Obama Tells Entrepreneurs “You Didn’t Build” Your Business

[zdreg]

Quote from piezoe:

Your pithy words express what surely must be the thinking of the majority of U.S. voters, many of whom are not registered with either party and call themselves independents.

U.S. voters are repeatedly faced with choosing the least worst, rather than the best, candidate. It's a shame.

One side or the other may propose what could be effective legislation to address a problem. To get the other side on-board compromises must be made. Nearly always, it seems, the compromise protects narrow interests at the expense of overall efficacy. This happens over and over again and has resulted in one law after another that falls short of solving the problem it was intended to solve. We get more rules and expense without a commensurate benefit.

Examples: ACA , and Dodd-Frank. Now we hear that Eric Cantor inserted language into a House Bill that would exempt wives of congressmen from having to comply with legislation to stop insider trading by congressmen.

Is it is time to burn the Constitution and start over?

the Constitution is a timeless document. the supreme court ought to enforce it.

all you lefties would like to burn it and create a "new man"
______________

why don't you study the case for making insider trading legal for everybody.

 

[Davidee2]

Quote from sheda:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/16...-entrepreneurs-you-didnt-build-your-business/

I think Obama is right actually. Entrepreneurs were only partly responsible for their success. If the public hadn't paid for the road and bridges for them to transport their goods, or if the tax payers hadn't paid for a public education system they wouldn't have a skilled work force etc...

This is why these super rich tax dodgers really piss me off, they want to do business in a country with a good infrastructure and the rule of law, but they don't want to pay for it.

If they were born in a 3rd world country with no roads, schools or taxes I doubt they would have been so successful.

 

[clacy]

Quote from Davidee2:

I think Obama is right actually. Entrepreneurs were only partly responsible for their success. If the public hadn't paid for the road and bridges for them to transport their goods, or if the tax payers hadn't paid for a public education system they wouldn't have a skilled work force etc...

This is why these super rich tax dodgers really piss me off, they want to do business in a country with a good infrastructure and the rule of law, but they don't want to pay for it.

If they were born in a 3rd world country with no roads, schools or taxes I doubt they would have been so successful.

Where did the tax dollars for roads and infrastructure come from?

From taxing successful people.

Also, you act like only rich people are able to use this infrastructure and rule of law.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of all tax dollars are coming form successful people that have taken advantage of good infrastructure in some capacity.

Anyone who is employed is benefiting from a business that is benefiting from this infrastructure.

 

[jem]

Quote from clacy:

Where did the tax dollars for roads and infrastructure come from?

From taxing successful people.

Also, you act like only rich people are able to use this infrastructure and rule of law.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of all tax dollars are coming form successful people that have taken advantage of good infrastructure in some capacity.

Anyone who is employed is benefiting from a business that is benefiting from this infrastructure.

govts 3 most important functions.

Provide rule of law
Safety and Welfare (I put schools an roads here)
Defense

We all benefit as Americans.
Kudos to those who built businesses which were not to big to fail.

I blame govt for too big to fail.
Obama keeps building too big to fail.

 

[logic_man]

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

The difference is that the other people who helped build the business voluntarily agreed to do so, usually in exchange for wages or other financial consideration. So, these other people who helped build it have already been paid for their work - they have no further claim, they're even. That means the business as it stands belongs to the shareholders - not to the employees, not to the government (who never got any agreement before taking their cut by force), or anyone else.

Thank you for posting this. It assures me that there is at least one other sane person in the world.

There seriously needs to be an IQ test to qualify for voting.

Please, those of you who disagree with GoC's post, go kill yourselves.

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from piezoe:

Your pithy words express what surely must be the thinking of the majority of U.S. voters, many of whom are not registered with either party and call themselves independents.

U.S. voters are repeatedly faced with choosing the least worst, rather than the best, candidate. It's a shame.

One side or the other may propose what could be effective legislation to address a problem. To get the other side on-board compromises must be made. Nearly always, it seems, the compromise protects narrow interests at the expense of overall efficacy. This happens over and over again and has resulted in one law after another that falls short of solving the problem it was intended to solve. We get more rules and expense without a commensurate benefit.

Examples: ACA , and Dodd-Frank. Now we hear that Eric Cantor inserted language into a House Bill that would exempt wives of congressmen from having to comply with legislation to stop insider trading by congressmen.

Is it is time to burn the Constitution and start over?

Least worst? The choice only is whether you like or hate gays. You are voting for one of two socialists eitherway.

Anyway, the premise of this topic is wrong, we all know it is easier to built businesses in a country like china or brazil than in the US. In US you have too much regulation, in China you can bribe and built a company that way, in brazil you can hire banditos to kill the indigenious population. That's why the middle class in China and Brazil is bigger than in the USA.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from Davidee2:

I think Obama is right actually. Entrepreneurs were only partly responsible for their success. If the public hadn't paid for the road and bridges for them to transport their goods, or if the tax payers hadn't paid for a public education system they wouldn't have a skilled work force etc...

This is why these super rich tax dodgers really piss me off, they want to do business in a country with a good infrastructure and the rule of law, but they don't want to pay for it.

If they were born in a 3rd world country with no roads, schools or taxes I doubt they would have been so successful.

The Government does not build anything. The Government does not manufacturer anything. The Government does not produce any tangible product.

Everything the Government uses is made by private business. The Entrepreneur uses roads built by another Entrepreneur.

 

[logic_man]

By the way, here is the crux of why Obama's comments on the need for higher taxes are based on deception:

"As economist and frequent Republican-party critic Bruce Bartlett recently pointed out, “As of March 31, $452.6 billion of net stimulus funds had been disbursed in ways that show up in the national income accounts. Of this, the vast bulk, $399.7 billion, went for transfer payments. Another $9.6 billion went for subsidies and $68.1 billion for capital transfers to state and local governments. Only $37.8 billion went for consumption and $11.8 billion for investment — the only two categories of outlays that we know add to growth.”"

So, out of $452.6 billion in stimulus spending, only $47.6 billion (~10%) actually went to things that help boost economic growth and ~90% went to things that just shuffle wealth around with no impact on growth. Who benefits from that? Democratic voters, that's who. That is definitely NOT to the benefit of everyone, which is part of what Obama claims is the case when government spends.

While I haven't always agreed with Bartlett, he is spot on with this analysis.

 

[mm19]

Quote from clearinghouse:

This is not true. Venture capitalists will talk to anyone, provided they sound competent and have some background. The world is not that shut off to innovators. In fact, they are desperate for true innovators and the next big idea.

exactly !

however, there is no true ideas produced so they are manufactured


remeber good school are needed for that. except if borrowing money and buying property complex is on your list of true ideas, hahahhahah

trump guy comes to mind, property developer with expertise in bankrupcy

 

[Ricter]

Quote from logic_man:

By the way, here is the crux of why Obama's comments on the need for higher taxes are based on deception:

"As economist and frequent Republican-party critic Bruce Bartlett recently pointed out, “As of March 31, $452.6 billion of net stimulus funds had been disbursed in ways that show up in the national income accounts. Of this, the vast bulk, $399.7 billion, went for transfer payments. Another $9.6 billion went for subsidies and $68.1 billion for capital transfers to state and local governments. Only $37.8 billion went for consumption and $11.8 billion for investment — the only two categories of outlays that we know add to growth.”"

So, out of $452.6 billion in stimulus spending, only $47.6 billion (~10%) actually went to things that help boost economic growth and ~90% went to things that just shuffle wealth around with no impact on growth. Who benefits from that? Democratic voters, that's who. That is definitely NOT to the benefit of everyone, which is part of what Obama claims is the case when government spends.

While I haven't always agreed with Bartlett, he is spot on with this analysis.

Best part of this piece is the confirmation that government stimulus spending (if done right) can in fact boost the economy.