Obama takes shot at business owners: "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen" (arguments, United States)

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by rebel12

According to you they should just be grateful there is government and is taking care of them. Instead they took things into their own hands. You see the patters? Private citizens put their own well-being over well-being of the entire Imperium. That really shows you what is more important government or the individuals, at least in American tradition.

Again what are you arguing for? Do you even know? Are you saying we'd be better off without government? The private sector is better than the government? What the hell are you arguing about?

[marcopolo]

Originally Posted by dv1033

Again what are you arguing for? Do you even know? Are you saying we'd be better off without government? The private sector is better than the government? What the hell are you arguing about?

dv, you asked me the same question.

Has it taken the coordinated, collaborative efforts of our system of government AND private enterprise to create what we have today, as you have stated? Of course.

But the president seems to think that the government provides the environment in which some people just happen to get lucky, downplaying the role of effort and smarts. His speech, the subject of this thread, clearly illustrates this misreading of our history and his flawed understanding. Obama pretends that the government is the source of all prosperity; OF COURSE our system of laws, justice, and infrastructure are prerequisites for a successful society. But what happens after you build the roads and bridges and provide sanitation and education and etc.? It takes individuals with vision, effort, and smarts to complete the picture.

You have been an apologist for konraden, attacking posters who answer him. If you don't see his positions as those of an extreme collectivist, you aren't paying attention.

Obama's clear policy is to promote the expansion of the public economy at the expense of the private economy. Many of us oppose this. We had a vivid and concise demonstration of Obama's fundamental beliefs in this matter in the speech that is the subject of this thread--the whole speech, not just the snippet. That's what I'm talking about.

[Oleg Bach]

Originally Posted by dv1033

What exactly are you arguing for? Do you even know what I am arguing for? or anyone else for that matter?

The revolution was simply about one set of enterprising individuals who were on this side of the Atlantic who wanted to set up their own business...Just before 1776 - taxation with out representation - was about the colonizing mobsters who got sick of paying tribute to their bosses back in England...They wanted their own empire...It wasn't about nice people in the colonies being oppressed by bad royals....It was a riff that formed between to sets of pirates- or more accurately put - state sanctioned pirates- privateers..

The British empire rose and declined. Now this empire has reached it's peak and is doing the same...It was a nice run...nothing is for ever....Still- adjustments can be made...Government and big business have to dump the idea of being pirates...Those days are over. Welcome to the new world order...This is a brand new game- we had better learn how to play it.

[rebel12]

Originally Posted by dv1033

Again what are you arguing for? Do you even know? Are you saying we'd be better off without government? The private sector is better than the government? What the hell are you arguing about?

I argue that the government should serve the private sector and not vice versa.
Obama's comments was highly disrespectful and in this state of economy highly harmful.

[kiwimac]

Originally Posted by rebel12

I argue that the government should serve the private sector and not vice versa.
Obama's comments was highly disrespectful and in this state of economy highly harmful.

Cobblers! The Private sector should serve the citizenry. Government is more important than corporations and private citizens are most important.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by marcopolo

dv, you asked me the same question.

Has it taken the coordinated, collaborative efforts of our system of government AND private enterprise to create what we have today, as you have stated? Of course.

Great, that was the point of this thread. Everything else is just trying to bash Obama.

But the president seems to think that the government provides the environment in which some people just happen to get lucky, downplaying the role of effort and smarts.

You're not lucky being born in America as opposed to Sudan? It takes more than efforts and smarts to make it in this world, it's not being downplayed just truth. I guess some people just want all the credit.

His speech, the subject of this thread, clearly illustrates this misreading of our history and his flawed understanding. Obama pretends that the government is the source of all prosperity; OF COURSE our system of laws, justice, and infrastructure are prerequisites for a successful society.

Obviously, you have a strong opinion of Obama and I sure as hell don't agree with a lot of his policies. However, you are creating this fake narrative of Obama to suit your own ideology. I just don't agree with the bolded at all. I don't care to argue any further about, you have your notions and I have mine.

But what happens after you build the roads and bridges and provide sanitation and education and etc.? It takes individuals with vision, effort, and smarts to complete the picture.

Yes it takes cooperation between government and private sector to maintain and complete the picture.

You have been an apologist for konraden, attacking posters who answer him. If you don't see his positions as those of an extreme collectivist, you aren't paying attention.

I've been arguing in this thread long before konraden came. Believe me, that individual isn't an extreme collectivist. I'm not sure why you label that individual as an extreme collectivist, perhaps convenience?

Obama's clear policy is to promote the expansion of the public economy at the expense of the private economy. Many of us oppose this.

Well when our citizens have trillions of dollars of their worth wiped away due to private and public incompetence and greed, not much our businesses can do but hoard cash until there is a stronger demand for goods and services.

We had a vivid and concise demonstration of Obama's fundamental beliefs in this matter in the speech that is the subject of this thread--the whole speech, not just the snippet. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes you summed it up here:

"Has it taken the coordinated, collaborative efforts of our system of government AND private enterprise to create what we have today, as you have stated? Of course."

I think this vivid and concise demonstration is wishful thinking on yours and others part.

[marcopolo]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Cobblers! The Private sector should serve the citizenry. Government is more important than corporations and private citizens are most important.

Doesn't the private sector serve you? Just in the past few days, I obtained gasoline for my car at one of the convenient locations of the private sector. The gasoline was delivered there by a trucking company, who obtained it at pipeline terminal where it had traveled from a refinery. The refinery obtained crude oil from an energy production company, who got it from a well drilled with the assistance of an oilfield services company. The half-dozen companies involved represent industries with over a trillion dollars of capital invested, all to bring me and anyone else who needs it the means to power our vehicles for a few bucks a gallon. You can drive anywhere in this great land and find the gasoline you need. Now, that's serving me.

I could bore you with a similar story about the food I feed my family, the clothes I wear, the home in which I live. The private sector is serving me with virtually everything I need or desire...with the exception of drinking water, primary and secondary education for my children, police protection, the judicial system, and other public goods. It is worthy to note that every nickel that supports the whole of our public infrastructure arises originally from taxes levied upon the private sector. So you could say that the private sector provides or funds 100% of my needs.

Oh, the private sector can rile me up a little now and then. Just yesterday, I went through an unpleasant spell with a sales agent who tried to upsell me a bunch of add-ons that I did not want or need. I gave him a warning, then broke off the conversation and made the purchase from a competitor of his. I voted with my wallet; the dollars send a message; the best company won the business. You say private citizens are most important of all--and competition assures us that this is the case. We go to the best providers for the best value on our purchases, we reward the best. If a company wants to win our business, it must offer a more compelling value. Sometimes a company will misrepresent some aspect of a transaction--but they only get a single opportunity to do so, and they will not thrive if that is part of their business plan.

The only conclusion I can draw from life in 21st century America is that citizens are most important, because the private sector needs the business from a people free to buy or not, or who may choose to buy from a competitor.

The biggest threat to this glorious system is an overly powerful government that can mandate the purchase of certain products, or reduce competition as Dodd Frank is doing in financial services, or soak up unnecessary amounts of resources from the private sector in order to waste them.

[Kracer]

Wonder how MS13 feels about obama's comments?

Guess it was the government/Obama's administration who gave the guns to the drug cartels and free access and now a free pass to stay into the US as a "dreamer".

Couldn't have done it without Obama's help.

[BigJon3475]

None of this even matters. Obama can grandstand and demagogue all he wants about what he thinks is right and about how he sees the world. The facts are the U.S. is short $130 trillion and that's increasing quite rapidly. Whether it happens now or it happens later there's going to be some house cleaning that needs to be done and some major downsizing by the black hole we used to call the federal government. The longer we wait for the house cleaning and downsizing the greater the pain and suffering we all will have to endure.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by Sun Thinker

You know, the trouble with extremist positions is that they don't allow for common sense. There is extreme Right and Left, and neither get the job done properly if left to their own little collectives.

Cognizance of government influence on its citizens, from subtle to strong, is not an extremist position. It's a stake in reality.

You seem so hopelessly enamored with government spending, you fail to grasp what could possibly supply that funding. For sure, there are many projects from dams to bridges to telecommunications to carbon fiber that government took a valuable role in. But Government WORKS FOR US, we don't work for government. You seem lost in this rather obvious fact.

You know who prints the currency in the U.S., right? The U.S. government doesn't actually take the cash you send into them to pay for roads and bridges, the U.S. currency is a tightly controlled supply. Taxes reduce the supply. The government can and does literally print money for it own purposes.

If not for people taking risks, if not for hard-working people rising above all else to get ahead in their lives, doing their daily work, government would not exist. There's a reason the United States doe not have a man like Putin in charge. If you think government is the be all and end all, then I suggest some fine reading about countries where that truly is the case.

A government exists through the will of its people, or rather, those with the most influence. There is a reason why countries in Africa are run by warlords and not proper governments.

Originally Posted by marcopolo

Thanks, I get it.

You so clearly don't. I'm not advocating for anything you think I am. You've got such a severe case cranial rectal inversion, that you can't see "the forest for the trees." I'm aware the government has its hand in everything, for better or worse, because it is how our government operates, and has been, for over 200 years. That's what a government does. We are citizens of a nation with a government. Your anger towards the sitting president and a sheer inability to read apparently, seems to point out that you don't understand that.

You seem to only be focused on the spending today. The government has been spending since day one.

We are too far apart to even communicate. The government totally owns you and you like it, and you believe it owns everybody and they should like it. You see no role for individual differentiation except to attribute defects to business people. And you love, love, love Barack Obama. Spread your views as widely as possible, at least up until Election Day.

I don't think you understood a single word I've said here.

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

The ugly head is raised again.

Why is it just about every time a liberal gets into a conversion they fall into the name calling mode with anyone who doesn't agree with them?

It is really sad.

I answer insults with insults.

Originally Posted by SamBarrow

Oh man.

No, that still constitutes a risk. Business is the combination of a number of things which can not be separated in such a way.

Any business failure is the result of poor execution in some area or another.

I don't buy into this theory that success and failure are the results of "luck" or the lack thereof. A business loss can be the result of poor management, but this is simply a function of misjudgment of one's ability to perform a function essential to the business. No different than any other fundamental business error.

You don't buy into random chance? Fatalist are you?

There is no real risk when you operate a business in the United States which has safety nets that stretch from here to your grandkids. Imagine if we didn't have codified laws and your failure to pay loans, instead of being handled by bankruptcy laws, was handled by Vinnie with a crowbar.

Read what you are quoting.

"You might want to plug into reality every once in a while. No businessman has ever taken a real risk in the past fifty years? Are you familiar with the failure rate of businesses? Do you know that the typical small business failure wipes out the owner's personal finances, often costing him or her their home, their savings, and retirement accounts? Most businesses are undertaken with huge risks to the owners."

I would hope it is not your contention that bankruptcy is some type of magical button that allows you to recoup any and all money and time you've invested into your business. Even if it was, somebody paid for it (your creditors). So he was right, and if he was wrong, he was still right.

Hell, discard everything else and you're still looking at tens, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of time spent.

Starting any business is a risk, as those of us who are plugged in already know.

I've been there. I didn't say bankruptcy was a magical button that brought your money back. You might be washed out of your finances, but how many people are out on the streets living off the land or the kindness of the soup kitchen because they're Discount Furniture and Disco store went under because they never bothered to write a business plan?

When it comes to failures of business, the vast majority are because of personal error. Chance plays a small roll in failure of business. Just as chance plays a small role in failing companies, it plays a large role in successful people and companies. Ten businesses in an area could be doing the same thing, all of them equal with the exception of their location. An investor is in the city looking to do some commerce, and happens by chance to stop at company 3 first, and decides to invest with them. All of the business were equally good, but because the investor stopped at company 3 first, which none of those companies have control over, it did well.

That is entirely sufficiently random to the business owners that "luck" allowed that business to be successful.

Nobody here has argued against copyright law or anything remotely similar.

No, but failing to actualize that the government is involved in everything, no matter how small, is intellectually dishonest.

Which has ballooned to something that makes the primitive "internet" look like a 6 year old's science project. Yes, the government was involved in the birth of the internet, but these are not things that would just never have been invented, the use is and was apparent.

You have no grounds for the claim.

[quote[But hey, I'll concede that the government planted the seed that was the internet, once you concede that 99% of what we know as the internet now was developed by people like me. The government is the client now, to the tune of billions of dollars a year.[/quote]

I don't. Not unless you can actually break down project milestones for the development of the internet. I'd say it's more 20\80, since without ARPANET, there was no internet. Just because private enterprise launched themselves off the back of government research, doesn't make them the virtual owners of the invention of the internet. It is, again, intellectually dishonest to say that the government played a small role. ARPANET is just the beginning. You have, again, infrastructure, copyright laws, electricity (!), laws increasing penetration, etc.

What I find ironic is that most of this great technology originally developed by the government was done for defense, the only category of spending that liberals would cut without throwing a tantrum.

We can keep DARPA. They build off the wall **** in timeframes nobody can touch. Look at their project list sometime. But this isn't a discussion about our military budget failures.

And the director of ARPANET disagrees.

No, they'd rather spend money on food stamps and social justice. Then when it's time to argue, they'll start talking about "investment" in roads, bridges and internets.

Not that this is some type of knowledge test on microprocessor manufacturers, but Intel spends about 6.5 billion on R&D, every year. AMD's total revenue last year was... about 6.5 billion. ARM pales in comparison to either.

Sources.

To put that in perspective, Intel's revenue in 2011 was a little over 50 billion. So yes, I would assume that Intel vastly outspends AMD on R&D.

Yes... many years down the road, as he said. New microprocessor architectures (not to include anything even close to revolutionary) take a good 3-5 years to design.

That's farther down the road than would interest any politician I can think of.

And again, that 3-5 years is just for a new processor architecture. Nothing revolutionary or even notable just a few years later. I've love to get one of these for my laptop. Announced in 2007 and I still can't find one on eBay.

Intel stated they could make 1000 core chips as well, but you start losing chips pretty quickly to overhead. Core counts are an arbitrary limit--and you wouldn't be able to do anything with an 80 core chip anyway. Consumers don't use 8 cores as is. There is an obvious marketable need for faster computers, so Intel can dump their billions. 3-5 years is quite short term.

I'm assuming we're talking about the internet? It's basic research if viewed in context. The internet as it exists now was developed 99% by the private sector.

Sure, as we know today, maybe in context of the billions of websites.

How much as changed since TCP\IP was developed?

This is funny. What does ROI stand for again?

You're contradicting yourself in a major way here. On one hand, infrastructure is good because it provides a good ROI. On the other hand, government is good because it doesn't care about meany capitalist stuff like that.

It's not a direct return on investment. Your power lines don't generate their own revenue. It's used indirectly by millions to form commerce, which comes back eventually as taxes. It's an expense.

It's akin to moving to a new office building. You don't own the office building, it isn't making you money, but its an expense that might draw in more traffic down the road which you might eventually see an ROI. It doesn't make money though, you don't own the building, you rent the office space.

You can considered infrastructure to be a long-term investment with small ROI that exists in the distant future, maybe, but infrastructure isn't designed to be revenue-generating. I don't intend to contradict myself, but perhaps explanation is required. Other expenses this country has, like food-stamps and re-education programs--I mean food stamps because nobody in power is smart enough to retrain our unemployed--are similar. You don't see a direct payout by providing people a means to feed themselves when you otherwise might, but when they're able to spend their money not trying to scrape together food and instead spend it on moving out of the city to a lower rent domicile, where they can find work, it comes back eventually.

Interesting. Apparently, even your divine government has determined that in these cases, investing in those businesses will actually be a net positive in the long run.

Really though, this is not about the abolition of government and any and all investment that goes along with it. Unfortunately for you, as you would like to make it about that.

Are you accusing me of strawmen arguments, and then claim that "my divine government?"

It's about an outlook on innovation and the engine that keeps this country going. Which I would say is primarily business. Government exists only because citizens (many of whom own businesses) have found that it is more practical to pool resources to accomplish certain tasks.

It is a result of society, not a creator of one.

That doesn't nullify the fact that these agencies use government funding and assistance to operate. And I don't recall ever claiming that government created society. Words in my mouth?

GAH!!! EVIL CAPITALIST PIGS!!!

Who said money had ethics? Answer: Nobody said money had ethics.

Originally Posted by Marcopolo

Exactly! Free people, voting with their wallets, choose which products and services are of more value to them than their price. If I want to make more money, I have to find a way to become more valuable to others. This is a system that requires us to be of value to the rest of society, a moral ethic that no other economic system has. The grocer helps me feed my family; if he wants to make more money, he has to figure out how to help more people feed their families. And he must do it in a way that will attract people on a voluntary basis, by providing more value than his competitors.

It's called critical analysis. Greed, and the desire for money, has its own ethics. It doesn't. Money doesn't have ethics. Isn't there an idiom for this? Blood from a turnip?

Who said people who are looking to hoard money had ethics? Answer: Nobody even said people or businesses themselves had ethics.

There are entire college degrees called "Business Ethics."

Please, read again, slowly.

"This is a system that requires us to be of value to the rest of society, a moral ethic that no other economic system has."

Not a complicated point, and dead on if you drop the emotion actually take the time to and understand it.

Actually, this is hanging. You've provided absolutely no context to that statement. What system?

Raw capitalism? No inherent ethics.

The grocer will be more successful the more value he provides to others. This is simple fact. Sure, he can be a con man, but screwing over your customers usually doesn't end too well. In the long run, you'll probably make more by giving people what they want, no?

That's why it works.

Is your grocer a con man?

How many honest business owners do you know?

They are... the borg.

Like I said--we're just ants. Or as funnyman Joe Rogan says--we're just a bunch of mold.

Our government has been around for a couple hundred years and change, and we, as citizens of that government, are influenced by it. That is an inescapable fact which you and your puppetmasters seem to forget.

What happened to ROI? If there is no net profit from infrastructure spending, why do we do it again?

If there is no ROI in an investment, it's a bad investment, period.

It's a very long investment, if one at all.

Originally Posted by Rebel12

list of invented items.

Heard of copyright?

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"I get the feeling", sums up your entire philosophy. No facts, no real info just feelings.

Instead of making gross uninformed statements, why Don't you do SOME research so you can discuss an issue with some substance?

I do nothing but research. Instead of hand-waving all of my writing, how about attacking individual points?

Originally Posted by marcopolo

dv, you asked me the same question.

Has it taken the coordinated, collaborative efforts of our system of government AND private enterprise to create what we have today, as you have stated? Of course.

But the president seems to think that the government provides the environment in which some people just happen to get lucky, downplaying the role of effort and smarts. His speech, the subject of this thread, clearly illustrates this misreading of our history and his flawed understanding. Obama pretends that the government is the source of all prosperity; OF COURSE our system of laws, justice, and infrastructure are prerequisites for a successful society. But what happens after you build the roads and bridges and provide sanitation and education and etc.? It takes individuals with vision, effort, and smarts to complete the picture.

Aha, you admit it. The government is involved. You've spent several threads on here avoiding it, but you admit it.

Of course private enterprise is a primary driver, but it's completely dishonest to sit there and pretend the government isn't involved in everything that happens in this country. I'm happy with your answer, Marco.

But I'll continue to disagree over the "downplaying" of smarts and effort. If anything, people seem to downplay chance, or in the case of a lot of whats going on, the institutional benefit of being wealthy in this country.

"I got rich and so can you" is perhaps the greatest lie ever told.

You have been an apologist for konraden, attacking posters who answer him. If you don't see his positions as those of an extreme collectivist, you aren't paying attention.

Are you denying that humans aren't natural collectivists? Not once did I advocate for sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya and smoking weed.

Obama's clear policy is to promote the expansion of the public economy at the expense of the private economy.

Demonstrable by his clear-cutting of government jobs and investment in private industry.

Many of us oppose this. We had a vivid and concise demonstration of Obama's fundamental beliefs in this matter in the speech that is the subject of this thread--the whole speech, not just the snippet. That's what I'm talking about.