Did Obama really say business owners didn't build their business?

[renard_ruse]

Haven't been on here much recently so I'm sure this has been covered already, but can someone confirm Obama really said this:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen...”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-that-problem/2012/07/18/gJQAJxyotW_blog.html

I understand that He's the ultimate teflon Prez, but wow, I never thought we'd hear a US President get away with saying something so extreme and far out with no real backlash. Amazing.

 

[blobfish]

Haven't been on here much recently so I'm sure this has been covered already, but can someone confirm Obama really said this:



I understand that He's the ultimate teflon Prez, but wow, I never thought we'd hear a US President get away with saying something so extreme and far out with no real backlash. Amazing.

'Tis true.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yep he said it, yep he meant it, and he's gonna keep repeating it because it's starting to sink in.

 

[renard_ruse]

My ideology has long been "social, not socialist" to distinguish it from libertarianism and excessive individualism, so I agree the nation as an organism is important and infrastructure is important so I believe there is some truth to Obama's statement but he fails to point out the other obvious facts:

if you are an employee or work for someone else, you also benefited from schools and you also benefit from the roads and infrastructure and government R & D, etc.

If you are on government assistance, you also benefit from roads, schools, government programs.

The difference is that business owners pay more than anybody to pay for these common things we all benefit from. Why is Obama attacking them, when they actually foot much of the bill to pay for all that rather than attacking the 50% who pay only some sales tax or whatever and otherwise freeload?

So, on the one hand, glad to see Obama embracing the "social society" idea, but its useless if he doesn't also understand the necessary class structure that a healthy organic society has to have to maintain itself as a healthy organism.

 

[coachdb18]

Haven't been on here much recently so I'm sure this has been covered already, but can someone confirm Obama really said this:



I understand that He's the ultimate teflon Prez, but wow, I never thought we'd hear a US President get away with saying something so extreme and far out with no real backlash. Amazing.

The MSM wouldn't admit to him being a cannibal if he ate the press corps in the East Room with a fork and mayonaisse. But this is the man speaking from his deepest, most convinced heart of hearts in the big governments supremacy over us all. He has changed the basic belief in our countries principals from being based in the Declaration of Independence, to his own construction of a new Declaration of Dependence, openly stating with fervent conviction that we are all subjects of a government, and subservient to it. We're right back where we started under King George III.

 

[renard_ruse]

Yep he said it, yep he meant it, and he's gonna keep repeating it because it's starting to sink in.

Its starting to sink his campaign.

 

[Sean Renaud]

My ideology has long been "social, not socialist" to distinguish it from libertarianism and excessive individualism, so I agree the nation as an organism is important and infrastructure is important so I believe there is some truth to Obama's statement but he fails to point out the other obvious facts:

if you are an employee or work for someone else, you also benefited from schools and you also benefit from the roads and infrastructure and government R & D, etc.

If you are on government assistance, you also benefit from roads, schools, government programs.

The difference is that business owners pay more than anybody to pay for these common things we all benefit from. Why is Obama attacking them, when they actually foot much of the bill to pay for all that rather than attacking the 50% who pay only some sales tax or whatever and otherwise freeload?

So, on the one hand, glad to see Obama embracing the "social society" idea, but its useless if he doesn't also understand the necessary class structure that a healthy organic society has to have to maintain itself as a healthy organism.

First because the employee doesn't benefit half as much as the business owner does. Second Obama is not attacking them, and finally the 50% paying really aren't getting a whole lot of bang for their buck there.

 

[renard_ruse]

Yep he said it, yep he meant it, and he's gonna keep repeating it because it's starting to sink in.

Just read that Shimon Peres has attacked Netanyahu for expelling the blacks from Israel.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Did Obama really say business owners didn't build their business?

No, he didn't. He said they could never have done so as self-reliant islands owing nothing to state or society, and he's right. No businessman ever has.

 

[renard_ruse]

First because the employee doesn't benefit half as much as the business owner does. Second Obama is not attacking them, and finally the 50% paying really aren't getting a whole lot of bang for their buck there.

The employee chooses to live a safe life and not take a risk, they aren't supposed to.

Netanyahu isn't a racist from kicking the Africans out of Israel either.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The employee chooses to live a safe life and not take a risk, they aren't supposed to.

Most employees don't choose to live a safe life. Most people just don't start businesses, it would funny to see a world where we tried that though. All chiefs, no indians.

 

[run_silent]

This election is stark and easy. It's between two guys with completely different world views.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This election is stark and easy. It's between two guys with completely different world views.

No it's not. It's between two guys with very similar views and one is lying so that people who don't honestly like him will vote for him instead of being honest and getting people who might like his brand better than Obama's.

 

[ChinaBandit]

This election is stark and easy. It's between two guys with completely different world views.

and no matter what, we will end up in the gridlock center.

 

[Sean Renaud]

and no matter what, we will end up in the gridlock center.

No we won't. If Romney wins there will be no gridlock.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

If you are on government assistance, you also benefit from roads, schools, government programs.

The difference is that business owners pay more than anybody to pay for these common things we all benefit from. Why is Obama attacking them, when they actually foot much of the bill to pay for all that rather than attacking the 50% who pay only some sales tax or whatever and otherwise freeload?

These companies are on government assistance:
Lockheed Martin
Boeing Co.
Northrop GrummanCorporation
General DynamicsCorporation
Raytheon Co.
KBR Inc.
L-3 Communications Holdings
SAIC
United Technologies Corp.
BAE Systems

As an example, Raytheon does not pay "more than anybody", they pay less or nothing where I live as there is a constant infusion of tax concessions so they won't move their jobs elsewhere.

So, they take tax money in on one hand, and don;t have to pay taxes themselves.

So, who is freeloading?

 

[ChinaBandit]

No we won't. If Romney wins there will be no gridlock.

I am not as optimistic that the Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I am not as optimistic that the Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate.

They don't need to. There are enough Blue Dogs to sway and Dems will let a 51-49 victory go. They won't fillabuster. They believe in democracy and are bitches.

 

[run_silent]

No it's not. It's between two guys with very similar views and one is lying so that people who don't honestly like him will vote for him instead of being honest and getting people who might like his brand better than Obama's.

I don't understand this post at all.

 

[TexasWife25]

They don't need to. There are enough Blue Dogs to sway and Dems will let a 51-49 victory go. They won't fillabuster. They believe in democracy and are bitches.

Lol! Pretty much

 

[coachdb18]

These companies are on government assistance:
Lockheed Martin
Boeing Co.
Northrop GrummanCorporation
General DynamicsCorporation
Raytheon Co.
KBR Inc.
L-3 Communications Holdings
SAIC
United Technologies Corp.
BAE Systems

As an example, Raytheon does not pay "more than anybody", they pay less or nothing where I live as there is a constant infusion of tax concessions so they won't move their jobs elsewhere.

So, they take tax money in on one hand, and don;t have to pay taxes themselves.

So, who is freeloading?

You simply don't charge someone to provide you something you want or need from them. Tom and Huck may have been able to charge their friends for the priviledge of whitewashing their fence, but that's pretty universally accepted as a metaphor for taking another person for a schmuck. It's inverse to the way things work. You charge when someone actually requires your service, and they are willing to offer payment equal to the value of the service you offer them.

If companies have the ability to provide jobs, and have a choice of where to do that, trying to tax them for the opportunities they offer the community is social and fiscal suicide.

 

[run_silent]

You simply don't charge someone to provide you something you want or need from them. Tom and Huck may have been able to charge their friends for the priviledge of whitewashing their fence, but that's pretty universally accepted as a metaphor for taking another person for a schmuck. It's inverse to the way things work. You charge when someone actually requires your service, and they are willing to offer payment equal to the value of the service you offer them.

If companies have the ability to provide jobs, and have a choice of where to do that, trying to tax them for the opportunities they offer the community is social and fiscal suicide.

You forgot to mention that companies don't pay taxes, they just add them into the final price the consumer pays.

 

[KingOrfeo]

This election is stark and easy. It's between two guys with completely different world views.

If only!

 

[coachdb18]

You forgot to mention that companies don't pay taxes, they just add them into the final price the consumer pays.

...And trying to add corporate taxes as a government revenue stream simply means fewer jobs and reduced local productivity if they either don't hire or go elsewhere with their business, and obviously higher taxes passed on to consumers if they do stay.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't understand this post at all.

Romney and Obama agree on most stuff. It's not complicated. Romney is pretending to be a man he's not, to get votes from people who don't like who he is. Obama seems to be coming out of his shell and trying to attract voters who do like who he is. It's actually quite facinating in bizzare sort of way.

...And trying to add corporate taxes as a government revenue stream simply means fewer jobs and reduced local productivity if they either don't hire or go elsewhere with their business, and obviously higher taxes passed on to consumers if they do stay.

Then make it difficult for them to do that. Keep trying till something sticks.