• 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'm talking about federal highways.

Then that is a surprising statistic. Is that a long term stat or is the cost inflated due to stimulus spending the last couple of years.
 
Hilarity should ensue

Star of Romney ‘My Hands Didn’t Build This’ Ad Received Millions in Government Loans and Contracts

This next bit is truly 'special'

How can you say you're "getting some of my tax money back" when some of the government funding helped you start the business - that is before you were paying much in taxes?

The question is being raised everyday; if Mitt Romney is running on his "executive experience" why are so many of the people he has employed to run his campaign completely incompetent? From Etch-a-Sketch guy to the clowns who created this ad without bothering to investigate the man's past, Mitt's campaign workers show their lack of skills and knowledge every day. The American electorate is supposed to think hiring dimwits and incompetents is a positive?

The man getting government business related assistance is not in any way at odds with the ad, nor with Romney's message. Romney's message was not "everyone does things entirely as an individual with no help from anyone in any way". On the contrary, he specifically suggested there are things that contribute. However, the difference was that he was suggesting that the praise for actions such as starting a business should be primarily placed on the individual whose individual drive, risk taking, and efforts were the largest contributing factor (in Romney's opinion) to that's success and as such they should be held up and praised for their success, not devalued in light of raising up all within the community who impacted it in some way shape or form.
 
Most road wear and tear is associated with weathering and large trucks not tourist traffic. To your larger point yes, sometimes government has to step and protect individuals from business--those instances are rare--and the onus of proof is on those calling for government intervention. Because the vast majority of our current regulatory environment--albeit well intentioned by some consumer activists--simply act as protection for large corporations from smaller competitors.
I agree with you that there are too many protectionist measures put in place to protect the interests of large corporations over those of smaller players.
I think we agree in principle on many things, but we do not see eye-to-eye on the degree of some problems. I am not comfortable saying that the "cases are rare", that government should intervene to regulate business. And perhaps we just aren't even quite using "regulate" in the same way. To clarify my position: History clearly shows us that if a business can make a profit by shirking its moral responsibility to its workers, the nation's citizens, or the environment with respect, it will do so-unless it is regulated by the government. That's just the sad truth about a Laisse-faire market approach. As soon as government steps out of the way it becomes a race to the bottom in terms of responsibility in order to race to the top in terms of profits. This is an EXTREMELY strong impulse in a free-market approach and it occurs at all levels, both large and small. For that reason, I believe there is actually of ton of business practices, both micro and macro, that the government absolutely must regulate.
Too much regulation can and does occur in some cases and we need to combat this when it arises. However, I contend that many of the problems we are currently facing in this nation(and indeed the world) have resulted not from too much regulation, but TOO LITTLE




Ya, I looked into this, Mexico just doesn't have much money to build roads:

Mexico still banks on privately run toll roads

From the article...



Take away private toll roads, and you'd be riding a donkey at 4mph to your destination. We here in the U.S. are doing fine with publicly financing our roads through users fees, just understand we can afford those user fees because we are rich (relative to Mexicans), because we have relatively more economic freedom than Mexicans. Remember though, at the federal level we have a useless multi-billion dollar bureaucratic middle man that should be cut from our budget. This is not what Obama wants to do.
I still do not concede that Mexico can't afford to build roads. Such things are merely a matter of priority, and I certainly don't agree that privatizing them will result in anything but disaster in Mexico. Also, don't forget, that most of the user fees collected in the US actually go to our government, not a private company. The monies may later be used to contract private individuals to construct the roads, but this is way different from turning the whole process over to a private organization.
Secondly, you are way too disparaging of donkeys. I know some that can move at at least 6mph.
Thirdly, Why are you saying that we have a "useless multi-billion dollar middle man"? "Useless" is a very strong word. So which organization, specifically, are you talking about, and where can I more information on its corruption?
Fourthly, even if I were to come around to your viewpoint about the "useless middle-man" that you speak of, I'd like to be sure that if we replaced it, it would not in whole by a private firm because I strongly believe that would only result in disaster and less service for greater cost. I think roads/bridges are so critical to the well-being of everyone in our society that I become very worried and very suspicious whenever someone suggests that their administering should be turned over, whether in whole or in part, to private interests. That, to me, is a slippery slope and it was I would not embrace without significant insurances.
In the meantime, we should fight to demand that we reform and fix anything that may be broken("useless") in the way that the government administers our highways.
 
Last edited:
The man getting government business related assistance is not in any way at odds with the ad, nor with Romney's message. Romney's message was not "everyone does things entirely as an individual with no help from anyone in any way". On the contrary, he specifically suggested there are things that contribute. However, the difference was that he was suggesting that the praise for actions such as starting a business should be primarily placed on the individual whose individual drive, risk taking, and efforts were the largest contributing factor (in Romney's opinion) to that's success and as such they should be held up and praised for their success, not devalued in light of raising up all within the community who impacted it in some way shape or form.

And I don't believe that Obama is claiming that the government should take the majority of the credit. The problem, and I think this is what Obama was originally lashing out about, is that there is a growing chorus of conservatives in this country screaming that government is junk and only impedes businesses. I think it is high time for some strongly worded pushback against this attitude and I, for one, was glad that Obama used some strong words to address this "I built this business with no help from anyone" argument that people are using in order to belittle the importance of a government and its citizens acting together for the collective good. Our economy is so interconnected and many of the government programs have set in place a foundation upon which businesses can succeed, so I don't understand why so many business owners continue to insist that they are islands unto themselves and they did everything on their own. It's truly represents a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and the importance of government.
 
Fourthly, even if I were to come around to your viewpoint about the "useless middle-man" that you speak of, I'd like to be sure that if we replaced it, it would not in whole by a private firm because I strongly believe that would only result in disaster and less service for greater cost. I think roads/bridges are so critical to the well-being of everyone in our society that I become very worried and very suspicious whenever someone suggests that their administering should be turned over, whether in whole or in part, to private interests. That, to me, is a slippery slope and it was I would not embrace without significant insurances.
In the meantime, we should fight to demand that we reform and fix anything that may be broken("useless") in the way that the government administers our highways.

I want to eliminate the Department of Transportation and save taxpayers $91 Billion a year. Do away with all federal funding and intervention into how states plan or fund their highways, cooperation for interstate highways as you know is planned through AASHTO. Many new projects can be privately funded and investors can recoup their capital with electronic tolling. Where there is no market for private funding states should decide how to finance the project. DOT's FHA should be gone today.

FTA? Gone! Transit subsidizes a malinvestment of state resources, by favoring rail over more flexible buses. Amtrak? Gone! Don't get me started on that boondoggle.

Federal ATC? Gone! Since the mid-1990s Canada has had a private non-profit air traffic control system and it works fine.

Your concern seems to be the profit motive's supposed race to the bottom. Although I don't agree with that assertion lets--for arguments sake--assume your assertion is true. Much of what I argue is to let nonprofits do what they already do. Where I want to see privatization with profit, you know private highways have to be insured. Guess who has higher engineering standards...federal interstates or private expressways whose safety design is based on insurance actuaries?
 
And I don't believe that Obama is claiming that the government should take the majority of the credit.

And I agree with you, and didn't suggest otherwise.

I believe Obama was claiming that the community...and by that I mean all those that contributed, from the teacher you had in high school to the guy who made the road you drive on, and including the individual as well...is the entity that deserves to be highlighted the most for an accomplishment rather than the individual.

While I do believe Obama believes that the government is a major and integral part of the community and the portion of the community he is interested in expanding, I don't buy that he's simply saying "government" in his statement.

The problem, and I think this is what Obama was originally lashing out about, is that there is a growing chorus of conservatives in this country screaming that government is junk and only impedes businesses. I think it is high time for some strongly worded pushback against this attitude and I, for one, was glad that Obama used some strong words to address this "I built this business with no help from anyone" argument that people are using in order to belittle the importance of a government and its citizens acting together for the collective good.

And I'm sure that may've been why he lashed out. And I expect many liberals to be happy that he went after that and made the argument he did. However, your want about people feeling they "did it on their own" is no more of selective recognition of hyperbole then many are doing in regards to Obama in this. You operate under this false notion that conservatism = anarchy and people don't want any government institutions or functions what so ever. You view things that Obama says, give him the benefit of the doubt, seek to find nuanced ways to explain it or describe it...but then you give no such benefit of the doubt to conservatives, seeking to look at context and recognition of common phrases and common sense regarding intent and message behind them. They notion that one "does it on their own" is not suggesting a literalistic interpritation where they had succeeded entirely without any possible interactoin with anyone else in any way shape or form that resulted in a positive thing, but rather a statement of the belief that their successes came about primarily due to their own efforts and work. You could say "Well, that success wouldn't happen without the community that contributed". True. And I could say that the success wouldn't have happened just with the community if there wasn't an individual to do the hard work, make the sacrifices, and take the risks. The difference is you think it's perfectly acceptable to promote one aspect of that as far more important and needing to be focused on, but have some issue inherently with someone doing the opposite.
 
Obama wasn't saying "business owners didn't build their businesses".

he was saying that we ALL, together, pitched in to build roads & bridges.

we ALL pitched in with either tax dollars, management & design of the project, or the actual labor.
 
While I do believe Obama believes that the government is a major and integral part of the community and the portion of the community he is interested in expanding, I don't buy that he's simply saying "government" in his statement.

So, what is the point of having said it then? Why even bring it up? It's a given that the ability to succeed is an integral part of the American "dream". If Obama was not intending to downplay the efforts of businessmen (or more probably, a certain businessman) why even say it?
 
So, what is the point of having said it then? Why even bring it up? It's a given that the ability to succeed is an integral part of the American "dream". If Obama was not intending to downplay the efforts of businessmen (or more probably, a certain businessman) why even say it?


Because far too many on the right are less rational and thoughtful than conservatives like Zyphlin. I think where Zyphlin gets it a bit wrong is in arguing that many progressives "operate under this false notion that conservatism = anarchy and people don't want any government institutions or functions what so ever." in a thread where the post just above his is calling for the total abolition of government agencies. There are unfortunately far too many who call themselves libertarian or conservative who are advocating the destruction of the present American/developed world society due to a delusional belief in some kind of Galtian fantasy world.

My experience is that a much larger percentage of those who name themselves "Progressive" have a wider comprehension of the world as it is and the history that has created our present society than those who call themselves "Conservative" or "Libertarian". Not true in all cases but one could say "the exceptions prove the rule" for there are those, wherever they lie on the political spectrum, who don't fit in well those around them. Zyphlin as an example at one place on the line with his frequent disagreements with his less rational brethren.
 
So, what is the point of having said it then? Why even bring it up? It's a given that the ability to succeed is an integral part of the American "dream". If Obama was not intending to downplay the efforts of businessmen (or more probably, a certain businessman) why even say it?


I don't think the President was "downplaying" the success of individual businessmen as he was attempting to pry some bit of acknowledgement from his political opponents that their "our way or the hiway" plaints are simply untrue. Without the entire structure created by both individuals and government, neither would exist yet there are those who argue "government can't do anything". Which is simply untrue.
 
I don't think the President was "downplaying" the success of individual businessmen as he was attempting to pry some bit of acknowledgement from his political opponents that their "our way or the hiway" plaints are simply untrue. Without the entire structure created by both individuals and government, neither would exist yet there are those who argue "government can't do anything". Which is simply untrue.

In other words the prez is arguing with anarchists. Are anarchists a serious threat to the prez's agenda?
 
Obama wasn't saying "business owners didn't build their businesses".

he was saying that we ALL, together, pitched in to build roads & bridges.

we ALL pitched in with either tax dollars, management & design of the project, or the actual labor.

And this is how stupid his comment was. It shows his utter ignorance for what makes a successful business successful.

Let me put it in terms you might understand. Roads and bridges do not make a company or small business successful. If they did, every single business would be successful, because there is a road in front of virtually every business in America. My business doesn't succeed simply because there is a road outside, or a bridge nearby, and it doesn't succeed because we have a government that builds new roads and bridges. Does it contribute at all? Sure, but it's miniscule, and I mean miniscule. Because of the internet, I don't need the government built roads near as much as I used to. But of course, Obama tries to give most of the credit to the government for the invention of the internet too. One liberal even claims he invented the internet.....cough cough

What Obama's comment revealed, is his fundamental philosophy behind "collectivism". It diminishes the philosophy of rugged individualism, entreprenuership, free market capitalism. Ya know, the things that literally built America and made it the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Like I've said so many times before, YOU don't listen to the man's words, OR, you agree with him philosophically. Either you don't understand his philosophy, OR, you 100% agree with it. It's the Socialistic philosophy of "collectivism". Listen to some of his speeches, read his books. He doesn't hide his philosophy. In "Audacity of Hope", he talks extensively about "collective salvation". You know what that means? It means he believes HE isn't saved, until we are ALL saved. Collectively. How many times have you heard him use the terminology "shared sacrifice"???? That's a "collective" philosophy. Everyone shares sacrifice. Of course, everyone but government. These are very strong Socialist philosophies, and they go against the philosophy of "individual responsibility", "individual acheivment", "individual entreprenuership", "individual freedom", "individualism" in general.

His philosophy seeks to diminish the very best, to make them no more important than anyone else. Which explains his comment, "if you have a business, you didn't build that. Someone else made that happen". He is diminishing the individual acheivements of the business owner, and equating them with some random person that paid $150 in property taxes that went to help pay for the road outside. It's absolutely an insult to people who have risked much, and worked hard to build something. He doesn't know the meaning of building something. And you can try to explain his comments away all you like. It's the context of his statement that is insulting, not just the comment itself. I understand Obama, you dont. OR, you agree with him wholeheartedly, and are afraid to admit it. Either way, I still understand his philosophies. I've studied him, I've read his books, I've watched him speak, I've read his speeches over again, and most importantly, I just listen to him talk. He isn't from the same mold I'm from, or most Americans are from. The mold that honors our individuality, rewards our individual successes, and holds up individuality as the key component to success.

Do you even have a clue what I'm saying?????
 
And this is how stupid his comment was. It shows his utter ignorance for what makes a successful business successful.

Let me put it in terms you might understand. Roads and bridges do not make a company or small business successful. If they did, every single business would be successful, because there is a road in front of virtually every business in America.

You know, writing the same flawed manifesto over and over doesn't make it any more true. Obama didn't say that government alone can make a business successful. He said that it takes us all pulling together AND individual initiative.
 
I think you are mistaken. Can you please cite the section(s) of ACA that lead you to conclude that premiums can be set by anyone other than the insurance companies participating in the exchanges?



And please cite the section discussing the alleged committee that controls premium increases.



All due respect, but I think that this multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry, with its legion of lawyers, accountants, and actuaries, probably has a better idea of what's good for it than you do.



Again, the info. you've received is bull****. First, states are responsible for setting up their own exchanges. They can choose the carriers they prefer. If they choose not to do the work then the residents of the state will have access to the federal exchange. There will be no "government plan" as the public option was specifically nixed. There can, however, be independent nonprofit cooperatives.

I've cited my source. IT's the actual bill itself. Take your time, read it more carefully.

Insurance companies within the exchange may set a minimum price. But the maximum price for any "qualified plan" is established by the exchange, or the committee. In addition, any rate increase on premiums must be approved by the committee as well. This is standard stuff that is in the first 50 pages of the bill.

Also, you are 100% wrong about the states setting up the exchanges. If that were true, states would be able to "opt out" of Obamacare, which they cannot do. The states were able to opt out of the Medicaid requirement, and the federal government (the liberal dictators), tried to force them to accept that requirement. They did so by saying that if the states didn't go along with the Medicaid provisions, then the feds would cut off ALL Medicaid funds to the state. But as you know, the Supreme Court over ruled the government on that as well.

The exchange is a federal exchange, underwritten by insurance companies in all 50 states. There will be no more than 10 carriers within the exchange. And if you would like to make a wager on the "government plan" being available within 5 years, I would happily bet some money on it with you. The way they are going to get it done, is insurance premiums are going to continue to rise, despite this stupid bill, and within 5 years, the government will say "a public option is necessary because the rates are just too expensive".

I've worked in the insurance industry for several years, and yes, those big companies have all kinds of lawyers and accountants, but that isn't the issue. They believe Obamacare is here to stay, and they may be right. They see where it's going to lead. Which is why they are pre-emptively cutting agent commissions in half right now. It's also why they are raising premiums faster than they ever have before. They are making hay while the sun is still shining. Once the government mandates that they can only utilize 15% of their revenues for investing, what do you think is going to happen????? Geez man, think. They are simply bargaining for scraps at the government table. They want a place, because they don't want to go out of business. They believe that if they go along with it all, then they will be spared, just like GM was spared. Just like Goldman-Sachs was spared.

Don't doubt me man. You heard Nancy Pelosi, and Obama himself say that "single payer" is their ultimate goal. And if they have to go through a window, a side door, a back door, a trap door....hell, it doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter if it takes another decade. You're a fool if you don't understand this about the left. You think this is something they are going to settle for?? The left?? Problem is, you probably agree with a single payer system. Yet you don't know the ramifications of such an idea in America, and the negative effects it has on businesses. Do yourself a favor, go talk to business owners like I do every day. Get their take on Obamacare, then ask them why so many business owners oppose it. You think it's because Obama is black? lol, or you think it's because he's a Democrat? lol...nah. Neither one of those are the primary reasons. The primary reason is because it's burdensome on businesses of ALL sizes. If it doesn't effect a small business directly, it certainly effects them indirectly. In many ways.

Its their goal, and they are happy as can be that they are one giant leap closer to acheiving it.
 
You operate under this false notion that conservatism = anarchy and people don't want any government institutions or functions what so ever. You view things that Obama says, give him the benefit of the doubt, seek to find nuanced ways to explain it or describe it...but then you give no such benefit of the doubt to conservatives, seeking to look at context and recognition of common phrases and common sense regarding intent and message behind them. They notion that one "does it on their own" is not suggesting a literalistic interpritation where they had succeeded entirely without any possible interactoin with anyone else in any way shape or form that resulted in a positive thing, but rather a statement of the belief that their successes came about primarily due to their own efforts and work. You could say "Well, that success wouldn't happen without the community that contributed". True. And I could say that the success wouldn't have happened just with the community if there wasn't an individual to do the hard work, make the sacrifices, and take the risks. The difference is you think it's perfectly acceptable to promote one aspect of that as far more important and needing to be focused on, but have some issue inherently with someone doing the opposite.
I commend you for taking a balanced view on this issue, but I am afraid a majority of your conservative bretheren actually do not understand how important the government is in creating a climate in which businesses can succeed and, I contend, this misguided attitude is becoming and more prevalent. Today's headline from Fox News: Small business owner to Obama -- you owe us!(Business owners don’t owe credit to government for their success. Government owes us credit for its existence! Government doesn’t enable or empower business owners. We empower government.
Business owners would do just fine without government. But government, government employees, and the “takers” of society...) It's the same old hate that the conservative mainstream has been throwing out about government for years now, and it is becoming increasingly parroted by those on the right. It's an extremely adversarial stance and fails to recognize that the issue is much more nuanced than just government-vs-business. The two of them need one another -Why do so many conservatives refuse to acknowledge that?!!!! Evan Obama in his speech that has so raised the ire of the right, said that individual initiative was important.
And I suppose you will retort that those on the left do not understand how important individual initiative and small businesses are to our economy, and I would absolutely disagree with you if you were to make this case. Obama has been very aggressive in advocating tax cuts for small businesses and so have many other progressives. Most any liberals I know acknowledge that the free-market private sector is critical to our well being. Why can't so many conservatives give the same nod to the importance of government?!
You seem like a very level-headed thinker, but the majority of your fellow conservatives, I believe, have lost all perspective on this issue. Believe me, I live in a small conservative town and I have my finger on the pulse of what most conservatives are saying and thinking currently and they do, indeed, believe that the free market is the solution to all of our problems and that all individuals and businesses "do it all on their own with no help from anybody-government included!" If I had a dollar for each time I heard one of my conservative friends said that then, well, I'd have just as many dollars as I have conservative friends!
 
My problem with the "You didn't build that" rhetoric, is if external factors made a business successful, why isn't everyone a successful business owner? Why isn't every man/woman sitting on a street corner begging for change, a successful business owner?
 
You know, writing the same flawed manifesto over and over doesn't make it any more true. Obama didn't say that government alone can make a business successful. He said that it takes us all pulling together AND individual initiative.

And you can keep reapplying all the lipstick you want on that pig, it doesn't get any prettier. Look, the president has a worldview that ties into many in this country. With so many unemployed and for so long it is easy for a leader to scapgoat others that are not those dire circumstances. The president and his hangers on are running a campaign not based on hope and change, but blame the other guy. Whomever that is. In his case he can't fix things like he promised and that is Bush's fault. People can't get ahead because rich folks are holding them down. Health care costs will devour our budget and economy not because Obamacare did not bend the cost curve but because of greedy insurance companies and big pharma.

The wonderful thing about a campaign like this is that there are so many who refuse to look behind the curtain to see what substance there is to any of these statements. Millions of lemmings willing to chant:

It's not our fault blame, it's the fault of greedy ( fill in the blank).
 
My problem with the "You didn't build that" rhetoric, is if external factors made a business successful, why isn't everyone a successful business owner? Why isn't every man/woman sitting on a street corner begging for change, a successful business owner?

It is the combination of personal abilities with living in a society that allows those skills to be used.


Why do so many conservatives have such black/white views of the world? We do not live in an either/or universe, what is so difficult about this concept that so many fail to comprehend complexity.
 
I've cited my source. IT's the actual bill itself. Take your time, read it more carefully.

Don't be absurd. The law is almost 1000 pages long and it's ridiculous to suggest that someone should pour through it to support YOUR assertion with a pinpoint cite. You claim it's in the bill -- please at least cite the section number.
 
Also, you are 100% wrong about the states setting up the exchanges. If that were true, states would be able to "opt out" of Obamacare, which they cannot do. The states were able to opt out of the Medicaid requirement, and the federal government (the liberal dictators), tried to force them to accept that requirement. They did so by saying that if the states didn't go along with the Medicaid provisions, then the feds would cut off ALL Medicaid funds to the state. But as you know, the Supreme Court over ruled the government on that as well.

It appears that you haven't followed the news, let alone read and/or comprehended the law. States all over the country are in the process of setting up exchanges ... except for those who have opted not to (like, e.g. Florida). They are supposed to set up their own exchanges, but if they do not then their residents can take advantage of the federally-created exchange.

State Actions to Implement the Health Benefit Exchange
[/QUOTE]
 
And you can keep reapplying all the lipstick you want on that pig, it doesn't get any prettier.

And you can keep ignoring the second half of his sentence, but it doesn't make it go away -- or do much for your credibility.
 
And this is how stupid his comment was. It shows his utter ignorance for what makes a successful business successful.

Let me put it in terms you might understand. Roads and bridges do not make a company or small business successful. If they did, every single business would be successful, because there is a road in front of virtually every business in America. My business doesn't succeed simply because there is a road outside, or a bridge nearby, and it doesn't succeed because we have a government that builds new roads and bridges. Does it contribute at all? Sure, but it's miniscule, and I mean miniscule. Because of the internet, I don't need the government built roads near as much as I used to. But of course, Obama tries to give most of the credit to the government for the invention of the internet too. One liberal even claims he invented the internet.....cough cough
I think you have missed the point. Obama NEVER said that roads and bridges made any businesses or made them successful. He suggested that they have CONTRIBUTED to the ability of the business to succeed(along with schools and a myriad of other factors). Also, Obama cites roads and schools in this speech, but he is actually alluding to government in general(military, roads, public schools, judicial system, police, regulatory bodies etc etc.) when he is making the case for collective participation. And if you think all of these things have contributed in a miniscule way to your ability to succeed in business, you are gravely mistaken. I too am a business owner. I have spent a lot of my life travelling and living in developing nations and I give thanks every day to all of the millions of ways that previous Americans and previous(and current)American govenment programs and initiatives have made it easier for my business to succeed. But keep on patting yourself on the back and downplaying the millions of interconnected ways in which you have benefited from collective efforts of others, both current and past.
And as to your reference to Al Gore inventing the internet. I think it is really sad when otherwise intelligent people interpret everything through a filter of bias. Do your homework on this issue and I think you'll see that this was a bit of a gaffe on his part which was taken out of context and put into spin mode by his detractors. He was clearly referring to the bills that he co-sponsored as a senator to fund the laying down of high-speed internet connections between universities etc. He was most definitively not intending to claim that he alone invented the internet. But, once again, if believing that is what he intended to imply makes you feel better, then keep on believing it.
 
My problem with the "You didn't build that" rhetoric, is if external factors made a business successful, why isn't everyone a successful business owner? Why isn't every man/woman sitting on a street corner begging for change, a successful business owner?

Obama never implied in any way that it was only external factors that made a business successful. In fact, if you read his speech, and listen to speeches he has made in the past, you will see that he actually very strongly believes in individual initiative and effort and believes it is central to the creation of business. All Obama said was that we need to begin challenging this growing notion among many conservative business owners that "they created it all by themselves with no help from anyone else". He merely challenging the notion that businesses don't need government. He is not challenging the notion that government needs business or that personal initiative isn't key.
 
Obama wasn't saying "business owners didn't build their businesses".

he was saying that we ALL, together, pitched in to build roads & bridges.

we ALL pitched in with either tax dollars, management & design of the project, or the actual labor.

And to what purpose is he saying it? Or is he talking just to be heard?
 
Back
Top Bottom