• 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]

You can argue all day about what you think would be the best way to build a national road infrastructure, but the bottom line is you didn't build it, which is what Obama said. Hypotheticals don't matter, what happened happened.

The thesis of Obama's speech was that his big bloated government spoils system is necessary because government "builds roads" and has shiny red trucks that put out fires. His thesis is crap, having much less government would improve the services he claims the government provides.
 
The thesis of Obama's speech was that his big bloated government spoils system is necessary because government "builds roads" and has shiny red trucks that put out fires. His thesis is crap, having much less government would improve the services he claims the government provides.

No, that was not the thesis of his speech.
 
If I was the only one that could provide that service for you would you be telling me to run along? I don't think you would especially if your business depended on my service.

Which service would this be?
 
The thesis of Obama's speech was that his big bloated government spoils system is necessary because government "builds roads" and has shiny red trucks that put out fires. His thesis is crap, having much less government would improve the services he claims the government provides.

The best part is we don't need government to build roads or put out fires. His failure was most glorious.
 
The thesis of Obama's speech was that his big bloated government spoils system is necessary because government "builds roads" and has shiny red trucks that put out fires. His thesis is crap, having much less government would improve the services he claims the government provides.

Support that. You too Henrin. :coffeepap
 
The thesis of Obama's speech was that his big bloated government spoils system is necessary because government "builds roads" and has shiny red trucks that put out fires. His thesis is crap, having much less government would improve the services he claims the government provides.

obama is akin to a flea telling the dogs that he and his kindred are responsible for them having lots of blood
 
obama is akin to a flea telling the dogs that he and his kindred are responsible for them having lots of blood

I guess when the truth won't work, this is all your side has left. :coffeepap
 
Private contractors build roads, they are paid for mainly through a user fee. There is no reason for large bureaucracy.
Road builders are mainly paid through bonds and or taxes. User fees are conditioned on the use of the road (toll roads) and are generally used to maintain the roads after they're built, not build them.
 
The service you were talking about. <shrug>

All of them I could find people in society to do for me. I don't need government for anything you mentioned.
 
All of them I could find people in society to do for me. I don't need government for anything you mentioned.
Find people in society, eh? What, you can't build or run your business all by yourself?
 
Support that. You too Henrin. :coffeepap

My last statement? Considering they both have business models that function just fine there is nothing to defend.

If you want to be uptight about what YOU have decided to provide for me and act like I somehow need to do more for you because of what YOU decided to do for me all on your own, you need to check yourself real quick. Same goes for Obama frankly.
 
Last edited:
Find people in society, eh? What, you can't build or run your business all by yourself?

If I need a job done there are people willing to do that job and I can hire them for that exact purpose. Considering that everything you mentioned would easily be provided for me as businessmen would find purpose in the work all I would have to do is pay them if I used their service.

You like Obama really have no idea how much works judging by the ramblings you go on about.
 
Last edited:
govt. provides the infrastructure to allow business to succeed.

Government uses the tax revenues it gets from individuals and businesses and builds infrastructure used by individuals and businesses.

Why would Obama need to finger-wag at business owners in particular?
 
If I need a job done there are people willing to do that job and I can hire them for that exact purpose. Considering that everything you mentioned would easily be provided for me as businessmen would find purpose in the work all I would have to do is pay them if I used their service.

You like Obama really have no idea how much works judging by the ramblings you go on about.
Ahh yes, when logic, reason and fact fail then use the ol sucker punch ad hominem attack as a last resort. It would be amusing if wasn't so predictable.
 
Ahh yes, when logic, reason and fact fail then use the ol sucker punch ad hominem attack as a last resort. It would be amusing if wasn't so predictable.

You have failed to show me anywhere I failed. :2razz:
 
My last statement? Considering they both have business models that function just fine there is nothing to defend.

If you want to be uptight about what YOU have decided to provide for me and act like I somehow need to do more for you because of what YOU decided to do for me all on your own, you need to check yourself real quick. Same goes for Obama frankly.

We have this:


Henrin said:
Originally Posted by Romulus

The thesis of Obama's speech was that his big bloated government spoils system is necessary because government "builds roads" and has shiny red trucks that put out fires. His thesis is crap, having much less government would improve the services he claims the government provides.
The best part is we don't need government to build roads or put out fires. His failure was most glorious.

You both make claims government isn't needed to build roads or put out fires and that these services would be better with out government. This ignores a lot of histroy as to what has actually happened, but I ask that you support your claim. This is nto unreasonable.
 
We have this:




You both make claims government isn't needed to build roads or put out fires and that these services would be better with out government. This ignores a lot of histroy as to what has actually happened, but I ask that you support your claim. This is nto unreasonable.

You fail in realizing I never mentioned quality, but if a rational economic model existed and it does and did. Its up to opinion if it better or worse as it depends on what qualifies as better or worse.

As for me, I find a rational system of mutual exchange between willing members superior on all fronts. You find government control in services you decide important better, but you my friend are a socialist, so that is to be expected.

Your liberal lean is very funny though, my planned economy friend.
 
Last edited:
You fail in realizing I never mentioned quality, but if a rational economic model existed and it does and did. Its up to opinion if it better or worse as it depends on what qualifies as better or worse.

As for me, I find a rational system of mutual exchange between willing members superior on all fronts. You find government control in services you decide important better, but you my friend are a socialist, so that is to be expected.

Your liberal lean is very funny though, my planned economy friend.

Obama made a factual statement. You criticized him for it. Your claim is then linked with Rpmulus, who liked and responded to, adding to, not opposing. So, both of you have an obligation to support.

As for what could be, I've made no claim. As for has been, it is not disputed that government has built roads and fire departments, and these things did contribute. These are factual and silly to dispute. And most often, the reasons behind any successful enterprize ususally includes a lot of help. Many usually contribute, and anyone saying they did ALL on their own are ususally wrong. This does not mean they did nothing, or did not contribute significantly. But most know and understand others played a role. Obama wasn't wrong, but your side's misreading of him is terribly misplaced.
 
You do not announce my failure, only your escape.
I didn't announce your failure, you did when you resorted to an ad hominem attack. That told me you didn't have an argument left to defend. Oh come on, don't cry, you'll get over it.
 
Obama made a factual statement. You criticized him for it. Your claim is then linked with Rpmulus, who liked and responded to, adding to, not opposing. So, both of you have an obligation to support.

As for what could be, I've made no claim. As for has been, it is not disputed that government has built roads and fire departments, and these things did contribute. These are factual and silly to dispute. And most often, the reasons behind any successful enterprize ususally includes a lot of help. Many usually contribute, and anyone saying they did ALL on their own are ususally wrong. This does not mean they did nothing, or did not contribute significantly. But most know and understand others played a role. Obama wasn't wrong, but your side's misreading of him is terribly misplaced.

It's been demonstrated that Obama likely was referring to the "bridge" that the business owner who uses it did not personally fund on his own nor build on his own.

But it's also been demonstrated that it wasn't "somebody else" who built the federally-funded whateverthe****. It WAS the business owner who paid for that in his own small way via taxes, and proportional to his success (income). So it was NOT a factual statement that someone "ELSE" built the federally-funded whateverthe****. Credit for the construction of federally-funded whateverthe****s go to taxpayers generally, of which the business owner is one.

And all in all, we have to ask ourselves why in the hell Obama would single out successful business owners to remind them that they did not individually fund or build things that the government commissioned. Why in the hell call attention to that? It's entirely understood by business owners in general. They need not be reminded that their tax dollars chipped in for the government-commissioned whateverthe****.

It should be clear to anyone with a quark's worth of intuition that Obama is preaching this BS to 1) rally the voting hordes who feel entitled to the property/investments/income of others, and/or 2) to warn the owners out there that the government is shaping up to shave them a little closer, so they'd better come to terms with the idea that they owe something additional back to "society."
 
Last edited:
It's been demonstrated that Obama likely was referring to the "bridge" that the business owner who uses it did not personally fund on his own nor build on his own.

But it's also been demonstrated that it wasn't "somebody else" who built the federally-funded whateverthe****. It WAS the business owner who paid for that in his own small way via taxes, and proportional to his success (income). So it was NOT a factual statement that someone "ELSE" built the federally-funded whateverthe****. Credit for the construction of federally-funded whateverthe****s go to taxpayers generally, of which the business owner is one.

And all in all, we have to ask ourselves why in the hell Obama would single out successful business owners to remind them that they did not individually fund or build things that the government commissioned. Why in the hell call attention to that? It's entirely understood by business owners in general. They need not be reminded that their tax dollars chipped in for the government-commissioned whateverthe****.

It should be clear to anyone with a quark's worth of intuition that Obama is preaching this BS to 1) rally the voting hordes who feel entitled to the property/investments/income of others, and/or 2) to warn the owners out there that the government is shaping up to shave them a little closer, so they'd better come to terms with the idea that they owe something additional back to "society."

It was not the business owner alone. He could not have likely afforded one a lone. Or any of the other roads and help provided by the government. Most people pay taxes, federal and state. Fewer play payroll today, largely because the middle class is smaller, and more have fallen below the line.

Obama's remarks don't stand in a vaccum. Both sides have made a lot of hay about "job providers" and slugs like "teachers" and "firefighters," living on the public dime. So, both sides get a bit hyperbolic at times. That said, Obama was largely correct, others did help. And that has not been effectively disputed.
 
It was not the business owner alone. He could not have likely afforded one a lone. Or any of the other roads and help provided by the government. Most people pay taxes, federal and state. Fewer play payroll today, largely because the middle class is smaller, and more have fallen below the line.

Obama's remarks don't stand in a vaccum. Both sides have made a lot of hay about "job providers" and slugs like "teachers" and "firefighters," living on the public dime. So, both sides get a bit hyperbolic at times. That said, Obama was largely correct, others did help. And that has not been effectively disputed.

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom