• 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]

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

When a politician speaks enough, sometimes they slip up and say what they really think.
Many of us have observed the large disparity between the Presidents words and his actions.
His statements this time seem to line up closer to his actions and beliefs.
Not just that people should depend on Government, but that they should be grateful
that Government allows them to draw another breath.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

When a politician speaks enough, sometimes they slip up and say what they really think.
Many of us have observed the large disparity between the Presidents words and his actions.
His statements this time seem to line up closer to his actions and beliefs.
Not just that people should depend on Government, but that they should be grateful
that Government allows them to draw another breath.
Absolutely. There's one phenomenon that no one has mentioned....the longer he's in office, the less we're fooled. November will tell the tale.

I do think he will lose.
I do think his support is a house of cards held together by a complicit liberal dominated media.
I do think people are absolutely desperate to rid themselves and this country of him.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Nice appeal to mockery. Really, it's clever, and I mean that in a genuine way. But to the issue...

What is the point in reminding the owners of business and property that not everything they own came into existence solely because of them? Everyone knows this. There was never any question about it. So why, as the person with the most influential job on the planet, should he spend his time reminding us of something we all already know without even having to think, and knew as early as infancy (when we learned the concept of "mine")?

[edit]Best case scenario, he's wasting his time and ours. But honestly I believe there is a definite purpose to telling us these little fables, and I have explained what I think that purpose is in previous posts.

That is a reasonable question but you only have to read this thread to get your answer. There are obviously quite a few who simply deny what you say "everyone knows". And of course it was political jargon. He's arguing that government can do good things. Not that it's the only thing, but that it's worthwhile and worth supporting. It was a small segment of a long speech. It's odd, but I haven't seen the conservative blogs and news sites (or the MSM for that matter) cite this passage that came much earlier in the speech:

**** [A]t the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try.* (Applause.)* That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you won’t go bankrupt when you get sick.* That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.* Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke.* (Applause.)* That your kids can get a great education, and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving.* And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back.* (Applause.)*

That’s the idea of America.* It doesn’t matter what you look like.* It doesn’t matter where you come from.* It doesn’t matter what your last name is.* You can live out the American Dream.* That’s what binds us all together.* (Applause.)

Or this part:

Our goal isn’t just to put people back to work -- although that’s priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off.* An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded.* That’s what this campaign’s about, Roanoke.* And that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States of America.* (Applause.)

The FULL TEXT of the speech is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...rks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia
 
Last edited:
That is a reasonable question but you only have to read this thread to get your answer. There are obviously quite a few who simply deny what you say "everyone knows". And of course it was political jargon. He's arguing that government can do good things. Not that it's the only thing, but that it's worthwhile and worth supporting. It was a small segment of a long speech. It's odd, but I haven't seen the conservative blogs and news sites (or the MSM for that matter) cite this passage that came much earlier in the speech:

(snip)

Or this part:

(snip)

Conservatives SHOULD be talking about that. Why does he want his government to have the goal of "putting people back to work?" Does he want more government workers? Government's job is not to give us jobs, except to accomplish its specific objectives that require federal workers.

And what can a government do to see to it that the work people in general do "pays off" and is rewarded? It can protect people from breach of employment contract, but otherwise the negotiation of pay is between the employer and the employee. Why is Obama talking about these goals of employing people and paying them more as a government goal? Government can only protect people's rights by making sure they have legal recourse for contract breaches. They can't just impose the terms between private parties. But I guess PPACA starts to change that, doesn't it?

These comments make so many people starry eyed and they are oblivious to how alarming it all really is.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Conservatives SHOULD be talking about that. Why does he want his government to have the goal of "putting people back to work?" Does he want more government workers? Government's job is not to give us jobs, except to accomplish its specific objectives that require federal workers.

And what can a government do to see to it that the work people in general do "pays off" and is rewarded? It can protect people from breach of employment contract, but otherwise the negotiation of pay is between the employer and the employee. Why is Obama talking about these goals of employing people and paying them more as a government goal? Government can only protect people's rights by making sure they have legal recourse for contract breaches. They can't just impose the terms between private parties. But I guess PPACA starts to change that, doesn't it?

These comments make so many people starry eyed and they are oblivious to how alarming it all really is.

Therein lies the rub though. The free market system should be free of that kind of intrusiveness. Obama and his supporters see that intrusiveness as fair so all can achieve just don't achieve too much or there will be people camping in city parks demanding equal achievement even without the work or risk.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

People couldn't make enough to live.

not necessarily. First, labor costs are a major portion of all goods. If labor cost goes down, expense goes down, costs go down and you can afford more at less income. Second, "couldn't make enough to live" isn't really the problem most Americans face. Making enough money to pay for cell phones, new cars, 50 inch tvs and laptops is the actual problem. If you strip all that away, and prioritze correctly...most Americans could live on far less than they now make.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Therein lies the rub though. The free market system should be free of that kind of intrusiveness. Obama and his supporters see that intrusiveness as fair so all can achieve just don't achieve too much or there will be people camping in city parks demanding equal achievement even without the work or risk.

The free market system, without the "intrusiveness" of government regulation, blows up. See Great Recession.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

LOL. Republicans edited Obama's words to make it look like something he didn't say at all. Here are Obama's words before they were edited:

"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."

And, of course, business owners did NOT build roads and bridges. The government did that. LMAO.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

LOL. Republicans edited Obama's words to make it look like something he didn't say at all. Here are Obama's words before they were edited:

"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."

And, of course, business owners did NOT build roads and bridges. The government did that. LMAO.

Yeah, those pesky business owners and private citizens just paid for it.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Yeah, those pesky business owners and private citizens just paid for it.

That does not change the fact that Republicans edited Obama's words to make it look like he said something he didn't say. If they were going to be honest, they should have shown the whole clip.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I tend to agree with most of what he was saying here. You dont just successfully run and own a business. Other people make it possible. I dont really agree that the government made it possible but you cant do it alone. You need customers, and these days customers have choices. You need a financial backing to get started. You technology and vendors in most cases. You need laws you protect your business.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Yeah, those pesky business owners and private citizens just paid for it.

Exactly. They paid for it and built it through collective, government action -- the sort of action Obama is defending. He examples how government action can provide general benefit and facilitate business growth.

Many of the people taking his words out of context probably don't disagree with this premise either, which makes the attacks all the more asinine.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

The free market system, without the "intrusiveness" of government regulation, blows up. See Great Recession.

True, but inherent in this discussion is more liberal conflation of terms. There is federal, state and local government. Federal government should not be regulating everything, only interstate commerce and that regulation should also serve to encourage business as well as keep them from rolling over the consumer.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

That does not change the fact that Republicans edited Obama's words to make it look like he said something he didn't say. If they were going to be honest, they should have shown the whole clip.

No, they didn't edit anything, they showed a portion of the speech, just as the left has been doing to the right forever. This is typical of reporting and politicking, always has been. I don't see you complaining when they do this to Romney or any other republican.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I honestly feel both parties have this wrong.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Nice appeal to mockery. Really, it's clever, and I mean that in a genuine way. But to the issue...

What is the point in reminding the owners of business and property that not everything they own came into existence solely because of them? Everyone knows this. There was never any question about it. So why, as the person with the most influential job on the planet, should he spend his time reminding us of something we all already know without even having to think, and knew as early as infancy (when we learned the concept of "mine")?

[edit]Best case scenario, he's wasting his time and ours. But honestly I believe there is a definite purpose to telling us these little fables, and I have explained what I think that purpose is in previous posts.

You have to give Mr T credit, as he tries to find a spin that works on this misstep into the truth for Obama. He and the rest of the Obama org, will be trying to spin this on until November. Hope Obama has a better answer than T when we have the debates.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Moderator's Warning:
The Baiting manipulation of an individuals user name as a means to ridicule or belittle ("Mr T") needs to stop or action will be taken
 
The free market system, without the "intrusiveness" of government regulation, blows up. See Great Recession.

The Great Recession is a weak example of why Obama's goal for government is to "put people to work" and "make sure the work pays off." A retrospective need for financial regulation to have prevented a dramatic bubble inflation and bursting does not demonstrate why government needs to be conjuring up jobs or fixing pay rates. Predatory lending can be illegal. Rating agencies deceiving investors can be corrected. But broadcasting to the people that government is going to see to it they have jobs and "fair" pay? These are not connected as a defense of Obama's promotion of the taker mentality.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

LOL. Republicans edited Obama's words to make it look like something he didn't say at all. Here are Obama's words before they were edited:

"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."

And, of course, business owners did NOT build roads and bridges. The government did that. LMAO.

I don't think it's being taken out of context. Exaggerated a bit maybe, but not out of context.
 
The Great Recession is a weak example of why Obama's goal for government is to "put people to work" and "make sure the work pays off." A retrospective need for financial regulation to have prevented a dramatic bubble inflation and bursting does not demonstrate why government needs to be conjuring up jobs or fixing pay rates. Predatory lending can be illegal. Rating agencies deceiving investors can be corrected. But broadcasting to the people that government is going to see to it they have jobs and "fair" pay? These are not connected as a defense of Obama's promotion of the taker mentality.

I agree with Obama. It is government's job to help balance the economy and thus help create the conditions necessary for jobs to be created and for hard work to pay off. And in the event that the economy should go off the rails, it is the job of government to deploy temprary stimulus to reduce the impact on vulnerable people and to quicken the recovery.
 
I agree with Obama. It is government's job to help balance the economy and thus help create the conditions necessary for jobs to be created and for hard work to pay off.

The necessary conditions are driven by individuals' preferences and means. This happens naturally. Individuals don't receive their preferences and means from the government. People demand things by virtue of their needs and likes, not by virtue of what government rations out to them. Government's responsibility in regulating commerce (including finance) is to prosecute criminal behavior and, (if we must have a Federal Reserve), place a check on market anomalies like asset bubbles. Calling toxic assets AAA investments is a massive public deception. Floods of mortgage contracts not made in good faith of both parties are a a legal problem, and of widespread enough also an economic problem. Maybe government had an important role in addressing these types of things, but nowhere in all of that do we need government to find us a job or keep spending cash in our pockets.

And in the event that the economy should go off the rails, it is the job of government to deploy temprary stimulus to reduce the impact on vulnerable people and to quicken the recovery.

Two red flags about stimulus: 1) when it becomes necessary on an annual or basically constant basis, there's a problem in the design, and 2) whenever the time comes that the reason for the economy being off the rails in the first place is government debt, stimulus has zero positive impact and the whole game is over.
 
The necessary conditions are driven by individuals' preferences and means. This happens naturally. Individuals don't receive their preferences and means from the government. People demand things by virtue of their needs and likes, not by virtue of what government rations out to them. Government's responsibility in regulating commerce (including finance) is to prosecute criminal behavior and, (if we must have a Federal Reserve), place a check on market anomalies like asset bubbles. Calling toxic assets AAA investments is a massive public deception. Floods of mortgage contracts not made in good faith of both parties are a a legal problem, and of widespread enough also an economic problem. Maybe government had an important role in addressing these types of things, but nowhere in all of that do we need government to find us a job or keep spending cash in our pockets.
Millions of people unemployed and no jobs available and since it's the government job to provide for the security and well being of citizens, then that means job creation, doesn't it?
 
Millions of people unemployed and no jobs available and since it's the government job to provide for the security and well being of citizens, then that means job creation, doesn't it?

The opnly way the government can really do that is hire people.
 
The openly way the government can really do that is hire people.
Or like others have said, government can help provide the conditions that make easier for private industry to hire more people or start new businesses by providing low interest loans and network support.
 
Millions of people unemployed and no jobs available and since it's the government job to provide for the security and well being of citizens, then that means job creation, doesn't it?

No. Government doesn't "create jobs" beyond the work it requires done completing specific projects within their powers to provide. It does not create jobs for the purpose of making unemployed people employed. If it tries to anyway, there are two options and both are worse for the economy than doing nothing: 1) employ them directly, which means finding something for them to do that was not previously determined a priority, as well as taking money out of the private sector in order to provide the income. This is a net inefficiency and harms economic activity more than it helps. 2) Force the terms of employment arrangement on private parties, and I shouldn't even need to explain why that fails, given that we want our private economic activity to be more competitive globally, not less.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom