• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

I don't dispute that the business owner has been helped. Nor does the business owner himself. He has been helped. He has been helped DIRECTLY by the people he personally paid in exchange for their help, and he has been helped INDIRECTLY by the infrastructure that was funded indirectly (but proportionally) by his taxes. There is no residual debt the owner has to anyone.

So there is a covert political undertone to his message. It's Mr. Rogers' level of obviousness that the business owner did not build the nation's roads and bridges. He knows that, we all know that. So why preach about it? I will tell you.

Obama is doing two things: 1) Rallying the voting folks who are salivating at the thought of government redistributing a greater amount of that owners' assets/income to them, which he may or may not actually do, or 2) giving the business owner the heads-up that he is actually going to do that.

No one says debt. Just a factual statement.

Covert message? Shouldn't we listen to the entire speech, seek to grasp the main point? What too many do, is take out an excerp and try to make it something different from the whole. The message is more likely that we're worked to do things and this has benefitted business. This is not covert, or particularly controversial.

It is as important to listen, seek meaning as it is to hold a belief system.
 
No one says debt. Just a factual statement.

What? Ahem. Is something more (than currently) owed by the successful person back to the collective by virtue of the successful person's success?

Covert message? Shouldn't we listen to the entire speech, seek to grasp the main point?

Abso*******lutely. I've read and listened to the entire speech and gained a firm grasp on his main point from the get-go. His main point is "vote for me, I'll take from the successful if you want me to" mixed together with "get ready successful, I may take from you because you're only successful in the first place because of us, who have come to take from you..."

What too many do, is take out an excerp and try to make it something different from the whole. The message is more likely that we're worked to do things and this has benefitted business. This is not covert, or particularly controversial.

It is as important to listen, seek meaning as it is to hold a belief system.

I agree. I immediately sought meaning underneath Obama's mickey-mouse obvious statements that private business owners did not build public bridges (derp!), and figured out a compelling ACTUAL reason he would speak this way to the owners of business.
 
Last edited:
So what? The point is who built and paid for the roads and railroads so businesses could thrive? hint: NOT BUSINESSES.

Businesses build the roads, quite literally, and the citizens pay for them. Gov is just a middle man.
 
Businesses build the roads, quite literally, and the citizens pay for them. Gov is just a middle man.
Okay, except the government makes the decisions, does the planning, buys the land grants and decides which business will do the building. In short, without government, business isn't going to build the road.
 
Okay, except the government makes the decisions, does the planning, buys the land grants and decides which business will do the building. In short, without government, business isn't going to build the road.

Businesses build roads all the time. I live on one such road.
 
Okay, except the government makes the decisions, does the planning, buys the land grants and decides which business will do the building. In short, without government, business isn't going to build the road.

Govt is people. It's Anthony Weiner, Charlie Rangel and Richard Nixon. Just people, often very flawed people, not some mythical god like entity that we need rely on. If "govt" didn't serve that middle-man function, some other entity would.
 
Businesses build roads all the time. I live on one such road.
Wow....and the government still made it possible for the business to build the road. Or do you really believe the business built the road for free?
 
Wow....and the government still made it possible for the business to build the road. Or do you really believe the business built the road for free?

No, we the people make it possible. Govt is just the tool of the people. We don't rely on govt for anything, Govt relies on us.
 
Wow....and the government still made it possible for the business to build the road. Or do you really believe the business built the road for free?

The business built the road entirely at its own expense, yes. This happens all over, all the time, any time a business wants to develop land.

Sorry, but it's you who are the uninformed one here.
 
Govt is people. It's Anthony Weiner, Charlie Rangel and Richard Nixon. Just people, often very flawed people, not some mythical god like entity that we need rely on. If "govt" didn't serve that middle-man function, some other entity would.
Not necessarily, seeing as private entities operate strictly on the basis of profit margins, often without considering philanthropic or long term implications of said investment. Simply put, private enterprise often lacks the capacity and motivation to invest in important functions that will not yield short term profits, even if said functions and infrastructure maintain or create a higher standard of living for the population as a whole.
 
Last edited:
The business built the road entirely at its own expense, yes. This happens all over, all the time, any time a business wants to develop land.

Sorry, but it's you who are the uninformed one here.
Nyyyew but its you who are the uniformed one heeeeeere. Neener, neener, neener. We're not talking about roads in subdivisons or condos here. Get a clue.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily, seeing as private entities operate strictly on the basis of profit margins, often without considering philanthropic or long term implications of said investment. Simply put, private enterprise often lacks the capacity and motivation to invest in important functions that will not yield short term profits, even if said functions and infrastructure maintain or create a higher standard of living for the population as a whole.

If a business relied on infrastructure to do business, infrastructure that didn't exist, it would build the infrastructure. Did govt lay the cable bringing tv and internet to your house?
 
Nyyyah but its you who are the uniformed one heeeeeere. Ninner ninner ninner. We're not talking about land developers for subdivisons here. Get a clue.

You may be wanting to move the goalposts, but the fact is, I live on a road (a road, not just some extension) which was built and paid for by business. The same business also laid all of the power and sewer -- at their own expense.

This is quite common. That you don't know this isn't my problem.
 
Nyyyah but its you who are the uniformed one heeeeeere. Ninner ninner ninner. We're not talking about land developers for subdivisons here. Get a clue.

land developers are businesses....and subdivisions their product. All business share in the development and building of their infrastructure....some shoulder it entirely.
 
If a business relied on infrastructure to do business, infrastructure that didn't exist, it would build the infrastructure.

Did govt lay the cable bringing tv and internet to your house?
Fairly vague statement, they would most likely alter their business practices to circumvent such obstacles.

No, but that's not the point here. The government has to act as a middle man in certain situations where private companies simply aren't capable of fulfilling said role. Think of the railroads built in the 1800's, and the millions of dollars of subsidies that enabled private companies to accomplish such a task, the prospect of private entities collecting the massive amount of capital to even attempt such an endeavor would be bleak at best, or alternative energy in the present day. Many companies rely heavily on government subsidies and grants in order to undergo research for future implementation. Often times, the government is the only entity that can fill this void.
 
Last edited:
Fairly vague statement, they would most likely alter their business practices to circumvent such obstacles.

Functionally equivalent.

No, but that's not the point here. The government has to act as a middle man in certain situations where private companies simply aren't capable of fulfilling said role. Think of the railroads built in the 1800's, and the millions of dollars of subsidies that enabled private companies to accomplish such a task, the prospect of private entities collecting the massive amount of capital to even attempt such an endeavor would be bleak at best, or alternative energy in the present day. Many companies rely heavily on government subsidies and grants in order to undergo research for future implementation. Often times, the government is the only entity that can fill this void.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm not saying there there is not inter-dependency. In my opinion, the greater necessity of govt is in the limiting of business and the avoidance of wreckless behaviors that would endanger the common man and the environment. That being said, to state that "You didn't build that!" shows a blatant disrespect for American ingenuity and entrepreneurial endeavor. Business very well would exist without govt, and has; govt would not exist without business.
 
Business very well would exist without govt, and has; govt would not exist without business.

Business has always existed at any level of civilization above hunter-gatherer. Government has not.

And business exists contrary to government, against the government's wishes, too. The drug trade in the United States is billions per year, and is extremely sophisticated.
 
That being said, to state that "You didn't build that!" shows a blatant disrespect for American ingenuity and entrepreneurial endeavor. Business very well would exist without govt, and has; govt would not exist without business.

Only if you blatantly misinterpret what he actually said.
 
Functionally equivalent.



I'm not a libertarian, I'm not saying there there is not inter-dependency. In my opinion, the greater necessity of govt is in the limiting of business and the avoidance of wreckless behaviors that would endanger the common man and the environment. That being said, to state that "You didn't build that!" shows a blatant disrespect for American ingenuity and entrepreneurial endeavor. Business very well would exist without govt, and has; govt would not exist without business.

Let me help you people out there. Obama didn't say "You didn't build [your business]."

Obama said "You didn't build [those roads]."

So unless you built the roads with your own bare hands, shut the **** up!
 
You may be wanting to move the goalposts, but the fact is, I live on a road (a road, not just some extension) which was built and paid for by business. The same business also laid all of the power and sewer -- at their own expense.

This is quite common. That you don't know this isn't my problem.
If you're talking about private roads then it's you who are moving the goal posts. The fact that you don't know what this thread is about or what we've been discussing for the last 50 or 60 pages is your problem. I suspect thats quite common too.
 
Okay, except the government makes the decisions, does the planning, buys the land grants and decides which business will do the building. In short, without government, business isn't going to build the road.

This is where you are wrong, and the reason why bloated government is unnecessary. All those decisions are made by AASHTO (a private organization)...then the FHWA (government) nods its head in agreement for multiple billions of wasted dollars. I bet you didn't know that. There is hardly a proper role for government other than lawmakers approving overall plans.
 
Let me help you people out there. Obama didn't say "You didn't build [your business]."

Obama said "You didn't build [those roads]."

So unless you built the roads with your own bare hands, shut the **** up!

Ive been saying this for some time, but those who hate Obama refuse to listen to logic & reason.
 
If you're talking about private roads then it's you who are moving the goal posts.

Oh, but I'm not.

Not that it would matter, because private roads are, well, roads and infrastructure just like any other road. Who's moving goalposts? I think it is, indeed, you.
 
Last edited:
Only if you blatantly misinterpret what he actually said.

No, it's verbatim what he said. Many are exaggerating the impact of the statement, but he did state it. He plainly said If you are successful, it's because "we" helped you. Leading one to believe that if "we" didn't help you, you would not be successful, because working hard and "being smart" is not enough. Apparently govt picks and chooses who is to be successful and who is not. Personally, it's that part of it that pisses me off. Why hasn't Obama made me a multi-million dollar business to be an executive of? Why hasn't he made one for you? Or for the guy sleeping under a bridge?
 
No, it's verbatim what he said. Many are exaggerating the impact of the statement, but he did state it....

this is nothing but feigned ignorance of his point & his intent.

he was NOT accusing business-owners of not building & creating their own businesses.

any suggestion of such is just dishonest absurdity.
 
Back
Top Bottom