the "you didn't build that" apologists just don't get it
but, see, that's not the real point, and the fixation on the idiots fixated on "that" is just as ridiculous as the idiots themselves.
the huge philosophical eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room is the basic question: are we going to make a priority of the leaning-ever-so-slightly-towards-socialist powers of government to provide infrastructure, or are we going to prioritize the leaning-ever-so-slightly-towards-robber-baronism entrepreneurial powers of small business, to get us out of this cluster-fuck of an economic morass into which runaway government spending has placed us? or are we going to try to see both for their flaws, as well as their indispensable strengths?
think about it, barry apologists--would you say we are here because of not enough government spending, or too much? (i would suggest too much. so would a lot of other americans. but you can suggest your opinion for yourself).
but the real point is that there are a lot of voters (and i mean a LOT of voters) who recoiled at barry's statement not because it inarticulately confused an object pronoun, but because it expressed a decided priority to nominate government infrastructure ahead of individual entrepreneurship as the panacea to all our woes.
thoughtful people, i will hope, will observe that BOTH engines are necessary to fly this great airplane of our america without crashing it to the ground. but it is instructive to note that the government engine cannot and does not exist without first taxing the entrepreneurship engine, (and diminishing it in the process), and any excess on the government side chokes the combination as surely as you and i are reading and writing about it now. government, after all, creates no wealth--only redistributes it. (on worthwhile infrastructure projects if we're lucky, but you've seen how our present congress is operating--how do you really feel about the chances of that?)
so, to summarize my vehement and visceral rejection of barry's one-sided premise--i believe that to create the wealth to build the infrastructure to create further wealth, we must absolutely find a way to get the private sector engine humming along again. we can certainly help it by judicious choices in how we build infrastructure to support it. but to prioritize the feeding (and possible bloating) of an already crushing government bureaucracy ahead of nurturing our national wealth production, is a philosophical approach that i cannot and will not support. to fund the social and safety-net programs i so dearly think we critically need to care for our disadvantaged it is necessary to build up the engine which can be taxed. we cannot build up that engine by taxing it first. we simply can't.
chicken and egg, yes. but there is no chicken without the egg. or egg without the chicken. so to suggest that one is a chicken farmer or an egg farmer alone is to be wrong. dead wrong. the republicans who want unfettered commerce without restraint or protection for the vulnerable 99-percenters are wrong. the democrats who want unfettered government without restraint or protection for the vulnerable entrepreneurs are wrong.
it's a gaffe. now please, barry, tell me that you have learned why and can articulate how you are going to farm both chickens and eggs, please. we in the great undecided middle would dearly like to hear it. (and, oh, by the way, we're listening to some other alternatives, too, who aren't so glib about trashing those who build their own businesses in favor of those who push government papers).