you didnt build that

[Azazello1313]

it's not a poorly chosen word, taken as a whole it's a crystal clear exposition of his political philosophy. whoever linked it to elizabeth warren's comments was right on the money, it's the exact same sentiment. it views government as the nexus of community, and community (represented by government) as the genesis of all wealth. to me, there are a lot of things wrong with it, but what really bugs me is how myopic and one-sided this view is. sure there is a sort of symbiotic relationship between the various aspects of society, private enterprise, government, and the rest, but he's got the fundamental causality bass-ackwards. he stands as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, and we got that way gradually over the past 200+ years because we had one of the most strictly limited governments among all of the other nations. because our founders realized that government was NOT the conscience of society, that is was NOT the source of initiative, the creator of wealth and know-how. if our government over the course of history stands out among other governments, it is for being more intentionally crippled and less intrusive than other governments. it's designed to defend against attack, to enforce rules of fair play and to stand aside after that, and to the extent it's been most successful it has not gone too far beyond that limited mandate. yet here is this preening fool acting like the country got where it is thanks to people like him, and that the people who actually did the work ought to pay all the technocrats and self-styled philosopher kings proper obiesence.

 

I have to say though, I very much encourage the president to speak off-prompter as often as possible. we get a much clearer distillation of his real views that way, and everybody should be in favor of that, right?

Edited July 26, 2012 by Azazello1313

[Azazello1313]

success

 

footprints

[yo mama]

You guys trying to defend this are funny.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to "defend this." I think some folks are merely pointing out that, viewed within the context of what was said immediatly before and after the quote at issue, that quote isn't nearly as absurd as some have made it out to be.

 

People who build businesses benefit from the surrounding infrastructure - infrastructure that they (more often than not) did not build themselves. This statement is true, and you know it.

Edited July 26, 2012 by yo mama

[Square]

I assumed he was referring to "society" instead of specifically "government". I know he said the government created the Internet, but if he meant "society" than I think it falls in line with what a lot of people consider to be a rational statement. It doesn't sound far off from that Thomas Paine quote I posted previously.

[Perchoutofwater]

People who build businesses benefit from the surrounding infrastructure - infrastructure that they (more often than not) did not build themselves. This statement is true, and you know it.

 

 

And those business owners typically end up paying a lot more for the use of that infrastructure in the way of taxes both as a percent of their income and dollars paid.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

 

 

And those business owners typically end up paying a lot more for the use of that infrastructure in the way of taxes both as a percent of their income and dollars paid.

 

 

And they pass those costs along to consumers in the price of their products and services.

[Azazello1313]

I assumed he was referring to "society" instead of specifically "government".

 

 

the problem as I see it is that he himself views them far too consistently as being one in the same.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

because our founders realized that government was NOT the conscience of society, that is was NOT the source of initiative, the creator of wealth and know-how.

 

 

Government is not the creator of wealth it just makes wealth possible.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

 

 

the problem as I see it is that he himself views them far too consistently as being one in the same.

 

 

Society establishes the government and in our case democratically elects representatives to said government. I don't see the issue here. The government IS us. We get the government we ask for.

[Pope Flick]

it's not a poorly chosen word, taken as a whole it's a crystal clear exposition of his political philosophy.

 

 

Don't pull a muscle on that reach.

[Chavez]

OMG SOCIALISM etc etc

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Somebody created this great system. Actually it was a group of somebodies, our founding fathers, and they had an abiding belief as to government's proper role.

 

To me there are two ways to look at his overall statement. One can read it literally to be a statement of the extremely obvious, making points not worthy of being discussed they are so obvious, or one can read it as an expression of belief that the successful are so indebted to government that they should not complain when government acts confiscatorily, after all they are indebted to govenment.

 

The problem is that government created nothing, it gave nothing, it produced nothing. The indebtedness is not to government, but rather to we the people who funded these things through the conveyance of government. The successful are indebted to us, themselves, and to their forefathers, not to government.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders

[Ice1]

It was a major gaffe.

 

This gaffe does go to Obama's mindset of all things big government. BTW since we are supposedly the government we all built those roads and bridges. Of course today it is more like 53% are building roads and bridges, well at least the ones with the blue signs.

 

He may believe every word of what he said but I am pretty sure he went off script.

[muck]

"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."

 

"That" refers to the roads and bridges. It was a clumsy sentence but anyone who claims it refers to the business, especially given the context of the rest of his comments, Is being intellectualy dishonest.

 

 

If you don't know that "that" is used in a sentence to refer to one single thing, and "those" is used to refer to more than one thing.

 

So, if he would have said "those", then he would have been referring to roads AND bridges.

 

But, he didn't say "those" ... he said "that".

 

In this case, "that" = business.

 

I'm of the view that, in this instance, his gaffe (and it most definitely was a gaffe) gave a little window into his world-view.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Roads and bridges is a singular collective idea. Also, you could say he was referring back to.the American system. Put into full context with the surrounding sentences I seriously question how any one could think he meant business unless you are already predisposed to hate the guy which of course many are.

[Duchess Jack]

Roads and bridges is a singular collective idea.

 

or he simple used the wrong word... whatever happened to the teleprompter reader in chief nonsense?

[muck]

And, for the record, I also think he and Elizabeth Warren have a point -- all successful businesses use public infrastructure to implement their business plans.

 

And, Perch has a point -- successful businesses pay for a large portion of the infrastructure.

 

And, one of my points is that many would-be successful businesses fail due to crushing regulatory burden. And this isn't a unique problem to Dems, as Reps have been (basically) as eggregious over the last decade of two.

[detlef]

It also bears mention that, at least to a microscopic business like mine (I avoid "small" business because that term gets misused so much and should never be used to describe the mom and pop sort of places if it's going to be used to describe companies that are so much larger than that). At any rate, local gov't has a far bigger impact on my business than the Feds do. It's not even close.

 

I've opened and run restaurants under Clinton, W, and Obama and can't speak to any difference in terms of regulation that could be pinned to any of them.

[Chavez]

 

And, one of my points is that many would-be successful businesses fail due to crushing regulatory burden. And this isn't a unique problem to Dems, as Reps have been (basically) as eggregious over the last decade of two.

 

 

Excepting large banks, which fail (or should have failed) due to lack of regulatory burdens.

[Chavez]

It also bears mention that, at least to a microscopic business like mine (I avoid "small" business because that term gets misused so much and should never be used to describe the mom and pop sort of places if it's going to be used to describe companies that are so much larger than that). At any rate, local gov't has a far bigger impact on my business than the Feds do. It's not even close.

 

I've opened and run restaurants under Clinton, W, and Obama and can't speak to any difference in terms of regulation that could be pinned to any of them.

 

 

I wait with bated breath to see people utterly ignore a post from an actual business owner.

[delusions of grandeur]

I wait with bated breath to see people utterly ignore a post from an actual business owner.

 

Ummm, how exactly is his experience relevant to Obama's statement?

 

So local regulations have more of an effect on local businesses than federal ones do... Okay... So beaurocracy exists in spite of administration... Okay... Now where exactly does this imply that he should or shouldn't be praising the infastructure for him starting his own business?

 

I think DW had it exactly right. The government didn't make all this possible. We did, and even morseo those same "indebted" business owners who tend to pay much more for the services than they use.

 

Really, a more appropriate statement would be for those who don't contribute their fair share of productivity (and thus taxes) to society, compared to the services they use. YOU didn't build that. You're merely taking from what others have built (not that I'm saying that everyone shouldn't be able to use the basic services, but it was wealth not welfare that built this country, and so thus, I'd say those who take more than they give should be the ones who feel indebted for their high standard of living).

 

Not to mention that it almost seems like extortion what he and Warren are saying, considering the state of our infrastructure. "Hey, long ago your tax dollars went primarily to infrastructure and services like fire and police, so you should now feel indebted as we funnel it into all sorts of non-essential areas and let our existing infrastructure crumble without even more of your tax money or debt we plan to force you to be on the hook for".

Edited July 27, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[muck]

I wait with bated breath to see people utterly ignore a post from an actual business owner.

 

 

You mean, like me?

[muck]

Excepting large banks, which fail (or should have failed) due to lack of regulatory burdens.

 

 

They have had a crushing regulatory burden for some time (most of which is paid for by the nickel and dime fees they ding everyone for NSF items, ATM fees, check printing charges, counter charges, etc.).

 

It's just that the regulations are/were poorly crafted by regulators and legislators, and not followed to the "t" by the banks.

 

For example, if we had ONE simple rule that stated that no bank, insurance company or other financial institution of any type could not hold more assets than ______% of GDP (pick a number), and that any institution that was larger than that percentage would have to shed assets/divisions to be compliant...then, this would go a long way to reduce systemic risk. IMVHO.

Edited July 27, 2012 by muck

[Perchoutofwater]

You mean, like me?

 

 

No, I think he means like me.

[detlef]

Ummm, how exactly is his experience relevant to Obama's statement?

 

So local regulations have more of an effect on local businesses than federal ones do... Okay... So beaurocracy exists in spite of administration... Okay... Now where exactly does this imply that he should or shouldn't be praising the infastructure for him starting his own business?

 

I think DW had it exactly right. The government didn't make all this possible. We did, and even morseo those same "indebted" business owners who tend to pay much more for the services than they use.

 

Really, a more appropriate statement would be for those who don't contribute their fair share of productivity (and thus taxes) to society, compared to the services they use. YOU didn't build that. You're merely taking from what others have built (not that I'm saying that everyone shouldn't be able to use the basic services, but it was wealth not welfare that built this country, and so thus, I'd say those who take more than they give should be the ones who feel indebted for their high standard of living).

 

Not to mention that it almost seems like extortion what he and Warren are saying, considering the state of our infrastructure. "Hey, long ago your tax dollars went primarily to infrastructure and services like fire and police, so you should now feel indebted as we funnel it into all sorts of non-essential areas and let our existing infrastructure crumble without even more of your tax money or debt we plan to force you to be on the hook for".

 

As far as my opinion on Obama's deal, I already stated that before and it has zero to do with the post Chavez was referring to. To repeat, I think people are getting carried away with what I feel was a poorly worded way of saying that we shouldn't forget all the things that we were fortunate to build our businesses upon. If you didn't literally find an island and start 100% from scratch, you didn't build that thing entirely by yourself.

 

That said, I do think the post Chavez referenced does merit inclusion in the conversation as I've been in a number of debates on this issue in several places and someone always mentions the business-crippling attitudes of our current POTUS. Now, perhaps these people actually do have first (or even legit 2nd) hand knowledge. However, if it goes any length at all to chill out those who are just repeating what they've been told, I do think it's important to bring up the fact that, at least for the little guy (you know, the bootstraps, feel-good story that virtually every person running for office pretends they're a champion of), there's truly very little, if any difference at all who is POTUS.