Yes. No where in the Constitution does it says you get to keep every damn dollar you earn.
Of, by and for. Right? Or do you disavow Lincoln now, too?
Hey, nobody can make you recognize the relative specialness of your particular snowflake. But if you want to try to be an avalanche of one individual flake, knock yourself out.
Nobody other than an extreme dimwit would think that their business success does not depend on publicly financed infrastructure.
The vast majority of any check you write to the IRS goes to supporting retirees and the Chinese government, and Guantanamo Bay and its associated fun-time activities.
Now who’s being naive, Kay?
Well, you, for one. Without even getting into the torturous thinking behind your quote above, the vast majority of US debt is held internally, not by foreigners.
And you may want to take the US infrastructure baby out of the Guantanamo Bay bathwater before you throw it out.
It’s kind of hard to play this game if you move the goalposts to the next county.
Do you think that business success is independent of public infrastructure?
I’m curious to know why you quoted Cheesesteak then went on to say something completely irreverent to what he said?
Also from the title of the Foxnews article about it.
And from Rush’s show yesterday.
And from every conservative media outlet yesterday.
I am shocked to learn the OP didn’t stumble on this by himself.
Now that you’ve been reduced to wild and seemingly random flailing, can I ask you that meta-level question I had before, Koxinga?
Will your experience with this quote make you think twice about the source you got this from? Do you find any aspect of carrying this stinky water to be embarrassing, or do you look at this as taking one for the team?
I’m a small business owner and I don’t feel chastised at all.
We can fix that. If you’ll just bend over this chair for a moment, I’ll go get the spiked paddle.
Barack Obama posts here?! He needs to get back to work!
Anyway, the OP [del]is[/del] checks forum contains jerkish content. The “vast majority” of the check I write…First of all, I don’t write a check to the IRS; I usually get a tax refund back, and a decent one too.
Secondly, I’m happy to support our infrastructure.
It requires some very creative interpretation to say that all Obama meant was that, as a small business owner, you drive on roads you didn’t build.
I certainly think that this quote accurately reflects his attitude toward business owners; they aren’t really doing anything special (except for maybe showing a bit of initiative), they don’t really work that much harder than anyone else, and they’re really only taking advantage of an infrastructure built by government.
Never mind that this infrastructure, roads, bridges, teachers, internet, whatever…is available to anybody. I do NOT read ‘you didn’t build that’ as referring to the bridges. I still read it as Obama saying that the business owner isn’t solely (or even largely) responsible for his success.
Then, taking the content of the beginning of the first paragraph, it’s obvious what he’s setting up. If the business owner is only successful because of things government has put in place, then of course they should…um…‘give back’ by paying more taxes.
I’m not very good at these debates, but I had to chime in. What some posters here refuse to accept is that there is plenty of bias that assumes Obama is nothing but benevolent; that surely, he must have meant what he said in the most benign way. I just think it’s certianly open to interpretation both ways.
“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.”
Seems pretty clear that what “you didn’t build”, and what “somebody else made happen” was roads, bridges, and the internet. I don’t see how anyone can read it any other way- it’s just ridiculous with the full quote to think he meant “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build [your business].”
Fair enough; one could certainly interpret his remarks as **either **indicating that society in general benefits from infrastructure created and maintained by the government and that individual successes are bolstered by that collective contribution, **or **indicating that if you’re a small business owner Obama wants to take all your money, rape your wife, eat your children and kill your dog. I can see how either interpretation is possible.
In order to interpret it in the way you appear to want to, you have to add material that isn’t there. You yourself add in the idea that Obama is somehow antagonistic towards business owners or capitalism or whatever you perceive him as not being “benevolent” towards.
On the other hand, interpreting it the other way requires only that you read what he said. In fact, he makes clear what the point is by saying:
“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
It’s not a novel position. Lots of people have been saying it. Elizabeth Warren has been campaigning on it.
So, you can add in stuff to get to one interpretation, or you can take it for exactly what it is for another interpretation.
Sure, it’s open to interpretation multiple ways. However two of the ways are NOT “Obama is nothing but benevolent” and “Obama literally said that somebody else created your business, not you”. No one has said the first misinterpretation: someone HAS said the second, and that’s what people are quibbling about.
Sicks Ate, let me rephrase Obama’s point with a sports analogy. The infrastructure is your field of play. The Baseball Field, the Football Field, Basketball Court, Golf Course, whatever. Your success in sport is a combination of your individual initiative, skill, effort, AND the existence of a field for you to play on.
Eliminate the low paid schlub bending iron into a hoop, and nobody knows who Michael Jordan is. If nobody turns a piece of ash into a bat, Babe Ruth is just a kid from Baltimore who likes hot dogs and beer.
These sports figures excel, in part, because they have a place to apply their talents. Businesses succeed, in part, because there is a functioning economy for them to operate in.
Then he is saying…um…that the owner is successful not because somebody else created the business, but because everybody helped? Just as insulting to the owner.
Look, the environment in which a person can start up and operate a business is certainly in place due to the efforts of millions of individuals and government projects. Naturally. It’s a society with an economy, which are the results of individuals and groups working together, influenced by different factors and goals.
But to say that the owner is successful because we worked together is at least disingenuous, for exactly one reason. As I touched on before that society and infrastructure is in place for everybody. That means the playing field is level, and that the structure that is in place basically factors down to zero. The only thing left after that is factored out is the business owner himself, which is exactly why they deserve all of the credit.
Edit: Cheesesteak, I think I addressed part of your post just above. The part about the goal-bender…I think the analogy is a bit flawed. I see the goal-bender as another businessman (or employee thereof) fabricating a part or tool that another businessman uses. I think in your analogy, the economy would be the sport of basketball itself. No, Michael Jordan wouldn’t be anything without basketball (or actually he probably would be very successful at another venture), but the sport of basketball is open to anybody.
Edit #2: Who doesn’t like hot dogs and beer?