• 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]

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 personally think he WAS attempting to downplay the efforts of businessman and to lift up the efforts/affects of the community. I've been saying that from the beginning.

However, the "community" aspect doesn't have to mean JUST government.

It would appear the "point of saying it" is to suggest that there is a shared success and shared responsability in America and as such there needs to be shared burden and and those who have benefited most from those shared efforts should be the ones giving back the most to the whole. Which is kind of part of what he's been arguing since 2008 and before. The "point of saying it" is that it is continued push and theme of his general notion that it is the governments responsability to make sure that those who are most successfull are facilitating the success of those below in a way that Obama deems appropriate.
 
I personally think he WAS attempting to downplay the efforts of businessman and to lift up the efforts/affects of the community. I've been saying that from the beginning.

However, the "community" aspect doesn't have to mean JUST government.

It would appear the "point of saying it" is to suggest that there is a shared success and shared responsability in America and as such there needs to be shared burden and and those who have benefited most from those shared efforts should be the ones giving back the most to the whole. Which is kind of part of what he's been arguing since 2008 and before. The "point of saying it" is that it is continued push and theme of his general notion that it is the governments responsability to make sure that those who are most successfull are facilitating the success of those below in a way that Obama deems appropriate.

No it does not have to mean just government. Had anyone else said it. I believe that IS what Obama meant.
 
he sure wasn't accusing business people of not creating their business, I can tell you that.

No he was just saying they didn't do it on their own. Not much difference.
 
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.
.
The fact that insurance companies are currently raising their premiums is one of the best arguments yet for the government to take measures to regulate this mess. It's just another example of how a profit-driven healthcare system is more interested in profits than in the well-being of its customers.
And I, for one, have no problem at all with a government option being included in our healthcare options. It has worked elsewhere, and there is no reason to believe that it won't work in our country.
I understand that people are scared about these changes, but we are not ever going to fix this problem if we continue with the broken system that the free-market conservatives keep trying to convince us is the best system. More and more people are uninsured every day in the country and that trend has been occurring for some time now. Studies have clearly shown that this is not merely a case of trial lawyers and malpractice insurance(a favorite, but debunked conservative argument)- it's about the failures of a free-market system trying to manage a sector of the economy in which it's own best interestts(profit) are contrary to those of its customers(service and care). It's time to have the guts to try something new and, contrary to your doom and gloom predictions, there is plenty to indicate that this will actually help to fix our broken system. It will never be perfect, and it will certainly have a cost. But we are burying our head in the sand if we believe the costs and shortcomings of our current system should be allowed to continue.
Thank you Obama and Dems for having the guts to address an issue that the Repubs have for so many years failed to tackle.
 
The two of them need one another

The question is not whether or not the two need each other....the question is to what extent. It's about finding the balance that maximizes the achievements of success. Give too much weight to one side over the other and you likely begin to see lack of efficiency and problems. The issue of course is that both sides feel that the side THEY care about more is the side that is not being given enough weight or that the opposite side is getting too much weight. That's why you see Democrats/Liberals tending to want more regulation, want more/expanded government aide etc and why you see Republicans/Conservatives generally wanting less regulation and less government aide.

I don't see the average conservative advocating for the abolition of roads and the police anymore than I see the average liberal advocation the nationalization of all private enterprise. The reality is, both sides agree with the notion that it takes both...there's simply a disagreement with how much of either side is needed or best.

Another issue that plays in is the generalized way in which liberals and conservatives often view "success". Think of success on a scale utilizing two number from 1-100. The first reflects the lowest possibility for the level of success someone could achieve and the second reflecting the higher. Taking the generalized liberal and conservative thought process to the extreme we'd have the following. Liberals, in this general scenario, would define "maximized" success with a number of (50 , 50). Essentially, EVERYONE is enjoying a moderate level of success. Conservatives, in this general scenario, would define "maximized" success with a number of (1, 99). A situation where some are going to be very unsuccessful but some can reach the very peaks of success. As I said, those are the extreme ends...depending where you fall in the ideology you likely have varying numbers you'd use, but that's basically the thought process behind both. Due to having such a differing dichotomy, not only are you going to have each side disagreeing on where the proper balanced point is between "Government / Individual" but on what the final goal really looks like.
 
No he was just saying they didn't do it on their own. Not much difference.

Actually, it's a HUGE difference. If I am pushing a rock up a hill and you and some others come to my side and begin clearing small rocks and logs out of my way so my boulder rolls more easily and, upon reaching the top, I scream "I did this all by myself", that is WAY different from me saying "I did this largely through my own efforts, but I must acknowledge that I had the help of others". All Obama is saying that it is misguided to scram "I did this all by myself!". Reach the entire text of his speech.
 
Actually, it's a HUGE difference. If I am pushing a rock up a hill and you and some others come to my side and begin clearing small rocks and logs out of my way so my boulder rolls more easily and, upon reaching the top, I scream "I did this all by myself", that is WAY different from me saying "I did this largely through my own efforts, but I must acknowledge that I had the help of others". All Obama is saying that it is misguided to scram "I did this all by myself!". Reach the entire text of his speech.

Actually, what Obama was saying was, "You didn't push the rock. A thousand hands did the lifting for you." Which is wrong.
 
Posting it here because it’s came up in a few threads. I have an issue with those who keep declaring anyone who dares suggest there are different ways to interpret and possibly judge the meaning of Obama’s words in Roanoke the other week as simply looking to attack or a partisan, rather than giving an honest interpretation. I keep looking at the paragraph…no, before people start wailing, not the cherry picked single line but the whole paragraph…and thinking of this notion that there is only ONE way to interpret it and that anyone thinking otherwise is a partisan spouting talking points. It just doesn’t jive with me.

Let’s look at the main argument. One that, upon first read, I don’t recall seeing any liberals on this forum suggesting was what he was “actually referencing” specifically. Those claims only came after it became the talking point in the media. Specifically, the claim that the word ”that” explicitly referred ONLY to “roads and bridges”

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

For this interpretation, you have to be saying that the things in blue that come first are separate from that in Red. So here we have Obama stating a seeming list of things in a row in his speech; Great Teacher, American System, Roads and Bridges…but in reality the last ones seperate. He then brings up business and makes mention of “you didn’t ‘build’ that. The argument seems to be that, despite listing off THREE distinct things, we’re supposed to see some inherent unquestionable truth that he was randomly referring back with “that” to only ONE of those three portions. (entirely possible, unreasonable to suggest is the ONLY way to interpret)

Which, they have to argue that. They can’t argue that it’s referring back to all three (An action which would’ve frankly make more sense for the argument the Administration claims he was making) because one doesn’t “build” a great teacher. Even then though, there is issues with referring back only to the bridge and road comment is that he didn’t talk about somebody having to “build” roads and bridges. He spoke of some INVESTING in them. Again, it’s a point of unclear speech. Did they not build the investment?

Another confusing point in the way it’s written…they’re plural. Roads. Bridge[/s]. Yet you didn’t build “that”. You didn’t build that roads and bridges? Not you didn’t build “those”?

Referring back to one and ONLY one of the three things he listed seems exceedingly odd. Referring to the pural roads and bridges as “that” seems rather odd. The placement of “if you’ve got a business” in between “you didn’t build that” and the list of things, at the very least muddles the issue. And a muddled issue is not one that is clear cut and unquestionable.

Is it a reasonable means of interpreting the statement? ABSOLUTELY. But this ridiculous notion that there is no other legitimate or reasonable way to even possible interpret it is driving me a bit crazy.

However, why is that interpretation so inherently unquestionably and the only answer while this interpretation is completely impossible unless one is just misconstruing for the purpose of attack:

Premise: …gave you some help
Examples of Premise: …teacher…American system…Roads and Bridges
Conclusion of Premise: …got a business…you didn’t build it
Derived Premise: …Somebody else made that happen
Examples: …government created internet…companies make money off the internet

He starts with a basic premise, if you’re successful you received help. He provides example of that help. He then suggests the individual act (“got a business”) wasn’t “made” to happen by “you”. But rather, building off the premise that all successful people have help along the way, that others made it/allowed for it to happen VIA that help they’ve given. He then provides additional examples of that, showing how the government created the internet which laid the foundation for businesses to make use to it to make a profit.

Why is that interpretation so entirely impossible and unreasonable to read? Why is it more problematic in logic than the one presented by the Obama administration after the fact? Even if you don’t agree with it, that doesn’t mean you must suggest it’s impossible to interpret it in such a way.

Yes, I understand the notion that people just pulling out one line and declaring that “Barack Obama doesn’t think an individual have any impact on creating a business” is frustrating. But declaring something that is as ambiguously and poorly phrased as that paragraph as universally and unquestionably able to be interpreted in only one way and any other interpretation or idea of the intent or meaning behind the words is partisan garbage by people who are just looking to attack is no less ridiculous….it’s just wordier and self absorbed rather than blunt and ignorant.

If one interprets it in line with the Obama administration, good on you. If you simply decide to give the benefit of the doubt and believe them when they say how it was meant to be stated, good on you too. But it’s not reasonable to expect everyone to interpret a muddled mess in the same way as you, nor expect people to just mindlessly buy the words of a politicians camp coming out and speaking after something became a bit of a wildfire.
 
Actually, it's a HUGE difference. If I am pushing a rock up a hill and you and some others come to my side and begin clearing small rocks and logs out of my way so my boulder rolls more easily and, upon reaching the top, I scream "I did this all by myself", that is WAY different from me saying "I did this largely through my own efforts, but I must acknowledge that I had the help of others". All Obama is saying that it is misguided to scram "I did this all by myself!". Reach the entire text of his speech.

However, just as you decide to read the "I did this all by myself" as an individual being entirely literalistic...it's not difficult to look at Obama's speech and suggest he's not saying people should go "I did this largely through my own efforts, but I must acknowledge that I had the help of others". Rather, it could be suggested Obama is saying you should go "I did this largely due to all the help others have given me and my own working hard or smarts wouldn't have mattered if not for them". Perhaps you could say he was going farther onto one side to counter act the seemingly far off the other side literalistic reading of the amorphous figures you're speaking of, but that doesn't change the notion that he's still attempting to maximize the implied roll of the community while minimizing the importance of the role of the individual.
 
The question is not whether or not the two need each other....the question is to what extent. It's about finding the balance that maximizes the achievements of success. Give too much weight to one side over the other and you likely begin to see lack of efficiency and problems. The issue of course is that both sides feel that the side THEY care about more is the side that is not being given enough weight or that the opposite side is getting too much weight. That's why you see Democrats/Liberals tending to want more regulation, want more/expanded government aide etc and why you see Republicans/Conservatives generally wanting less regulation and less government aide.

I don't see the average conservative advocating for the abolition of roads and the police anymore than I see the average liberal advocation the nationalization of all private enterprise. The reality is, both sides agree with the notion that it takes both...there's simply a disagreement with how much of either side is needed or best.

Another issue that plays in is the generalized way in which liberals and conservatives often view "success". Think of success on a scale utilizing two number from 1-100. The first reflects the lowest possibility for the level of success someone could achieve and the second reflecting the higher. Taking the generalized liberal and conservative thought process to the extreme we'd have the following. Liberals, in this general scenario, would define "maximized" success with a number of (50 , 50). Essentially, EVERYONE is enjoying a moderate level of success. Conservatives, in this general scenario, would define "maximized" success with a number of (1, 99). A situation where some are going to be very unsuccessful but some can reach the very peaks of success. As I said, those are the extreme ends...depending where you fall in the ideology you likely have varying numbers you'd use, but that's basically the thought process behind both. Due to having such a differing dichotomy, not only are you going to have each side disagreeing on where the proper balanced point is between "Government / Individual" but on what the final goal really looks like.

I think this is a really great summary of the current struggle between many conservative and liberal ideologies and I think it is sad that more people(not including those on the far political extremes) don't realize so many of these differences are a matter of degree and not absolutes. I think it'd be possible to have considerably more rational debate on so many of these issues if more people recognized this.
And, not to discount your wonderful summary, but it is nothing new to me. I am here, specifically, to discuss the fact that I do indeed think that the conservative free-market ideology, which we have increasingly implemented in this country, has largely failed and it is time to swing the pendulum back. The devil is in the details, as they say, and I'm here to uncover some demons.
 
I think this is a really great summary of the current struggle between many conservative and liberal ideologies and I think it is sad that more people(not including those on the far political extremes) don't realize so many of these differences are a matter of degree and not absolutes. I think it'd be possible to have considerably more rational debate on so many of these issues if more people recognized this.
And, not to discount your wonderful summary, but it is nothing new to me. I am here, specifically, to discuss the fact that I do indeed think that the conservative free-market ideology, which we have increasingly implemented in this country, has largely failed and it is time to swing the pendulum back. The devil is in the details, as they say, and I'm here to uncover some demons.

And here's where we part. I think the last 100 years have been a movement further and further into the direction of more government involvement into individual peoples lives in the name of doing "good" and "fair" that is systematically destroying and ruining a wholey unique and different option regarding the style of government one wishes to live under comparitive to that of other western civilizations.
 
Posting it here because it’s came up in a few threads. I have an issue with those who keep declaring anyone who dares suggest there are different ways to interpret and possibly judge the meaning of Obama’s words in Roanoke the other week as simply looking to attack or a partisan, rather than giving an honest interpretation. I keep looking at the paragraph…no, before people start wailing, not the cherry picked single line but the whole paragraph…and thinking of this notion that there is only ONE way to interpret it and that anyone thinking otherwise is a partisan spouting talking points. It just doesn’t jive with me.

In law, rules of statutory construction say that if you can read a phrase or sentence in two ways: one that makes sense and one that doesn't, you are to apply the reading that makes sense. I think that is what liberals are doing and what conservatives are not doing in this case. If you read the subject the sentence in isolation it sounds crazy. It sounds like Obama is sayng that individual initiative plays no part in business creation. But in context, Obama specifically states that his point is that it takes people working together AND individual initiative. So you can either read the sentence to be consistent with the paragraph ... and the speech in general ... or you can read it in such a way that it contradicts the conclusion of the paragrah. I think the correct way to read it is the way that makes it consistent (and not crazy).
 
The fact that insurance companies are currently raising their premiums is one of the best arguments yet for the government to take measures to regulate this mess. It's just another example of how a profit-driven healthcare system is more interested in profits than in the well-being of its customers.
And I, for one, have no problem at all with a government option being included in our healthcare options. It has worked elsewhere, and there is no reason to believe that it won't work in our country.
I understand that people are scared about these changes, but we are not ever going to fix this problem if we continue with the broken system that the free-market conservatives keep trying to convince us is the best system. More and more people are uninsured every day in the country and that trend has been occurring for some time now. Studies have clearly shown that this is not merely a case of trial lawyers and malpractice insurance(a favorite, but debunked conservative argument)- it's about the failures of a free-market system trying to manage a sector of the economy in which it's own best interestts(profit) are contrary to those of its customers(service and care). It's time to have the guts to try something new and, contrary to your doom and gloom predictions, there is plenty to indicate that this will actually help to fix our broken system. It will never be perfect, and it will certainly have a cost. But we are burying our head in the sand if we believe the costs and shortcomings of our current system should be allowed to continue.
Thank you Obama and Dems for having the guts to address an issue that the Repubs have for so many years failed to tackle.

Lol....more koolaid?

The government is so awesome at running a business. I mean, look at how well the post office is doing financially. Take a peek at Amtrak.

You curse profits, when it's profits that made all of our lifestyles possible. If it weren't for individuals and companies earning profits, government wouldn't exist. You have to remember this: Governments don't do a single thing for free. Government is a service WE PAY FOR.

So, it's just silly to thank the government. The government isn't responsible for anything. WE PAY FOR GOVERNMENT.

The philosophy you don't understand is why would I pay the government to do something that I can use my money and do it myself more efficiently? You curse profits, and you curse the fact that profits make your income possible. Profits make it possible for you to eat. Profits make it possible for your employer to purchase your health insurance for you.

Now tell me, when was the last time government turned a profit on anything? NEVER! The government is only possible because they tax individuals' and company's PROFITS.

Take your garbage rhetoric to Europe where it started. If it weren't for businesses, how could you have ever earned a salary or wage? Without a salary or wage, how do you pay for anything? Don't answer those. I'm not interested in class envy BS.
 
However, just as you decide to read the "I did this all by myself" as an individual being entirely literalistic...it's not difficult to look at Obama's speech and suggest he's not saying people should go "I did this largely through my own efforts, but I must acknowledge that I had the help of others". Rather, it could be suggested Obama is saying you should go "I did this largely due to all the help others have given me and my own working hard or smarts wouldn't have mattered if not for them". Perhaps you could say he was going farther onto one side to counter act the seemingly far off the other side literalistic reading of the amorphous figures you're speaking of, but that doesn't change the notion that he's still attempting to maximize the implied roll of the community while minimizing the importance of the role of the individual.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that many individuals in this society are indeed taking a literal "I did this by myself" approach when assessing their own standing in life, whether it be in business or as individuals. I often hear this expressed belief most often in reference to social "welfare" programs that so many conservatives abhor, with the assumption that everyone is given the exact same crack at the big nut and none of us ever need help from others. In the same way that so many business people fail to recognize the complex ways in which collective government has aided them, so many private individuals fail to recognize the complex ways in which the behavior of other entities(both public and private) has shaped them and contributed to their well-being. It's a huge disconnect which demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of history, economics, and sociology. And it is conservatives, not liberals, who are mostly guilty of this disconnect and it is borne out in the rhetoric and policies they are currently promoting...IMHO.
 
However there's people on this forum who aren't suggesting that only those who suggest he literally meant "the individual plays no part in business creation" are the ones that are wrong and are just purposefully misconstruing things to attack the President but rather that ANYONE who isn't directly buying the argument of "he's specifically meaning 'roads and bridges' when he says 'didn't build that'" is doing such a thing.

Explain to me how the interpritation that Obama is suggesting it is not you, the individual, that "built" the business but rather it is everyone whose actions contributed to what finally led to it's creation (you, being one of multiple parts of that) is inconsistent with the context and doens't make sense.

If you're not one of those saying the President's peoples explaination of it SPECIFICALLY referencing "roads and bridges" is the only legitimate or reasonable way to interpret it, then there's no issue.
 
no, he said we all did it together.

well thats wrong too. WE did not create Apple and Microsoft. We did not invent the light bulb. We did not invent the Ford assembly line with Henry Ford. We did not teach Whitney Houston how to sing. We did not teach Mark Spitz how to swim or Pete Sampras how to play tennis, or Micheal Jordan how to shoot a basketball.

you and obama are spouting flawed socialsit thinking, Thinking that has proven false everywhere it has been tried.
 
..If you're not one of those saying the President's peoples explaination of it SPECIFICALLY referencing "roads and bridges" is the only legitimate or reasonable way to interpret it, then there's no issue.

he specifically mentioned bridges & roads, but he was talking about all infrastructure and society at large.

we all did it together.
 
Lol....more koolaid?

The government is so awesome at running a business. I mean, look at how well the post office is doing financially. Take a peek at Amtrak.

You curse profits, when it's profits that made all of our lifestyles possible. If it weren't for individuals and companies earning profits, government wouldn't exist. You have to remember this: Governments don't do a single thing for free. Government is a service WE PAY FOR.

So, it's just silly to thank the government. The government isn't responsible for anything. WE PAY FOR GOVERNMENT.

The philosophy you don't understand is why would I pay the government to do something that I can use my money and do it myself more efficiently? You curse profits, and you curse the fact that profits make your income possible. Profits make it possible for you to eat. Profits make it possible for your employer to purchase your health insurance for you.

Now tell me, when was the last time government turned a profit on anything? NEVER! The government is only possible because they tax individuals' and company's PROFITS.

Take your garbage rhetoric to Europe where it started. If it weren't for businesses, how could you have ever earned a salary or wage? Without a salary or wage, how do you pay for anything? Don't answer those. I'm not interested in class envy BS.

I do not believe that that something has to be immediately profitable in order for it to be valuable(economically and socially) to society. Schools don't make money, but they are valuable to us and contribute tremendously to our economic competitiveness. Neither do roads, but they are at the heart of our economy. The USDA is not-for-profit and helps protect us from food-borne illness. Heck, it costs money to open polling stations and to count ballots, but that is a valuable service to us all. I could list dozens, if not hundreds, of programs that are not profit driven, but that result in stimulating and strengthening our economy and our democracy.
Also, I hotly contest your assertion that government "isn't responsible for anything". I listed just a handful of them above, but there are hundreds more and they all have an impact, often in a positive way, on the abilities of individuals and businesses to succeed.
 
Too many people get caught up in the faulty logic that government is "doing" something for us. That's false. They don't do anything for us for free. Obamacare: we're paying for it. Roads: we paid for em. Bridges: we paid for em. Teachers: we pay for em. Firemen: we pay for em. Schools, hospitals, ports, airports, universities: WE PAY FOR EM.

SO, you people of the left can curse profits all you want. But understand that because of individuals and companies making profits, that the government taxes, we all have these things. Government didn't provide those things for free. We paid for them. But instead, liberals thank Obama and government for "doing" something. Lol....that's a huge joke. But they curse those who actually provide these things. Liberals don't oppose profits unless they belong to someone else.
 
he specifically mentioned bridges & roads, but he was talking about all infrastructure and society at large.

we all did it together.

our tax dollars built some roads and bridges. thats true. businesses and successful people pay a disproportionate share of taxes, so under your logic, those who paid the most taxes should own the roads and bridges.
 
Back
Top Bottom