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

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

I 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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

Hahaha....the man is not a capitalist. He believes capitalism is "unfair" because it disproportionately rewards some more than others. He was displaying his honest philosophy when he told Joe the Plumber "I just think it's better when you spread the wealth around". His actions speak just as loud as his words. His philosophy encourages government dependency. How else would you interpret pushing to increase welfare roles? Increasing unemployment benefits? Removing work requirements from welfare?

All of these things counter act against individual responsibility and individualism in general, which is the bedrock principle of capitalism. Capitalism does not punish success. It celebrates it. But instead of celebrating the success of an American company, Exxon Mobil, he uses them as a bullseye target for public enemy number 1. They are demonized....and for what? Record profits. They are chided for being successful. Yet u say he's a capitalist? Lol....that's cute.

Instead of celebrating successful business owners, he calls on them to pay even more. Sacrifice even more. Share more of the burdens. Then he insults them by saying they didn't build their businesses. And he did say it.

When the economy is slow, he doesn't turn to the business sector for solutions. He tells the public to put their faith in government stimulus, government bailouts, government. More welfare, more unemployment, less work requirements.

Please, don't tell me the man is a capitalist. He's everything but....
 
THIS Exxon? You have seen this graphic, havent you? For you to continue to propogate misinformation is just dishonest.

View attachment 67131432

If the ACA counts as only one, it has a rather hefty price tag on it.
Haha. Funny infographic. Funny, because it is deceptive. I suspect that these numbers were figured for the oil companies by counting the federal and state gasoline taxes that consumers pay at the pump. As these taxes are directly passed on to the consumer, it is deceptive to include them as "taxes" for the oil companies themselves. In many cases, the petro companies(and others on this list) also count the payroll taxes their employees pay and also claim that as part of their "tax contribution". It's a very deceptive and insincere way of demonstrating tax liability. Where did this infographic get its data and how, exactly, did it crunch the numbers to come up with these tax rates. I am very suspicious and will continue to be so until I see more evidence.
 
THIS Exxon? You have seen this graphic, havent you? For you to continue to propogate misinformation is just dishonest.

View attachment 67131432

If the ACA counts as only one, it has a rather hefty price tag on it.

Wow, Exxon must have some ****ed up accountants if they're paying 10% above the maximum corporate tax rate! :lamo

But in reality, they typically pay about 15% effective rate on their US income.
 
Hahaha....the man is not a capitalist. He believes capitalism is "unfair" because it disproportionately rewards some more than others. He was displaying his honest philosophy when he told Joe the Plumber "I just think it's better when you spread the wealth around". His actions speak just as loud as his words. His philosophy encourages government dependency. How else would you interpret pushing to increase welfare roles? Increasing unemployment benefits? Removing work requirements from welfare?

All of these things counter act against individual responsibility and individualism in general, which is the bedrock principle of capitalism. Capitalism does not punish success. It celebrates it. But instead of celebrating the success of an American company, Exxon Mobil, he uses them as a bullseye target for public enemy number 1. They are demonized....and for what? Record profits. They are chided for being successful. Yet u say he's a capitalist? Lol....that's cute.

Instead of celebrating successful business owners, he calls on them to pay even more. Sacrifice even more. Share more of the burdens. Then he insults them by saying they didn't build their businesses. And he did say it.

When the economy is slow, he doesn't turn to the business sector for solutions. He tells the public to put their faith in government stimulus, government bailouts, government. More welfare, more unemployment, less work requirements.

Please, don't tell me the man is a capitalist. He's everything but....

You are putting a lot of words into both mine and the president's mouth. Capitalism, actually, my friend often can cause people to act in a way that is not consistent with individual responsibility. It happens all the time. And wealth absolutely should be spread around. I suppose you thing it best that a very small priviledged few get to hang on to all of it and the rest of us should just be content to wait around and hope a few of the tablescraps trickle down to us. Wealthy inequality is not laughing matter and has serious consequences for the political and economic stability of a nation. Thank god we have a progressive tax system. If we didn't, we'd even be in deeper doodoo than we are now!
Wealthy business owners got huge tax cuts under Bush and the economy then proceeded to crash, with the middle class suffering the brunt of the damage. Those who are doing well should go back to paying the tax rates they were under Clinton. They are still very low rates, historically speaking, and I think it perfectly reason to expect those that earn more to contribute more.
 
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".

You sure make a lot of stuff up! Exxon receives tons of oil-industry specific breaks, including exceptionally low lease rates for federal oil fields. In '09 they paid ZERO federal income taxes. In 2011 they paid an effective 13% tax rate. A lot of money? Of course; 13% of a bazillion dollars is a lot of money.

The profit margin for oil and gas industry stands at a meager 7%. That's it.

A pretty good profit margin, but it's a fairly meaningless statistic except when comparing same-industry stats or same-company stats over a period of years.

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 government spends that money building and maintaing the roads, without which poor old Exxon probably wouldn't very profitable. btw, when Exxon reports its tax rate it includes those taxes that are paid directly by customers at the pump. That's how they come up with that ridiculously inflated number.

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.

Again, that is an absolute lie. The entire federal government has not passed close to 4000 new regulations in the last three years.

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

Businesses have been racking up record profits for three years.

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.

Too little time to address all of that insanity.
 
Anyway, to the clam of what Obama said. I have told people that we read all the words to get meaning. Here are the words Romney and others are leaving out: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

More explanation:

The biggest problem with Romney’s ad is that it leaves out just enough chunks of Obama’s words — such as a reference to “roads and bridges”— so that it sounds like Obama is attacking individual initiative. The ad deceivingly cuts away from Obama speaking in order to make it seem as if the sentences follow one another, when in fact eight sentences are snipped away.

Suddenly, the word “that” appears as if it is referring to a business, rather than (apparently) to roads and bridges.


An unoriginal Obama quote--taken out of context - The Washington Post
 
More:

There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”

In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”


FactCheck.org : ‘You Didn’t Build That,’ Uncut and Unedited

I wonder if honesty matters at all to partisans of all stripes. Both parties lie, and their ads lie, but to me the biggest problem is too many of us promote the lies and never back up from them.
 
THIS Exxon? You have seen this graphic, havent you? For you to continue to propogate misinformation is just dishonest.

View attachment 67131432

If the ACA counts as only one, it has a rather hefty price tag on it.

Yeah...and we have the highest corporate tax rate of any country on earth.

We're number 1!
 
More:

There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”

In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”


FactCheck.org : ‘You Didn’t Build That,’ Uncut and Unedited

I wonder if honesty matters at all to partisans of all stripes. Both parties lie, and their ads lie, but to me the biggest problem is too many of us promote the lies and never back up from them.

Ok, Boo.

Why? Why is it part of a campaign speech? Is he worried Romney would disband govt or stop building roads? What purpose of thought led to the inclusion of this idea that created this gaff?
 
Great question. I and whole ton of other people(like yourself) paid taxes this year. Those taxes went to things that you(as an individual) could not have provided or done solely on your own-or at least not in an effective way. Go ahead, let's see you build a bridge or a school by yourself. We COLLECTIVELY pooled our money to support police, roads, military, schools, judicial systems etc etc. It is often most efficient to do things TOGETHER(collectively) than to expect individual businesses or citizens to do them piecemeal on their own. That's the whole idea of government: We support it through taxes so that it can do things with our money that benefit us and that would not otherwise be able to be provided efficiently by the private market.
It's really a simple concept when you think about it. I am not taking credit for the success of your business no more than I am saying you should take credit for mine. All I am saying is that I am thankful that the two of us have pooled our money in government, because we both get to reap the benefits from it from the host of programs it funds. As I just said to another poster, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Obama merely takes umbrage with the claim by so many business types these days that seem to be dismissing the importance of collective government in creating opportunities for ALL of us.

lol....I fully understand what you are "trying" to say, and I fully understand why people like you actually believe it. In the first part of your paragraph, you are saying people like me and you are responsible for pooling our resources to fund government. Ok, that's correct. Then at the bottom of your paragraph, you credit GOVERNMENT for creating that opportunity. No, they didn't, WE DID.

Now, consider this. A person who works for minimum wage at McDonalds, are they equally responsible for the road outside? Are they paying anywhere near the amount of taxes that a local business owner is? Not even close. The reason I bring this up, is because Obama chose to insult those that are paying the lion's share of taxes that fund roads, that pay teachers, that pay cops and firemen, that fund bridges. It was a backhanded remark at best. Telling business owners, who are paying the lion's share of taxes in this country, that they really didn't do anything on their own. Then, in another condescending manner, he says crap like, "they think it is because they are so smart. There's a lot of smart people out there. Or that it was because they worked so hard. Let me tell ya, there's a lot of hard working people out there."

That comment diminishes both intelligence and hard work. His comment was insulting, and if you don't understand why, then that's your own lack of understanding. He wouldn't of said to the minimum wage worker, "ya know, you don't pay much taxes, but you still get to reap the benefits because of the people that do, I just want you to know, and a lot of folks would agree, that you didn't succeed on your own, and you wouldn't be able to drive on this street if it weren't for people who pay more taxes than you."

He wouldn't of insulted the minimum wage worker. But why does he think it's ok to insult business owners? Because they have money!!!! He has an inner resentment towards people who have worked for their money, like all leftists do. Why else would he diminish a business owner's "smarts" and "hard work". Those two things are the PRIMARY reason for their success, and he chose those to things to diminish and minimize their importance by equating them with "a lot of folks".

It would be like me saying to you, if you had earned a PhD in college, "ya know, many PhD's would agree, that you didn't earn that on your own. It surprises me when I hear people say 'it must of been because I was so smart'. Let me tell you something, there are a lot of smart people out there. Or when they say 'It must of been because I worked so hard'. There are a lot of hard working people out there. If you have a PhD, you didn't do that. Someone else made that happen." Basically what he said was "no big deal, you own a business. Its not because you are smart, because a lot of people are smart. And it's not because you worked hard, because a lot of people work hard. It's because someone else made that happen"

If that's not insulting, I don't know what is. The reason he can insult business owners and get away with it, is because he knows that we aren't going to stop working. He know's we aren't going to stop paying taxes. He rides the backs of PRODUCERS, while he conjures up class envy amoung the LOOTERS. He insults the producers, while he demands society show compassion for the looters. He condescends to the producers, while he enables the looters. Then he runs commercials on television that attacks another successful American businessman simply for being RICH. He's playing to the worst attributes of American society. Envy and jealousy. He's exploiting the poor for votes, and he's rubbing everyone's nose in it along the way.

He's a man child. A manipulator of the mob. He seeks favor through stirring up the worst feelings in a person, their anger and their jealousy. He pits minimum wage worker against owner, labor employee against management, poor against rich, welfare recipient against home owner, unemployed against wall street, bureaucrat against business owner, government against the people. It is the modus operandi of the community organizer, and it's all he's known his entire adult life. Organize, Strike, March, Revolt, Resist, Organize, Strike, March, Revolt, Resist. It's who he is by nature, and it's the philosophy which drives his politics. He's a Marxist at heart. Read his books. Listen to him carefully when he's describing the people HE SOUGHT OUT in college. The Marxists. Study his parents. Both were Marxists. Learn about the man he called "Uncle Frank" growing up. It was Frank Marshall Davis, another Marxist. But you would have me believe he's the furthest thing from a Marxist. .....tisk tisk.....do your homework, and stop assuming that just because he's the President, he's a free market capitalist eager to create a strong business atmosphere in America, because he's not.
 
he just gave private businesses 30 million more customers.

this is called "crony-Capitalism".

And what did he get in return? Control. Power.

Yes, he's so friendly to the insurance industry....lol....yes, although he's made comments numerous times that he believes the best system is a centralized single payer system. He also said that is what he would like to see in America. Said it many times.

Oh, but I'm certain he has the private insurance industry's best interests at heart.....

Please, don't be dull around me man. For the hundredth time, don't be dull around me. I know you really can't help it, so just quit speaking.
 
Haha. Funny infographic. Funny, because it is deceptive. I suspect that these numbers were figured for the oil companies by counting the federal and state gasoline taxes that consumers pay at the pump. As these taxes are directly passed on to the consumer, it is deceptive to include them as "taxes" for the oil companies themselves. In many cases, the petro companies(and others on this list) also count the payroll taxes their employees pay and also claim that as part of their "tax contribution". It's a very deceptive and insincere way of demonstrating tax liability. Where did this infographic get its data and how, exactly, did it crunch the numbers to come up with these tax rates. I am very suspicious and will continue to be so until I see more evidence.

Of course you will, you're a liberal. Liberals are always skeptical of statistics! Then, they are too lazy to go research anything for themselves!

"nope, I don't believe you. Say what? Oh, no, I'm not going to go find out for myself, I'm just going to call you a liar and blame your stupidity on Fox News."

Why don't you simply go to their website and take a closer look at their company's financials? Last year alone, they paid the government $86 MILLION PER DAY!!! Read that again......$86 MILLION PER DAY..... in royalties, bonuses, and corporate taxes. It summed $36 BILLION by the end of the year. Exxon MObil pays more taxes in a single year, than Mark Zuckerburg is worth!
 
the peace of mind that comes with knowing that many more Americans will have health insurance.

I didn't realize that "peace of mind" came with a 1.5 Trillion dollar price tag, at OUR expense.

But, you can't put a price on "feel good" I suppose. Liberals would mortgage the entire world if it made them "feel good".
 
Of course you will, you're a liberal. Liberals are always skeptical of statistics! Then, they are too lazy to go research anything for themselves!

"nope, I don't believe you. Say what? Oh, no, I'm not going to go find out for myself, I'm just going to call you a liar and blame your stupidity on Fox News."

Why don't you simply go to their website and take a closer look at their company's financials? Last year alone, they paid the government $86 MILLION PER DAY!!! Read that again......$86 MILLION PER DAY..... in royalties, bonuses, and corporate taxes. It summed $36 BILLION by the end of the year. Exxon MObil pays more taxes in a single year, than Mark Zuckerburg is worth!


I agree ... the curious should go to Exxon Mobil's 2011 financial statement and look for Note #18

There is one teensy-weensy little problem with the "OHMIGAWD!!!! ... they paid the government $86 MILLION PER DAY!!! " claim.

Exxon pays taxes not only to the US but also to other countries, the US income tax liability is approximately one ninth of the total taxes paid. So the numbers being cited by Masada are reasonably accurate but the US government is receiving only a fraction of total corporate taxes paid by Exxon.
 
I agree ... the curious should go to Exxon Mobil's 2011 financial statement and look for Note #18

There is one teensy-weensy little problem with the "OHMIGAWD!!!! ... they paid the government $86 MILLION PER DAY!!! " claim.

Exxon pays taxes not only to the US but also to other countries, the US income tax liability is approximately one ninth of the total taxes paid. So the numbers being cited by Masada are reasonably accurate but the US government is receiving only a fraction of total corporate taxes paid by Exxon.

In addition to that, Exxon isn't just listing income tax. They lump in sales and excise taxes that they don't even pay, which makes up a huge percentage of their so-called tax burden.
 
In addition to that, Exxon isn't just listing income tax. They lump in sales and excise taxes that they don't even pay, which makes up a huge percentage of their so-called tax burden.

You have no problem paying 42 cents per gallon to gov't yet paying 6 cents per gallon to Exxon is obscene profit? Hmm...
 
Of course you will, you're a liberal. Liberals are always skeptical of statistics!

That's funny, coming from the side that denies climate change.
 
You have no problem paying 42 cents per gallon to gov't yet paying 6 cents per gallon to Exxon is obscene profit? Hmm...

Show me where I ever said that paying 6 cents per gallon to Exxon is obscene. :roll:
 
Bottom line: Obama's reputation on the economy has him putting up the "really, I don't hate businesses..trust me" defense. It's rather pathetic.
 
Bottom line: Obama's reputation on the economy has him putting up the "really, I don't hate businesses..trust me" defense. It's rather pathetic.

Obama and the Democrats tried to get tax-cuts for businesses to hire more workers, and the GOP said "no".
 
Ok, Boo.

Why? Why is it part of a campaign speech? Is he worried Romney would disband govt or stop building roads? What purpose of thought led to the inclusion of this idea that created this gaff?

Not sure why you think your question means they can be dishonest about what he said. He merely points out that we accomplish a lot by working together. This isn't all that controversial. But, like happens too often, instead of addressing what he actually said, partisans go off into silly land and embrace the lie. There is a prevasive thought out that government doesn't work, and yet much of what it does, business and most everyone else depends on. Roads and bridges are a good example. SO, a poltiican addressing that is not something that is extreme.
 
I think he should have to pay taxes on his earnings just like everyone else in society who can afford to do so. That is all. If some of that money should eventually be used by the government to continue funding public swim pools for the next Mark Spitz, then the system has come full cycle and worked just as it should. See, isn't collectivism great!

But thats not what obama wants or said. I have no issue with what you said above. But obama wants guys like Spitz to "share" their wealth, not just pay taxes. there is a huge difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom