Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDNC fires back with 'You didn't built that, you destroyed it'
By DONOVAN SLACK |
8/28/12 9:25 AM EDT
The DNC is out with a new video Tuesday pushing back on attacks against Obama for his "you didn't build that" comment.
The video begins with Mitt Romney's now-famous remark, "I like to be able to fire people that provide services to me," and strings together clips of workers from companies shuttered after investment from Bain Capital and reporters and analysts talking about Bain investments in companies that off-shored jobs.
"Mitt Romney: You didn't build that, You destroyed it," the tag line says.
The video is one of the most aggressive pushbacks to date against Republican attempts to capitalize on the president saying "you didn't build that" to small business owners. President Obama had been referring to public infrastructure such as roads and bridges that aided companies' growth, but the Romney campaign and the GOP have mounted all-out offensives on the comments, alleging that he was talking about the businesses themselves.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/dnc-fires-back-with-you-didnt-built-that-you-destroyed-133458.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
17 replies, 3183 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (37)
ReplyReply to this post
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DNC fires back with 'You didn't built that, you destroyed it' (Original Post)
cali
Aug 2012
OP
Looking back at history, Erie Canal, Transcontintental Railroad all government projects
vinny9698
Aug 2012
#15
Fitting . . . the GOP's entire convention is built on a repeatedly-debunked out-of-context meme.
HughBeaumont
Aug 2012
#17
librechik
(30,677 posts)1. Excellent. Now get it on TV 185 times an hour.
flamingdem
(39,333 posts)4. + tres
derby378
(30,252 posts)8. But lose that ridiculous circle-D first
Donkeys forever!
napkinz
(17,199 posts)5. That ad needs to include the FUTURE tense, as in ...
napkinz
(17,199 posts)7. show the hypocrisy!
Ilsa
(61,709 posts)9. Yeah, and they should show the roads in Texas which
have been torn up from heavy use by the oil &gas industry in their pursuit of franking the Eagle Ford Shale, etc.
Pisces
(5,602 posts)10. This is a perfect ad!!
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)12. great ad.
It should be played every day, and on every channel. Rmoney is a destroyer, not a creator.
trayfoot
(1,568 posts)13. Outstanding!!!!!
BumRushDaShow
(129,737 posts)14. Kick and rec for the truth!
vinny9698
(1,016 posts)15. Looking back at history, Erie Canal, Transcontintental Railroad all government projects
These government projects built this nation. How can you deny historical facts?
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)16. I love it. What has Mittens ever done to "create jobs?"
He made a lot of money but I don't see the jobs.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)17. Fitting . . . the GOP's entire convention is built on a repeatedly-debunked out-of-context meme.
President Obama's statement was absolutely true; confirmed by any economist, any government professor, any thinking person. There is no absolute private wealth. The general public plays some kind of role in how everything is structured no matter how much these TeaSquares deny it.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075
To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:
* Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
* Public schools or employees educated in public schools
* Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
* Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
* Mail systems built and operated at public expense
* Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
* Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
* Police and fire protection provided at public expense
* Public libraries and parks
* Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
* Government contracts
* Government-provided business incentives
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
* A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
* The Internet
* A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
* Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
* The U.S. military
If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.
If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.
* Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
* Public schools or employees educated in public schools
* Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
* Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
* Mail systems built and operated at public expense
* Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
* Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
* Police and fire protection provided at public expense
* Public libraries and parks
* Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
* Government contracts
* Government-provided business incentives
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
* A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
* The Internet
* A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
* Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
* The U.S. military
If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.
If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.