The failure of the Left and what the Far-Right gets right.

[oldbadger]

The banfairy is real !
He threatens me now & then.
(Eating a lot'o garlic keeps me safe.)

Look....... it's all in the imagination.
What's the name of those beautiful women who lure decent (perverted actually) sailors onto the rocks?
Sirens, or something? It's the sirens who tempt you to do bad things, and then they 'get' you.

 

[oldbadger]

And inscrutable.
But we're derailing the thread.
Time to stop.

Baroness Thatcher was a Right-Winger.
That's relevent.......... ?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think that right-wingers will let you........... go off into the woods etc....... I think that right-wingers will insist that you come out of the woods and earn to pay for everything that you need.

Right-wingers will make folks go out and work hard for every dime and dollar that folks need, for food, heat, security, a home et al.

Right-wingers are just..... very right wing about such things. They're just a bit careless about the weak, the disabled, the needy, the sick, the unemployed and the unemployable.

That was more a statement of how fed up I am with society. I'm sick of it all. I want an alternative. My soul is tired.

 

[Stevicus]

I know that Obama often doesn't mean what he says, or say what he means.
But your inference is overly charitable to the rapacious ex-prez.
When Obama said I didn't build my business, ie, that someone did it for me, he uses clear & strong
language to give me no credit whatsoever. He falsely suggests that successful businesses get a free
ride the backs of government & workers. His real purpose, & the greater falsehood.....he manipulated
the masses to feel that we don't deserve what we have....that they, the equally smart & hard working
are entitled to more....that the hefty taxes & wages we already pay are paltry.

" If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
This was a scripted speech, so he knew in advance that he would make this statement.
Note the word, "else", which excludes the entrepreneur from creating the business.
He can temper it with elaboration....he can dance around it....but this was no slip of the tongue.
It was dishonest demonization of the movers & shakers who drive the country's economy.

Perhaps the actual truth might be somewhere in the middle between the two positions. Sure, entrepreneurs and business owners deserve due credit, but so do the workers. Not all businesses are the same either, nor do they all have the same origins. Not all workers are the same either. So it's hard to lump either group into a single category and make a blanket judgment.

But how much credit is the business owner actually due? Let's take a railroad owner from the 19th century as an example. First, "somebody else" (namely the government and military) had to acquire and secure the territory upon which to build the railroad in the first place. "Somebody else" also had to invent the technology as well. "Somebody else" had to mine and manufacture the materials to build the rails, locomotives, and railroad cars. "Somebody else" also had to build the towns and cities to which the railroads could go, and "somebody else" had to discover or create something of value to attract people to build those towns and cities in the first place (perhaps suitable for mining, ranching, farming, etc.).

That doesn't take away any credit from the railroad owner and his own efforts in building up his business, but it's clear that there were a lot of "somebody elses" who were absolutely essential before he could even get to square one.

And of course, there were a lot of "somebody elses" to do the actual work of building and operating the railroad; the railroad owner couldn't do everything by himself. So, he had to pay "somebody else" to do that, and this seems to be the major point of contention in the context of Obama's speech, as their implied value is relative to the wages they receive.

So, what it seems to boil down to in a nutshell is a wage dispute. Business owners believe that their role is more important and therefore should receive the lion's share of the revenue, while considering the role of the workers to be of lesser importance, based on the lesser amount of money they receive in compensation for their labor. Workers might see it differently and think that their labor is worth more than they're receiving in wages. So, those who advocate for the workers might have to say something to help bolster their bargaining position, even if it might come off as manipulative.

I didn't really see it as "demonization" though. If someone wanted to demonize business, they could definitely use a lot stronger language than that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's take a railroad owner from the 19th century as an example. First, "somebody else" (namely the government and military) had to acquire and secure the territory upon which to build the railroad in the first place. "Somebody else" also had to invent the technology as well. "Somebody else" had to mine and manufacture the materials to build the rails, locomotives, and railroad cars. "Somebody else" also had to build the towns and cities to which the railroads could go, and "somebody else" had to discover or create something of value to attract people to build those towns and cities in the first place (perhaps suitable for mining, ranching, farming, etc.).

What you describe isn't "someone else" creating the railroad business for its owner.
That's just how capitalism works, ie, it's a system of cooperation & competition, with
more emphasis on the former than non-business owners often realize.
If I built a railroad, I'd do it by planning, raising capital, hiring labor, & buying my locomotives
from Hinkley & Drury, who hired Seth Wilmarth, etc.

I don't do it alone...I hire & purchase who & what I need for negotiated price.
This does not mean that "someone else made that happen".
Without me, my business wouldn't exist.
None of my employees ever had the initiative in them.

That doesn't take away any credit from the railroad owner and his own efforts in building up his business, but it's clear that there were a lot of "somebody elses" who were absolutely essential before he could even get to square one.

What you say is obvious, & I've never heard anyone claim otherwise.
As Newton said, we stand on "the shoulders of giants".
But it's not what Obama said.
He denied us any credit with his outrageous statement.

And of course, there were a lot of "somebody elses" to do the actual work of building and operating the railroad; the railroad owner couldn't do everything by himself. So, he had to pay "somebody else" to do that, and this seems to be the major point of contention in the context of Obama's speech, as their implied value is relative to the wages they receive.

So, what it seems to boil down to in a nutshell is a wage dispute. Business owners believe that their role is more important and therefore should receive the lion's share of the revenue, while considering the role of the workers to be of lesser importance, based on the lesser amount of money they receive in compensation for their labor.

Businesses don't always receive the lion's share of revenue.
Most is typically paid to vendors & employees, who receive what they agreed to.
If they want some of the profit, they can buy stock.

Workers might see it differently and think that their labor is worth more than they're receiving in wages. So, those who advocate for the workers might have to say something to help bolster their bargaining position, even if it might come off as manipulative.

If they believe they're worth more than they're being paid, they can ask for a raise, or seek greener pastures elsewhere.
But the feeling that they're worth more shouldn't justify tax increases upon businesses.

I didn't really see it as "demonization" though. If someone wanted to demonize business, they could definitely use a lot stronger language than that.

He could've been worse.
But he was bad enuf.

Let's turn the tables.
Suppose I change just a few words in his speech....
I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.' No. There is nobody in this country who got welfare on his own — nobody. You get a welfare check? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You drive on the roads the rest of us paid for. You're served by workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your home because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your home — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you get your check and it turned into something terrific, an extended vacation. God bless — spend a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay back for the next guy who comes along wanting the dole.

I suppose no one on welfare should feel insulted, eh?

 

[suncowiam]

Emotions are what conveys our humanity, and can also be the best indicator of reality too. Depends on the situation.



To some extent we are, not completely but to some extent. We have evolved to experience emotions for a reason, fear, anger, love, happiness, etc.

Emotions are what humans do, they might cause you to er or they might motivate you to pursue what is just. We live through emotions though.

To use a silly example, let's say is cooking babies in cauldrons to make a meaty broth and wants to encourage people to stop this taking place. How does this happen without emotions coming into play? Would emotions in this sense be wrong?

Why would it be necessary or desirable to evolve beyond the natural feeling of anger?

How can a charity encourage you to donate money to save help people in a far off land with whom you have no connection without playing on your emotions?

Even thanking someone for helping you out is appealing to their emotions.

The closest you get to emotion free communication is a scientific paper and I'm pretty happy most communication does not take that form (all the best scientific writing contains some humanity in it anyway).



Seems like we are saying pretty much the same thing. The only difference is you seem to put a higher stock on how much logic alone can achieve. For me, it is almost nothing.

The most basic aspect of professional persuasive communication is WIIFM (what's in it for me). If there is no focus on WIIFM then you're wasting your time.

The thing is that WIIFM based on pure logic is really limited to narrow material self-interest, there is nothing in it for me to donate money to charity unless you appeal to my emotions. Often the only reward we get for doing things against our narrow material self-interest are of the emotional kind.

Before the Super Bowl there was a lot of talk about what Lady Gaga would do, was she going to bash Trump?

Had she done so, lots of Dems would have cheered and said 'wow she was great, she really socked it to Trump'. Pubs would have just dismissed her as just another liberal entertainer and she would have had zero effect on them.

Instead she opened with a patriotic song (think it was God bless America) with stars and stripes lighting up the sky, but at the end stopped singing and spoke the line 'with liberty and justice for all' and left that hanging.

For a liberal entertainer trying to influence those who strongly disagree with her during a live performance (rather than preaching to the choir), that is about the best you can do. Associating your message with their positive emotions.



An appeal to emotion can be moral, neutral or unethical, it just depends on how it is used.

In terms of biologically evolving, this is obviously not possible short term. So we are stuck with our genetic make up, and it makes no sense to pretend we are a blank slate.

If we do acknowledge how we are hardwired though, then we can take steps to mitigate (never eliminate) the negative effects. Really though, this is something that can only be done on a personal level, and is unlikely to become a society wide mission.

Overall, it isn't desirable to eliminate appeals to emotion, in an ideal world appeals to emotion would be grounded in honesty, good intentions and a solid factual/logical base.

Hi Augustus,

Just needed to take a break from this before continuing.

I think we need to rebase and just focus on the appeal of emotion argument.

I've been doing a crappy job of asserting it here so I will just use other people's argument. I did a search online concerning "is it moral to use emotional appeal":

Appeal to Emotion

Defining Emotional Appeal

In debating terms, emotional appeals are often effective as a rhetorical device, but are generally considered naive or dishonest as a logical argument, since they often appeal to the prejudices of listeners rather than offer a sober assessment of a situation.

Source: Boundless. “Defining Emotional Appeal.” Boundless Communications Boundless, 08 Aug. 2016. Retrieved 10 Feb. 2017 from Defining Emotional Appeal

Ethical Usage

It may be appealing to take a shortcut to making the audience sympathize with your point of view. However, emotional appeals don't always hold up well after the fact--so fortify your emotional appeal by engaging the intellect, too.

Source: Boundless. “Ethical Usage.” Boundless Communications Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 10 Feb. 2017 from Ethical Usage

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia

There are just the first several entries from a google search. I believe they summarize my assertion that emotional appeal is wrong. It is considered a fallacy. It can be dishonest and naive. It triggers the prejudice of a person.

 

[oldbadger]

That was more a statement of how fed up I am with society. I'm sick of it all. I want an alternative. My soul is tired.

We all can get low and depressed about the huge imperfections of our Worlds.
I certainly have done in times gone by.
I didn't have any clever ideas about how to get clear of those times or those feelings, I just got lucky, so I still remember.......

I can't help with any clever ideas, I can only hope that somehow you get to find your way to a good feeling about a less than good existence.

I can feel your sadness in your writing.
Good luck to you, and I hope things can pick up a bit for you.

 

[Stevicus]

What you describe isn't "someone else" creating the railroad business for its owner.
That's just how capitalism works, ie, it's a system of cooperation & competition, with
more emphasis on the former than non-business owners often realize.
If I built a railroad, I'd do it by planning, raising capital, hiring labor, & buying my locomotives
from Hinkley & Drury, who hired Seth Wilmarth, etc.

I don't do it alone...I hire & purchase who & what I need for negotiated price.
This does not mean that "someone else made that happen".
Without me, my business wouldn't exist.
None of my employees ever had the initiative in them.

The point is, you wouldn't have been able to do it at all without all these other elements in place beforehand. And if you didn't do it, then someone else probably would have done it, especially if it was a lucrative enough business.

I'm aware of the system of cooperation and competition and also that the emphasis is on cooperation. But a centralized power has to maintain that cooperation, along with an ordered society. That's why government is far more valuable to business than most business owners realize.

What you say is obvious, & I've never heard anyone claim otherwise.
As Newton said, we stand on "the shoulders of giants".
But it's not what Obama said.
He denied us any credit with his outrageous statement.

Of course it's obvious, but sometimes it's the obvious things that get missed.

But I wouldn't take Obama's statement literally; I think he was just making a generalized statement. I don't think he was saying that business owners didn't do anything. It's not like anyone was just sitting in the park one day and "someone else" comes along and gives them an already-built business. I don't think Obama was claiming that. He may have been just referring to those in business who inherited it or those who believe it all revolves around them.

I think part of it might also be addressing the fact that our culture overall is quite devoted to individualism and individual achievement. That's all well and good - as long as it doesn't forget that no man is an island. I think a healthy balance can be struck between individualism and collectivism, as long as we don't go too far one way or the other.

Perhaps Obama could have said it better, although it doesn't matter much anymore.

Businesses don't always receive the lion's share of revenue.
Most is typically paid to vendors & employees, who receive what they agreed to.
If they want some of the profit, they can buy stock.

Yeah, that's true. My aunt and uncle owned a lumber yard many years ago, and the business was having financial difficulties so they chose not to take a salary for an entire year.

But there are other businesses where the top executives earn humongous salaries while the lower-level "peons" make little more than peanuts. Some people have to work two or three jobs just to stay above water. They're not on welfare and they're not looking for a handout. They want to work for their money.

That appears to be the main difference between the family-owned, mom-and-pop businesses versus the big corporations.

If they believe they're worth more than they're being paid, they can ask for a raise, or seek greener pastures elsewhere.

Of course. Or else they could organize a union and go on strike.

But the feeling that they're worth more shouldn't justify tax increases upon businesses.

I agree. I'm not sure if justifies anything at all, except perhaps a philosophical discussion between employer and employee, if both are willing to engage in such a discussion.

As for tax increases on businesses, I don't see how that would help the workers anyway. I have heard of situations where workers were earning so little that they qualified for food stamps, healthcare, and other government programs for the poor. If the companies they work for are paying a pittance and the government has to provide services to pick up the slack, then it's almost like an indirect subsidy to business.

He could've been worse.
But he was bad enuf.

Let's turn the tables.
Suppose I change just a few words in his speech....
I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.' No. There is nobody in this country who got welfare on his own — nobody. You get a welfare check? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You drive on the roads the rest of us paid for. You're served by workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your home because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your home — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you get your check and it turned into something terrific, an extended vacation. God bless — spend a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay back for the next guy who comes along wanting the dole.

I suppose no one on welfare should feel insulted, eh?

Oh, I don't know. I suppose they probably get insulted quite enough. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who insulted who, since the poor are still poor, and the rich are still rich.

But even then, I don't see anyone on welfare making any claims that they got it on their own. They're just claiming that they need financial help to be able to survive. We're a country of vast wealth and resources, and as a country, we've decided that we can spare a small portion of our wealth and resources on those who are less fortunate. I don't see why there should be a great problem with that, although I'll admit that it does seem to carry some level of fraud and corruption.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point is, you wouldn't have been able to do it at all without all these other elements in place beforehand. And if you didn't do it, then someone else probably would have done it, especially if it was a lucrative enough business.

So business owners deserve no credit for what they've done, because someone else
would've taken the initiative to take the risks & do the work....but then neither does
this someone else deserve credit for any accomplishments according to this rationale.
No scientist, leader, writer, artist or musician deserves credit either...someone else
would've eventually done the same, & enjoyed the benefit of our infrastructure.

Ultimately, some entrepreneur will be responsible for creating a company....not
those who aspire only to work for a wage until retirement.

I'm aware of the system of cooperation and competition and also that the emphasis is on cooperation. But a centralized power has to maintain that cooperation, along with an ordered society. That's why government is far more valuable to business than most business owners realize.

The centralized power doesn't maintain cooperation.
It only provides a venue, eg, courts, roads.

Of course it's obvious, but sometimes it's the obvious things that get missed.

But I wouldn't take Obama's statement literally; I think he was just making a generalized statement.

So we can't trust Obama to mean what he says, eh.
I wonder what it would be like if Trump were cut this much slack when he makes
rash statements,with his opposition reading the most reasoned & lofty inferences.

Obama's statement raises questions.....
If his goal were merely to state the obvious, ie, that businesses exist in a framework
of infrastructure & other businesses, he could have done so. He chose instead to
severely discredit the efforts of business founders & owners....why?
Why dis them, but heap praise upon non-owners as also smart & hard working?

His subtext is to exacerbate their sense of entitlement to the fruits of others' labor,
thereby justifying ever greater taxation of business & owners.
I find this manipulation to be deceitful class warfare....inciting them masses to support
his goal of expanding government & wealth transfer to the less successful.

I don't think he was saying that business owners didn't do anything. It's not like anyone was just sitting in the park one day and "someone else" comes along and gives them an already-built business. I don't think Obama was claiming that. He may have been just referring to those in business who inherited it or those who believe it all revolves around them.

What you claim was far from what Obama said though.

I think part of it might also be addressing the fact that our culture overall is quite devoted to individualism and individual achievement. That's all well and good - as long as it doesn't forget that no man is an island. I think a healthy balance can be struck between individualism and collectivism, as long as we don't go too far one way or the other.
Perhaps Obama could have said it better, although it doesn't matter much anymore.

Or perhaps he said exactly what he intended.
After all, his fans have praised him as being gifted with a silver tongue & brilliant intellect.
How can they abandon that ad hoc, & claim his words are at odds with his thoughts?

Yeah, that's true. My aunt and uncle owned a lumber yard many years ago, and the business was having financial difficulties so they chose not to take a salary for an entire year.

But there are other businesses where the top executives earn humongous salaries while the lower-level "peons" make little more than peanuts. Some people have to work two or three jobs just to stay above water. They're not on welfare and they're not looking for a handout. They want to work for their money.

And this is the feeling he wants to instill in the masses, ie, that business doesn't deserve
all that it has....more must be taken to be given to the workers....& those on the dole.
There's no limit to what he'd take.
It would be easy for him to think this way, since he'd never dabbled even in a hot dog stand.
Business just isn't in his experience.....so it can easily be the enemy.

That appears to be the main difference between the family-owned, mom-and-pop businesses versus the big corporations.

Obama didn't make that distinction, it being necessary to demonize all businesses.

As for tax increases on businesses, I don't see how that would help the workers anyway. I have heard of situations where workers were earning so little that they qualified for food stamps, healthcare, and other government programs for the poor. If the companies they work for are paying a pittance and the government has to provide services to pick up the slack, then it's almost like an indirect subsidy to business.

To a politician, raising taxes isn't necessarily to help those who support his efforts to raise taxes.
There are other possible goals, eg, power, empire building. And don't forget incompetence.
Obama had no economic experience, which explains the utter failure of his troubled loan program,
which excluded troubled loans.

Oh, I don't know. I suppose they probably get insulted quite enough. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who insulted who, since the poor are still poor, and the rich are still.....

The purpose of the reworded speech was to illustrate how Obama uses demonization & the politics of
class warfare. Just change the object of his scorn from one group to another, & it should feel different.

But even then, I don't see anyone on welfare making any claims that they got it on their own. They're just claiming that they need financial help to be able to survive. We're a country of vast wealth and resources, and as a country, we've decided that we can spare a small portion of our wealth and resources on those who are less fortunate. I don't see why there should be a great problem with that, although I'll admit that it does seem to carry some level of fraud and corruption.

I see that my analogy failed....it wasn't about any claims made by those on the dole.

 

[Stevicus]

So business owners deserve no credit for what they've done, because someone else
would've taken the initiative to take the risks & do the work....but then neither does
this someone else deserve credit for any accomplishments according to this rationale.
No scientist, leader, writer, artist or musician deserves credit either...someone else
would've eventually done the same, & enjoyed the benefit of our infrastructure.

No, I didn't say that they don't deserve the credit. But the workers deserve credit for what they do as well.

Of course, everyone who accomplishes or creates something deserves the credit. The Beatles deserve the credit for their artistic works and contributions to music and culture...but if they never existed, then some other group would have filled that role. Thousands of hopeful rock stars out there would have been chomping at the bit for their big break. There are countless people out there who want to be rich or famous, so the notion that "without [person A], this would not exist" doesn't seem entirely correct.

I'm not even sure if "who gets the credit" is really the issue, though (unless it's a copyright or patent case). I think the main issue is who gets paid and how much.

Maybe (as an example) some business owners might not think a janitor is worth very much. But he still does a necessary job, and he has every right to receive payment for his services. But the janitor might get paid less than the company accountant, who does nothing but sit behind a desk all day. The janitor might ask, "Why does the accountant get paid more than I do? All he does is sit around, while I'm busting my buns." I think this is a valid question, and the answer one gets to such a question is where the rubber meets the road in a discussion like this. Usually the answer comes as a variation of "because I said so" without any scientific basis or logical rationale.

Ultimately, some entrepreneur will be responsible for creating a company....not
those who aspire only to work for a wage until retirement.

You make it sound like they're born that way.

The centralized power doesn't maintain cooperation.
It only provides a venue, eg, courts, roads.

I think they're more important than a lot of businesses would give them credit for.

So we can't trust Obama to mean what he says, eh.

Well, sure, he's a politician. What else would anyone expect?

I wonder what it would be like if Trump were cut this much slack when he makes
rash statements,with his opposition reading the most reasoned & lofty inferences.

I'll cut Trump some slack, too. I'm not ready to throw him under the bus. As this thread refers to the failure of the left, my view is that it's not because the left has a bad ideology, but that their emphasis is lopsided in favor of social issues and not enough on economics. The party leadership seems incredibly out of touch as well, and this would explain their poorly-conceived political strategies. The success of Trump is as much a dismal failure of the Democrats as anything else.

Obama's statement raises questions.....
If his goal were merely to state the obvious, ie, that businesses exist in a framework
of infrastructure & other businesses, he could have done so. He chose instead to
severely discredit the efforts of business founders & owners....why?

Because in the overall debate, the arguments used and the positions taken from the conservative side often paint the federal government in very "demonic" terms as well. They balk about taxes, minimum wage - as if they don't want to pay anything. Even if they're not getting a free ride now, they still seem to feel entitled to one just the same.

To be sure, some of the perceptions of business might also be colored by a historical and cultural context. There was a time when this country was a lot more business-friendly, back when society was smaller, easier to manage, and less complex than it later became. But there were a lot of abuses and atrocities that came about - things that we have since tried to reform.

True, it's probably not fair to judge business today by the standards and practices of yesteryear, but it's always going to sit in the back of people's minds when examining issues like this.

Why dis them, but heap praise upon non-owners as also smart & hard working?

[

Don't you think non-owners can be smart and hard working? Why dis working people?

Why does anyone have to be dissed? Why can't employers and employees work together in good faith and come to some sort of reasonable solution to whatever dilemmas or issues they face? Much of the time they do, but there have been notable occurrences when they haven't, requiring the intervention of government. I still remember the copper strike of '83. That was ugly.

His subtext is to exacerbate their sense of entitlement to the fruits of others' labor,
thereby justifying ever greater taxation of business & owners.
I find this manipulation to be deceitful class warfare....inciting them masses to support
his goal of expanding government & wealth transfer to the less successful.

You may be right, although I don't see it's only just about that. A lot of these programs also have the effect of improving the standard of living and the general well-being of the nation. FDR did a lot of things which business owners didn't like, but many considered the New Deal and other such policies to be necessary for our nation's economic and geopolitical survival.

There's a bigger picture to consider. It's not just simply a matter of giving free money to lazy bums, nor is it an issue of expanding government just for the heck of it. Why would any president have a goal of expanding government? Their terms of office are limited; it's not like they can personally benefit from it. It's not like we have some sort of "king" who's taxing the people just to fill up his own treasury. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people - so you and I and everyone else are the government.

What you claim was far from what Obama said though.

Or perhaps he said exactly what he intended.
After all, his fans have praised him as being gifted with a silver tongue & brilliant intellect.
How can they abandon that ad hoc, & claim his words are at odds with his thoughts?

I can't speak for Obama, but I'm pointing out that there might be other reasons why his statement resonated with a lot of people. Obama may have meant something completely different, or he might have come across in less "demonic" tones, as you put it. I'm only saying there might be some logical foundation to what he was getting at.

And this is the feeling he wants to instill in the masses, ie, that business doesn't deserve
all that it has....more must be taken to be given to the workers....& those on the dole.
There's no limit to what he'd take.

Well, that's not entirely true. In fact, some believe that, economically, Obama wasn't really that much different than Bush Jr. I've heard the term "Bush Lite" used when referring to Obama. He is a product of the Democratic Party, not the Communist Party. They are not, nor have they ever been, the same thing.

It would be easy for him to think this way, since he'd never dabbled even in a hot dog stand.
Business just isn't in his experience.....so it can easily be the enemy.

I have heard some military personnel make similar complaints, when they have commanders-in-chief who order them into battle without having served a single day in uniform. I'll admit there's no clear cut answer to that, but he did have experts to advise him.

Obama didn't make that distinction, it being necessary to demonize all businesses.

Okay, fair enough.

To a politician, raising taxes isn't necessarily to help those who support his efforts to raise taxes.
There are other possible goals, eg, power, empire building. And don't forget incompetence.
Obama had no economic experience, which explains the utter failure of his troubled loan program,
which excluded troubled loans.

Every president has their successes and failures. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I don't think he was a complete dunderhead. And as I said, what sort of "power" or "empire building" takes place here? He's out of office now. Sure, he might get some perks and benefits - perhaps grow into the role of "respected elder statesman" (or maybe not). But he would have no power at all, and I don't know of any ex-presidents with "empires."

 

[Augustus]

" If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
This was a scripted speech, so he knew in advance that he would make this statement.
Note the word, "else", which excludes the entrepreneur from creating the business.
He can temper it with elaboration....he can dance around it....but this was no slip of the tongue.
It was dishonest demonization of the movers & shakers who drive the country's economy.

Although it was clumsily expressed, he was talking about infrastructure. This is clear from the quote in context:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I didn't say that they don't deserve the credit. But the workers deserve credit for what they do as well.

I don't see workers being denied credit for good work.
But Obama's speech was about their being entitled to more,
& about business starters & owners deserving less.

Of course, everyone who accomplishes or creates something deserves the credit. The Beatles deserve the credit for their artistic works and contributions to music and culture...but if they never existed, then some other group would have filled that role. Thousands of hopeful rock stars out there would have been chomping at the bit for their big break. There are countless people out there who want to be rich or famous, so the notion that "without [person A], this would not exist" doesn't seem entirely correct.

I'm not even sure if "who gets the credit" is really the issue, though (unless it's a copyright or patent case). I think the main issue is who gets paid and how much.

Maybe (as an example) some business owners might not think a janitor is worth very much. But he still does a necessary job, and he has every right to receive payment for his services. But the janitor might get paid less than the company accountant, who does nothing but sit behind a desk all day. The janitor might ask, "Why does the accountant get paid more than I do? All he does is sit around, while I'm busting my buns." I think this is a valid question, and the answer one gets to such a question is where the rubber meets the road in a discussion like this. Usually the answer comes as a variation of "because I said so" without any scientific basis or logical rationale.

I don't see how that relates to Obama's speech.

Although.....his speech wasn't really about anything objective....just
instilling feelings of righteous entitlement in the workaday masses.
Make them feel that business types deserve less credit, & that
the less successful deserve more. Pure pandering.

You make it sound like they're born that way.

No....I make it sound like the are that way.
(The nature v nurture argument doesn't matter.)

I think they're more important than a lot of businesses would give them credit for.

Based upon what?

Because in the overall debate, the arguments used and the positions taken from the conservative side often paint the federal government in very "demonic" terms as well. They balk about taxes, minimum wage - as if they don't want to pay anything. Even if they're not getting a free ride now, they still seem to feel entitled to one just the same.

Don't you think non-owners can be smart and hard working? Why dis working people?

The point of Obama's speech was to praise non-owners at the expense
of owners, so that the former would feel entitled to more from the latter.
He did not dis workers at all. He praised them as smart & hard working
despite their relative lack of success.

Why does anyone have to be dissed?

That's politics....create an enemy, & the troops rally around the leader.
Business owners are few in number, with no voting impact.
Workers & those on the dole are many, so their vote wins elections.

Why can't employers and employees work together in good faith and come to some sort of reasonable solution to whatever dilemmas or issues they face? Much of the time they do, but there have been notable occurrences when they haven't, requiring the intervention of government. I still remember the copper strike of '83. That was ugly.

Who says employers & employees don't work together in good faith?
Disputes will crop up at times, but things are generally smooth.
That's been my experience on both sides of this relationship.

You may be right, although I don't see it's only just about that. A lot of these programs also have the effect of improving the standard of living and the general well-being of the nation. FDR did a lot of things which business owners didn't like, but many considered the New Deal and other such policies to be necessary for our nation's economic and geopolitical survival.

The issue isn't really about what's already happened, but rather what he wanted to effect in the future.

There's a bigger picture to consider. It's not just simply a matter of giving free money to lazy bums, nor is it an issue of expanding government just for the heck of it. Why would any president have a goal of expanding government? Their terms of office are limited; it's not like they can personally benefit from it. It's not like we have some sort of "king" who's taxing the people just to fill up his own treasury. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people - so you and I and everyone else are the government.

Government is a separate thing from the people.
Politicians & aparatchiks make a lifelong career there.
It's unavoidable that many will be about wielding power, increasing power, financial rewards, perquisites,
& their own job security. In my experience, my only contact with government is when they're trying to
get something from me or do something to me....never about serving any interest I have. Courts & cops
are utterly useless in dealing with crime or enforcing contracts. Oh, the stories I have.

I can't speak for Obama, but I'm pointing out that there might be other reasons why his statement resonated with a lot of people.

Well, of course....when praising mediocrity, & dissing success, he's favoring the larger voting block.

Obama may have meant something completely different, or he might have come across in less "demonic" tones, as you put it. I'm only saying there might be some logical foundation to what he was getting at.

That's quite charitable of you...to assume that Obama has some hidden logic somewhere.
I don't find him to be all that bright.

Well, that's not entirely true. In fact, some believe that, economically, Obama wasn't really that much different than Bush Jr. I've heard the term "Bush Lite" used when referring to Obama. He is a product of the Democratic Party, not the Communist Party. They are not, nor have they ever been, the same thing.

I've long criticized Duby as a big government leftie.
That Obama was so similar is a major criticism.

I have heard some military personnel make similar complaints, when they have commanders-in-chief who order them into battle without having served a single day in uniform. I'll admit there's no clear cut answer to that, but he did have experts to advise him.

I find that expert advice has little value when the call to act is made by someone with too
little experience to evaluate the advice. Obama's economic efforts come to mind.

Every president has their successes and failures. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I don't think he was a complete dunderhead. And as I said, what sort of "power" or "empire building" takes place here? He's out of office now. Sure, he might get some perks and benefits - perhaps grow into the role of "respected elder statesman" (or maybe not). But he would have no power at all, and I don't know of any ex-presidents with "empires."

I've always given Obama credit for starting no new wars, despite heavy pressure from government hawks & Israel.
I hope that Trump learned from watching us benefit from no new wars.

 

[Revoltingest]

Although it was clumsily expressed, he was talking about infrastructure. This is clear from the quote in context:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

To call it clumsy is to grant him more leeway than I would.
His language against business is far too strong & negative to be a mere slip of the tongue.
(Remember....he's supposed to be the smartest president we've ever had. <snicker>)

There's no dispute that business thrives with infrastructure.
Everyone in business knows that we depend upon complex inter-relationships.
So why would he invent this false controversy to address?
To pretend that business is ungrateful, clueless & greedy.
Why do that?
This gets his gets the base riled up to support expanding government,
raising taxes, & transferring wealth from the undeserving to the noble.

 

[Shad]

So, what it seems to boil down to in a nutshell is a wage dispute. Business owners believe that their role is more important and therefore should receive the lion's share of the revenue, while considering the role of the workers to be of lesser importance, based on the lesser amount of money they receive in compensation for their labor.

Which is true. The worker is not putting any of their money on the line, they take no risk thus they should not gain more than fair wage.

 

[Augustus]

There are just the first several entries from a google search. I believe they summarize my assertion that emotional appeal is wrong. It is considered a fallacy. It can be dishonest and naive. It triggers the prejudice of a person.

I think you are using a much narrower definition of emotional appeal than I am, it is really very difficult to talk about many things without appealing to people's emotions, even if you are being honest, altruistic and fact based. While an emotional appeal can be dishonest, most of the time it is not. It isn't simply about demagoguery, but about how we relate to the world around us as humans with emotions.

When you were young, your dad might have said 'go on, just make your mum happy' in order to get you to do something. A charity will appeal to your emotions to get you to donate. A hotel will do so in an advertisement. A teacher will do so to encourage students to work hard. A revolution against a despotic regime will require plenty of emotional arguments.

There is another thread about "How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail", often moving someone away from an incorrect but strongly held opinion requires you to reframe your arguments in terms of positive emotions to partially release the hold existing emotions have on the brain that are preventing the person from viewing the facts neutrally.

Do you agree that it is ok to appeal to emotion when it is done for the right reasons and has a solid grounding in logic/reason?

 

[suncowiam]

Do you agree that it is ok to appeal to emotion when it is done for the right reasons and has a solid grounding in logic/reason?

Let me focus on your question. I think the reasoning to group emotions and logic together is now what we're discussing. Emotions does not make an argument any more right or wrong. It might make for a stronger or weaker response, but it should not change the value of the argument.

There was a word that stood out to me when I went through the other sites. That would was prejudice. Emotions of appeal draw on our prejudices. When we do this we make assumptions of right and wrong without further analysis of the actual facts.

We should also not assume that the processing of logic and emotions happen at the same time. If we processed logic fitst and having it validate out decisions then I have little problem with emotions driving our subsequent conviction. However, if we processed emotions first to help decide our morals, then that is a faulty process and leads to further ignorance.

 

[Augustus]

Let me focus on your question. I think the reasoning to group emotions and logic together is now what we're discussing. Emotions does not make an argument any more right or wrong. It might make for a stronger or weaker response, but it should not change the value of the argument.

They can do.

Many arguments are based around subjective questions with no right or wrong answer, reason only gets you so far with these topics as it can be used to make equally valid cases for multiple perspectives. Sometimes the right thing to do rests with the heart.

There was a word that stood out to me when I went through the other sites. That would was prejudice. Emotions of appeal draw on our prejudices. When we do this we make assumptions of right and wrong without further analysis of the actual facts.

They also draw on love, compassion and empathy though.

We should also not assume that the processing of logic and emotions happen at the same time. If we processed logic fitst and having it validate out decisions then I have little problem with emotions driving our subsequent conviction. However, if we processed emotions first to help decide our morals, then that is a faulty process and leads to further ignorance.

We process emotions first as that is the way our mind works, we have no choice in that. Emotions are instinctive and reason is procedural.

For example, fear often hits you then you have to reason yourself out of being afraid.

Also the most important aspect of persuasion is ethos, the credibility of the person making the argument. This may be established through demonstrated knowledge, but it often also relies on them being 'emotionally correct'. “You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his”.

It is often the case that you have to hit the right emotions before you can start to make a well reasoned and logical argument.