increase government revenues?However, simply paying off the debt does not solve any long term problems. CreatingI said "stop borrowing", not "pay it all back".Creating jobs does because you are increasing federal treasury while at the same time decreasing the need for government spending on various social programs.The truth of that statement is entirely dependent upon the nature of the jobs created. One can only increase the treasury, by increasing the rate of taxation, or by increasing the economy that is taxed. The latter is reliant primarily upon the balance of imported moneys versus exported moneys, not the numbers of people working.You're still arguing under the false assumption that I'm arguing a tax increase in and of itself is the solution.I beg your pardon, sir, but I am not. I am arguing, that without an immediate cessation of government borrowing, no policies introduced by the federal government will be of much avail.There have not been austerity measures in the U.SThen why are you concerned by the conservatives' demands for them, if they do not have the power to implement them? How Congress works though is they can simply stop spending additional money. They have done this. I argue as a result growth has slowed.And you propose to dissuade them by increasing government revenues?I disagree. I'd rather have the tax cuts end and more money spent creating jobs.Building roads and hiring teachers may provide employment to those who have been deprived of their livelihoods by these recent troubles, and would therefore constitute a noble investment of moneys, but without fixing the problems that exist within the government's own spending and borrowing policies, and within the American economy; this project will merely exacerbate the government's present fardels, and will not promote the type of growth that the United States needs right now. The United States has some very strong industries, and needs to support and enlarge those, along with its enlargement of the civil service. Such an enlargement is a gamble, as there is no guarantee that the growth derived from the policy will pay for its investment.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?If I have misconstrued your convictions, sir, then I apologise.However, I believe that, addressing corruption, off the subject, one side represents more progress in the right direction.Oh that's certainly true. The Democrats are more consistently correct than the 'Republicans' (whose policies are largely injurious to Republicanism), but it would behove us not to support their every policy without meditation upon it.Is it so dire in your estimate?The economies of most of the Western world are built upon very shaky foundations, not just that of the United States. Industry and novel technologies are being ignored, in preference to what are called "tertiary industries" which do not create wealth, but which merely move it around, and are susceptible to sudden and horrible collapses.It works well enough for individual nations on paper, as it were, but the entire world is suffering because of our fascination with debt and services. Essentially, I am afraid that today we do not create enough, and devote too much of our energy to shunting around what we already have. The most readily perceptible symptom is the growing discrepancy between the incomes of the elite (who accrue nearly everything) and the incomes of the lower and middle classes (who create and spend nearly everything). You might not know much of England's history, but it was industry and commerce here that dragged the world from feudalism; and I fear that today we are doing our very best to return there.Is it more corrupt now than in the early 1900s for example?Perhaps not, but we are creating, by yielding power to corporate entities, a new and formidable aristocracy who control both money and political power.And absolutely enforcing a descent minimum wage would do more to help the working poor.My primary reason for deprecating the candidacy of Mr. Ron Paul, incidentally, was his notion that the minimum wage should be cut. Fool.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."Indeed so, and my point was that we cannot trust the government to be as imaginative as we would like. 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. And I think that what the United States need now, is not the blind shunting about of money by the federal government, but the encouragement of industries and novel technologies by investment, and judicious, selective tax breaks (I agree with you in that Mr. Bush's blanket cuts were folly). You might know the answer better than I do, but does the United States need more teachers and roads? I mean to ask, are the present numbers of teachers, and the present quality and extent of the road networks, insufficient? Or is this simply a way of conveniently reducing unemployment and poverty rates for the immediate future?would be a chance I'd be willing to take considering the minimal cost of it to society as a whole.A minimal present cost, supposing the plan's success, but we ought to be careful in creating a new group of workers who are entirely dependent upon government money for their subsistence. The Unites States government might try the idea, but it really should not rely solely upon it.