"You didn't get there on your own"

[thereisnospoon]

What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.

I know a man who runs an $80m company. He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today). When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget. He said, " I have no problem paying taxes. I could never have done this in Taiwan. I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."

The reality is he did not understand that it was not the US Government which helped his business. It was had he stayed in Taiwan and attempted the same thing, the government has rules that PREVENT success.
His reality is what he brought with him from his home country.
Where he comes from, government rules are restrictive.
So when he comes here to the US he sees an absence of those restrictions. His reaction would be to believe he is receiving assistance. He is not. Our government is simply less restrictive. He equates this to 'active' assistance.
He will soon find that our government is not all fun and games.

Are you insinuating he was stupid? I don't think so. And yes the government being less restrictive was part of it but certainly not all of it. I find it amazing you meat heads are so programmed to think the government had no role in your success.

To answer your question, NO.
He's not stupid.
Each of us is programmed by our experiences.
Government has done NOTHING for me. I like it that way.
As a matter of fact, most small businesses received no help and more accurately when the owners wade through the mountains of paperwork and red tape, those hoops through which government requires them to leap, government gets in the way of success.
"Meat head"? I did not insult you. If you want to go down that road, let me know.

 

[Foxfyre]

However much you want to give government the praise, credit, and applause, Barb, the fact is that the federal government has become so big, so bloated, so expensive, and so inefficient and ineffective, that much if not most of the tax dollars it takes in are swallowed up to feed the monster itself and/or are wasted on what it funds. For every person who is actually helped out of poverty by government, ten others are encouraged to stay in poverty so that they will be eligible for government freebies.

None of that is the fault of private enterprise. When you look at the welfare state and the ever swelling debt that will sooner or later impoverish all of us if it is not brought under control, President Obama can honestly look at that and say, "Government did build that."

Citizens deserve a government that responsibly stewards the economy and squares the rules between people and corporations to provide achievable opportunity and protection from the predatory claws of a capitalism that would have all of the power, the rights, the profits, and none of the responsibility. This is what you ignore, and this is what you struggle against all the while claiming that you're advocating for the "people." You're not, you're advocating for what amounts to an American aristocracy.

Once Upon a Time
The likelihood of corporate grasping and abuse is why corporations originally ran under state and national charters. As planned by the founding fathers, a state granted corporate charters, which did not grant rights to corporations, but instead granted them limited dispensation to operate their businesses until or unless they abused the terms of their contract, in which case the state revoked the charter and the privilege it conveyed.171 These charters limited corporate ability (rather than liability) to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they could damage, and regulated how they could operate in order to make sure that what they did, at the very least, did not damage the fabric of a decent society.(172)

172 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 99-101

After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, ―the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations. (173) The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.(174)

173 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100 174 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101

The “we want our county back” "small government" folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.

Government is the collective voice of the actual people in action through policy, or it should be. Unfortunately, people like you have been led through a mass media run and paid for by your Gentleman's Quarterly and Fortune 500 heroes, your masters, to believe that their economic interests not only don't clash with your own, but that they compliment your endeavors.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The government you defend courts the big corporations for the big bucks that helps keep them in office, in power, and allows them (the politicians) to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth. It isn't about to do anything to rock that boat.

And all that is irrelevent to the thesis of this thread which points to the individual initiative of the person risking all that he has to start up a new business or expand an existing one in order to better himself/herself and his/her family. The President, in that fateful speech, dismissed his intelligence, his willingness to work hard, his initiative, his courage, his ability to do that in favor of the collective and suggested that he would be nothing without everybody making it happen for him.

The President did have one throwaway line when he included individual initiative, but that was quickly diminished in the concept of government being the catalyst to 'make things happen'. And he won't see that it is a small fraction of those with the courage to try who actually do start businesses that allow everybody else to prosper. And everybody, those in business and those who receive their incomes because businesses are in business, benefitted from the exact same society.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

he would be nothing without everybody making it happen for him.

yes Barry is like a cancer on our country. Its similar to when he says consumers create jobs by being consumers. In truth, Steve Jobs created jobs and consumers merely bought the products then produced.

Did Henry Ford create jobs in his factories or did the people who bought his cars??

More importantly, who do we want to incent most, the rare geniuses like Jobs and Ford who got us from the stone age to here or consumers who exist in the billions, naturally?

 

[regent]

he would be nothing without everybody making it happen for him.

yes Barry is like a cancer on our country. Its similar to when he says consumers create jobs by being consumers. In truth, Steve Jobs created jobs and consumers merely bought the products then produced.

Did Henry Ford create jobs in his factories or did the people who bought his cars??

More importantly, who do we want to incent most, the rare geniuses like Jobs and Ford who got us from the stone age to here or consumers who exist in the billions, naturally?

Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.
But Ford also received a lot of criticism from other business owners that called Ford's raise social welfare, and that Ford had wrongfully brought biblical and spiritual principles into a field where they do not belong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.

of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???

 

[regent]

Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.

of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

 

[P@triot]

Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.

of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.

 

[regent]

of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.

He didn't. But Ford's cars, and few others, were in his employee's price range. Actually Ford had it pretty well figured out economically and sociologically. Ford also hated labor unions and enlightened managment was one way to keep unions away.
Are you saying Ford's logic was insane or mine? In any case the logic be it Ford's or Lee's, seemed to have worked-for a time. Except for the Edsel of course.

 

[P@triot]

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.

He didn't. But Ford's cars, and few others, were in his employee's price range. Actually Ford had it pretty well figured out economically and sociologically. Ford also hated labor unions and enlightened managment was one way to keep unions away.
Are you saying Ford's logic was insane or mine? In any case the logic be it Ford's or Lee's, seemed to have worked-for a time. Except for the Edsel of course.

I'm saying anyone who believes their product will sell based on what they pay employees is a moron. In fact, the more he paid them, the less likely they are to purchase a Ford. Be honest for a moment - if GM today paid each employee $400,000 a year, do you think any employee would purchase a GM? Or do you think they would be out purchasing Ferrari's, BMW's, and Lamborghini's?

The fact is, once an employee leaves their place of employment, they are free to spend their pay check any way they choose. And it would be suicide for any business owner to assume that their employees will just spend it on their product. Ford's success had NOTHING to do with what he paid his employees, and everything to do with efficiency (assembly line, things you mentioned about unions, etc.)

 

[regent]

Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.

He didn't. But Ford's cars, and few others, were in his employee's price range. Actually Ford had it pretty well figured out economically and sociologically. Ford also hated labor unions and enlightened managment was one way to keep unions away.
Are you saying Ford's logic was insane or mine? In any case the logic be it Ford's or Lee's, seemed to have worked-for a time. Except for the Edsel of course.

I'm saying anyone who believes their product will sell based on what they pay employees is a moron. In fact, the more he paid them, the less likely they are to purchase a Ford. Be honest for a moment - if GM today paid each employee $400,000 a year, do you think any employee would purchase a GM? Or do you think they would be out purchasing Ferrari's, BMW's, and Lamborghini's?

The fact is, once an employee leaves their place of employment, they are free to spend their pay check any way they choose. And it would be suicide for any business owner to assume that their employees will just spend it on their product. Ford's success had NOTHING to do with what he paid his employees, and everything to do with efficiency (assembly line, things you mentioned about unions, etc.)

Well, I gotta admit, that sounds pretty good, but still, here you are on a board posting about Ford's lack of business acumen while Ford made billions. I think I'll go with Ford's reasoning.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.

of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even a million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!

I said, now pay attention little boy, if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!

You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.

Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??

 

[Bfgrn]

of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even a million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!

I said, now pay attention little boy, if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!

You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.

Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??

Let's hear what the former CEO of Ford had to say before the 2008 election, OK?

2007

Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill

 

[GuyPinestra]

Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.

too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!

I said, now pay attention little boy, if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!

You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.

Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??

Let's hear what the former CEO of Ford had to say before the 2008 election, OK?

2007

Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill

And with that the kid's arm gets set for $6,000 instead of 8, but Granny's hip replacement get cancelled...

Helluva tradeoff, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

The cost to treat a broken arm is exactly the same regardless of who pays for it. If the patient pays only $8 and it costs $8,000, somebody else is paying $7,992. You cannot eliminate the cost of anything simply by shuffling around who the payee is going to be.

 

[Listening]

We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.

Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?

Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?

 

[Bfgrn]

We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.

Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?

Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?

Actually, hospitals, doctors and insurance corporations build those health care costs.


Medicare vs. private insurance in one graph

 

[Listening]

We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.

Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?

Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?

Actually, hospitals, doctors and insurance corporations build those health care costs.


Medicare vs. private insurance in one graph

As has already been demonstrated...the private stuff carries the shortcomings of medicare.

I hope you really don't believe the stuff you post.

 

[Bfgrn]

We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.

Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?

Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?

Actually, hospitals, doctors and insurance corporations build those health care costs.


Medicare vs. private insurance in one graph

As has already been demonstrated...the private stuff carries the shortcomings of medicare.

I hope you really don't believe the stuff you post.

Two questions:

1) IF Medicare is the reason prices are so high, then why aren't all the doctors flocking to take on Medicare patients?

2) Are you allowed to cross the street without adult supervision?

 

[thereisnospoon]

We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.

Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?

Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?

Another sign of the desperation of the democrats.
Sandra Flund...I mean Fluke is scheduled to speak at the DNC.
What a fuckin joke.
Really, Who the fuck cares what she has to say.
Great... So in her mind, the taxpayers should be responsible for her birth control due to her promiscuous behavior..

 

[Dr Grump]

The cost to treat a broken arm is exactly the same regardless of who pays for it. If the patient pays only $8 and it costs $8,000, somebody else is paying $7,992. You cannot eliminate the cost of anything simply by shuffling around who the payee is going to be.

No it does not. Costs can vary from hospital to hospital, state to state..