You didn't build that

[TracyCoxx]

Obama lets his true feelings show about entrepreneurs in America

That right... extend the recession with your policies, propose a tax increase on the drivers of the economy, and then insult them by telling them they didn't build their businesses. Steve Wozniak, you didn't build that Apple computer in your garage.

Any time in the past this would be the death knell for his 2nd term, as would his policies. But his policy of trickle down poverty is not just incompetence. There's an actual alterior motive there. Increase the number of people on unemployment, the number of people on food stamps, the number of people who don't pay taxes to a certain critical mass and you will have complete victory over republicans. You'll have created a large population that needs the government and is large enough to demand that the rich pay to support them.

Obama says businesses use the roads and bridges tax payers paid for. Why do we even have roads? Because Henry Ford invented the automobile. The government may have invented the internet... let's be specific - the military invented the internet... but it was private industry that brought out its potential and expanded it. Wherever the government builds infrastructure that's paid by tax payers. Tax payers who pay tax for income they receive from their employers.

Obama has no love for American businesses and he has successfully grown our welfare population to the point where he doesn't feel he has to hide that fact anymore.

[GRH]

Yawn...

Could Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or any other entrepreneur built their empire without:

1. Roads, bridges, railways, and other forms of public infrastructure that is used to ship the PC's, iPads, X-Boxes, iPods, etc. to market?

2. An educated workforce of software engineers, chip designers, etc. Would the access to such an educated workforce be possible without public primary schools, universities, etc. And if the educational infrastructure was in place, would Apple or Microsoft have had as large of a talent pool to draw on, had said talent pool not had access to student loans, Pell grants, etc. that helped them attain the education that Microsoft/et al. ended up needing?

3. A legal system that is designed to protect the intellectual property involved in designing said tech gadgets? Currently, Samsung has an injunction against selling one its Galaxy tablets because of the violation of Apple patents. In the absence of such civil protections, Jobs or Gates may have had a great idea, only to have it stolen out from under them.

4. A secure political sphere in which to build a business? When the tech giants built their empires in Cupertino, Silicon Valley, etc. they probably weren't overtly concerned about hostile invasion by a foreign military presence because of the existence of the world's strongest military.

This is just scratching the surface, but the point remains the same. Jobs, Gates, or any other businessman may be the ingenuity and drive behind the success of their respective business. They DID build that. But without the common good-- the roads, universities, student loans, legal protections, etc.-- all their good ideas and ingenuity wouldn't have gone nearly as far. And to be fair-- Microsoft and Apple did NOT build that. They may have helped (through taxes), and it is the existence of such developed infrastructure that in my mind serves as the primary justification for taxing corporations.

Too many corporations want to operate in America and benefit from all of the common good infrastructure that I've just referenced-- but they scream hell when it comes time to pay for such infrastructure. I tell you what...If corporate taxes are so onerous...I've got a suggestion for your business. Move your corporate headquarters to Sudan. I hear Sudan has a pretty lax corporate tax environment. Granted, you probably won't have very good electrical or water utilities to run to your business. And the road/bridge infrastructure probably leaves a lot to be desired. Nevermind that legal protections are non-existent-- especially for a foreign corporation. It's also probably a safe bet to say that you're not going to have a very large graduating class of software engineers every summer-- so you may have difficulty recruiting educated talent to your firm. And it's probably just a small fly-in-the-ointment that civil war could break out at any time and lead to massive destruction. But at least the taxes are low!

As usual Tracy, you present a false dichotomy. Yes, tax revenue is derived from the income that is generated by private sector employment...But I see this as sort of a chicken vs. egg argument. Which comes first? Does business employment follow the development of infrastructure? Or does infrastructure follow the emerging needs of business? I'd argue that both statements may be true to some extent...Thus neutralizing the whole chicken/egg dilemma. I don't know why I bothered wasting 5 minutes of my life replying to you-- because it's not like we're changing each other's minds.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

Yawn...

I don't know why I bothered wasting 5 minutes of my life replying to you-- because it's not like we're changing each other's minds.

Oh, GRH, you took the bait. I was busy writing that this is asinine drivel, and I was wishing the few on this site who will join TracyCoxx's circle jerk a happy "orgasm."

The notion that Obama represents anything but a wing of the ruling rich is absurb in every way.

Now, let's allow this TracyCoxx to die on the vine, as it should.

Originally Posted by GRH

Yawn...

Could Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or any other entrepreneur built their empire without:

You are right, GRH, you are essentially wasting your time if you are only replying to Tracy Coxx. But I want to thank you for what is an excellent post on the relationship between ?free enterprise? and government infrastructure. Personally I think you should publish what you wrote in the New York Times or other major paper. Very well said.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Jobs, Gates, or any other businessman may be the ingenuity and drive behind the success of their respective business. They DID build that. But without the common good-- the roads, universities, student loans, legal protections, etc.-- all their good ideas and ingenuity wouldn't have gone nearly as far.

Yes, private industry benefits from the infrastructures in our country that our capitalist economy enabled us to afford. But in this economy, what was Obama's purpose for making these statements? It sure wasn't meant to encourage the American spirit to persevere and drive us out of this recession. More like incite class warfare... again, and put entrepreneurs in their place. What's more is his comments seem to completely discount the possibility of someone creating something on their own. Does he really not believe that can happen? What did Obama hope to achieve with these comments?

[tslust]

It is true that roads, bridges, railroads, phone lines, water lines, gas lines, all go to help a budding buisness flurish. However there would be no need for the infrastructure if there was no buisness in the first place. Trust me, I've driven across enough gravel county roads to no that the government (Federal or State) doesn't simply lay down four lane black-tops just to be nice. This amounts to not much more than did the chicken (government infrastructure) or the egg (the buisness) come first. In this case, there would be no chicken without the egg.

[smc]

The lack of seriousness underlying the initial post and the entire right-wing "talking point" about Obama's speech is an embarrassment. We can have a serious discussion about whether government should be reduced to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub (to use the illustrious Grover Norquist's formulation), and we can have a serious discussion about whether we should leave the creation of shared public infrastructure completely to the private sector to create, but why anyone would engage beyond an initial post to point out how asinine this manipulation of a speech really is boggles the mind. It is just so much mental masturbation.

Anyone can make anything sound however they want. Politicians do it all the time, both Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't make it correct. And the bullshit smears the person who manipulates the speech more than anyone else.

I'm glad we can't smell you, TracyCoxx.

[ila]

The attached picture is the way many people interpret what Obama said. I found it at this site, but I have also seen it on tv.

More along the same theme can be found here.

[Heather11]

Obama has no love for American businesses and he has successfully grown our welfare population to the point where he doesn't feel he has to hide that fact anymore.