• 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]

WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. This is what you are missing. Obama isn't speaking of the government as some independent entity. He is merely making the point that we are all interconnected through our participation in government and business and that the two entities need one another. If you read all of his speeches you will see that Obama expressly believes in the importance of individual initiative and free enterprise. But what he was expressing in this speech is his growing frustration with those who don't recognize that government and business need one another and it is incorrect for business people to claim that they don't. He NEVER has claimed that government can, does or should do everything and I don't know why you are interpreting his statement to mean so.

Wrong again! I am not government, nor is my business. I am a private citizen and business owner. Neither I nor my business have anything to do with laws Congress passes. I do not get a vote on legislation.

Dear lord, all the examples you listed are services WE PAY FOR. WE are responsible for those things, not the government. I mean, this is pretty elementary here. What don't you understand? Before the government can build a road, they first must tax the profits of private individuals and businesses. Before the State pays a teacher, they must first collect taxes from private individuals and businesses. Before they do ANYTHING, they must first tax the profits made in the private sector in order to pay for it!!!

I don't care what drivvle you put out there. Obama IS speaking about government in the context of a separate entity. Your mind is convoluted. The government exists BECAUSE OF INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES PAYING TAXES. Now, would you care to compare the amounts paid by business owners with the amounts paid by people like you? Who don't own a business, but simply work for one? People like you want to share in the successes and the profits and in all the credit, but you do not wish to share in my risk, my costs, my sacrifices, my workload, or my failures. I'll make a deal with any employee, I'll share my profits if you'll share my costs as well. That includes paying half of your own salary, half of your own benefits, half of the electric bill, half of the land payments, half of the taxes, half of the advertising budget, half of All the other expenses. No, no, no....no employee of mine would take that deal.

It burns me up that people like you and Thunder have the audacity to claim an ounce of responsibility for my success. If I sell a product you need or want, you aren't doing me a favor by buying it. I'm providing you a good or service, and you are paying me for it. There's no emotional attachment involved. You are getting a service, and in return, I'm getting your money. What does government have to do with that? NOTHING. Yet they get a slice of it don't they? You bet they do.

Scabs. They confiscate wealth, they do not produce it. And in righteous indignation, you claim non-profit ventures are more virtuous than for profit ventures. Even tho profit is what makes YOUR lifestyle possible.
 
I didn't imply that Obama said that. I implied that the poster I was replying to thought that. I did imply that President Obama doesn't understand, business, and it's true. How could he?
Because he is smart and has studied and thought about matters of business for most of his life. Just because he hasn't been a businessman doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the economic and social principles behind business. It's a bunk argument. It'd be like me saying that because you have never held high political office you could never have an informed opinion on politics.
 
no, that would be under YOUR failed "logic".

Oh so the rich that pay most of the taxes should not own the roads and bridges, the poor who never paid a dime in taxes should own them. I don't get it, if the government is so helpful making businesses successful, why do we have more poor now than ever?
 
Because he is smart and has studied and thought about matters of business for most of his life. Just because he hasn't been a businessman doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the economic and social principles behind business. It's a bunk argument. It'd be like me saying that because you have never held high political office you could never have an informed opinion on politics.

Matters of business? He studied, practiced, and taught law. And he was a politician. No business knowledge. :shrug:

Anyone can be a politician....all you have to do is pander, and sound good.
 
Last edited:
Oh so the rich that pay most of the taxes should not own the roads and bridges, the poor who never paid a dime in taxes should own them. I don't get it, if the government is so helpful making businesses successful, why do we have more poor now than ever?

The poor do pay fuel taxes and:

The United States Highway Trust Fund is a transportation fund which receives money from a federal fuel tax of 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel and related excise taxes.[1] It currently has three accounts, the Highway Account which funds road construction, a smaller 'Mass Transit Account' which supports mass transit and also a 'Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund'. It was established 1956 to finance the United States Interstate Highway System and certain other roads. The Mass Transit Fund was created in 1982. The federal tax on motor fuels yielded $28.2 billion in 2006.[2] In 2008 the fund required an additional $8 billion from general taxation due to reduced receipts from fuel tax in order to meet its obligations.

Highway Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The poor do pay fuel taxes and:

The United States Highway Trust Fund is a transportation fund which receives money from a federal fuel tax of 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel and related excise taxes.[1] It currently has three accounts, the Highway Account which funds road construction, a smaller 'Mass Transit Account' which supports mass transit and also a 'Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund'. It was established 1956 to finance the United States Interstate Highway System and certain other roads. The Mass Transit Fund was created in 1982. The federal tax on motor fuels yielded $28.2 billion in 2006.[2] In 2008 the fund required an additional $8 billion from general taxation due to reduced receipts from fuel tax in order to meet its obligations.

Highway Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't know all the poor have cars, I know they all have flat screen tv's and smart phones. But a car, I guess, if you say so. Then I would say their not poor.
 
I didn't know all the poor have cars, I know they all have flat screen tv's and smart phones. But a car, I guess, if you say so. Then I would say their not poor.

paying taxes again:

The federal telephone excise tax is a statutory federal excise tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code in the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 4251 on amounts paid for certain "communications services." The tax was to be imposed on the person paying for the communications services (such as a customer of a telephone company) but, under 26 U.S.C. § 4291, is collected from the customer by the "person receiving any payment for facilities or services" on which the tax is imposed (i.e., is collected by the telephone company, which files a quarterly Form 720 excise return and forwards the tax to the Internal Revenue Service).
Federal telephone excise tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Because he is smart and has studied and thought about matters of business for most of his life. Just because he hasn't been a businessman doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the economic and social principles behind business. It's a bunk argument. It'd be like me saying that because you have never held high political office you could never have an informed opinion on politics.

No, he's not smart. He's educated.

The whole barbaric notion that collective society is responsible for all individual success is the failed garbage of Socialism. Destruction is the only achievement of collective philosophy. People like Obama are incompetent dictators who govern by force, taxation, regulation, and executive order. The two enemies of their philosophy are logic and reason. Which is why virtually all arguments from the left are both illogical and unreasonable.

Obama's comments reveal his philosophy of "collectivism". I'll call it precisely what it is. But their lifestyles completely contradict their philosophy. His salary is only possible because of the successes of private individuals and businesses who have earned profits. Same goes for teachers, cops, firemen, and all other public workers. If it weren't for private individuals producing goods and services and earning profits, there would be no money to pay them anything. No money to build a school. No money to pay Medicare payments. No money to pay unemployment benefits. The entire society and all the services we are able to take advantage of ride on the backs of private individuals and business that produce.

But the scabs preach that businesses wouldn't succeed if it were for government and society. The reverse is much more true.

These scabs don't want my money, they just want me to lose it. They don't want to be successful, they just want me to fail. They don't want my business, they just want me to lose it. The achievements of man's mind and labor are what built this nation. The philosophy of Obama seeks to diminish that by depriving men of their rightful claim to their own success, and by robbing the individual of earned profits. They don't want to run my business, they want my business to exist for the sake of society over my own sake. Society relies on businesses, but these scabs believe that businesses should exist while profits are non-existent. They are illogical. They believe profits belong to society while risks belong to individuals. They pronounce responsibility for all the successes, and denounce responsibility for all the failures and costs. To them it's Private Profit vs. Public Good. But in their ignorance, they fail to realize that without private profits, there could never be public good. They are living examples of trickle down economics, yet they curse it.

Looters are exactly that. If you desire to make more money, then go start a business. After all, government and society have already done most of the work for you right? Go start a business, there's a road outside, so you can gaurantee it's success! Feel confident that your own "smarts" and your own "hard work" aren't necessary for having a successful business. After all, Obama said so himself. Society will ensure the success of your business. Good luck to you.
 
Wrong again! I am not government, nor is my business. I am a private citizen and business owner. Neither I nor my business have anything to do with laws Congress passes. I do not get a vote on legislation.
If you are an American citizen you do get a vote on legislation, albeit indirectly. That's why you go to the polls every November-to put people in office who will act as your proxy and vote for your interests-and that includes the laws that Congress passes. And you are the government. Remember We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...
Dear lord, all the examples you listed are services WE PAY FOR. WE are responsible for those things, not the government. I mean, this is pretty elementary here. What don't you understand? Before the government can build a road, they first must tax the profits of private individuals and businesses. Before the State pays a teacher, they must first collect taxes from private individuals and businesses. Before they do ANYTHING, they must first tax the profits made in the private sector in order to pay for it!!!
You are arguing with a chicken/egg argument in this case. It does not matter which came first, the two systems(private and government) have evolved together over the last several hundred years in this country. And I have never claimed that we don't pay for these services with our tax dollars. I nor anyone else on this board has made the claim that government can operate without taxes. The the point is, those taxes we pay are used by the government to promote all of our interests-economic ones included. Are you suggesting that we don't need government in order for our economy to be successful?!

I don't care what drivvle you put out there. Obama IS speaking about government in the context of a separate entity. Your mind is convoluted.

You can insult me all that you want, but Obama is clearly pointing out that the two entities are interconnected and benefit from the existence of one another. For example: The government makes sure that one of your larger competitors is not practicing anti-competitive measures to put you out of business and monopolize a market, and you are providing the government with taxes both directly from the income you make from your business as well as the taxes paid by your workers(assuming you are paying them enough that they can afford to pay taxes).

The government exists BECAUSE OF INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES PAYING TAXES. Now, would you care to compare the amounts paid by business owners with the amounts paid by people like you? Who don't own a business, but simply work for one? People like you want to share in the successes and the profits and in all the credit, but you do not wish to share in my risk, my costs, my sacrifices, my workload, or my failures. I'll make a deal with any employee, I'll share my profits if you'll share my costs as well. That includes paying half of your own salary, half of your own benefits, half of the electric bill, half of the land payments, half of the taxes, half of the advertising budget, half of All the other expenses. No, no, no....no employee of mine would take that deal.
Absolutely incorrect. The government exists because our ancestors fought for it (see the Declaration of Independence) and found fit to define it (see the Constitution of the United States). Our tax dollars fund it, but it exists because we as a nation decided we were better off with one, than without. That'd be like me saying that the only reason your business exists is because we have a monetary policy in this country(or are you forgetting that money doesn't grow on trees, but is made by the US Treasury?!)
It burns me up that people like you and Thunder have the audacity to claim an ounce of responsibility for my success. If I sell a product you need or want, you aren't doing me a favor by buying it. I'm providing you a good or service, and you are paying me for it. There's no emotional attachment involved. You are getting a service, and in return, I'm getting your money. What does government have to do with that? NOTHING. Yet they get a slice of it don't they? You bet they do.
I am also a businessman, and I thank the heavens every day that we have the amazing government that we do that creates an environment of monetary policy, environmental regulation, military, education, infrastructure, police, judiciary services etc etc. that allow me, my family and my business to have an opportunity to thrive in a healthy, stable, fair and safe environment. While recognizing that my own effort is the cause for my success(and Obama has praised this type of individual initiative on many occasions), I also recognize that the taxes that I pay help to ensure that not only I , but my children will benefit from this same business climate in the future.
Scabs. They confiscate wealth, they do not produce it. And in righteous indignation, you claim non-profit ventures are more virtuous than for profit ventures. Even tho profit is what makes YOUR lifestyle possible.
They may "confiscate wealth", but I think you are forgetting that this money that we all pay through taxes is put to work in a myriad of ways to benefit all of us. I am very sorry that you are so angry and that you believe that there is no place for a strong and well-funded government in our society. If you hate it so much I really recommend you move to a developing nation where the ability of governments to collect taxes and invest in vital infrastructure and services in order to promote healthy business climates is non-existent. My guess is that you'd soon be back, ready to embrace the US government that you currently so vigourously criticize and hate.
 
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.

Holy crap, someone draw me a map so I can follow that first sentence/paragraph! :lol:

IMO the sentence ... or clause in question was specifically referring back to roads and bridges. The paragraph meant just what he said it meant when he said, "point is...."
 
No, he's not smart. He's educated.

The whole barbaric notion that collective society is responsible for all individual success is the failed garbage of Socialism. Destruction is the only achievement of collective philosophy. People like Obama are incompetent dictators who govern by force, taxation, regulation, and executive order. The two enemies of their philosophy are logic and reason. Which is why virtually all arguments from the left are both illogical and unreasonable.
Once again, no one ever said that collective government is responsible for ALL individual success. I am not saying that. Obama is not saying that. No one on this board is saying that. Please demonstrate to me where I have ever said that! All I have ever said is that government is and important contributor to the success of our economy. QUIT SAYING THAT I SAID THAT IT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SUCCESS!
And, actually, collectivism is alive and well in EVERY successful country on the planet. Give me one example of a successful economy that does combine capitalism with collectivism. Go ahead. Name me one. Just one!
Obama is a dictator. Go ahead, give me some specific examples of this. Those are strong words, so I hope you have evidence to back it up.
And Obama, by the way, is smart and educated. Sorry pal, but you do not obtain the academic credentials he has just by being one or the other.
Obama's comments reveal his philosophy of "collectivism". I'll call it precisely what it is. But their lifestyles completely contradict their philosophy. His salary is only possible because of the successes of private individuals and businesses who have earned profits. Same goes for teachers, cops, firemen, and all other public workers. If it weren't for private individuals producing goods and services and earning profits, there would be no money to pay them anything. No money to build a school. No money to pay Medicare payments. No money to pay unemployment benefits. The entire society and all the services we are able to take advantage of ride on the backs of private individuals and business that produce.
To be a Collectivist does not mean that you don't believe that there is not a place for Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive. Collectivists, in many cases, simply believe that there are some things that should be best left to the government, and others to the private sector. Once again, show give me and example of one successful economy in the world does that does not combine collective socialist government with the free market.

These scabs don't want my money, they just want me to lose it. They don't want to be successful, they just want me to fail. They don't want my business, they just want me to lose it. The achievements of man's mind and labor are what built this nation. The philosophy of Obama seeks to diminish that by depriving men of their rightful claim to their own success, and by robbing the individual of earned profits. They don't want to run my business, they want my business to exist for the sake of society over my own sake. Society relies on businesses, but these scabs believe that businesses should exist while profits are non-existent. They are illogical. They believe profits belong to society while risks belong to individuals. They pronounce responsibility for all the successes, and denounce responsibility for all the failures and costs. To them it's Private Profit vs. Public Good. But in their ignorance, they fail to realize that without private profits, there could never be public good. They are living examples of trickle down economics, yet they curse it.
I want you to succeed and so does the government. you yourself have said in one of your previous posts that government cannot exist without tax money. So why then, would they possibly want to make you fail?!! You are contradicting yourself with your very own logic. The more successful you are the better the odds that they will be able to raise the taxes they believe they need to operate the government and the better chances they would have to get reelected!
Also, they do not take responsibility for all of the successes for business. Once again, you keep saying that, but it is not true. Show me the text of a speech where Obama ever said that.
I agree with you that without private profit there could be no public good. But I also would add that without public good, there would be very little private profit to be made.
Looters are exactly that. If you desire to make more money, then go start a business. After all, government and society have already done most of the work for you right? Go start a business, there's a road outside, so you can gaurantee it's success! Feel confident that your own "smarts" and your own "hard work" aren't necessary for having a successful business. After all, Obama said so himself. Society will ensure the success of your business. Good luck to you.
Obama never said that smarts and hard work aren't necessary for a successful business. All he is saying is that individual initiative can best thrive when it is supported by collective governance. Once again, the two things are NOT exclusive of one another.
 
Holy crap, someone draw me a map so I can follow that first sentence/paragraph! :lol:

IMO the sentence ... or clause in question was specifically referring back to roads and bridges. The paragraph meant just what he said it meant when he said, "point is...."

I know this is anti-Obama and therefore you have trouble with it. When Obama talked about business owners working hard or being smart and then others also have those qualities what do you think he was implying.

It seems that the campaign response so far has been to look to road and bridges phrases to wiggle out of what he truly believes. America should not be a country of equal opportunity but one of equal results. Now he did not say that, but that is my interpretation.
 
Holy crap, someone draw me a map so I can follow that first sentence/paragraph! :lol:

IMO the sentence ... or clause in question was specifically referring back to roads and bridges. The paragraph meant just what he said it meant when he said, "point is...."

Haha. Yeah. I had problems following the grammatical structure of his last post as well!! I think he just got excited and forgot about those periods and commas on his keyboard!
 
I know this is anti-Obama and therefore you have trouble with it. When Obama talked about business owners working hard or being smart and then others also have those qualities what do you think he was implying.

It seems that the campaign response so far has been to look to road and bridges phrases to wiggle out of what he truly believes. America should not be a country of equal opportunity but one of equal results. Now he did not say that, but that is my interpretation.
Please very strongly consider the possibility that you interpreted incorrectly. Obama loves the market economy. He just believes that the government has a very important role in ensuring that more and more people can contribute to it, participate in it, and benefit from it. Not that radical of a concept at all and, indeed, one that has proven its worth for decades in this country.
 
Once again, no one ever said that collective government is responsible for ALL individual success. I am not saying that. Obama is not saying that. No one on this board is saying that. Please demonstrate to me where I have ever said that! All I have ever said is that government is and important contributor to the success of our economy. QUIT SAYING THAT I SAID THAT IT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SUCCESS!
And, actually, collectivism is alive and well in EVERY successful country on the planet. Give me one example of a successful economy that does combine capitalism with collectivism. Go ahead. Name me one. Just one!
Obama is a dictator. Go ahead, give me some specific examples of this. Those are strong words, so I hope you have evidence to back it up.
And Obama, by the way, is smart and educated. Sorry pal, but you do not obtain the academic credentials he has just by being one or the other.

To be a Collectivist does not mean that you don't believe that there is not a place for Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive. Collectivists, in many cases, simply believe that there are some things that should be best left to the government, and others to the private sector. Once again, show give me and example of one successful economy in the world does that does not combine collective socialist government with the free market.


I want you to succeed and so does the government. you yourself have said in one of your previous posts that government cannot exist without tax money. So why then, would they possibly want to make you fail?!! You are contradicting yourself with your very own logic. The more successful you are the better the odds that they will be able to raise the taxes they believe they need to operate the government and the better chances they would have to get reelected!
Also, they do not take responsibility for all of the successes for business. Once again, you keep saying that, but it is not true. Show me the text of a speech where Obama ever said that.
I agree with you that without private profit there could be no public good. But I also would add that without public good, there would be very little private profit to be made.

Obama never said that smarts and hard work aren't necessary for a successful business. All he is saying is that individual initiative can best thrive when it is supported by collective governance. Once again, the two things are NOT exclusive of one another.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Under our government, and especially THIS administration, businesses succeed DESPITE the government, not BECAUSE of government. I'll give you a prime example. Exxon-Mobil. Do you believe the government slapping their industry with 4000 new regulations, which have the same economic effect as a new tax, is helping them succeed? Absolutely not. But because they provide a valuable good, they succeed despite the government.

I'm speaking about two battling philosophies. Our founders fought for a nation of individual states. Not a nation controlled by a single central government. Read the Constitution. Federal government is strictly limited in it's rights and jurisdiction. All other matters of sovereign authority was granted to the states. They did this for a reason. It established a government, but maintained the crucial philosophy of individualism. States rights, individually. Not collectively.

The philosophy of the left is one of collectivism. And the results in history are destruction. Communism is the epitome of collective philosophy, which is why it's called "communism". It has never worked, and has done nothing but destroy the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Robbed them of freedom. Starved them to death. And you say collectivism is healthy for our society? That's like saying a thimble of arsenic is good for your health.

It's the entire philosophy I'm questioning. The philosophy of Obama and the far left. When it comes to a person's profits, they are eager to promote collectivism. But when it comes to aborting a baby, it's all about individual freedom.

So tell me, what is it you want from businesses and business owners? You want us to pay more taxes? Ok, for what purpose? You want me to hire more people than I need? Ok, for what purpose? You want to pay taxes on how much my cattle fart? Ok, for what purpose? You want me to pay taxes on money invested overseas? Ok, for what purpose? Or do you simply want me to bow at the alter of government and give them all the credit for my success?

Just because there is a road outside, doesn't mean I will be successful. So, let's put a percentage of importance on it. 1% of my success is because the road exists, but 99% of my success is because of me. Not you, not society, not government. Me. Obama is taking credit for something government doesn't provide anyway. WE paid for those roads. WE paid for those bridges. WE paid for that good teacher along the way. It's his narcicisric need to feel important. "look at what I did, I had that road built for everyone to use". Big freakin deal, we paid for it.

You shouldn't brag about doing your job. It's your job. But his philosophy seeks to convince people that government is just as important in your success as you are. That's BS and you know it. People can do far better for themselves than government ever could.

Government has a role, but it isn't to help my business succeed. It's a shame so many free minded Americans think that.
 
I couldn't disagree with you more. Under our government, and especially THIS administration, businesses succeed DESPITE the government, not BECAUSE of government. I'll give you a prime example. Exxon-Mobil. Do you believe the government slapping their industry with 4000 new regulations, which have the same economic effect as a new tax, is helping them succeed? Absolutely not. But because they provide a valuable good, they succeed despite the government.

That's the same Exxon Mobil that is jaw-droppingly profitable and pays essentially no US taxes? The same Exxon Mobil that receives billions of dollars in subsidies from the US government? Those poor things!

Can you cite these alleged 4000 new regulations that are driving them out of business? Pardon me if I question that fantastic number, but as of last October the Obama administration had only approved 613 new federal regulations TOTAL.
 
Hois even worse than ours.w can you blame Obama? The whole world's econom blamersis much worse than ours.Instead, you obama blamers should get down on your knees and pray to your god of choice for giving us such a great president who keept our economy from collasping after bush's administration squandere4d clinton's surplus.
 
That's the same Exxon Mobil that is jaw-droppingly profitable and pays essentially no US taxes? The same Exxon Mobil that receives billions of dollars in subsidies from the US government? Those poor things!

Can you cite these alleged 4000 new regulations that are driving them out of business? Pardon me if I question that fantastic number, but as of last October the Obama administration had only approved 613 new federal regulations TOTAL.

THIS Exxon? You have seen this graphic, havent you? For you to continue to propogate misinformation is just dishonest.

CORPORATE-TAXES.jpg

If the ACA counts as only one, it has a rather hefty price tag on it.
 
Last edited:
Please very strongly consider the possibility that you interpreted incorrectly. Obama loves the market economy. He just believes that the government has a very important role in ensuring that more and more people can contribute to it, participate in it, and benefit from it. Not that radical of a concept at all and, indeed, one that has proven its worth for decades in this country.

You may be surprised by this but I agree that government plays an important role. I also believe in a progressive tax system and a social safety net.

That being said, I think that Obama has governed 180 degrees differently than the 2004 speech that set him on his way and his campaign of hope and change. Including doing away with the way government worked or better said does not work.

I am against pitting American against American, even if the people being put down are the most privileged amongst us. I feel that for much of the last four years we have been blaming, Bush, bankers, creditors, the rich ( 250K does not constitute rich in the NE), insurance companies... The list foes on.

So if this was one blip that stood outside the way he has governed the last 3+ years perhaps I could be persuaded to your side on this. But with the track record of the administration it seems you be a blind Obama loyalist to not see this speech in the totality of his administration.
 
That's the same Exxon Mobil that is jaw-droppingly profitable and pays essentially no US taxes? The same Exxon Mobil that receives billions of dollars in subsidies from the US government? Those poor things!

Can you cite these alleged 4000 new regulations that are driving them out of business? Pardon me if I question that fantastic number, but as of last October the Obama administration had only approved 613 new federal regulations TOTAL.

More tired leftist rhetoric. Exxon pays more taxes than any other private company in America. Try taking a look at their financials instead of taking MSNBC's word for it. In addition, Exxon receives the same tax breaks as any other company. It is the leftist liars who deem those generic tax breaks that every business can receive as "subsidies".

The profit margin for oil and gas industry stands at a meager 7%. That's it. They also account for about 8% of the entire GDP of the country. And last year alone, Exxon paid the federal government $86 million dollars PER DAY! About 36 Billion for the year in royalties, bonuses, and corporate taxes. $86 million a day pal. Meanwhile, Exxon received about 1 billion in tax breaks. So the question is "who is subsidizing who?"

In addition to all that, the government receives more money out of a gallon of gas than the company who brought it all the way to market does. Scabs! They succeed DESPITE the government.

And the EPA has passed over 4000 new regulations on one industry.....energy. It's even posted on the white house website. It's common knowledge for those who actually read instead of watch CNN.

Businesses know that Obama is no friend to business. He's a central government collectivist who believes government facilitates success.

You honestly think he values free market principles? Ha! Then why does he work harder at increasing welfare roles than he does creating jobs? Why is his administration offering a $75,000 reward for anyone who can develop innovative ways to increase welfare roles? Why is he issuing waivers to the work requirement for welfare programs that Clinton signed into law? Why does he increase unemployment benefits out to 99 weeks? None of these things promote individual responsibility. They promote government reliance and entitlement and dependency. Why do idiot liberals like Pelosi believe the best way to stimulate the economy is to increase unemployment benefits? Why do liberals like Maxine Waters suggest the best thing to do would be to "socialize....uh, um, basically, uh take over and run your company"?

You're not fooling anyone. I know exactly who leftists are. They're just too cowardly to admit what they really are.
 
I couldn't disagree with you more. Under our government, and especially THIS administration, businesses succeed DESPITE the government, not BECAUSE of government. I'll give you a prime example. Exxon-Mobil. Do you believe the government slapping their industry with 4000 new regulations, which have the same economic effect as a new tax, is helping them succeed? Absolutely not. But because they provide a valuable good, they succeed despite the government.
I will not shed a tear for Exxon. They are making record profits. If government regulations are as onerous as you claim then I doubt they would be as successful as they are. My guess is that many of the government regulations you refer to our rather minor and, in fact, quite wise to have in place.

I'm speaking about two battling philosophies. Our founders fought for a nation of individual states. Not a nation controlled by a single central government. Read the Constitution. Federal government is strictly limited in it's rights and jurisdiction. All other matters of sovereign authority was granted to the states. They did this for a reason. It established a government, but maintained the crucial philosophy of individualism. States rights, individually. Not collectively.
Disagree. There has, from day one, been virulent disagreement in American politics between Federalist and Anti-Federalists. This argument is not definitively decided one way or the other in the constitution, despite your desire that it be interpreted as such. We can debate this until we are blue in the face and I am happy to do so.

The philosophy of the left is one of collectivism. And the results in history are destruction. Communism is the epitome of collective philosophy, which is why it's called "communism". It has never worked, and has done nothing but destroy the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Robbed them of freedom. Starved them to death. And you say collectivism is healthy for our society? That's like saying a thimble of arsenic is good for your health.
Once again, I can point to a ton of countries which have collectivist/socialist elements to their governments that have been and are successful and I still challenge you to show me one that isn't. And advocating elements of socialism/collectivism in government is NOT the same as advocating Communism, Marxism or, even, Socialism in its purest form. I can point to you many cases in which unregulated Capitalism has also resulted in starvation, misery and failure, but this does not mean that Capitalism is not a valid system. It just means that Capitalism, like Socialism, is a system of governance that can be used for either good or bad, depending upon how it is implemented. I am very comfortable with the idea of implementing them both and so are all of the other socially and economically successful nations on this planet.

It's the entire philosophy I'm questioning. The philosophy of Obama and the far left. When it comes to a person's profits, they are eager to promote collectivism. But when it comes to aborting a baby, it's all about individual freedom.

So tell me, what is it you want from businesses and business owners? You want us to pay more taxes? Ok, for what purpose? You want me to hire more people than I need? Ok, for what purpose? You want to pay taxes on how much my cattle fart? Ok, for what purpose? You want me to pay taxes on money invested overseas? Ok, for what purpose? Or do you simply want me to bow at the alter of government and give them all the credit for my success?
No, I just want you to quit yelling that Collectivist government cannot coexist with the free market in a positive way. You don't need to bow to anyone. You just need to acknowledge that taxes can be and are put to good use in many(not all, I acknowledge) instances in ways that benefit all members of society, business owners included.

Just because there is a road outside, doesn't mean I will be successful. So, let's put a percentage of importance on it. 1% of my success is because the road exists, but 99% of my success is because of me. Not you, not society, not government. Me. Obama is taking credit for something government doesn't provide anyway. WE paid for those roads. WE paid for those bridges. WE paid for that good teacher along the way. It's his narcicisric need to feel important. "look at what I did, I had that road built for everyone to use". Big freakin deal, we paid for it.
Obama has taken credit for nothing. He has always and continues to promote individual initiative. All he is pointing out is that it would be destructive for us to destroy the very government and its institutions and policies that have so greatly contributed to all of our success. This is not to say that the government deserves all of the success, just that it has played a very important role and every time that you or someone else yells "I did this all by myself" you are incorrectly downplaying and ignoring how important government is to creating a healthy business environment. And, once again, we are the ones who elect our government and they are not completely independent of us, but a direct extension of our democratic voices.

You shouldn't brag about doing your job. It's your job. But his philosophy seeks to convince people that government is just as important in your success as you are. That's BS and you know it. People can do far better for themselves than government ever could.

Government has a role, but it isn't to help my business succeed. It's a shame so many free minded Americans think that.
I do not interpret his policies or words to mean that the government is just as important in your success as you are. If he said something like "The government is 80% responsible for your success" then that would be one thing. All he did was point out that noone ever does anything "all by themselves" without the help of others(government included) and you have taken it to mean that he wants to take credit for you success. I really urge your to consider the fact that you may be being a bit alarmist as to how Obama believes about businesses and individual initiative. He is a capitalist through and through-just one that recognizes that there is a strong and important role for government as well.
 
You may be surprised by this but I agree that government plays an important role. I also believe in a progressive tax system and a social safety net.

That being said, I think that Obama has governed 180 degrees differently than the 2004 speech that set him on his way and his campaign of hope and change. Including doing away with the way government worked or better said does not work.

I am against pitting American against American, even if the people being put down are the most privileged amongst us. I feel that for much of the last four years we have been blaming, Bush, bankers, creditors, the rich ( 250K does not constitute rich in the NE), insurance companies... The list foes on.

So if this was one blip that stood outside the way he has governed the last 3+ years perhaps I could be persuaded to your side on this. But with the track record of the administration it seems you be a blind Obama loyalist to not see this speech in the totality of his administration.
So if I am blind, please give me specific examples of how his administration has set out to damage the country. I really haven't seen it.
I am indeed an Obama supporter, but that does not mean that I support everything he has said or done. Nonetheless, I do think he has been handled a huge bag of shytt and has actually managed to have some success in, at least in part, addressing some huge problems we are facing in this nation. HealthCare is the big one for me and if he accomplishes nothing else, this alone will I believe, mark him as a great president once all the dust settles and we begin to see the results through the cloud of all of the alarmist conservative rhetoric on this policy.
I too am against pitting American against American and I hear the right constantly screaming about Obama fomenting class warfare. Well, I actually believe that class warfare can actually be a bit healthy, especially if one of the classes is stepping on the neck of the other. The rich have been getting richer and their share of the pie is continuing to grow and has been for several decades now. I think middle-class and poor Americans have every right to be ticked off about this. If you want to call this "class warfare" then so be it.
 
Back
Top Bottom