Does Obama actually understand business?

@Cycloptichorn,

You are equating success to money. Do you mean to do that? What about successfully taking care of your family and having food and protection?

Obviously not the American dream. Where did the Afghanistan thing come from?

You want to believe that a business can not survive without govt, I say it can. You say it won't be a giant conglomerate, internationally traded, union run shop. I agree.

You say a business does better with a strong central government, banking systems, strong infrastructure, etc. I don't disagree with you, yet you continue to argue that point.

I say that a business succeeds or fails on the backs of the owner. Not the employees, not the govt, not the banks, not the roads. Do you argue against that?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

You are equating success to money. Do you mean to do that? What about successfully taking care of your family and having food and protection?

I think both of those things are extremely difficult to do without a government in place. Certainly that hasn't historically been the case. You can take a look at our American settlers as a great example of this - they were able to expand, and to build families and start farms and such, but it was a difficult and tenuous existence until the gov't moved far enough West to start offering protection and services to the people who lived there. Lives were much shorter and much more brutal than our common standard. And even then, they had a unified system of coinage (provided by government) and national defense (provided by government) that they could call on in times of trouble.

Quote:

Obviously not the American dream. Where did the Afghanistan thing come from?

What you are describing is Afghanistan: a lawless state with no strong central government. It isn't a place where we see a lot of success.

Quote:

You want to believe that a business can not survive without govt, I say it can.

You're clearly wrong. You just don't want to admit it - or even discuss any of the details involved, because your case falls apart quickly when it is examined.

I will repeat that no modern business can survive in a government-less environment. None. I would challenge you to provide a single example of one that could.

Quote:

You say a business does better with a strong central government, banking systems, strong infrastructure, etc. I don't disagree with you, yet you continue to argue that point.

That's because this is the point Obama was making. Do you deny this? If so, point to the language he used that says differently.

Quote:

I say that a business succeeds or fails on the backs of the owner. Not the employees, not the govt, not the banks, not the roads. Do you argue against that?

Absolutely. The business fails on the backs of many of those things being missing: lack of banks, roads, and bad employees all can and do cause businesses to fail. You're totally incorrect when you assign all the credit to the owners; they are simply one piece of the puzzle.

To prove it, I will point out that I am part owner in hundreds of different corporations, through stock that I own. They aren't succeeding or failing based on anything I do. How do you reconcile this fact with your last pronouncement?

The owner simply provides capital investment and extracts a return based upon that investment. The hard work is done by everyone else involved, and yes, the government is an important component of that equation.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Ah. Thank you for identifying the bit was bothering me.

Ownership does not equate to management.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

6 Pages later, and people are still arguing over what is essentially semantics, and manipulation of a speech by the OP?

Quote:

if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.

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 you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Those seem to be the themes running through the speech, with Obama pointing out at the end what the theme of his speech was. All statements should be read in that context, including the controversial one that the OP bolded...which is out of place as a standalone sentence, but can easily be recognised as just poor wording within the overall rather consistent, and very obvious theme

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Only when the paperwork shows he/she was involved in the decision making.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I say that a business succeeds or fails on the backs of the owner. Not the employees, not the govt, not the banks, not the roads. Do you argue against that?

Absolutely. The business fails on the backs of many of those things being missing: lack of banks, roads, and bad employees all can and do cause businesses to fail. You're totally incorrect when you assign all the credit to the owners; they are simply one piece of the puzzle.

Absolutely not. You are absolutely wrong on this point. Building a business in a poor location, hiring bad employees, choosing a failure product are all square on the owners shoulders. Especially so in your typical small business.

Quote:

To prove it, I will point out that I am part owner in hundreds of different corporations, through stock that I own. They aren't succeeding or failing based on anything I do. How do you reconcile this fact with your last pronouncement?

You own stock in a corporation, not a small business. A corporation that has already become established and successful. Going to take a lot more then a careless stockholder to have any impact on an organization like that. But, how many shares of stock do you own in any small business? Go down to Dicks Carpet One & Area Rugs and ask Dick Grover if he feels responsible for the success or failure of his business.

Quote:

The owner simply provides capital investment and extracts a return based upon that investment. The hard work is done by everyone else involved, and yes, the government is an important component of that equation.

Cycloptichorn

Have you ever started a business? Ever been responsible for other peoples incomes? Ever had to do all the paperwork and jump through all the hoops required to keep a business going?

Judging by the above statement, I'd have to say that you know nothing about how business operates either.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

You own stock in a corporation, not a small business.

Now you're just quibbling.

I think it's safe to say that your argument has been proven completely wrong, and you've failed to respond meaningfully to the vast majority of complaints levied against it. When you do respond, you have resorted to narrowing the scope of your argument to try and exclude others' criticisms of it. That's not convincing.

As Vikorr pointed out, the problem you've had from the beginning - and I don't really blame you for this - is that Obama's comments were both true and uncontroversial. It's only causing you to become twisted in knots because you are being forced to defend a bad argument to begin with.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

You wrote,

Quote:

Absolutely not. You are absolutely wrong on this point. Building a business in a poor location, hiring bad employees, choosing a failure product are all square on the owners shoulders. Especially so in your typical small business.

As with most professions, not all small business owners have all the necessary skills to a) pick the right location, b) hire good employees, c) pick the right products, and/or have the correct business plan. That doesn't mean they will all fail or succeed, and it's not based on any on your list.

There are too many variables for any one person to have the necessary knowledge about business location, good employees, or choosing the right product(s). The success or failure may depend on many other variables that the business owner has no control over.

When the Great Recession hit in 2008, many good businesses went under for lack of customers. Many cities and counties went bankrupt for lack of a tax base.

It seems you're about as clueless about "responsibility" as everybody else.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quibbling? Laughing

You have yet to prove anything wrong until you stretch the point from what I say until it fits your argument.

I do not see many heads of corporations being outraged about Obama's comments, but I see thousands of small business owners bitching about it.

If Obama's comments were both true and "uncontroversial" me and half of America wouldn't be going on about it. You find it that way because you agree with Obama and do not see his comments as insulting to you. But, you have never been in a situation where you would find the comments to be insulting and have no experience to speak from in regards to starting, running, maintaining and succeeding at a small business.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

but I see thousands of small business owners bitching about it.

No, you don't. You see lots of right-wing commentators online bitching about it. Few of them are actually 'small business' owners.

Quote:

If Obama's comments were both true and "uncontroversial" me and half of America wouldn't be going on about it.

Now, THAT'S funny! You're going on about it because you are desperate to find a club to whack the man with, because he's beating your candidate in the polls and is the favorite to win this Fall - if something doesn't change. Which is exactly what you are trying to do. It's entirely predictable and has nothing to do with truth or lies or whatever.

I'm sure you feel the same way when my team asks about Romney's tax returns and questions his claims about the time he worked at Bain.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Obama's speech has a hint of controversy, but only to those who have an agenda to fixate on one (obviously) poorly worded part...to the exclusion of the obvious meaning when considered in the context of the whole speech.

Luckily, being Australian, I don't have political biases regarding US politics...I still haven't worked out the difference between Democrat, and Republican

So, at the end of the day...when I consider his speech for what it is - I consider it's intended message, to be very obvious, and uncontroversial.

Quote:

If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

we succeed because of our individual initiative

These two statements obviously disagree with each other...but within the whole context, the intended message is clear.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Luckily, being Australian, I don't have political biases regarding US politics...

You are a truely unique Australian.

2 Replies

@roger,

That's for dang sure!

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Obama's speech has a hint of controversy, but only to those who have an agenda to fixate on one (obviously) poorly worded part...to the exclusion of the obvious meaning when considered in the context of the whole speech.

Luckily, being Australian, I don't have political biases regarding US politics...I still haven't worked out the difference between Democrat, and Republican

So, at the end of the day...when I consider his speech for what it is - I consider it's intended message, to be very obvious, and uncontroversial.

Quote:
If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

we succeed because of our individual initiative
These two statements obviously disagree with each other...but within the whole context, the intended message is clear.

The controversy extends beyond that sentence.
Full Transcript of Obama's speech

Quote:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not a deficit reduction plan. That’s a deficit expansion plan.

I’ve got a different idea. I do believe we can cut -- we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. (Applause.) Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, government can’t solve every problem. If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them. Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them. (Applause.)

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m 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. (Applause.)

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 you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

I have bolded the parts I take exception to.

Yeah, there are a lot of smart people out there, but why discount the person taking all the risks to make a successful business? Yeah, there are a lot of hard working people out there, but why discount the hard work successful business owners have put into making a go of it?
Not all of the smart, hardworking people even try to create a business. A lot of them go into politics and never work for themselves. Instead, they have only ever known the paycheck that the taxpayers provide for them. They have never had to worry about where the next months rent is going to come from or how they are going make the next months payroll or how they will get through the next govt inspection.

Since when does govt make millionaires? Good to know.

Obama gives WAY too much credit to others for personal success and drive. Not everyone is capable of running a small business and far more fail then succeed. All those failures have the same access to public utilities, infrastructure etc. So why is it that so many businesses fail? Then, once a company succeeds and grows and gives back, Obama just wants more.

3 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

You are a truely unique Australian.

I'm talking about your inter party politics, and your domestic politics. Most Australians are in the same boat - we have no idea what your political parties stand for, and your domestic issues are for you to sort out, though sometimes they are interesting.

On the subject of international policies of the US, that's a different story - and it's not about which particular party is in power at any one time - just about what is done.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

You're still attempting to take individual sentences out of context.

For example, the statement 'we created a lot of millionaires', in the context of the whole speech means 'the American System / Society / Economy'...the speech is talking about inclusiveness, and co-operation, and the interconnectedness of society financially.

Quote:

Yeah, there are a lot of hard working people out there, but why discount the hard work successful business owners have put into making a go of it?

He hasn't discounted hard working successful business owners - you only get this impression if you remove specific phrases from the context of the whole.

His overall context seems to be summarised in his line :

Quote:

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

That concept crops up again and again throughout the speech.

You do notice that he acknowledges individual business owners initiative, executives initiative...in fact the initiative of any financially successful person? And then says - and without the systems in place (contributed to by many other people) this would not be possible. That is entirely true. It's an essential cornerstone of cities, and of advanced economies.

The point of him mentioning smart, and hard working people appears to be that there are plenty of smart people who aren't financially successful, just as there are many hard working people that aren't financially successful, so these qualities aren't what made you rich...he is right, other qualities also are needed for success (within the system), though I don't think that the point he was trying to convey.

Quote:

Then, once a company succeeds and grows and gives back, Obama just wants more.

So this was a speech to increase tax against companies taxes? I thought it might have been. That would explain why the speech has generated the response it has...because people likely to be affected by such would be trying to pick any hole it the speech they can...so there is an emotional reason to take phrases in the speech out of context.

The speech is fine, and doesn't denigrate business owners contributions - it just mostly focuses on the fact that society provides the platform from which their initiative creates wealth for them - which is quite correct.

That doesn't necessarily = an automatic right to increase company tax, nor does it mean it shouldn't be adjusted.

The arguments for such are of a different nature.

It is right in saying that business owners should recognise the contribution of societies systems to their wealth, and provide support for those systems.

What is equitable support, and what is is sound support are what can be debated.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Simply put, without the existence of our educational system that used to be affordable for most families; that and the whole infrastructure in this country provided the opportunity to succeed economically.

With the Great Recession and the shifting of wealth to the top ten percent has made it more difficult to achieve "success" whether as owner of a business or as a well educated college grad.

Opportunities are still available, but they are much harder to achieve. Even banks are stricter in providing business loans.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, I have noticed that about the US. I've noticed it happening in Australia too...though it seems Australia is around 15 years behind the US regarding this (just a personal opinion regarding time frames)

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I say that a business succeeds or fails on the backs of the owner. Not the employees, not the govt, not the banks, not the roads. Do you argue against that?

Absolutely. The business fails on the backs of many of those things being missing: lack of banks, roads, and bad employees all can and do cause businesses to fail. You're totally incorrect when you assign all the credit to the owners; they are simply one piece of the puzzle.

Absolutely not. You are absolutely wrong on this point. Building a business in a poor location, hiring bad employees, choosing a failure product are all square on the owners shoulders. Especially so in your typical small business.

If there is no government, no law and order, then there are no good locations. There are no good employees.

This fact is so fundamental, I'm baffled by why you continue to argue against it, except for the fact that you're desperate to put Obama in a bad light.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

You have a problem with the statement that you, personally, did not build the roads and bridges? That you, personally, did not pay for it all on your own?

0 Replies

Does Obama actually understand business?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know