Who built it?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So ever since President Obama talked about how it takes a society to build things that business uses to do things like deliver goods, send data, etc, the GOP has been hammering him for being "unamerican". Apparently, subscribing to American Exceptionalism requires the believer to refuse to acknowledge any possibility that an innovator or "job creator" might have had help.



Now, Paul Ryan comes from a family of entrepreneurs. Ryan Incorporated Central (the company for which Paul Ryan worked for a short time before he became a life-time public employee) has been in business since 1884. That's over 125 years!

And they've been the recipients of hefty government contracts, from building railroads embankments (run by the Feds), to the Federal Highway system ($119 billion in federal dollars), to that bastion of Chicagoland, O'Hare airport (or what became O'Hare airport, anyway).

And lest you think that the Ryan's got out of sucking off the federal teat, be illuminated: 22 Federal Defense Contracts since 1996 (including this one of over $5 million dollars)

As a life-long public employee, Congressman Ryan has brung home the bacon in multiple ways. All of which is perfectly fine -- except for the part where Ryan is all up in arms over the affront President Obama made on American Exceptionalism.

And, of course, there was the part where he voted to preserve subsidies for industries he and his wife are personally invested in. Not sure that part's entirely kosher.

This, of course, is only part of a larger overarching campaign strategy of Governor Romney's, to point out how exceptional american businesses are:

There's Gilchrist Metals, which... um... got $800,000 in tax exemptions about 13 years ago, and US Navy & Coast Guard contracts and also a $500,000 business loan with matching funds in the late 80s. As well as, you know, not building the roads or bridges that the trucks that brought his raw materials and took away his finished products drove on.

But wait! There's more! Ball Products, which hosted a "We Built This" event, was the recipient of over $600,000 in loans in 2012, and a $50,000+ government contract just after it was founded.

Home Instead Senior Care centers have gotten over $3.6 million in funds from the VA.

There's plenty more information here: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/25/584751/romneys-we-did-build-this-events-feature-businesses-built-with-government-subsidies-and-contracts/

But the icing on the cake?

The GOP Convention is being held at the Tampa Bay Times Forum. Who owns the Forum? Hillsborough County. Who paid for it? Well, according to MediaMatters here, the St. Petersburg Times reported, in 1996:

"Financing for the arena was completed in August with the closing in New York on seven bond issues. Sales taxes, tourist development taxes, and ticket surcharges will be used to repay the bonds. Permanent financing includes $84 million in bonds backed by the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County, and another $60 million worth backed by the Lightning."

Never mind the other federal and local tax money spent on preparing for, hosting, and securing a national convention. That's only going to be another $70 million.

Again, all this is fine. There's no problem with municipalities or counties owning property, spending money -- after all, how many jobs do you think were created in building a convention center? How many permanent jobs were created? There's an entire sports team that operates out of that building!

So, not only does subscribing to American Exceptionalism require the believer to refuse to acknowledge any possibility that an innovator or "job creator" might have had help... it also requires a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

And THAT, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan built all on their own.



edit: requesting a "you didn't build that" tag, and "Mitt Romney's Enduring Hypocrisy" tag.

Comments

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

I don't like to agree with David Brooks, but he summed up the dispute perfectly: As an ambitious executive, it’s important that you believe that you will deserve credit for everything you achieve. As a human being, it’s important for you to know that’s nonsense. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/opinion/brooks-the-credit-illusion.html?_r=1&hp)

The economy requires a certain amount of delusional entitlement. That myth is the main driver of growth. It makes it harder to advocate for necessary investment in our society, but most people do understand that no man is an island. We need to hold both beliefs simultaneously, even though they're contradictory on their face.

[brendala.livejournal.com]

That, and it's a little insulting when a person is trying to talk about their achievements and someone buts in and says "well, you didn't really do it. You had help from [X]"

It would be like graduating college, going on about how difficult it was to work and get a degree, and having someone say,
"you wouldn't be here today if your parents hadn't fed you as a child, your boss hadn't opened that McDonalds you worked at, and the state hadn't built the college and the roads you drove on to get there.."
Technically, that's all true. But it comes off as trying to downplay individual accomplishment by redistributing the credit to institutions that had a very minor effect on the graduate's success. And it would likely piss that graduate off.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

+1

It's a poke in the eye, and there are those who just don't understand that concept because it's not in their worldview. So everyone gets mad about it -- not very productive.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

But at the same time the graduate who used federal college grants isn't trying to get them removed for other people.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And that student would be even more pissed knowing Romney and Ryan wants college aid cut and wants no government involvement in the loan process (i.e. adding a middle man, and raising the costs of the program), allowing even fewer opportunities to go to college, all in order to finance tax cuts for the people that have done the best over the last 25 years.

Yeah, I'd be pissed too.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

everyone builds on top of the foundation someone else laid before them. Recognizing that you stood on the shoulders of giants doesn't diminish your accomplishments, it just puts them in real perspective.

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

Actually, the right thing to say would be:

"you wouldn't be here today if your parents didn't pay for your degree, and/or the state hadn't given you the instate tuition and loans and grants to be able to afford that"

And this would be literally true, not technically. Just look at how many people graduated college before loans and grants and all that became available to students, and you will understand.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Of course the flip side to that is how much credit should those institutions and individuals get? and to what degree should that translate into material support?

If you become a succesful writer does your high-school english teacher get to demand a cut of your book procedes?

Likewise if you pay someone for services rendered and later become succesful (in part) thanks to thier work should they be encouraged to come back and demand a greater cut after the fact?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Well, the problem with such statements as "I built myself on my own" and "You didn't build yourself on your own" is that clearly they're both two extremities. The truth is in the middle more often than not, and balanced approach works better than an extreme one.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

It's my opinion that if your analogical college graduate got their money's worth, then they would have more than enough capacity and depth, not to mention self esteem, to immediately, reflexively even, contextualize and therefore as quickly accept the absolute truth of the statement as delivered.

Full disclosure: I won't be voting either R or D in November.

(Also, butts, not buts.)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I don't think its really that contradictory. There's plenty of things that would never have happened if I didn't take the initiative, but the opportunity had to exist in the first place, and that opportunity was not me, but there's plenty of people who may not have seen the opportunity either. And likewise there are people who would have seen an opportunity where I did not.

We're part of a society, that's a pretty average belief. It's not some weird daring belief to think that we are not an island and that we also affect our surroundings. I think that's the default belief actually.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The economy requires a certain amount of delusional entitlement. That myth is the main driver of growth.

I don't agree. Yes, I know, Adam Smith certainly thought so, but he thought the Invisible Hand was literally the Hand of God, and that God had imbued mankind with greed and sloth as motivators, of all things.

The myth you mention might be ascribed to certain innovations, but growth? No, that has a very different source: the energy that enables people run machines so the people can work less.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Matt Miller had a great piece two days on "Drawbridge Republicans." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-the-rise-of-the-drawbridge-republicans/2012/08/20/d426c7f8-eb16-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html)

Wealthy political candidates are nothing new, of course. But we’ve never had two wealthy candidates on a national ticket whose top priority is to reduce already low taxes on the well-to-do while raising taxes on everyone else — even as they propose to slash programs that serve the poor, or that (like college aid) create chances for the lowly born to rise.

Call them the Drawbridge Republicans. As the moniker implies, these are wealthy Republicans who have no qualms about pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Such sentiments used to be reserved for the political fringe. The most prominent example was Steve Forbes, whose twin obsessions during his vanity presidential runs in 1996 and 2000 — marginal tax rates and inflation — were precisely what you’d expect from an heir in a cocoon.

(In case you were wondering, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a Drawbridge because he entered office when marginal rates, at 70 percent, were truly damaging to the economy. But as GOP business leaders now tell me privately, the Clinton-era top rate of 39.6 percent, let alone today’s 35 percent, are hardly a barrier to work or investment).

Most rich Republicans who champion regressive tax plans find it necessary to at least pretend they’re doing something to help average folks. John McCain, who’s lived large for decades thanks to his wife’s inheritance, famously had trouble keeping track of how many homes he owned — but McCain also tried bravely to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. George W. Bush campaigned as a “compassionate conservative,” and touted education initiatives that made this claim plausible.

Today’s Drawbridge Republicans can’t be bothered. Yes, when their political back is to the wall — as Romney’s increasingly is — they’ll slap together a page of bullet points and dub it “a plan for the middle class.” But this is only under duress. The rest of the time they seem blissfully unaware of how off-key they sound. As the humorist Andy Borowitz tweeted the other day, “As a general matter, it’s a bad idea to talk about austerity if you just had a horse lose in the Olympics.”

Mr. Miller was interviewed about that Op-Ed, and you can see that here. (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/48742855#48742855)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of issues with the "you didn't build that" argument but I'll stick to the two that I find most troubling.

First and formost is that by denying the value of individual achievement you must embrace the philosophy of collective guilt. Afterall, If all positive achivements are a product of the society as a whole than the same must be true of all negative achievements.

Secondly the argument is self defeating.

I could just as easily look at the government and say "you didn't build that either, the taxpayers did" and if the taxpayers don't want to fund a particular project anymore than the government has no standing to complain.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

denying the value of individual achievement

Now try an argument the President actually made.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Name me one thing that you've done completely on your own, that no one else had anything to do with at all.

Go on. I'll wait.

When you say the argument is self defeating, you're missing the point of the argument.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

And what, precisely, is wrong about accepting collective guilt for things in which one undoubtedly, either by silent acquiescence or direct involvement, had a hand?

This acceptance needn't mean, of course, some debilitating burden on its holder, and it is a case of degree as well: leaving aside ones obvious guilt if they were an active participant in some negative (a relative term as well) achievement, if one has remained steadfastly silently acquiescent to such achievements (which many would argue is as proactive a stance), then theirs is the guilt to share. I really fail to see a problem with the embrace of simple facts.

Sure, no one gets away clean, but unless one clings to some misunderstanding of the possible perfection of humanity or a single member thereof, what is the real harm?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How is it that one exactly leads to the other? It does not logically follow that success arising as a collective agency on the part of a few individuals benefiting from the many means that all Germans should be shot for their army being a bunch of rapist butchering cutthroats or that all Republicans are fans of nun-raping psychopaths ala the Contras. The two rely on very different principles and assertions, one is a matter of sociology, one is illegal under current definitions of military law.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Apparently, subscribing to American Exceptionalism requires the believer to refuse to acknowledge any possibility that an innovator or "job creator" might have had help.

Wait, didn't Romney take credit for the government help that saved the automobile industry? ;)

WHY DOES ROMNEY HATE AMERICA!??!?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Because he's No True Conservative!

He's a liberal agent planted in the GOP to make Ayn Rand look bad! Or something.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Oh, but I'm sure they hated it when they were taking all that money from the government!!!

Or was it that the government had given them the money so they wouldn't be able to rant about government handouts later? CONSPIRACY! Except... the government didn't do its calculations right, because that obviously didn't stop them from ranting...

US politics is so beautiful!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The really hilarious bit is that in saying this, these people all back the US Military, which is as pure a government agency and bureaucracy as you can fathom.........

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Funny enough, Romney (behind closed doors) agrees with Obama's sentiments:

"95% of life is set up for you if you were born in this country."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-0imhVH4E0

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

that's why we thank God.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

But no one else? Was free will not part of the decision to bile the federal highway system?