Quantcast

The Ultimate Takedown of Obama’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Speech

doofiegirl BTO-t- BCRA-F ~PWCM~ 2012/07/21 19:13:33
President Obama’s instantly infamous “You didn’t build that” speech is a major turning point of the 2012 election not because it was a gaffe but because it was an accurate and concise summary of core progressive fiscal dogma. It was also a political blunder of epic proportions because in his speech Obama unintentionally proved the conservatives’ case for limited government.

This essay will show you how.

When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must all be true for the argument to remain standing: 1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget;
2. That business owners don’t already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and
3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.

If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses. Fiscal conservatives have never called for no government — that’s the anarchist position, and contemporary anarchism is actually dominated by extreme leftists, not extreme conservatives. Instead, fiscal conservatives clearly and consistently call for limited government, or for smaller government — but not for the absence of government altogether.

So when President Obama and his mentor Elizabeth Warren justify their call for tax hikes by pointing out that all entrepreneurs benefit from communal infrastructure, they’re committing the classic Straw Man Fallacy by arguing against anarchy — a position that their opponents do not hold.

Here’s the shocking truth: President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are correct — we all benefit from certain taxpayer-funded collectivist government infrastructure projects and programs. And here’s the other shocking truth: Therefore, we should limit government expenditures to just those programs. Why? Because most of the other government programs either Below are videos and transcripts of Obama’s speech as well as the Elizabeth Warren speech that inspired it. First watch or read both speeches, and then we’ll list all of the programs that they both mention, and see what percentage of our taxes goes toward those programs.

Obama’s Speech

Here is Obama’s game-changing speech from Friday, July 13 in Roanoke, Virginia:
Warren’s Speech

And here’s Elizabeth Warren’s original 2011 speech, upon which Obama’s was based:

OK, now that we have both speeches in front of us, let us list the exact government programs and projects that Obama and Warren use to justify their position:

• Education (Obama: “There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.” Warren: “You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.”)
• Transportation (Obama: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges.” Warren: “You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.”)
• Public Safety (Warren: “You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” Obama: “There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.”)
• The Internet (Obama: “Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”)

…and that’s it.

OK. Fine. Let’s absolutely concede this point to Obama and Warren: There are some government activities that benefit us all, including business owners. And for the sake of argument let’s just allow for a moment that the federal government is the best, most efficient and only supplier of these benefits. You win, Elizabeth and Barack.

But having conceded this central point, let us now ask the key follow-up question, which is the first leg of their three-point hypothesis: What percentage of the federal budget is devoted to these universally beneficial public works?

And if you’re a progressive reading this, you’d better get off the stool because it’s about to fall down.

The Numbers : Here is the federal government’s budgetary breakdown for a recent fiscal year: http://cdn.pjmedia.com/zombie/files/2012/07/Fy2010_spending_b... Here we go:

Below is a list of all government expenditures, with Obama’s and Warren’s “public benefit” programs highlighted:

Social Security 19.63%
Department of Defense 18.74%
Unemployment/welfare/other mandatory spending 16.13%
Medicare 12.79%
Medicaid and SCHIP 8.19%
Interest on the national debt 4.63%
Health and Human Services 2.22%
Department of Transportation 2.05%
Department of Veteran’s Affairs 1.48%
Department of State 1.46%
Department of Housing and Urban Development 1.34%
Department of Education 1.32%
Other on-budget discretionary spending (1.8%): $149.67
Other off-budget discretionary spending (1.3%): $108.10
Department of Homeland Security 1.21%
Department of Energy 0.74%
Department of Agriculture 0.73%
Department of Justice 0.67%
NASA 0.53%
Department of Commerce 0.39%
Department of Labor 0.38%
Department of Treasury 0.38%
Department of the Interior 0.34%
EPA 0.30%
Social Security Administration 0.27%
National Science Foundation 0.20%
Corps of Engineers 0.14%
National Infrastructure Bank 0.14%
Corporation for National and Community Service 0.03%
Small Business Administration 0.02%
General Services Administration 0.02% And that, of course, is being absurdly generous to the Obama position, since in reality huge portions of the defense budget, the Department of Education budget, and so on, have basically nothing to do with promoting public safety or educating workers. And let’s be even more generous and round that 23.4% up to 25%, or one-fourth of the budget.

So what Obama and Warren are really stating is this:

Only one-fourth of your federal tax dollars go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs; the other three-fourths are essentially a complete waste, or are at best optional. Which of course is exactly what fiscal conservatives have been arguing all along. The first leg of their argument has snapped, and the stool has toppled over. Since the essential programs aiding “the commons” are only a small percentage of an overall bloated budget, we don’t need to raise taxes to fund them.

And now for the second leg. The Wealthy Already Pay Far More Than Their “Fair Share” Clonk. That’s the second leg hitting the floor. Kicking Out the Third Leg: Education, Public Safety and Roads Are Covered by Local Taxes, Not Federal Taxes As I said at the beginning of this essay, Obama has just unintentionally proved the conservatives’ case for limited government, and for decentralization and local control.

The stool is now in pieces on the floor. But I just can’t stop kicking : .http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/07/18/the-ultimate-takedown-o...

Read More: http://conservativebyte.com/2012/07/the-ultimate-t...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Don Leuty 2012/07/21 20:45:00
    Don Leuty
    +3
    More using a gasoline bucket fire extinguisher. Lately, he only opens his mouth to change feet.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • ScoutLdr 2012/07/23 00:38:06
    ScoutLdr
    This argument is flaw from the start. The Education is local responsibility and in most places is finance through Property Taxes. Local roads are funded out of general tax revenues of the cities or counties that they are in. Interstates are funded by the State and Federal Government. Police and Fire Services are mostly locally funded.
  • Don Leuty 2012/07/21 20:45:00
    Don Leuty
    +3
    More using a gasoline bucket fire extinguisher. Lately, he only opens his mouth to change feet.
  • Al B Thayer 2012/07/21 19:36:56
    Al B Thayer
    +1
    Okay Warren is nobody. She's running for office. Bigdeal! She is Intelectually dishonest. I'm so bored with people like her.

    We have known about Barry since 2008. This is just more gas on the fire.
  • marianne Al B Th... 2012/07/21 19:45:27
    marianne
    my beef still is ;
    - why do so many large corporations have so many tax shelter and loopholes that they sometimes pay no or very little taxes....
    -why do so many multimillionaires pay smaller percentage than do the regular middle class.
    - why are some people opposing fair taxation...
    - where is the economic stimulus that were promised by bush tax cuts.... bush tax cuts
  • lazlo.w... marianne 2012/07/22 16:59:29
    lazlo.whoopingcough
    +3
    They worked swimmingly until 2007; the year the Dems got the checkbook. Next question.
  • marianne lazlo.w... 2012/07/23 19:18:46
    marianne
    sure, and lets just say as a single person, someone has never been good with finances, but decided to turn a new leaf, how long time until their credit gets better. i say months and years.
    lets analyze a country of over 300 million,.... the groundwork for failure was in, it takes a lot of groundwork to turn it back.
  • doofieg... marianne 2012/07/23 20:14:33 (edited)
    doofiegirl  BTO-t- BCRA-F ~PWCM~
    BULLDOOKIE! Just take a really good look at Odimwit--- it's only taken him 4 years to tear down 235 years of hard work! Granted, he had some help----------FDR and LBJ and little Jimmy boy.
  • marianne doofieg... 2012/07/24 01:23:26
    marianne
    see it yourself, both houses were dominated by the republicans for a historically long, almost twelve years right before the bottom from the economy fell....
    political party in power chart
  • ScoutLdr marianne 2012/07/23 00:27:06
    ScoutLdr
    Because the Tax Code is over 20,000 pages long, and so unfair it creates these outcomes. Have a Flat Tax and you have a fair tax. code 20000 pages unfair creates outcomes flat tax fair tax

    growth under Bush Tax Cuts
  • marianne ScoutLdr 2012/07/23 19:21:51
  • ScoutLdr marianne 2012/07/24 06:00:39
    ScoutLdr
    +1
    The CBO never seams to take into account the Laffer curve. The more you tax someone, the more likely they are to limit their amount of taxable income. Capital is like water it will seek the path of lease resistance. "Thousands are weighing anchor and fleeing with their gin palaces to quiet corners of the Mediterranean to escape a tax evasion crackdown – part of efforts by the government of Mario Monti, the prime minister, to tackle Italy’s €1.9 trillion public debt. …in the ports and marinas they are going after the owners of luxury yachts. Uniformed officers of the Guardia di Finanza, or tax police, are performing on-the-spot checks, boarding boats and checking owners’ details against their tax records. …The unwelcome attention has led many yacht owners to flee Italy’s marinas for friendlier foreign ports, from Corsica and the Cote d’Azur in the west to Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Greece in the east. Others are heading southwards, to Malta and Tunisia – where they can access their boats on low-cost budget flights from Italy for a fraction of the tax bill they might otherwise face."
  • marianne ScoutLdr 2012/07/25 22:40:02
    marianne
    my guess is that we need to find a balanced action to the tax laws [obviously], i remember the astrid lindgren case, and in the sixties, the top tax rate was 90% in usa, and now the top rate is too low imo. the rich could easily afford losing their bush tax cuts.
    thanks for the info.
  • ScoutLdr marianne 2012/07/26 04:27:14
    ScoutLdr
    You're welcome. America doesn't need tax cuts, it needs a complete tax overhaul. Three rates and no deductions. Everyone pay into the system,period.
  • marianne ScoutLdr 2012/07/26 21:23:08
    marianne
    would you like to give details on your plan?
  • ScoutLdr marianne 2012/07/27 04:35:17
  • marianne ScoutLdr 2012/07/27 06:20:58
    marianne
    i would have to study more, but i did not see how much per dependent the allowance would have been.....
    - or how much the flat tax would be...
    - i am not sure how if all capital gain taxes were to be taken away, wouldn't it give such an advantage to those with old money....
    - in the business tax , they could write off land purchases. i don't know if regular businesses can do that now, but currently in [our own modest] operations, we can only depreciate the improvements.... would it not make rich buy land, and maybe the little guys like me would be left out.
    - last, i'm for modest progressiveness, and i would like to make any changes in little increments, kind of hybrid system.
    - i would like the bush tax cuts expire for the rich. in my view, the little extra tax over 250k filing jointly, could be an incentive to hire someone.
    -
  • ScoutLdr marianne 2012/07/27 12:13:09
    ScoutLdr
    +1
    A progressive Tax Rate is why the U.S. a Tax Code of 20,000 plus pages. Because one you favor one position with a tax break ,it's never ends.
  • marianne ScoutLdr 2012/07/28 05:21:20
    marianne
    it is complicated, but, if for example regular income earners were to lose their mortgage deductions, the already troubled housing market could crumble....

    as far as flat tax, do you know anywhere they've done it , and how is it working?
  • ScoutLdr marianne 2012/07/28 07:36:30
    ScoutLdr
    The housing market has crumbled. With a lower stable Federal Tax rate the Middle Class would be on a more solid footing. http://www.cato.org/pubs/poli...
  • ScoutLdr ScoutLdr 2012/07/28 07:37:39
    ScoutLdr
    The link tells where the Flat Tax is currently in effect.
  • marianne ScoutLdr 2012/08/01 04:20:57
    marianne
    the housing market is teetering back in some areas, there are beginning to be multiple offer above asking prices. however, consider the millions of middle class homeowner, who are barely holding on, how would it affect if the interest deductions were eliminated.

    several of those new flat tax countries were previous eastern block european countries, they might be not easy to compare to the more established western democracies.

    fundamentally, for me, i can not wrap my sense on fairness around flat tax.
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/07/21 19:15:29
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    The Internet was a legitimate by-product of the government's common-defense function. As such the people bought and paid for that long ago.

    The rest were never supposed to be federal functions at all.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/01 14:34:46

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals