There is not a single business owner in this country who got where they are 100% on their own

[Hugabear]

Obama is absolutely right on this issue, and it's driving rethugs absolutely insane.

For starters, somebody gave them an education. Even if they were somehow home-schooled and self-taught, someone still provided the learning materials and books they needed.

They had to get their startup money from somewhere. Either through their family, friends, or a bank loan.

They made use of public infrastructure - roads, bridges, seaports, airports, etc.

Almost every business nowadays relies heavily on the internet - which would not exist without government involvement.

There are many other examples one could go into, but these are the primary ones that stick out.

For any business owner to puff out their chest and say that they are 100% self-made is absolute bullshit.

[pinto]

1. Good points.

[hedgehog]

2. Look at all the factory towns along the Erie Canal, not to mention Buffalo

at the junction with Lake Erie, and you see the return on government investment. Look at all the shuttered doors, and you see what happens when government support dries up!

[HughBeaumont]

3. I give them this article . . . and all I get are brush-offs and goalpost movement.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

[gollygee]

4. My Republican family members are going off about this right now

American businesses succeed in part because of America and what America offers. No one exists in a vacuum.

[amfortas the hippie]

5. Hyperindividualism

forgetting the Pond, the Algal Mat has delusions of Grandeur.
(http://amfortasthehippie.blogspot.com/2011/11/pond-analogy-parable.html)

[hfojvt]

6. I think this is a bad argument to make

Suppose I built a house from the ground up - laid the cement, set up the walls, joists and put on the roof and siding and drywall. I did all that work and I am gonna be proud of what I built. For somebody who has never built anything to say "you didn't build that yourself" seems a) argumentive, and b) it belittles all of the work that I have done.

So now after I did all this work, society is going to take half of it just because other people cut the boards (and then sold them to me) and made the nails and hammers and saws and drills and levels (and then sold them to me) and paid for the highways (and so did I) that they were transported over and paid for the schools (and so did my parents) etc.

Myself, I just do not care to denigrate hard work, and starting and running a business can be hard work, as I know from experience. Further, when I went to buy services, I seemed to run into mosquitoes. The attitude seemed to be "you have a business, it is making money, we want a piece of it". Everybody wanted to sell me books, unless they were junk, in which case, I was supposed to take the junk off their hands. Other people were donating really nice books to the library (I know that because I snatched them up for a dime). Commercial electric rates were higher than residential. For banking services I got for free as an individual, I had to pay fees as a business. I could not get city trash service. I could not park in front of the building I owned overnight. Etc. Heck, I was generating revenue for the city, but was practically a second class citizen. I also got cheated out of my unemployment.

Also, my start up money - it came from my own savings. Savings that were largely gone after four years (or plowed into inventory where I could not get it back (after closing) except for pennies on the dollar).

So if people are proud of the hard work they have done, I don't think they should be disparaged.

[GreenMask]

7. Obama should have vetted the speech...

You're dead on here. Obama's largest problem has always been that he has been too distant from the business community on experience. Too many ivy-league staffers and too few with any real business experience. A Democratic businessperson could have easily pointed out the problems in his speech and corrected them.

He's not getting votes with this speech, sad to say, only losing them more and giving ammunition to the other side.

[datasuspect]

8. thank you for your concern

[Comrade_McKenzie]

16. Fuck the business community. nt

[nessa]

70. There's a winning campaign slogan. (nt)

.

[Mz Pip]

77. Did you hear the whole speech?

Not just the GOP talking point?

no one is disparaging of people who start their own business and are successful in running it. But it didn't happen in a vaccuum.

No one out ther created a business without relying on goods and services that were provided in part by my tax dollars.

[GreenMask]

79. Or their own...

Or their own tax dollars, fees, etc.

Obama is disparaging success, by pretending that "If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

The line is the worst one in the speech, and blatantly false. Some services allow business to work better, but it takes a whole ton of individual effort and sacrifice and ingenuity and risk to make a business work. A business doesn't succeed because a road was built close enough. A business doesn't succeed because of government services. It may succeed by making use of them, but the government doesn't come in and open doors every morning and lock them at night.

If Obama had gone to a small businessperson with that speech before reading it, the line would have been dropped.

[Hugabear]

9. So this hypothetical house - you would have built it all on your own, with no outside help at all?

Building a house takes a lot of education - somebody had to provide that to you.

You would have had to take advantage of infrastructure put in place by government.

Assuming that you aren't Superman, then you needed help to actually build the house, in the form of subcontractors, workers, etc.

Nobody is denigrating anybody's hard work. We're just pointing out that you didn't get there all by yourself. None of us operate in a bubble. We are all reliant, to one degree or another, on others for help and assistance. It is virtually impossible to build a business with 100% complete independence.

This "society is going to take" argument sounds like what I would expect to hear from conservatives, grouching about how government wants to take their money.

[GreenMask]

10. What about risk?

I think the point at times can be made, not about work, but about risk. Entrepeneurs risk their (or others) money for the purpose of profit. Workers don't necessarily do that.

Particularly for small business owners, they both often provide both the risk and the work, while at the same time paying a substantial amount of taxes and fees for the ability to do so. Most who are successful financially also tend to ignore the clock and put a LOT more than 40 hours of week into a business. CEO's of large corporations do the same - it's often not a cush job, and often has high risk and high rewards.

When someone puts a massive amount of individual effort AND risk into something, it can be rather insulting when it's denigrated.

I'm not a fan at all of corporations who "privatize the profits and socialize the risks" as it were, for a select few. But there are plenty of on-the-fence small businesspeople looking to profit just something a year who hear the President and will vote for someone else.

[Hugabear]

11. That's not what we're talking about here

Of course there are plenty of business owners who took a lot of personal risk. However - the point still stands - they did not create their businesses 100% on their own. They all received help somewhere - financially, education, infrastructure, workers, etc.

And once more - it's not 'denigrating' to point this fact out.

[GreenMask]

13. Somewhat

Stupid spelling.

Anyway, it is, partially, particularly when they see their tax money going to entities - large and small - which do little to allow them to profit from their work and risk. Many of them pay taxes - sometimes double and triple taxation - and their risk also provides much of the ability for government to build infrastructure, provide education, etc. It's almost a chicken-or-egg argument. Does tax money purchase services, or do services provide tax money?

[hfojvt]

19. a house may be a bad example

and one I have never built. I did build the bookshelves for my store entirely by myself.

It is denigrating to hard work to come after somebody did a whole bunch of it and say "you didn't do that by yourself" as if I got a whole bunch of free help. Usually the help and assistance one gets comes with a price. If you are paying for that help, then you really don't owe anything. You got help, but you paid for that help - all by yourself.

As far as conservatives grouching about taxes. Well, you should hear the howls on DU when I suggest higher taxes for households who make more than $80,000 a year. And not even higher taxes so much as going back to pre-Bush rates.

Apparently they think they got their $105,000 all by themself.

[Bluerthanblue]

12. you are missing the point I think-

the only reason you were able to build your house "all by yourself" is because you live in a community. You wouldn't have cement, lumber, roads, shingles etc. if you lived in the self oriented vacuum you are describing.

When we decided to come together as a species, we compromised some of our individual freedom. When you have a 'business' you only have one because you are part of an established society. Without people to make use of your goods or services, you don't have any business. And living in a society requires all of us to pay towards the common good to an extent.

If you want to go out into the wilderness (good luck finding a piece of land that no one else has claimed) chop down trees, eat foraged and hunted food, clothe yourself with skins and garments you produce, and live apart from society, then you can claim to be really living by your own 'wits'- (for lack of a better word)

What is money really? It is the promise of 'work' or 'goods'. It doesn't matter if the "money" is gold, paper currency, or stock certificates- The billions that Romney is sitting on, is only of value when it is exchanged for the goods and services which other people are willing to provide in exchange for the 'promise' of someone else's' future work or goods.

This is why the concept of such inequalities of rich and poor of inherited wealth are destroying society imo. We want the benefit of community without the responsibility.

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money" ~ Cree Indian Proverb

[GreenMask]

14. Defeated your own argument...

Check the list you made - only one (roads) is provided by government, and usually contracted to private business. Those are all businesses working together, not tax moneys.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. no, you are again missing the point.

I'm sorry I can't seem to voice it better- but I'll try.

not one single business would exist without other people to trade labor or goods with. And when people make the commitment to living in community there are needs which arise which must be met by all of us.

It isn't so much "government"- as society. If you want to reap the benefits of living in a society- you have to recognize that you have a responsibility.

A society requires rules and sacrifice by all (in some form or another) for the good of all (in some way or another).

There is no such thing as a 'business' without a society.

You want to claim you are where you are based solely on your own ability and drive? I say bullshit. That doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that your effort and work is meaningless- but it is important to remember that you would not have been able to do anything, let alone live to adulthood, without the efforts of many other human beings. Some/many of whom never lived to reap the benefit of their own personal labors- and who who were able to accomplish what they did, because of the efforts of countless other human beings before them.

can you see what I'm trying to say? The OP said it very well as did the pres. imo.

I

[GreenMask]

36. Not the argument from the right wing...

Unfortunately, that's not the argument we are hearing from the right wing. They accept the idea perfectly that we buy and sell materials from each other, and that people work hard.

I think the problem here is that they see the attitude coming from people who do not "earn" their living as small business people do - particularly academics. There's a HUGE argument here to be made about risk as well.

For Romney and his ilk, there's a point that at a certain level, the money is hoarded far too much. They are not spreading it around among the rest of us enough.

Where is that line, however - and who has the right to the money, and how to get it - is the question.

Unfortunately, Obama seems to lump in small business owners with the uber-wealthy in his speech.

[Bluerthanblue]

42. I guess this is one of those

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

situations where we can both look at a situation and come away with completely different opinions of what is being said.

I don't think that being a business person is any more or less admirable than being a teacher, a home health aide, a carpenter, a restaurant employee, a scientist, or __________.... you fill in the blank. I don't think that Pres. O was particularly targeting small business owners, or that he equates them with the uber wealthy. He was pointing out the reality that people are not successful simply because they work hard. Conversely, some very hard working people don't ever achieve great monetary prosperity and by our society's standards would be said to be unsucessful, despite their substantial and important contributions to society-

Romney points to his vast wealth- and his supporters point to it, as a symbol of success. As if somehow the fact that he can amass a shitload of money for himself would make him a good leader for this nation. I completely disagree. Being a successful CEO, (using the measure this f--d up society does) means becoming very very wealthy, regardless of how your quest for personal gain effects society.
This country isn't a 'business'- and Venture Capitalism doesn't equate to being able to make sure that all citizens are able to make a go of life. Bain's goal was to make money- not necessarily to do what was best for the companies they "took over"- but to turn a profit.

I think you are reading something into what the Pres. actually said. I've listened him and read the speech over several times now, and I don't come away with the same message you have.

I could be wrong, but that is my perspective.

[Kingofalldems]

56. The 'right wing'? Meaning yourself of course.

Since you are making their argument.

[hfojvt]

17. no you are missing the point

the point being if somebody does a lot of work, it's not a good idea to denigrate their efforts. The fact that somebody else made cement is beside the point. If I paid for the cement, then they have GIVEN me nothing. Likewise, if I make a pile of money selling something, then my customers have GIVEN me nothing.

My point is not to say that some people shouldn't pay into the common good. The point is, don't denigrate their hard work.

[Bluerthanblue]

20. saying you didn't get there 100% on your own

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

isn't denigrating your hard work.

I've successfully raised two children to adulthood. Acknowledging that I didn't do it in a vacuum doesn't mean I didn't work very hard to do so.

If I read your post correctly you poured your all into having a successful business- and it is not still operating. That doesn't mean you didn't work HARD to make it succeed, or that it is somehow your fault that it isn't still in operation.

I don't believe that the President is in any way minimizing your effort. Romney's parading his vast financial wealth around, and trying to point to it and say that "HE" basically on his own, EARNED and is "worthy" of the ridiculous wealth he has accumulated. I find that offensive to those who truly labor and struggle to succeed.

I'm sorry, but there are MANY people who have exerted mental, physical, emotional AND intellectual efforts which far surpass Mitt Romney's actual 'hard work' and who haven't realized a minute fraction of the spoils he has. THAT to me, denigrates hard working people all over this world.

[Cerridwen]

25. The OP didn't say the mythological house

was built without an enormous amount of hard work.

The OP said that the hard work didn't happen in a vacuum.

Building ones own house is an amazing feat. My grampa was a do-it-yourself-er long before that was a cable show.

He knew how to build because he'd been taught; by his dad, a brother, a friend, whomever.

He knew how to build safely because somewhere along the line, some people had "discovered" how to install electrical wiring in a safe manner; had determined the safe loads for external versus internal walls; had determined the best materials to use for plumbing and installation.

Someone had harvested and prepared the lumber he used for walls; had manufactured the electrical wiring to some code that was determined to be safe and wouldn't burn down his house; had determined the best way to install plumbing so that water didn't leak into foundations or walls or allow sewer lines to empty on to his property.

While he was building, my gramma cleaned his clothes, cooked his meals, and cared for "his" children so that he could spend hours after an 8, 10, 12, or 14 hour day, building his home. When he sliced a finger or mashed a thumb, yep, she was the one who bandaged it. His sons and his daughter, handed him hammers, nails, his sandwich and bandages.

My grampa was a "self made man" whose family made it possible for him.

We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before. I stand on my grampa's shoulders, and my gramma's, and my mom's, and my uncles. I also stand on the shoulders of those who made it possible for me to vote, to wear pants, to speak in public, to make a contract in my name, and on, and on, and on...

That was all the OP tried to say. We humans, really are not, little islands of knowledge and skill and duty and effort.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. +1

much better said than I was able to.

[CreekDog]

21. Anyone who says they made all their wealth themselves has denigrated others

their parents, their families, the people who taught them what they know, they people that gave them a chance way back when, if they are religious, they've denigrated their god...

and the list goes on.

worse, it's a lie.

everyone has had help, somewhere.

and the thing about people who only note their own accomplishments in something they did --they think as little of everyone else's work as their magnanimity indicates they do.

not much.

[uponit7771]

22. You built that house with help from the American community in so many ways...think about it...

...most likely you used roads to get the materials where they need to be...you air lift them? Then the sky are regulated by the FAA...we're all in this thing together

[patrice]

31. Disparage hard work????? Who's even remotely close to such a line other than Reich Wingers??

What I hear from Democrats and PO is how to make hard work, including that done by business owners, successful.

It's called Demand Side Economics: the hard work of business owners needs to fall on the fertile ground of demand for the products and services of that hard work, i.e. markets with enough people with enough money to bring the business owner's work to success.

I think this would also include things such as how at least some business owner's hard work needs a "fertile ground" that includes the appropriate kinds of enterprises in their supply chain for the business. Another type of Demand there, in this case the business owner's own demand for certain kinds of business supplies that help him/her create the product/service. What if the supply chain isn't there?

And then there's another level to demand: Business owners have a need, a demand, for enough of the right kinds of employees. What if those kinds of employees aren't available and there's only employees with not enough of the right skills and no aptitude for developing skills?

This perspective VALUES the hard work of business owners by not leaving their success to chance and the bad luck that there's not enough of a supply chain, or not enough competition in that supply chain to do the business owner the benefit of better prices. Or leaving it to chance whether the business owner will have to work harder and longer to make up for inappropriate or incomplete staff skill sets.

[Swede]

46. Did you build your house in Somalia?

That's about the only place you could have built without any help.

[liberal N proud]

51. The 1% didn't build their houses on their own.

They had help along the way, someone who went out on a limb to get them through doors they otherwise would not get opened or find the things they needed.

OR they took things from others to get ahead and stepped on others to climb that ladder to the top. There are few, very few who had absolutely no help getting where they are.

[GreenMask]

57. Disconnect with everyone in the conversation...

I think that there is a general disconnect in this conversation overall.

One point is that there are people who bust their rear ends, and succeed in life. They don't worry about excuses or what they don't have, and just concentrate on succeeding. They put their capital at risk, and want to see reward from it.

They DO get external help - either by hiring people, or working hard for someone else.

I don't know that either side of the aisle has a problem with that.

However, I think far too often our side believes that it's a more of a matter of chance than the other side does. Small business owners - particularly successful ones - often don't. Success in their business often comes from long hours, ingenuity, and risk.

How much benefit should someone reap from their individual effort and risk?

[liberal N proud]

58. It is more about chance than individual effort.

[GreenMask]

59. Uncertain...

Frankly, I think it depends. Tell that to anyone who has made it in professional sports (or the olympics), or who started with very little. Hard work DOES cover over a lot of "bad luck" at times, and I have found that a lot of my "bad luck" could have either been avoided by not being an idiot, or was alleviated by earlier good choices.

I'm not saying that luck doesn't play into it - but go speak to anyone relatively successful, and you'll find a common theme of long hours, risk-taking, occasional failures (sometimes rather large), and a simple no-quit attitude.

Also, it's interesting to see how some simple life choices - completing high school, working hard, being on time, being neat, and even marriage - lead to some success. How many low-level jobs lead to advancement simply by not quitting and being diligent? A bunch.

[PETRUS]

61. Let's cut to the chase.

This rhetoric is about tax policy. The reason we are hearing language like this now is because inequality has been increasing for a few decades and is currently about as bad as it's been anytime in the postwar period. At the same time, the tax obligations of the wealthiest are historically low. More than two-thirds of the public agrees with the statements like "inequality is a serious problem" and "the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes." So why fret about whether or not some will object to this message - of course it will turn some people off, but who expects 100% of the vote?

The rise in inequality is not because the richest have worked harder or taken smarter risks with their businesses. It is directly attributable to policy changes that redistribute (pretax) income upwards. The richest have devoted money to manipulating public opinion and buying politicians in order to change the laws in their favor.

This has led to an environment where hard work and risk-taking are less likely to pay off. The US is now a laggard in small business creation and economic mobility.

[GreenMask]

62. What is the solution?

So what is the solution? Many of the big businesses - banks in particular - have some sort of implicit or explicit government guarantee behind many of their holdings and loans. The amounts on those far outweigh most individual tax issues. It's those guarantees which shift the money "upwards."

I usually use the term "corporatism" there, and refuse to attribute it to a free market practice, as it's not really allowing those large corporations to feel the effects of failure (unlike smaller businesses, who don't have such guarantees).

If we want to shift money back to regular people, it's either removing those guarantees - which, in a sense, goes against Keynesian thought - or raising taxes on profits.

Of course, there's the right-wing method of removing the guarantees, lowering and simplifying the tax code for everyone, and allowing a more free market to take place, but since the free market is always corrupt...

[PETRUS]

64. Two different ways to answer.

Producing policy suggestions is one thing. Overcoming the political dominance of a small but powerful minority is another.

There is no shortage of policy ideas, many of which fit into the basic framework we already have and don't require significant changes to how we are organized politically and economically. I don't agree with you that "free markets" are inherently corrupt. They just don't function (or even exist) as advertised. People are corruptible, and it's important to guard against that. We must be aware of the incentives and disincentives and adjust them as needed. For example, a tiny financial transaction tax would remove the incentives for a fair amount of trading that is profitable for the traders but contributes nothing to the real economy.

By the way, the right wing is not in favor of free markets! At least not the politically empowered movers and shakers who lead what we call the right wing. They use that language because it resonates with the public. But when one looks at policy, it's clear they don't mean what they say.

So what would a market-oriented solution be like? Health care is an interesting place to look. The cost of health care is an enormous burden on individuals as well as the sole reason for projected future Federal budget deficits. There is no shortage of foreign-trained doctors who would like to come practice in America, but we artificially limit the supply. We do we design policies with the specific intention of creating global competition to drive down the price of manufactured goods but maintain (or increase, which is the reality with medicine) protections that keep the costs of health services high? We could coordinate with other countries so that they train physicians to US standards and let them come work here. In addition, we could allow (or require) US insurers and Medicare to pay for treatment outside the country at enormous savings. We could have something more like free trade in pharmaceuticals. Right now the Federal government provides somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 to 1/2 of the funds for drug research. Of the money spent privately, only a sliver goes to "breakthrough" drugs. The lion's share goes to "copycat" drugs. This is incredibly inefficient and is a result of the patent system, which essentially grants monopolies and leads to monopoly pricing. Drugs cost ten times what they would cost in a free market. Economists get furious about the deadweight involved in taxes and tariffs that increase prices by a few percent. What about the deadweight in the patent system that increases prices by more than 100%? It would be cheaper overall to fund all of the research publicly and allow the drugs to be manufactured and sold in a competitive ("free&quot market.

(PS. Although I'm not sure why you associate this with Keynesian economics, you are right about the distorting effects of implicit guarantees like "too big to fail." According to some analysis the growth of the financial sector accounts for as much as 30% of the increase in inequality since 1980, and the implicit guarantees are one part of that story.)

[GreenMask]

66. In with Keynes

I was throwing it in with Keynes because of the idea of essentially publicly inserting money into a system to help it recover. Corporatists grab it through their control of the system, and there have been some communists who have gotten behind the idea because the result was the same anyway. It's almost the same as public-works projects, except the money is leeched by fewer people.

Odd how politics is a circle that way. Sometimes the end result is the same from both directions.

[liberal N proud]

69. How many low-level jobs lead to advancement...?

very few lead to advancement. Most are in dead end jobs even after completing high school, college and working hard. VERY FEW ever escape the level they start at.

The average wage in this country has been flat for the last 30 years, how does that allow or demonstrate people getting ahead.

Very few ever see true success and it is getting worse, Worse, not better.

[GreenMask]

71. Let's try an example

I actually think there's a certain level that can be attained.

Think about most retail or fast-food jobs. Anyone who has stuck with a job for what...2-3 years is at least assistant manager through attrition (though that often does not pay much), and has some sort of opportunity to move up through the chain.

Add in a high school diploma, which WAY too many don't have right now.

Add in a reasonable work ethic and pride of self, and desire and imagination, and some willingness to move, maybe even a little to sacrifice for advancement. Remove "blaming others" and "I'm a victim," and I'll bet you such a person will be middle class in 5 years.

I know several opportunities - like in trucking - where that can get you ahead.

Not many excuses for bad "luck."

[liberal N proud]

72. That is laughable

Can you name anyone who has risen from fast food to CEO and made if from the poverty to riches?

[GreenMask]

73. Not right off

Not outside of pro sports...but there are plenty of examples of going to middle class out of poverty through hard work and diligence.

Heck, oddly enough, marriage does a lot. Married people, for whatever reason, tend not to be below the poverty line.

[liberal N proud]

75. Gee every kid is good at sports

So what you are saying is either learn how to play (insert sport here) better than anyone else and hope that is good enough to win the lottery to play college sports and then you have to be good enough to win the lotter coming out of college into pro sports.

Have you ever done the odd on a kid making to college sports? Pro sports?

For every 100 players who graduate high school this year, 1 will play college football at any level.

A .00565% chance of becoming a professional athlete.

11 Hardest Jobs to Get in America
http://collegetimes.us/11-hardest-jobs-to-get-in-america/

You are also claiming that being married will keep you out of poverty?

[GreenMask]

80. Married people are less likely to be poor.

I agree with you on the pro athlete angle - it's actually easier to make a greater success in business, with more avenues open.

Check the stats on marriage. From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#cite_note-pov02-22

"According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,[23] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households[23] and 19.1% of all persons living alone."

[liberal N proud]

84. See this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=961527

[Kingofalldems]

74. Teach us about Free Enterprise and such!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. Your analogy doesn't get out of the basement...

Did the house you built hook up to public water and sewer? Did you dig the basement by hand? Chop down the trees for the framing lumber and plane it yourself? Does the power come from a publicly-subsidized power grid, or do you get electricity from the publicly-funded science that created solar energy.

Only Robinson Crusoe did it all by himself.

Oh wait, he had Friday to help him.

Oh wait, that was a work of fiction.

Nobody. NOBODY makes it on their own. And fat-ass Rush Limbaugh, who broadcasts over the public's airwaves and is beamed at taxpayer expense to the Armed Forces Radio Network, ought to know that.

[deaniac21]

68. Bingo

[hughee99]

83. I agree. I think the big thing here is the baseline. What is "all by myself"...

"I did it all by myself" is NEVER 100%. No one gave birth to themselves or raised themselves from a very young age. The thing that's causing the disconnect between people who like the speech and those that think it's not good is the way they're interpreting it.

"I just created a new iphone app. I downloaded the development software and used their internal tools to write a program that would add two numbers together and, using code I learned in college, make the results display in purple. I did it ALL BY MYSELF"

Those who like the speech think it's pointing out how we all needed to come together to create an environment where one could succeed. We all contribute to the environment that's necessary for any of these people to have success, and that success wouldn't have been achieved without a lot of people.

on the other hand...
"If it weren't for the roads and bridges, paper industry, electricity, clean water and clean air, you never would have been able to write your best seller. We ALL deserve credit for that book you wrote."

Those who dislike the speech think it's crediting those who create the environment for each individuals success. Businesses can't succeed without roads, bridges, electricity, clean water, etc... but many businesses have access to that. Some are successful and some aren't. If these things were the reason a business succeeds, then ALL businesses would succeed. Beyond then level of support that a society may provide to many of it's people, there is some effort that many individuals ALSO have to put in to enable them to be more successful than others. Macy's and Gimbels both had access to the same infrastructure, one succeeded and the other went out of business.

[FarCenter]

18. Only a small fraction of government spending goes to things that help business

The largest share of federal government spending is transfer payments, e.g. SS, Medicare, Medicaid and various welfare programs.

Another huge chunk is spent on the Department of Defense or on the Department of Energy nuclear weapons program.

The amount spent on things like the Defense Advanced Research Projects which funded the early work on the Internet is a very small percentage.

Another large chunk is spent on subsidies and tax breaks for businesses that can't make it on their own merits.

[CreekDog]

23. government is not just "federal spending"

government is not just spending, it's laws, it's constitutional rights, it's civil society, it's all the things that the government has done.

government is not just Federal Government, it is states, which educate, which create roads, which build ports that sustain trade, etc.

it's cities and towns that make sure the houses you're proud of don't burn down, that they have energy, that they have utilities, etc.

it's government that works to make sure the air is clean to breathe and that the place is worth spending money to live in by assuring clean water.

it's government that pays for a defense which protects from invasion, government that has compelled young people to sacrifice their lives to protect you and the things you value.

the simplistic view of government as simply "federal spending" is inaccurate.

[FarCenter]

24. With state and local government, by any metric, most government activity is not useful to business

It's not that some small fraction of things that the government does aren't useful or even essential for business, e.g. the courts system and the laws regarding contracts.

And it's not that the large fraction of things that the government does aren't useful to somebody.

It is just that most of government is not essential or even useful for business, and arguing that government should do all the things it does because it is good for business is bogus.

[CreekDog]

27. you say police,fire protection, roads, sewers, military, people getting their checks not useful...

go on...

i mean, this is getting good!

[FarCenter]

37. You probably responded on a computer with at least some components made in China

They were made in factories that depend on the infrastructure provided by the government of China.

Does that mean that you support the government of China in all its aspects?

Of course not, that would be stupid.

[CreekDog]

38. So you've given up on your argument that government doesn't do anything useful for business?

because after having that argument refuted, you seem uninterested in defending it.

[FarCenter]

39. I never argued that government doesn't do anything useful for business.

I argued that only a small fraction of what government does is useful for business.

Therefore it is illogical to argue that the government must do everything it currently does in order for business to prosper.

[CreekDog]

41. who has made the argument that gov't must do everything it currently does for business to prosper?

i'd like to see links of such posts from here.

also, you are wrong about "small fraction".

you have a whole society and set of institutions that without which, many businesses could not succeed.

half the medical system is paid for my government. what happens without 1/2 the healthcare system? where does a business get customers?

roads...how do customers get to the business?

freedom...which government won World War II for the USA?

[Cerridwen]

40. Please tell me the history of how

electricity was provided to rural areas in the US.

And rail travel and transport.

And canals for transit to do business.

And the US postal service which was used to build airlines in their infancy.

Please, read the history of how so many businesses that laid foundations for the US infrastructure were promoted, funded, and made possible by government on behalf of business in the interests of the "common welfare".

Perhaps you'd care to start with the General Land Office that surveyed land and boundaries for the purposes of private and public ownership of lands. I'll give you a hint, that division of US government is currently called the Bureau of Land Management. That government agency has been recording US lands since just as we became the US.



edited line about "common welfare"

[FarCenter]

43. Please tell me what fraction of government expenditures have gone to such useful endeavors?

[Cerridwen]

47. You mean how much government

provided lands to the rail roads? I was born and reared in Las Vegas, NV; start there. Tax breaks to the airlines so they would transport the US mail? Tax incentives and loans to the power companies?

Go for it.

It's your argument.

I've long since decided the right wing talking points on this board and those who would catapult them; regardless of their ignorance, are not worth my time and effort.

Learn history. Or be one of the willfully ignorant. I care not which.

People learn best who learn for themselves.

Now, back on topic. Can you provide the history lessons about the topics to which I referred?
Your attempt at a derail is noted. It has little to nothing to do with that which I asked you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

44. Where does all that DoD and DoE $$ end up? n/t

[FarCenter]

48. Davis Monthan AFB for example?

[Egalitarian Thug]

63. The largest and second largest (HSA may have become #2) sources of corporate welfare. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. This whole issue is about a substantial as a smoke ring on a breezy day.

There's much ado about nothing, and then there's much ado about nothing. I think this is the latter. Or maybe it's the former? No, I think it's the latter. Yup. It's the latter, I'm sure of it.

Every time I see "government" used in this argument I think TAXPAYER. Reading posts in this thread one would think business owners weren't taxpayers BEFORE they became business owners and that government is this benevolent, beneficent entity without which nothing would be possible.

Also, the government doesn't give people an education. That education is paid for by taxpayers.

And really, who gives a fuck if some business owners consider themselves to be "self-made"? Who suffers?

[phantom power]

28. Who suffers? We all suffer, and here's why:

Because the myth of the 'self-made' man is what inspires people to believe that privatized solutions are always superior to government solutions, and it led directly to this era where we watch legislators vote to dismantle the public commons, and sell off public resources, and make gigantic cuts to public spending that used to educate our children, and advance our science, and help us all retire on something besides catfood.

[Bluerthanblue]

33. yes-

very good points.

[KansDem]

35. Your analysis is spot on!

Because the myth of the 'self-made' man...

Hardly mentioned in these scenarios is that fact that "self-made men" go into business for themselves for basically self-centered reasons.

10 Reasons You Should Be Starting Your Own Business

1. You have control
2. Financial compensation.
3. You get to be the boss.
4. You can write off more expenses.
5. You can benefit from the talents of others.
6. In-office political immunity.
7. Recognition.
8. Equity.
9. It’s easy, if you have the expertise.
10. You can work from home.

(details provided at link)
http://www.moneyblogger.org/make-money/starting-your-own-business/

I don't know if these are weighted, but I always thought the no. 1 reason was no. 3--"You get to be the boss." Also no. 1--"You have control." In other words, you don't have to take orders from anyone.

I don't mind folks starting a business and working hard to make it succeed. What I do mind is when they "forget" they're doing it for self-centered reasons.

As far as making it on your own: no. 5 requires the good work of others who you employ. You rely on these folks making your business successful.

In summary--
Self interest: nos. 1, 3
Rely on work of others: no. 5
Financial benefit: nos. 2, 4, 8
Self satisfaction: nos. 6, 7, 9, 10

Also--
...inspires people to believe that privatized solutions are always superior to government solutions

"Big Government" is "of, for, and by" the people. I find it laughable that it's demonized by the Republicans. By the same token, I find it strange that no conservative equates "Big Corporation" with "of, for, and by the investors."

I mean who has the best interests of the American people at heart? Government ("The People&quot or Corporations ("The Investors&quot ?

[patrice]

29. I ran across an FB group today who is saying that -AND- TTE, PO says they did nothing.

Business owners did it ALL and PO says what they did is 0 and that the only reason they succeeded was because of others, nothing that the business owner did.

This is a VERY telling line of attack don't you think? It's subject, business owners, seems to reveal some serious vulnerabilities in the Romney/Tea Party camp.

[progressivebydesign]

30. I'm a small business owner, and I agree completely!!

I've gotten help from the SBA, from SCORE, from family and friends, from business tax credits in my State.

Romney's people are desperately trying anything to see what sticks on the wall.

[patrice]

34. Demand Side Economics is actually the OPPOSITE of saying the business owner's work means nothing.

Demand Side Economics says that the business owner's work is so valuable that we will not leave it to chance as to whether that work happens in an environment that facilitates the chances of success.

We won't leave it to chance as to whether there are enough customers with enough money to make the business owner successfull. We will deliberately build the biggest class of consumers we have, the Middle Class, so that the business owners hard work has much more of a chance of profitting.

The hard work of business owners is so important that we will deliberately see to it that there are enough employees with the right skill sets developed to their fullest extent that the business owner has a better chance of making a better profit, because s/he has the best and happiest employees possible.

The hard work of the business owner is so valuable that we will do what we can to be sure that all of the supplies and services that a business owner needs in his/her supply chain are there, for without all of those businesses up and running at their best how can anyone make their payroll and their profits.

[Shankapotomus]

45. Isn't that what the "United" in

United States means, that we united together because we could not do it on our own?

[steve2470]

49. I'd like to see how businesses would do if we totally dismantled the government

After all, the military is mainly there to protect against invasion. Not domestic threats but I guess that's been going by the boards in the last 15 years or so.

The police can't be everywhere at once and hey, that's a government service.

With no cops to protect businesses, there would be looting and vandalism and theft on a vast scale.

So the private sector is going to educate all the workers ? As in 17th century style ? I'm not so sure how well businesses would do with that, beyond agriculture.

Yes, I think business people (and I've been a business owner myself) should keep the fruits of their labors but they need to pay taxes like the rest of us. For all those "non-essential" government services. Like the cops. Like the military. Like roads. The list goes on.

[FarCenter]

50. Because police can't be everywhere, there are more private guards than police officers.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#33-0000

[Yeah Its Spin]

52. Give me a product and

I will tell you how the government helped make it, I'll start, sony playstation3 - Laser research, internet research and on and on and on.

[Yeah Its Spin]

55. Just had another thought,

guess it would be cool if my barber could start using leaches and pull teeth.

[steve2470]

53. That is a good point

However, if we reduced the police forces by 50% or more, I think business would have very serious problems. I'm not willing to try that experiment.

[madrchsod]

54. yup...we started our upholstery business with a lot of help

we bought our tools on "credit" from a man who thought we would do a good job. he showed and explained how to upholster and run a business. then we expanded our business into window fashions with the help of another person who worked with us. most of our start up money came from our parents.
we quit the business because we needed healthcare coverage for our family and a down turn in the economy. looking back if we would have had healthcare like the rest of the civilized countries we would still be in business.

[crazyjoe]

65. personally, I think it was a dumb thing to say

it will be used over and over again against Obama throughout the election, regardless how you feel about it, I don't think he accomplished what he wanted.

[gollygee]

67. I agree with you

Even if they didn't go to public schools or state universities, chances are a large chunk of their employees did. They probably transport things on public roadways. They probably took advantage of every federal program they had access to when starting their business. We all had an advantage from things provided to us from our government.

[Frustratedlady]

76. A successful business cannot exist without enough paying customers to make a profit. eom

[GreenMask]

85. True, but...

Someone has to figure out something to sell to customers, and provide it as well.

[unblock]

78. the myth of the self-made man applies best to frontier prospectors.

go west, young man, across across the country, claim some land, dig for gold, and bring it back to market.

even still, you probably leaned heavily on others, even if through trade, for food, shelter, weapons, and equipment. nevermind people to buy your gold.

these days few businesses are like that and yes, the vast majority benefit immensely not just from other people, but from products and services that wouldn't exist without the government. massive government efforts such as research during wwii, nasa, and of course the internet yielded huge rewards from which companies benefit.

moreover, they can thank the government for creating and preserving a system that allows disproportionate profit to be earned and kept by top executives and owners at the expense of customers, employees, and unrelated third-parties (local victims of pollution, etc.)

[EC]

81. Many like Sen. Ron Johnson of WI

even had government pay for roads directly to their plants. No other reason except the plant needed an access road.

[Spike89]

82. Here's my LTE in response to a winger letter

Here's my letter, I'm not including the original letter because I don't own the copyright, but I have posted a brief portion following my letter.

It’s beyond ironic that in the first sentence of Bob Gresham’s letter (7/18) he claims President Obama distorts the American dream by himself distorting what the President said. The President did in fact state that no one earns anything…totally on their own. It is extreme hubris and willful disregard for the sacrifices and shared efforts of the people in our society to claim you did it alone. Evidently, Mr. Gresham doesn’t believe our military has ever done a thing to protect us as a society. His business must not use any federally standardized currency or deal with a well-regulated and insured bank. His own security force and fire protection employees must pump water and guard the electrical-generating plants and waste removal systems he privately built. Perhaps he uses students from the schools he must have built as a source for his dedicated employees (who must commute to work on Bob Gresham-hewn roads).
Government isn’t a bunch of grey concrete monoliths. It is the basis for civilization and our society. There is certainly lots of room to discuss and disagree within the framework of our society. Although I tend to believe in funding our society at high levels for the common good, I can understand and appreciate those who believe the balance between individual initiative and social responsibility lies somewhat to the right of mine. What I can’t understand and appreciate is someone who doesn’t even see all the things we (society/government) have done to nurture and support his “rugged individualism.”

Here's the opening part of the letter I'm responding to:

It was with disgust on July 16 that I listened to President Obama’s distortion on the American dream, stating that no one earns anything — it was either given to you, or someone “helped” you along the way.

The government never “gave” me anything. However, the government certainly had no shame in taking it away.

[PBass]

86. Again, today, Obama is getting HAMMERED on this...

the out of context quote "you didn't build that".

This needs to be addressed EVERY DAY, front and center, IMO, until it goes away.

WE here on DU might understand the meaning of the quote, and agree, but used out of context it plays BADLY for a lot of people. Even if the line would have been delivered perfectly, it's not a good campaign pitch (the sentiment is good, but the specifics need to be changed). It's just NOT a good stand-alone idea that could fit on a bumper sticker (You Didn't Build That). It needs to be explained, and IF YOU'RE EXPLAINING, YOU'RE LOSING.

I don't know why Obama isn't pushing back harder here, except maybe they hope the story will go away, or maybe they think giving it a stronger response will breathe more life into it. They need to push back harder on this ASAP, and get this out of the way NOW, not in the Fall!