"You didn't get there on your own"

[Barb]

Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...

The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.

The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.

Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you.

See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other.

I would, believe it or not, like that.

 

[Jarhead]

Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...

The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.

The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.

Ummm... you mean Chapter 11?

Happens all the time.

It's one of the benefits of being a Corporation.

Chapter 11 does not include the community, government or the employees sharing in the losses.

Chapter 11 includes the vendors suffering some losses....something a vendor knows is a possibility when they enter into a business arrangement.

Give me something with meat to debate. Dont just toss out something to punch holes in what I am saying that actually doesnt punch holes in it.

Unless you dont want to debate.

 

[Jarhead]

Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...

The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.

The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.

Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you.

See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other.

I would, believe it or not, like that.

Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.

Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.

But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.

Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.

We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.

But you are fun to debate.

 

[Vast LWC]

Chapter 11 does not include the community, government or the employees sharing in the losses.

Chapter 11 includes the vendors suffering some losses....something a vendor knows is a possibility when they enter into a business arrangement.

Give me something with meat to debate. Dont just toss out something to punch holes in what I am saying that actually doesnt punch holes in it.

Unless you dont want to debate.

Employees lose their jobs, stocks options, and in many cases, their pensions in Chapter 11.

Vendors lose, obviously, passing the cost of losses to the public in the form of higher prices on their products.

Creditors are forced to raise interest rates when businesses fail, as their risk to profit ratios fall.

In some cases, the government is forced to step in and use taxpayer money to help bail out the failing business. Often in the form of loans that are never paid back.

There are endless ways business failures effect the community as a whole.

Did you think the missing money from a bankruptcy just disappeared magically with no ill effects on society?

 

[Jarhead]

Chapter 11 does not include the community, government or the employees sharing in the losses.

Chapter 11 includes the vendors suffering some losses....something a vendor knows is a possibility when they enter into a business arrangement.

Give me something with meat to debate. Dont just toss out something to punch holes in what I am saying that actually doesnt punch holes in it.

Unless you dont want to debate.

Employees lose their jobs, stocks options, and in many cases, their pensions in Chapter 11.

As does the business owner...plus he/she loses a lot more

Vendors lose, obviously, passing the cost of losses to the public in the form of higher prices on their products.

Vendors know this to be a possibility when they engage in a contract..and they pass the loseses on to the consumer as you mentioned.

Creditors are forced to raise interest rates when businesses fail, as their risk to profit ratios fall.

A business failing will not create that. An economic disioater will. Not the same thing.

In some cases, the government is forced to step in and use taxpayer money to help bail out the failing business. Often in the form of loans that are never paid back.

THAT IS WHERE I AGREE...but it should never have happened. And never should again.

There are endless ways business failures effect the community as a whole.

My responses in red.

 

[edthecynic]

Are those your words or a book quotation? Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.

In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that. He gives you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%. It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay. At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.

Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty. Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year. This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.

We should ALL be pissed about that. This guy RAN on unity.

Maybe the in your link can deceive a gullible fool like you, but his slick lies have no chance with a Cynic.

As you can see from the highlighted part, he claims that BUSINESSES benefit 25% but when he tries to lie about BUSINESS overpaying taxes the slick professional deceiver SHIFTS to the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS. If he were honest he would compare the share of CORPORATE taxes paid to the federal government. Corporate taxes account for 7.4% of total federal revenue.

Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
Capital gains tax 45
Corporate income tax 132
Individual income tax 794
Social Security taxes 713
Total revenues 1,782
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.

Ed. Go read the entire article. You'll find that he's being overly generous in conceding points to the utterly ridiculous claims of the left. IOW, for the sake of argument, he takes them at face value.

Obama's not talking about only raising the corporate rate anyway. He's talking about raising income taxes which will affect small businesses, typically LLCs and S Corps. Further, as he kicks out the "third leg of the stool", we find that state and local taxes pay the bulk of local infrastructure.

Bullshit! He dishonestly limits them to the few examples they gave as if those few examples were the entire litany of benefits corporations get from the government. In Willard's own ad for how completely independent of government corporations are, his star got loans with special terms, which zombie never included, and contracts from the government. So not only does zombie dishonestly overestimate the taxes corporations pay, he dishonestly underestimates the benefits corporations get from government.

 

[Barb]

Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...

The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.

The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.

Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you.

See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other.

I would, believe it or not, like that.

Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.

Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.

But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.

Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.

We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.

But you are fun to debate.

My apologies. I really wasn't sure we were having the same conversation. I do agree that the Trumps are a small %, but they make up a huge portion of the debate. Do you know that the Koch brothers own (is the parent company of) FOX News?

We might need corporations, but not to the degree that they need labor, and not to the degree that they should be writing the policies that are supposed to regulate them. There is a certain reciprocity that men like my father felt, and acted upon, where his employees were concerned.

As a small businessperson, my father took out a loan to cover payroll every year when the slow season came. He did not pass the risks he rightfully claimed as his own down to his employees, as it has become fashionable for so many companies and multinational corporations to do today. My dad said that the men who worked for him put the food on our table and the roof over our heads, and that he had a responsibility to make sure the people who did so much for us could do the same for their own families.

That sense of reciprocity, of responsibility, is sneered at in today's business world. In a corporation, it is contrary to the legal construct and fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders! But where is the fiduciary responsibility of long term viability and sustainability where CEOS of publicly traded companies work to gain their quarterly bonuses (for coming out under budget) at the expense of customer service (lowering the chance at repeat business), or the good of the communities they work within and whose economies they need to survive?

I like to argue with you too. I miss my dad, and we would have these fights. I felt then that we weren't talking about the same things though sometimes, or at least not the same scale of them. Please don't let my frustration with that make you think I'm being snotty to you. I can be snotty...but its usually ABOUT the thing, you know?

 

[Vast LWC]

As does the business owner...plus he/she loses a lot more

Yet they share in the loss, which was what you asked for.

Vendors know this to be a possibility when they engage in a contract..and they pass the loseses on to the consumer as you mentioned.

And thus, the consumer pays too.

A business failing will not create that. An economic disioater will. Not the same thing.

Each failed business makes it's own small contribution to creditor risk ratios.

THAT IS WHERE I AGREE...but it should never have happened. And never should again.

Whether it should or should not happen, it does in fact happen.

My responses in red.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is fine for a small business owner to take out loans to cover payroll in slow times and many, if not most businesses have done so to avoid losing a faithful, loyal, and competent staff. This, however, is a personal choice that the government should stay completely out of. And however well intended, if the business owner has no reasonable hope or expectation of covering those loans and regaining the profit, he can easily bankrupt hmself in the process, lose all or most of his assets and income producing resources, and then everybody is out of a job. Lay offs and other adjustments that protect or restore a company's profitability preserves jobs for some and/or makes it possible for a business to hire again when work is avaiable.

I do think people should understand though that the ONLY protection they have for their retirement is to own their own retirement account(s). If the employees own and control their own retirement account, and the business owners cannot touch them there won't be any scandals of corporate executives raiding the investment accounts and absconding with the money. If employees are foolish enough to depend on a corporate funded retirement managed by the corporation, they are the ones who choose to take that risk. And yes, they can lose every dime and they have nobody to blame but themselves. Just as do those who depend on Social Security that Congress and the President can take away at any time with a simple voice vote should they choose to do so.

 

[Jarhead]

Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you.

See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other.

I would, believe it or not, like that.

Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.

Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.

But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.

Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.

We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.

But you are fun to debate.

My apologies. I really wasn't sure we were having the same conversation. I do agree that the Trumps are a small %, but they make up a huge portion of the debate. Do you know that the Koch brothers own (is the parent company of) FOX News?

We might need corporations, but not to the degree that they need labor, and not to the degree that they should be writing the policies that are supposed to regulate them. There is a certain reciprocity that men like my father felt, and acted upon, where his employees were concerned.

As a small businessperson, my father took out a loan to cover payroll every year when the slow season came. He did not pass the risks he rightfully claimed as his own down to his employees, as it has become fashionable for so many companies and multinational corporations to do today. My dad said that the men who worked for him put the food on our table and the roof over our heads, and that he had a responsibility to make sure the people who did so much for us could do the same for their own families.

That sense of reciprocity, of responsibility, is sneered at in today's business world. In a corporation, it is contrary to the legal construct and fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders! But where is the fiduciary responsibility of long term viability and sustainability where CEOS of publicly traded companies work to gain their quarterly bonuses (for coming out under budget) at the expense of customer service (lowering the chance at repeat business), or the good of the communities they work within and whose economies they need to survive?

I like to argue with you too. I miss my dad, and we would have these fights. I felt then that we weren't talking about the same things though sometimes, or at least not the same scale of them. Please don't let my frustration with that make you think I'm being snotty to you. I can be snotty...but its usually ABOUT the thing, you know?

I have said numerous times on this site...my employees always came first. I spent one year (2009) earning no income while not laying off a single person. I was able to afford it. I had one employee who was with me for years who earned more than I did for the two subsequent years...she deserved it....anbd she now owns and runs the company.

But larger corporations, on the most part, are public companies. The stockholders dont know the empoloyees nor do they care about them. They care about returns and the executive branch of the company has the responsibility to maximize that return.

Not directed to you when I say this....

But many who "hate" those large corporations for the way they treat their employees actually have stock in those companies through their pensions. More often than not, they will COMPLAIN if their return sucks....ESPECIALLY if they heard that the executive branch opted to take a loss and let the stock tank as opposed to minimizing operating costs.

Sorry you miss your dad....sounds like you learned a lot from him.

 

[Jarhead]

As does the business owner...plus he/she loses a lot more

Yet they share in the loss, which was what you asked for.

Vendors know this to be a possibility when they engage in a contract..and they pass the loseses on to the consumer as you mentioned.

And thus, the consumer pays too.



Each failed business makes it's own small contribution to creditor risk ratios.

THAT IS WHERE I AGREE...but it should never have happened. And never should again.

Whether it should or should not happen, it does in fact happen.

My responses in red.

Fair enough response..

But...but....well......you are ugly and a stupid head.

 

[Vast LWC]

Fair enough response..

But...but....well......you are ugly and a stupid head.

LOL. You big jerkface.

 

[Barb]

It is fine for a small business owner to take out loans to cover payroll in slow times and many, if not most businesses have done so to avoid losing a faithful, loyal, and competent staff. This, however, is a personal choice that the government should stay completely out of. And however well intended, if the business owner has no reasonable hope or expectation of covering those loans and regaining the profit, he can easily bankrupt hmself in the process, lose all or most of his assets and income producing resources, and then everybody is out of a job. Lay offs and other adjustments that protect or restore a company's profitability preserves jobs for some and/or makes it possible for a business to hire again when work is avaiable.

I do think people should understand though that the ONLY protection they have for their retirement is to own their own retirement account(s). If the employees own and control their own retirement account, and the business owners cannot touch them there won't be any scandals of corporate executives raiding the investment accounts and absconding with the money. If employees are foolish enough to depend on a corporate funded retirement managed by the corporation, they are the ones who choose to take that risk. And yes, they can lose every dime and they have nobody to blame but themselves. Just as do those who depend on Social Security that Congress and the President can take away at any time with a simple voice vote should they choose to do so.

You're a libertarian?

I ask because they also believe that the rapacious drain on societies jugular is done most efficiently by the private sector,

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, you're right.

Presenting the facts, in the exact context they were presented, is a "Liberal Trick".

Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.

He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them.

Which is exactly what Romney did in that speech.

Apparently, in your Bizarro universe, a "modicum of intelligence" is code for "years worth of right-wing brainwashing".

Presenting the facts doesn't support your argument.

What Romney said is perfectly sensible, coaches around the globe say much the same on a daily basis.

What you are really trying to do is justify Obama's fuckup. But you fail, because the two are not compatible. We recognize sports as a collaborative effort. There is DIRECT collaboration of coaches, teammates, sponsors, etc. to make an Olympic athlete. We aren't talking Obama taking credit because government built roads that the athlete traveled on, or any other indirect support.

Now I can fully imagine Barack Obama standing up and declaring that he was the reason for a Michael Phelps win, but most Americans would recognize what a blowhard Obama is. With small business, infrastructure is needed to succeed, no question, but as with Phelps winning a gold medal, that doesn't mean Obama was a key part, or a part at all. Infrastructure is indirect support.

So, Obama's moronic claims are the act of a petty blowhard, attempting to claim success for acts they didn't do. Obama does nothing good for small business, anyone with sense knows this. For him to claim credit, so that he can justify looting those businesses, is beyond the pale.

Your panicked rush to try and create simile with Romney is just more of the desperation of the left who sees it all slipping away.

 

[Barb]

Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.

Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.

But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.

Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.

We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.

But you are fun to debate.

My apologies. I really wasn't sure we were having the same conversation. I do agree that the Trumps are a small %, but they make up a huge portion of the debate. Do you know that the Koch brothers own (is the parent company of) FOX News?

We might need corporations, but not to the degree that they need labor, and not to the degree that they should be writing the policies that are supposed to regulate them. There is a certain reciprocity that men like my father felt, and acted upon, where his employees were concerned.

As a small businessperson, my father took out a loan to cover payroll every year when the slow season came. He did not pass the risks he rightfully claimed as his own down to his employees, as it has become fashionable for so many companies and multinational corporations to do today. My dad said that the men who worked for him put the food on our table and the roof over our heads, and that he had a responsibility to make sure the people who did so much for us could do the same for their own families.

That sense of reciprocity, of responsibility, is sneered at in today's business world. In a corporation, it is contrary to the legal construct and fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders! But where is the fiduciary responsibility of long term viability and sustainability where CEOS of publicly traded companies work to gain their quarterly bonuses (for coming out under budget) at the expense of customer service (lowering the chance at repeat business), or the good of the communities they work within and whose economies they need to survive?

I like to argue with you too. I miss my dad, and we would have these fights. I felt then that we weren't talking about the same things though sometimes, or at least not the same scale of them. Please don't let my frustration with that make you think I'm being snotty to you. I can be snotty...but its usually ABOUT the thing, you know?

I have said numerous times on this site...my employees always came first. I spent one year (2009) earning no income while not laying off a single person. I was able to afford it. I had one employee who was with me for years who earned more than I did for the two subsequent years...she deserved it....anbd she now owns and runs the company.

But larger corporations, on the most part, are public companies. The stockholders dont know the empoloyees nor do they care about them. They care about returns and the executive branch of the company has the responsibility to maximize that return.

Not directed to you when I say this....

But many who "hate" those large corporations for the way they treat their employees actually have stock in those companies through their pensions. More often than not, they will COMPLAIN if their return sucks....ESPECIALLY if they heard that the executive branch opted to take a loss and let the stock tank as opposed to minimizing operating costs.

Sorry you miss your dad....sounds like you learned a lot from him.

Meh, we agree about so much...I had a professor who made the same points underlined, and I can't argue with them. Many don't have stock in those companies though, instead, they work for them. My question to one who owned stock in them and defended the practices ON those grounds, after he asked why society should underwrite THEIR well being, was "why should the working poor give a rats ass about your stock portfolio to the expense of THEIR or their families well being?" He was stumped with that.

I loved my dad. No training in argument is more valuable than that had at the knee of a US Marine.

 

[Vast LWC]

Presenting the facts doesn't support your argument.

What Romney said is perfectly sensible, coaches around the globe say much the same on a daily basis.

What you are really trying to do is justify Obama's fuckup. But you fail, because the two are not compatible. We recognize sports as a collaborative effort. There is DIRECT collaboration of coaches, teammates, sponsors, etc. to make an Olympic athlete. We aren't talking Obama taking credit because government built roads that the athlete traveled on, or any other indirect support.

Now I can fully imagine Barack Obama standing up and declaring that he was the reason for a Michael Phelps win, but most Americans would recognize what a blowhard Obama is. With small business, infrastructure is needed to succeed, no question, but as with Phelps winning a gold medal, that doesn't mean Obama was a key part, or a part at all. Infrastructure is indirect support.

So, Obama's moronic claims are the act of a petty blowhard, attempting to claim success for acts they didn't do. Obama does nothing good for small business, anyone with sense knows this. For him to claim credit, so that he can justify looting those businesses, is beyond the pale.

Your panicked rush to try and create simile with Romney is just more of the desperation of the left who sees it all slipping away.

Ahh, I see...

You're now upping the stakes by trying to claim that Obama is somehow claiming that he personally is the reason for the success of businesses everywhere...

ROFL.

The rationalizations just keep getting more fragile by the post.

 

[Barb]

We recognize sports as a collaborative effort.

The whole "Gipper" meme was lost on you then? SOCIETY, done right, is a collaborative effort.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He was asking the Olympians to share the currency that they were paid in:

Fame and Glory.

So, Romney got fame and glory from the Olympics?

LOL

Your desperation is palpable.

It's the exact same argument.

Except of course, that it isn't.

When Dale Earnhardt wins a race, a lot of the credit goes to the team, they DIRECTLY influence events.

When Michael Phelps wins a race, the guy who added chlorine to the pool doesn't get credit. Yeah, if the pool were not maintained, the race couldn't happen - still this is an indirect support action. Obama had no influence on the outcome, no matter how desperate you are to justify his fuckup.

You can rationalize it all you want, but anyone who isn't a brainwashed radical extremist psychopath will see the point, and agree.

Obama is a fucktard, a blowhard. You only serve to make a fool of yourself with your flaccid justifications.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ahh, I see...

You're now upping the stakes by trying to claim that Obama is somehow claiming that he personally is the reason for the success of businesses everywhere...

No, that was Obama, not me.

ROFL.

The rationalizations just keep getting more fragile by the post.

You're right that this has seriously hurt Obama; you're wrong that your silly justifications are helping your Messiah®.

 

[Jarhead]

Presenting the facts doesn't support your argument.

What Romney said is perfectly sensible, coaches around the globe say much the same on a daily basis.

What you are really trying to do is justify Obama's fuckup. But you fail, because the two are not compatible. We recognize sports as a collaborative effort. There is DIRECT collaboration of coaches, teammates, sponsors, etc. to make an Olympic athlete. We aren't talking Obama taking credit because government built roads that the athlete traveled on, or any other indirect support.

Now I can fully imagine Barack Obama standing up and declaring that he was the reason for a Michael Phelps win, but most Americans would recognize what a blowhard Obama is. With small business, infrastructure is needed to succeed, no question, but as with Phelps winning a gold medal, that doesn't mean Obama was a key part, or a part at all. Infrastructure is indirect support.

So, Obama's moronic claims are the act of a petty blowhard, attempting to claim success for acts they didn't do. Obama does nothing good for small business, anyone with sense knows this. For him to claim credit, so that he can justify looting those businesses, is beyond the pale.

Your panicked rush to try and create simile with Romney is just more of the desperation of the left who sees it all slipping away.

Ahh, I see...

You're now upping the stakes by trying to claim that Obama is somehow claiming that he personally is the reason for the success of businesses everywhere...

ROFL.

The rationalizations just keep getting more fragile by the post.

I personally did not see it as Obama taking clain for anything.

I did, however, see it as Obama taking away form business owners the satisdfaction of knoiwing their personal risk was just that....THEIR personal risk.

I never said to myself.."I am successful becuase I am smart"
Nor did I say "I am successful becuase I work hard"

I have said...many times....that I would NOT be successful if I were NOT smart...I would NOT be successful if I did NOT work hard.

and most important...

"I would not be successful if I did not put it all on the line"

Obama characterized business owners as arrogant.....and most of us arent.

It was a poor approach and whereas the criticism may be directed toward the wrong thing....he most certainly deserved the criticsm.