Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
Who ever said Government built your business?
That is stupid?
Yet you keep arguing in support of the idiot that said it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Who ever said Government built your business?
That is stupid?
Who ever said Government built your business?
That is stupid?
If youve got a businessyou didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen, declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.
*************************
I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).
If one is going to quote the president, cite the entire quote, in context:
Of course, Obamas supposedly insulting comment is somewhat different in context. The full text of his speech, rather than denigrate small business, challenged the idea that wealthy and successful individuals have never benefited from government programs:
Im 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.
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 youve got a business you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didnt 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.
Without the context, Obamas point that individual effort is bolstered by community systems is completely lost. The idea is nothing new; Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made very similar comments that went viral in September of last year. Indeed, far from denigrating small business owners, Obama has cut taxes on small businesses 17 times.
Deliberately editing Obama out of context is not a new tactic for conservatives. In one blatant example, a recent Romney campaign ad quoted Obama saying, If we keep talking about the economy, were going to lose, a quote Obama was in fact using to criticize then-candidate John McCain for his refusal to discuss the economic crisis in 2008.
Conservatives Selectively Edit Obama's Speech To Claim He Hates Small Businesses | ThinkProgress
The OP is close to the bullseye on "what ails this economy".. Lemme repost the critical clue...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4323443-post1.html
Nobody commented on those scary graphs.. Everyone wants to ignore what we SHOULD BE DOING, in favor of what they hear from our fuckwad "leadership".. Or they haven't been TOLD how serious that problem really is by Rachael Maddow or Sean Hannity..
Mounting regulation has made it less attractive to throw capital at NEW INNOVATIVE ideas and companies. And EASIER for the GIANTS to consume and stifle attempts to take away their market leadership.. MOST regulation is nothing but protective shields for the MEGA corps..
And if we don't get that IPO volume up --- Our employment situation and standard of living will take a massive dive..
The OP is close to the bullseye on "what ails this economy".. Lemme repost the critical clue...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4323443-post1.html
Nobody commented on those scary graphs.. Everyone wants to ignore what we SHOULD BE DOING, in favor of what they hear from our fuckwad "leadership".. Or they haven't been TOLD how serious that problem really is by Rachael Maddow or Sean Hannity..
Mounting regulation has made it less attractive to throw capital at NEW INNOVATIVE ideas and companies. And EASIER for the GIANTS to consume and stifle attempts to take away their market leadership.. MOST regulation is nothing but protective shields for the MEGA corps..
And if we don't get that IPO volume up --- Our employment situation and standard of living will take a massive dive..
What will Obama say then ?
You didn't go broke on your own....someone else (the government) did that. ????
or
You didn't drop into poverty on your own. The government did that ?
It is amazing what he does not get.
Government Did Not Build Your Business - Reason.com
The 2012 study found that while new business startups created 2.3 million jobs between March 2009 and March 2010, the net job creation from all U.S. private sector firms was minus 1.8 million jobs. The U.S. unemployment rate was then 9.7 percent. The number of business startups has dropped from 554,109 in 1987 to 394,632 in 2010. The 2012 Kaufmann report notes that the share of job creation from young firms has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1980s to 30 percent now. While acknowledging that the severity of the Great Recession no doubt contributes to this decline in entrepreneurial activity, it is important to note that startups were a major factor in lifting the U.S. economy out of previous economic downturns. Why is new firm creation lagging now? Perhaps it has something to do with the Obama administrations idea of governance.
First, numerous studies find that higher tax and regulatory burdens impede entrepreneurial activity which in turn slow economic growth and job creation. For example, a 2010 study, "The Economic Effects of the Regulatory Burden," done for the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis (of all places), found that while some rules are necessary for entrepreneurs and markets to function that countries with a light regulatory burden show more rapid economic growth in GDP per capita. A 2008 study, "Government Size, Composition, Volatility, and Economic Growth," done for the European Central Bank examined the effect of government size and fiscal volatility on economic growth for developed countries between 1970 and 2004. The study finds that the bigger government and the slower the growth rate. Every percentage point increase in the share of total revenue going to government decreases overall economic output by more than a tenth of a percent. The report further noted, Public capital formation may indeed turn out to be less productive if devoted to inefficient projects, or if it crowds out private investment. Other words, despite the impression that Obama gives, not every government expenditure on infrastructure or a business subsidy is an investment.
*****************************
Just fitting the narrative that our beloved Bozo-In-Chief really should be retired in Jan 2013 and someone brought in who would be less of a Bozo.
Bozo vs. Less Bozo.
Government Did Not Build Your Business - Reason.com
The 2012 study found that while new business startups created 2.3 million jobs between March 2009 and March 2010, the net job creation from all U.S. private sector firms was minus 1.8 million jobs. The U.S. unemployment rate was then 9.7 percent. The number of business startups has dropped from 554,109 in 1987 to 394,632 in 2010. The 2012 Kaufmann report notes that the share of job creation from young firms has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1980s to 30 percent now. While acknowledging that the severity of the Great Recession no doubt contributes to this decline in entrepreneurial activity, it is important to note that startups were a major factor in lifting the U.S. economy out of previous economic downturns. Why is new firm creation lagging now? Perhaps it has something to do with the Obama administrations idea of governance.
First, numerous studies find that higher tax and regulatory burdens impede entrepreneurial activity which in turn slow economic growth and job creation. For example, a 2010 study, "The Economic Effects of the Regulatory Burden," done for the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis (of all places), found that while some rules are necessary for entrepreneurs and markets to function that countries with a light regulatory burden show more rapid economic growth in GDP per capita. A 2008 study, "Government Size, Composition, Volatility, and Economic Growth," done for the European Central Bank examined the effect of government size and fiscal volatility on economic growth for developed countries between 1970 and 2004. The study finds that the bigger government and the slower the growth rate. Every percentage point increase in the share of total revenue going to government decreases overall economic output by more than a tenth of a percent. The report further noted, Public capital formation may indeed turn out to be less productive if devoted to inefficient projects, or if it crowds out private investment. Other words, despite the impression that Obama gives, not every government expenditure on infrastructure or a business subsidy is an investment.
*****************************
Just fitting the narrative that our beloved Bozo-In-Chief really should be retired in Jan 2013 and someone brought in who would be less of a Bozo.
Bozo vs. Less Bozo.
Tax rates were slightly higher in 1987 than they were today. Shoots the shit out of the taxes being too high theory.
It is funny because the onlyu people who claim that statement are the republicans obama claimed that the infrastructure and other businesses that allow a new or established bnusiness to do what they do was built by someone else. Unless you can show me the one business that built the roads, planes, trains, railroads, shipping companies, trucking fleets, resource mining companies, plastics, metal refinement, oil refinement, oil drilling, and did all their payroll and accounting on their own, along with creating a sales force and retail outfits for all their stuff, and runs a copywrite and patent protection racket then your point is completely false, they most certainly did not do it themselves.
Oh yeah, that also includes printing and backing their own money, running a military to protect their country, making police force, building jails, running a fire department, collecting taxes for these purposes, making a congress, making a president, establishing an electronic paymenmt system including making credit cards, made up banks, printed their own checks, made commercial deals with foreign countries, learned all the laws for the foreign countries without the assistance of a lawyer, provided all their own insurance...
It almost makes me wonder if republicans have even the remotest clue how business and america work if they make a claim single businesses do it all on their own.
Government Did Not Build Your Business - Reason.com
The 2012 study found that while new business startups created 2.3 million jobs between March 2009 and March 2010, the net job creation from all U.S. private sector firms was minus 1.8 million jobs. The U.S. unemployment rate was then 9.7 percent. The number of business startups has dropped from 554,109 in 1987 to 394,632 in 2010. The 2012 Kaufmann report notes that the share of job creation from young firms has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1980s to 30 percent now. While acknowledging that the severity of the Great Recession no doubt contributes to this decline in entrepreneurial activity, it is important to note that startups were a major factor in lifting the U.S. economy out of previous economic downturns. Why is new firm creation lagging now? Perhaps it has something to do with the Obama administrations idea of governance.
First, numerous studies find that higher tax and regulatory burdens impede entrepreneurial activity which in turn slow economic growth and job creation. For example, a 2010 study, "The Economic Effects of the Regulatory Burden," done for the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis (of all places), found that while some rules are necessary for entrepreneurs and markets to function that countries with a light regulatory burden show more rapid economic growth in GDP per capita. A 2008 study, "Government Size, Composition, Volatility, and Economic Growth," done for the European Central Bank examined the effect of government size and fiscal volatility on economic growth for developed countries between 1970 and 2004. The study finds that the bigger government and the slower the growth rate. Every percentage point increase in the share of total revenue going to government decreases overall economic output by more than a tenth of a percent. The report further noted, Public capital formation may indeed turn out to be less productive if devoted to inefficient projects, or if it crowds out private investment. Other words, despite the impression that Obama gives, not every government expenditure on infrastructure or a business subsidy is an investment.
*****************************
Just fitting the narrative that our beloved Bozo-In-Chief really should be retired in Jan 2013 and someone brought in who would be less of a Bozo.
Bozo vs. Less Bozo.
Tax rates were slightly higher in 1987 than they were today. Shoots the shit out of the taxes being too high theory.
People on the right have never really understood how markets work.
The goal of any business is to increase market share.
Shareholders want market share.
Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.
A monopoly is the point of building market share.
Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.
The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.
In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.
Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.
Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.
The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".
God help us.
It is funny because the onlyu people who claim that statement are the republicans obama claimed that the infrastructure and other businesses that allow a new or established bnusiness to do what they do was built by someone else. Unless you can show me the one business that built the roads, planes, trains, railroads, shipping companies, trucking fleets, resource mining companies, plastics, metal refinement, oil refinement, oil drilling, and did all their payroll and accounting on their own, along with creating a sales force and retail outfits for all their stuff, and runs a copywrite and patent protection racket then your point is completely false, they most certainly did not do it themselves.
Oh yeah, that also includes printing and backing their own money, running a military to protect their country, making police force, building jails, running a fire department, collecting taxes for these purposes, making a congress, making a president, establishing an electronic paymenmt system including making credit cards, made up banks, printed their own checks, made commercial deals with foreign countries, learned all the laws for the foreign countries without the assistance of a lawyer, provided all their own insurance...
It almost makes me wonder if republicans have even the remotest clue how business and america work if they make a claim single businesses do it all on their own.
You're sure not shedding any photons on "how business and America work" here.. Why are you confusing private sector functions with public sector functions for starters. Do you have a clue which does which? Credit cards somehow are related to Making a Prez?
WTF?
If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen
Barack Hussein Obama
According to our leader it wasn't the business owner.
I'm thinking Obama was stating that government is responsible.
It is funny because the onlyu people who claim that statement are the republicans obama claimed that the infrastructure and other businesses that allow a new or established bnusiness to do what they do was built by someone else. Unless you can show me the one business that built the roads, planes, trains, railroads, shipping companies, trucking fleets, resource mining companies, plastics, metal refinement, oil refinement, oil drilling, and did all their payroll and accounting on their own, along with creating a sales force and retail outfits for all their stuff, and runs a copywrite and patent protection racket then your point is completely false, they most certainly did not do it themselves.
Oh yeah, that also includes printing and backing their own money, running a military to protect their country, making police force, building jails, running a fire department, collecting taxes for these purposes, making a congress, making a president, establishing an electronic paymenmt system including making credit cards, made up banks, printed their own checks, made commercial deals with foreign countries, learned all the laws for the foreign countries without the assistance of a lawyer, provided all their own insurance...
It almost makes me wonder if republicans have even the remotest clue how business and america work if they make a claim single businesses do it all on their own.
You're sure not shedding any photons on "how business and America work" here.. Why are you confusing private sector functions with public sector functions for starters. Do you have a clue which does which? Credit cards somehow are related to Making a Prez?
WTF?
Your confusion is not cause by me, it is caused by trying to take a quote way out of context. Republicans are trying to say that your business operates without any help from private or government and that is absurd.
Who ever said Government built your business?
That is stupid?
If youve got a businessyou didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen, declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.
*************************
I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).
People on the right have never really understood how markets work.
The goal of any business is to increase market share.
Shareholders want market share.
Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.
A monopoly is the point of building market share.
Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.
The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.
In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.
Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.
Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.
The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".
God help us.
People on the right have never really understood how markets work.
The goal of any business is to increase market share.
Shareholders want market share.
Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.
A monopoly is the point of building market share.
Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.
The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.
In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.
Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.
Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.
The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".
God help us.
I was going to reply to you intelligently, then I read your post.
You should post this in the appropriate forum.