President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying if youve got a business, you didnt build that.
Obamas comment Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Va

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back, the president said. If youve been successful, you didnt get there on your own. You didnt get there on your own. 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, he said. The Internet didnt get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

If there are a whole lot of wealthy people who agree with him have them write the big checks to IRS and put their money where their mouths are. Redirect all of the millions in campaign contributions to IRS and the deficit. Yep not a single one will do this because they are all talk and no action. When you make a few million on one event you can afford to be free wheeling with someone elses money.

Yep all of the businesses were created because the Governmonet gave them something. Where does he think the money came from to build his all m9ighty infrastructure? Taxes paid by these same guys he wants blamed for success. Did he pass economics 101? Think not. This quack needs to be gone. VOTE HIM OUT IN 20212. No more!!!

and you vote for this idiot then you need your head examined. My wife puts in literally every waking moment to build her company and her hard work is paying off. I can't wait to tell her that it's not because of anything she did that she's successful. It's all because of the gov't.

and some people buy into this crap.

If you actually listen to what he is saying it makes sense. What he is saying is that the business owner is not solely responsible for the success of their business. It took a lot of other peoples hard work to make it so. From those who built the roads that lead to the business, to those who actually work at the business, to those who protect the streets so people are safe to enter the business, to those who provide the power to run the business, to those who deliver the goods that the business sells, to those who pick up the trash generated by the business. The owner is obviously the one who put the plan for their business together, who works long hours to make sure the business plan is moving in the right direction, etc, but they are not the only ones making it a success. Could he have done a better job of bringing that part out? Yes, definitely, but you and some others seem blind to the fact that it takes more than one person to make a business successful. Personally, those who helped write the speech dropped the ball on this one.

I've seen it in big business and small business where the owner thinks they are the only one who knows what is going on and the only one who is responsible for the success of the business. Plenty of incompetent owners with money who have the right people around them to make it work and yet fail to acknowledge it or reward them fully for their effort.

This has got one the idiotic asinine responses I have ever seen. You my friend would be a complete failure in the personal business environment. You are a hopeless Obama worshiping Liberal moon bat.

WHat is false about anything that is posted?

If you actually listen to what he is saying it makes sense.

No it doesn't.


What he is saying is that the business owner is not solely responsible for the success of their business.

Well, true but not because of government


It took a lot of other peoples hard work to make it so. From those who built the roads that lead to the business,

with taxes collected from the business. No business, no taxes, no roads...


to those who actually work at the business,

the get paid, they do not work for free. they spend their money 'helping' other businesses


to those who protect the streets so people are safe to enter the business,

paid for by taxes, again.


to those who provide the power to run the business,

paid by the business, and the costs are increasing because of added regulations.


to those who deliver the goods that the business sells,

those get paid


to those who pick up the trash generated by the business.

paid or taxes, depending on where the business is located. Again, costs born by the business...


The owner is obviously the one who put the plan for their business together, who works long hours to make sure the business plan is moving in the right direction, etc, but they are not the only ones making it a success.

no, and they are also not the only ones benefitting from the success...


Could he have done a better job of bringing that part out? Yes, definitely, but you and some others seem blind to the fact that it takes more than one person to make a business successful. Personally, those who helped write the speech dropped the ball on this one.

No, the speach writers and Obama have -no clue- how a capitalist economy works. NO CLUE, not even a little one.


I've seen it in big business and small business where the owner thinks they are the only one who knows what is going on and the only one who is responsible for the success of the business. Plenty of incompetent owners with money who have the right people around them to make it work and yet fail to acknowledge it or reward them fully for their effort.

Same is true for governemnt, they are spending someone else's money and claiming credit for their hard work as their own. Obama!



Read your own response. You really do get it, but can't accept that it's capitalism and not government (solely) that is responsible. Maybe there is some glimmer of hope that you can open your eyes just a little more.

your biased won't let you accept the fact that he is right, just not very good at expressing it.

not Friday, not today, never.

His inability to see that government is a result of, not the cause of, the success of the USA just blinds the man.

Me, I get it. Thanks.

I said EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEnd

is that while we understand that there must be infrastructure, it is the individual that opens the business that makes it happen, not the Gov't.
Obama's words "you didn't do that, other people did". Well, other people didn't have the idea. Other people didn't put in the capitol needed, whether it be getting a loan or in our case, putting your house up as collateral thereby taking a huge risk to open the business. Other people didn't put in the countless days and hours needed to make it happen. Other people didn't miss taking vacations for years to build the business so don't come here and tell me that I don't get it. I get it perfectly. This man thinks gov't is the answer, not the individual and frankly, I am insulted by his remarks. He, my friend is the one that DOESN'T GET IT, and unfortunately, neither do you.

are negatively biased against anything Obama does or says. He is far from perfect and puts his foot in mouth like others do, but to argue that his basic premise that owners of business don't do it all by themselves is ignorant. Unless I overlooked it, I did not read or hear him say that government did it, just that others are involved in the success of that business and should be recognized for it. Should he have given the lion's share of credit to the owner? Yes, and for that he is the dumb one, as are his writers.

that the government is what helped the successful get to where they are, then what could have possibly been the point of his bringing it up?

I was busy replying when you helped out. Maybe this guy will understand our point of view after reading these.

between you and I is the way we look at what he says. He may not have used the word "gov't" but to me (and here's one diff) there's no doubt that that's what he means.

Here's another: "but to argue that his basic premise that owners of business don't do it all by themselves is ignorant".

It may come across as ignorant to you and that's ok but I happen to believe that business owners do do it all. I know way to many business owners that if not for the hard work and long hours they put in, they would have no business. To me, it's not logical to argue the things you do as those are givens ie; we all have those things (his reference to roads, infrastructure, etc.) and the one difference is the absolute drive that I see exhibited by those in business that are successful.

Bottome line, yeah I guess that I find fault with most all he does but then you have to understand that we have a fundamental difference in how we look at life.

Depending on which statistics that you look at, 7 to 9 start-ups will fail. Is that also the result of government? Or does it mean that those businesses were not vialbe, or not well run, or all of the above?

Using Obama logic, the governemnt is responsible for the 90% of businesses that fail, and the 10% that are successful. NOT a good track record.

He said that is takes more than a one business owner to make a business succeed and yes, as you pointed out, fail. The one business owner can not make it work by themselves, They need all those other factors to even have a chance at success. Yes, there are examples of one person businesses that succeed, but they may get there advertising done by some else or their taxes or payroll. It takes more than one to succeed. That is the point. I'm an entrepreneur in the real estate market and while I am a sole owner and operator of my company, I rely on others to help me succeed. Without them, I would not be able to make the money I make. Since we are all in it together it makes sense to make sure that those in the game can also make it and not be left behind because they happen to only make $25,000 a year, which is what many of those who help the owner make. You talk about how the owner is the only one working hard, not true, Those who work for them work hard too and without them the owner makes nothing. That is the point. You discard that statement as somehow socialist. Well, the capitalist model says otherwise. The janitor, the garbageman, the policeman, the fireman, the restaurant worker all play a direct and indirect part in the success of all businesses. The fact that you argue against that premise is mind boggling.

the difference is that we interpret his meaning differently. the way I see it, knowing his background and education, I sincerely take it as his saying that, yes there are other businesses that help you succeed, but to him, the ultimate credit is the gov't. I didn't hear one acknowledgement of the individual, only those around him. That's the rub.

yeah, sure.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back. They know they didnt look, if youve been successful, you didnt get there on your own. You didnt get there on your own. 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.

that segment of the business all others just do their job and get a check. They don't lay awake nights wondering if they are going to meet payroll, that task belongs to the owner. The employees can walk away from their jobs at any time but the owner will anguish over every aspect of the company. The employees just show up on a daily basis and get paid. H8uge difference in the risk factor.

What about all of those that were given the same 'help' from others, but didn't take 'advantage' of it? Should they pay less, because they obviously are not using the services provided? Is that what is meant by 'fair share'?

And you know it.

they grew up seeing welfare checks for free, doing absoluteliy nothing and getting it, free health clinics, food stamps which they quickly learned to exchange for cash to buy cigs, alcohol and other non-essentuals. Free meals at school breakfast, linch and afternoon snack. They have learned from parents how to use the system and they aren't about to give that up without a fight. They will vote for bigger government because that is who is caring for them now with no incentive to stop. Have more babies get more money.

There are those on the other end of the spectrum who abuse the system and take more monies than those you criticize. The Bernie Madoff's of the world bilk more monies from the system than the other end, and it happens in at all levels of income. Please don't try to convince us that welfare recipients are bringing this country down. It is the abuse and greed on the affluent end of the spectrum that creates the environment for corruption, because power and wealth have a tendency to do that. The poor see it everyday and some of the rich and powerful perpetuate it to their advantage.

And the Bernie Madoffs of the world, as corrupt and damaging as they may be, impact relatively few people. The government, with its rampant over-spending and misuse of our tax dollars, impacts us all.

Corporate fraud and corruption has an impact on all of us, just not directly in all cases. You add them up over time and they dwarf the abuse of welfare fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_scandals (not all of them by any means)

Each corporate one involves millions of dollars, not hundreds or thousands as is the case of individual welfare fraud.

The misuse of our tax dollars and over-spending by government goes way, way beyond welfare fraud. And the list of political scandals dwarfs the number of corporate scandals.

What most would consider opposite ends of the spectrum. Political and corporate are closely related. Power and money fuel the corruption in both.

That loss of trust impacts how people decide to invest or spend their money and that impacts the economy.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/06/biggest-financial-scandals-personal-finance-2009-scandals.html

You need look no further than Congressional approval ratings, which hover near the single digits.

Wow, we agree on something! I guess it's a start.

So why in the world would you support a bigger, more intrusive government?

is against utter stupidity and arrogance