The President Made You!

[DrMike]

President Barack Obama now states that no business owner can take responsibility for the work they've performed to build their business. He claims it was government that built YOUR business.


"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."

The audacity or the audacious!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...video-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/

 

[SJB358]

Mike, so are you saying you aren't going to vote for him? :twisted:

 

[aka Hunter]

The audacity or the audacious!

I agree with most of what he said; however, I don't fully agree with "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"; I would change it to read, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that on your own. Somebody else helped make that happen."

When I hear folks talk about being a "self-made" man, I think they're not thinking very deeply.

 

[DrMike]

Scotty,

It is a safe bet that I won't vote for the man. He has divided the nation enough and generated animosity toward anyone who is successful. America is a land of opportunity because there of the foundations. It is not a land of equality, however. There is equal opportunity, but there will never be equal ability, equal initiative or equal success; and that is the noxious concoction that the Obama administration is selling. I love basketball, but I did not have the right to invade the court and insist that Karl Malone or Magic Johnson must step aside because it is my turn. I love football, but Joe Namath would never have been compelled to share his starting position with me. The idea that there is equality in every facet of life is rank socialism. To stress governmental seizure of goods from the citizenry as the genesis of innovation is the height of folly, especially when government is at best inefficient and excessive seizure of goods and services is stifling to innovation.

 

[IdahoCTD]

Everyone gets help in life but to claim the government helped me with my business is ridiculous. Would it be more successful if I paid less taxes? Sure it would. Would the roads and schools still be there if I wasn't in business for myself? Yep. The bottom line is who is the government? Every one of us tax payers is the government. Without our taxes there wouldn't be a government. So while some fat cat on capital hill can claim to be the small business messiah, he wouldn't be there without the hard work of business owners. Government didn't start first ;-). It started to tax those making money.

 

[aka Hunter]

...to claim the government helped me with my business is ridiculous....The bottom line is who is the government? Every one of us tax payers is the government.

Do you mind me asking, "In what business are you?" I can't think of a business that is not (nor has not been) helped by the government.

 

[DrMike]

I can't think of a business that is not (nor has not been) helped by the government.

And hindered.

 

[SJB358]

...to claim the government helped me with my business is ridiculous....The bottom line is who is the government? Every one of us tax payers is the government.

Do you mind me asking, "In what business are you?" I can't think of a business that is not (nor has not been) helped by the government.

I am not really sure where your going with this? My father, grandfather and uncles are all independent businessmen (logging, sawmills, general contractors). I can't think of a time growing up when my pop's said, PHEW, thank God for all these taxes I am paying and God Bless the US Government for helping me out.. It just doesn't make sense. How are you inferring the US Government has helped independent people who run small businesses?

Mike, I agree, people are successful because they work hard to get there. It seems to slight the people who have had excellent ideas, struggled through the initial start up and prospered to think the USG "helped" them out...

 

[Guest]

The bottom line is, regardless of what business you engage in daily, whether a worker or an owner (which is, frankly, both...but that's another argument), the business you built is built on a foundation of whatever was there at the time. If you didn't create those things, that's not a knock against your business, any more than one would say the farmer didn't grow the food we're eating because the dirt was there before him, and John Deere made his tractor. It's pure horse-hockey, to use the polite term. If I start a business because I see an opportunity, it doesn't mean the precursors to my business created my success - in fact, that's illogical cause-effect. The roads are there because the taxpayers approved of them (and I'm a taxpayer). All infrastructure is there by the same cause, except perhaps private toll roads and privately owned railroads, but I do not believe there are many rails laid in this country that were the product of zero taxpayer funding. Regardless, those roads, rails, and internet wires would be there whether or not I came up with an idea and risked my own livelihood to attempt to bring it to fruition. And if I am the one taking the risk, then by definition I am the one who receives the credit for success, or the blame for failure. Do I, as a businessman, understand that the workers in my business are a fundamental key to my success? Of course. Obviously! And that's why I try to create a good work environment, provide quality compensation practices, and take an interest in who my employees are, and how they are doing. It's also why I have some say in what my employees do on their off-time, as they represent my company even when they are not "on the clock." No "self-made man" with any sense believes he got there on his own. That's why the best of them mention others when they are complimented. A minority of loud egotists not withstanding, most "self-made men" are gracious and humble, knowing from whence they come and how easily they could be forced to return. But a man is defined in his life by the path he cuts through the jungle. If you follow an existing path and simply trim the weeds along the edge, you may live a long, happy life. But you will not be defined as an innovator or a self-made man. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you. It's just a fact. But those who step out toward uncharted territory with the tools available to them, and hack a path through the jungle in a manner no other man has done before them, are self-made men. Using the tools and opportunities they find along the way does not diminish their ownership of their fate. That's the key difference.

Heck, by Obama's definition, he's responsible for all success, but by extension, he's responsible for all the failures, too, and there are far more of them. Once again, measuring by his own yardstick, he's found wanting. What a boob.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I believe that this entire discussion may hinge on a term called "Value Added". If you are a businessman or a contributor as I was, your success in the world is measured by how much value you have added to your enterprise and to the economy as a whole by creating jobs, hiring subcontractors or capital reinvested to grow the business. It makes no difference if you are a small businessman or a corporation, the process is the same.

The thing is that everyone needs to understand is that Governments do not own any money, they take taxes from individual's earned and unearned income and they redistribute it. However, they almost never creat public sector jobs and when they do, each job costs dearly as Obama's created industrial jobs have cost $1.2 million dollars each in the past three years and there are damned few of them!

It is private industry that creates value added. The government takes it away in the form of taxation and bureaucratic waste!

 

[big rifle man]

I'll make this short and sweet aka hunter, you are the consumate socialist. You are the kind of person Obama dreams about and wishes that there were twenty million more of. Thankfully there are a lot of us that look at life and hard work in a different way. :roll:

 

[aka Hunter]

I am not really sure where your going with this? My father, grandfather and uncles are all independent businessmen (logging, sawmills, general contractors). I can't think of a time growing up when my pop's said, PHEW, thank God for all these taxes I am paying and God Bless the US Government for helping me out.. It just doesn't make sense. How are you inferring the US Government has helped independent people who run small businesses?

Thinking "big picture" here, but the logging, sawmill, and general contractor businesses have benefited by the housing market, and the housing market benefited by the banking business -- which benefits from the government. Furthermore, the trucks that are critical to those business run on government-financed roads.

The bottom line is, regardless of what business you engage in daily, ... the business you built is built on a foundation of whatever was there at the time. (See A below.) ... If you follow an existing path and simply trim the weeds along the edge, you may live a long, happy life. But you will not be defined as an innovator or a self-made man. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you. It's just a fact. But those who step out toward uncharted territory with the tools available to them, and hack a path through the jungle in a manner no other man has done before them, are self-made men. (See B below.)

A. That's a large part of the point on which I'm focused; the other part is the ongoing benefits that flow from gov't involvement in our daily lives. (Now, that's not to suggest that the gov't doesn't also create negatives in our daily lives.)

B. I think there's a difference between an "innovator" an a "self-made" man. As you can imagine, we may disagree on the "self-made men" label you attached.

I'll make this short and sweet aka hunter, you are the consumate socialist. You are the kind of person Obama dreams about and wishes that there were twenty million more of.

Maybe you don't know me?

 

[SJB358]

Thinking "big picture" here, but the logging, sawmill, and general contractor businesses have benefited by the housing market, and the housing market benefited by the banking business -- which benefits from the government. Furthermore, the trucks that are critical to those business run on government-financed roads.

I am not sure I am aware of everything, but when did the USG start a business and provide money to the economy? I always thought the money the USG used for projects came from taxes received from the people who pay taxes on their big trucks registrations, diesel fuel, etc?

 

[DrMike]

It was congressional tampering with the banking industry that collapsed the housing market. It was government tampering that compelled the banks to make unsecured loans to unqualified buyers to fuel the housing bubble. I'm uncertain of how that benefited logging operations, sawmills and general contractors in the long run. In fact, it was ultimately more destructive to such operations than keeping the government out of business.

 

[aka Hunter]

I am not sure I am aware of everything, but when did the USG start a business and provide money to the economy? I always thought the money the USG used for projects came from taxes received from the people who pay taxes on their big trucks registrations, diesel fuel, etc?

The USG (I assume you mean the US Gov't) has been providing money to the economy and creating jobs for years, and years, and years. The money not only comes from taxes, but loans and the printing press. If you don't think the gov't creates jobs you should walk into any gov't office building in Atlanta.

It was congressional tampering with the banking industry that collapsed the housing market. It was government tampering that compelled the banks to make unsecured loans to unqualified buyers to fuel the housing bubble. I'm uncertain of how that benefited logging operations, sawmills and general contractors in the long run. In fact, it was ultimately more destructive to such operations than keeping the government out of business.

Doc, I don't have the facts to properly argue your last point above; however, I suspect a lot of folks in building-related businesses operations got rich as a result of the building boom fueled by such gov't tampering.

Ignoring the "tampering" part referenced above, surely you don't think those operations would have been better off if the gov't had not gotten involved in business at all. I wonder how many home loans would have been made during our lifetimes if the gov't had not insured bank deposits or various home loans -- in other words, gotten involved in business.

 

[DrMike]

Government can create jobs. Whether those jobs are necessary or even productive may be subject to interpretation. Undoubtedly, some people did obtain wealth as result of government tampering. However, it was that same tampering that not only precipitated the current financial crisis, but has ensured that it would continue for an extended period. Rather than permitting the system to correct itself, politicians thought they could help the system. Much as a helpful soul cutting the butterfly out of the cocoon ensures the immediate death of the butterfly, so the help of the politicians has ensured injury to the economy and may, in fact, ensure long-term detrimental effects to the nation. Your question concerning my thoughts about governmental intervention (intrusion) ventures into the realm of speculation, and is, therefore, unanswerable. However, I'm disposed to trust the people (aka private business operating under capitalism) rather than confiscatory redistributionists such as those masquerading as governmental bureaucrats to ensure a healthy economy. Yes, had government restrained itself, adhering to the Constitution, the nation would be stronger and the economy much healthier. I wonder how many home loans have ensured a growing homeless population because governmental intervention induced the unwary to take out larger mortgages they could not afford? Had government not insured bank investments, I wonder if people would have been more inclined to invest in business or advanced research?

 

[aka Hunter]

Yes, had government restrained itself, adhering to the Constitution, the nation would be stronger and the economy much healthier.

Have you entered into "the realm of speculation"?

 

[IdahoCTD]

Your missing the whole point......the government is nothing without the small business person. Their success directly hinges on the success of small business. Without tax dollars from the small businesses they wouldn't exist.

Who's money are they using for the loans? The money is from taxes (the largest portion of their income anyway the rest was still made from our taxes or cheated out of us). They print money and it devalues our dollar. How is that beneficial? It gives government more money yet it makes our money worth less. So in a way it's another tax we pay as Americans. We should of never gone away from the gold standard. Government would be a lot smaller if they still had to secure all printed notes with gold. Getting away from the gold standard was like a license to steal more from the people since there was no real downside short of inflation.

About the only way government could have helped the economy was to subsidize oil/gas prices. While the banking BS hurt the economy the high gas prices finished it off. A lot of people bought houses they could barely afford and then gas/oil prices spiked. That raised the prices of not only gas/oil but everything else transported by vehicles using gas/oil or grown using vehicles which consume gas/oil (Which is everything in this country). It also raised the prices of products made from oil. What do you think happen to those barely making ends meet when they had to pay double or triple for everything they consumed daily? Instead our government spent trillions of dollars on things that did nothing to help the average person. The average person would of greatly benefited from 1.00/gallon gas but there wasn't enough benefit in it for the government (politicians) to do it.

 

[aka Hunter]

Your missing the whole point......the government is nothing without the small business person. Their success directly hinges on the success of small business. Without tax dollars from the small businesses they wouldn't exist.

My bad, I thought the basic point of this thread was whether: (1) "if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own"; and (2) "when we succeed, we succeed [not only] because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

 

[IdahoCTD]

The original point was Obama claiming that the government has helped all those small businesses succeed. Which I called bullsh!t as did many others. The other point is that government wouldn't be government without small business. So the small things that I've received from government (education, use of roads, etc.) would not have been there without the taxes generation from small business well before mine. If anything it's the small businesses from years past that have helped me and not the government. Government was just the funnel for the funds. So rather than claiming greatness, of which he hasn't participated in, he should be thanking small business for keeping this country afloat. How many small businesses have folded versus started and been successful during his reign?

The bottom line is everyone get's help along the way but without putting the time and money into my business it wouldn't exist. So while some credit goes elsewhere the vast majority of the credit goes to the business owners in this country who are successful and have a drive to be so. I could have taken a job somewhere and my company would not exist and his point would be moot in my case (well he would claim the government helped me get my job too). The guy is looking for praise when he has done nothing to help this country.