Obama: If you got a business, you didn't build that!

General Buck Turgidson said:
Alternatively, you could just acknowledge that you mischaracterized what Obama said and move on. Always an option, you know. As opposed to continued dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Or you could acknowledge that people have made that argument in this very thread. That it was the water and the roads that made their success... that because there were cops provided for them they succeeded, not because they took risk... That the risk they took is minimal and shouldn't be considered because we paid for the water supply they use... I was told that the lemonade stand didn't "make it on their own" because the government provided the road they put their business on, and the water they used to mix lemonade... directly. Yet you didn't get all upset about supposed "mischaracterization" then... why not? Since it was a "mischaracterization" when I simply asked them questions about their assertions it must have been "mischaracterization" when somebody insisted that it was why those girls in Texas succeeded in their business...

These are the arguments made in this thread. If you want to get upset at "mischaracterization" then talk to the people who made the assertions.
 
Althea said:
Thanks for making Obama's point.

It doesn't matter where the impetus comes from...it matters where the FUNDING comes from. Capitalists still want to reap the rewards today, as long as they don't have to take the risk.

That's how nuclear power plants are built, satellites are put into space, etc..

If creating the means to transport goods/svcs. was such a good idea then...at taxpayer expense...then why isn't maintaining them a good idea now?

I keep saying it, and you boneheads on the right keep ignoring it...now that the means to make a profit are in place, you all want the govt. to step out of the way.

It doesn't work that way.

And thanks for further disproving Bravo's lie about who built the roads.
Click to expand...


ALL government funding comes from taxpayers.....prove me wrong....I'll check back.....

Then after your research proves to you where the "government's" funds come from....a little more research will till you WHO those taxpayers are that supply 75-80% of the governments income....
 
Dixie said:
No, I am sorry... The Erie Canal was not an aspiration of government. It was completely rejected by government. In fact, the FEDERAL government laughed at it and called it stupid. They refused to even entertain the idea of funding such a thing. The state government also refused, and the people didn't care for it, by and large, because it didn't really mean anything to them... or so they believed. It took bout 12 years of fighting and lobbying by capitalist commercial enterprise... those "greedy rich folk" who wanted to make a buck... they eventually swayed a politician to support them, Gov. Clinton, one of NY's greatest. The Erie Canal would have NEVER BEEN BUILT if it had been left up to government.
Click to expand...

Or, as Scott Walker tweeted today "Imagine if Noah had needed help from the government to build the ark. It might have never been built"

Indeed.
 
Damocles said:
Or you could acknowledge that people have made that argument in this very thread. That it was the water and the roads that made their success... that because there were cops provided for them they succeeded, not because they took risk... That the risk they took is minimal and shouldn't be considered because we paid for the water supply they use... I was told that the lemonade stand didn't "make it on their own" because the government provided the road they put their business on, and the water they used to mix lemonade... directly. Yet you didn't get all upset about supposed "mischaracterization" then... why not? Since it was a "mischaracterization" when I simply asked them questions about their assertions it must have been "mischaracterization" when somebody insisted that it was why those girls in Texas succeeded in their business...

These are the arguments made in this thread. If you want to get upset at "mischaracterization" then talk to the people who made the assertions.
Click to expand...


If you are responding to someone in particular, you should quote that person. All I see is you posting a dishonest clip of Obama and then chiming in 100+ posts later quoting no one. To me that looks like you're still talking about Obama. Then you get you knickers in a twist because I can't read your fucking mind.

Well, first, a little acknowledgement of the initial mischaracterization would be nice. Second, there's a lot in between "I did it all on my own" and "you aren't responsible for your own success."



Edit: And are you pulling a Yurt now because I haven't acted as the Board's mischaracterization police? That's awesome.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
If you are responding to someone in particular, you should quote that person. All I see is you posting a dishonest clip of Obama and then chiming in 100+ posts later quoting no one. To me that looks like you're still talking about Obama. Then you get you knickers in a twist because I can't read your fucking mind.
Click to expand...
So, your claim is that you cannot read a thread and that my limited time makes it so you think it is disconnected from what people have said in this thread?

I don't believe you are that stupid.

Well, first, a little acknowledgement of the initial mischaracterization would be nice. Second, there's a lot in between "I did it all on my own" and "you aren't responsible for your own success."
Click to expand...
However, saying that "somebody else made that happen" and "you didn't do that"... pretty much says "you aren't responsible for your own success".

Edit: And are you pulling a Yurt now because I haven't acted as the Board's mischaracterization police? That's awesome.
Click to expand...
No, I was clear. If you are going to be the mischaracterization police you really should pull over those actually doing the "offense" rather than the person who read the thread and asked some questions about what you call "mischaracterization"...

People in this thread told me that a lemonade stand is only successful because of roads that the government built, and the water the government provides, and the cops so they don't get robbed...

This thread right here. If you think they are mischaracterizing what Obama said then you need to talk to them, I am simply asking them to explain their position, those people in this thread...
 
ekg said:
That's awesome.. but it misses the point.. why did this person open their business here and not Cuba?

because many-amany someone else's made here better than there.. and he was given his chance to prosper because of them. .. hence the 'no one did it on their own'.. and that goes for everyone in this country..immigrant or native.
Click to expand...

Excellent explanation!
 
Damocles said:
So, the argument is that because there are roads people succeed. What about all the other companies that didn't succeed and were on the same roads? Did those people just not use the road right? They drank the same water provided by the same beneficent government providing water for them to succeed, did they put it in the wrong glass?

When the successful businessman took out a loan, sometimes at very high interest, to start their business was it the government that took the risk for them? When they put a mortgage on their house to pay the payroll in the first few months, should they thank government for the water?

Did these people pay taxes to help build the roads, to create the infrastructure, or did they appear out of vacuum to start a business that government made happen because they provided roads?

How often have you ever heard a successful businessperson thanking government for their success because the roads they helped to build were there for them to use?

When Solyndra folded, after getting some of the 20% of the "stimulus" earmarked for Green Energy that actually was spent in the US, did they fold because the government didn't build good enough roads for them? Provide good enough police? The golden parachutes for their CEO was payed by the taxpayer that build the roads... but they didn't succeed because those same people that "made it happen" for the others weren't working hard enough? They just didn't know how to use the water?
Click to expand...

Check out EKG's post, #136.

Are we to believe there are no entrepreneurs in Somalia and Ethiopia? None in Zimbabwe and Niger? Mali and Haiti and Uganda?
 
FactsRStubborn said:
You act like the only thing the gobblement spends money on is roads and transportation. That is disingenuous at best.

In the interest if compromise I will give you federal gobblement spending on transportation if you give up gobblement spending on everything else. Deal?

The gobblement should not be subsidizing any business I don't care how beneficial you think it might be. I it is beneficial and a profit can be made then private capital will flock to it.

If it isn't profitable it shouldnt be done. Plain and simple
Click to expand...
No, I don't act like the govt. only spends money on roads/bridges. I've already mentioned that all manners of electricity have been subsidized by the govt.

Likewise, Bain Capital made millions by taking advantage of govt. subsidies to some of the companies they managed.

And THAT's the issue. Romney's position is that the wealthy are the ones who make this country run. If we just give them more money, they'll fix the mess that THEY made.

We have two opposing claims. On one side, Romney appeals to the uber right, 'kill the govt' base when he claims that Obama's oppressive programs are killing the economy.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The other side claims that the wealthy have had 10 years of a free ride, and they now ask for more. It's time to try putting the money into the hands of the consumers, and see if anything improves.

I see no reason why a small bump in income taxes shouldn't go toward creating jobs through infrastructure improvement.

It worked the first time they did it after the great depression.
 
Damocles said:
Or you could acknowledge that people have made that argument in this very thread. That it was the water and the roads that made their success... that because there were cops provided for them they succeeded, not because they took risk... That the risk they took is minimal and shouldn't be considered because we paid for the water supply they use... I was told that the lemonade stand didn't "make it on their own" because the government provided the road they put their business on, and the water they used to mix lemonade... directly. Yet you didn't get all upset about supposed "mischaracterization" then... why not? Since it was a "mischaracterization" when I simply asked them questions about their assertions it must have been "mischaracterization" when somebody insisted that it was why those girls in Texas succeeded in their business...

These are the arguments made in this thread. If you want to get upset at "mischaracterization" then talk to the people who made the assertions.
Click to expand...

The lemonade stand is a very good example. How many lemonade stands are there in Somalia and Ethiopia? I'm sure a group of people could afford to buy a few lemons. Of course, how they would get them delivered is the question not to mention potable water.
 
bravo said:
ALL government funding comes from taxpayers.....prove me wrong....I'll check back.....

Then after your research proves to you where the "government's" funds come from....a little more research will till you WHO those taxpayers are that supply 75-80% of the governments income....
Click to expand...
Nice try. You were proven wrong, and now you're attempting to offer technicalities?

Idiot.
 
Damocles said:
So, your claim is that you cannot read a thread and that my limited time makes it so you think it is disconnected from what people have said in this thread?

I don't believe you are that stupid.
Click to expand...

No, my claim is that it is entirely unclear that you are referring to people in this thread as opposed to making a larger point about what you claim Obama said.


Damocles said:
However, saying that "somebody else made that happen" and "you didn't do that"... pretty much says "you aren't responsible for your own success".
Click to expand...

Only if you pretend you don't know what "that" is in the context of Obama's remarks and ignore what he actually said, which was the initial mischaracterization.

Also, too:


There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Click to expand...

In short, "You didn't get there on your own" is a lot different from "you aren't responsible for your own success." Mitt Romney agrees, by the way.
 
apple0154 said:
The lemonade stand is a very good example. How many lemonade stands are there in Somalia and Ethiopia? I'm sure a group of people could afford to buy a few lemons. Of course, how they would get them delivered is the question not to mention potable water.
Click to expand...

How do the local tribes and warlords succeed? Just because the level of success is different than would be expected here, doesn't mean that they did not achieve a higher standard of living for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top