You didn't build that

[Abrupt]

I am curious how most people view what Obama said in his now well quoted speech.  Here is the particular area that got him into trouble and started the controversy:


"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.

"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."


Now I suspect that confirmation bias will play a large role in how one views what he meant (after the controversy of the quote and the debate about the meaning and not during the speech as those do not have to be the same nor did it even have to be considered during the speech).  Personally I view this as a "you are not special or exceptional and everyone gets a trophy" speech.  I see it as a "you owe the government and society for any achievements you made" speech.  I see it as a "anybody else would have done just as well as you in your shoes" speech.  I do not like the ideology and actions of this President, though, and am biased against him.  How do others view what he meant?  Does anyone actually think the infamous "you didn't build that" really applies to "roads and bridges" as is now being suggested by those that favor his policies (they would have had a better argument by going with 'American system' if you ask me).  The Obama administration has walked it back at least two times that I know of already and I think they made it worse with the walk-backs.  Many have stated that "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" is out of context, but when you add in the entire section it is even worse for him if you ask me.  Anyways I just noticed the topic had not been brought up and wondered how people saw it and to what degree confirmation bias likely plays into this.

[tzs]

Your initial step to be successfull really is your choice, but of course other factors and people are involved who are catalysts to make it happen.

[sigmapi1501]

Interest free government loans play no part in many successful businesses?

[Abrupt]

Interest free government loans play no part in many successful businesses?

There are a lot of ways to respond to that.  I could be antagonistic and simply say "Solyndra".  I could point out that the money for these 'government' loans/grants comes from the taxpayers who predominately are the successful business that are so often demonized these days.

I think the best way to respond is to say that these opportunities exist equally for everyone with only the exceptional capable of distinguishing themselves through such usage.  If the differentiation is made that these successful people are the norm then that means that everyone else is then a 'failure'.  I suspect that most successful business (particularly small businesses) get the bulk of their capital from personal resources and private loans and investors.  I find it difficult to locate any compiled data indicating a general idea of the overall picture though.

A clearer picture could be made with an analogy of a foot race.  Who does the person that wins the race owe their success to?  What if they ran on a track that was built and maintained by the federal government?  What if the federal government loaned them all the money to purchase the shoes they ran with?  If the crowd rooted louder for one particular competitor than the other, does that matter?  It seems to me that when all things are considered the success ends up entirely upon the individual that actually trained/competed/won the race and even if someone believed in them and encouraged them along the way it was only because they demonstrated qualities and an attitude that was indicative of success.  The more I explore the questions, the more clear it appears to me that with all other things being seemingly equal that success ultimately rests with the individual.

[vickysue]

I know a lot of small business owners and in talking too them, not one of them ever had a govt. loan. I don't blame them. Have you seen the paper work that goes with one. They want to pry into your life. If you can't make it without the govt. help maybe you should be in another line of work. If it isn't broke don't let the govt. get into it with you because then it will break. Just my thoughts folks.

[sigmapi1501]

Interest free government loans play no part in many successful businesses?

There are a lot of ways to respond to that.  I could be antagonistic and simply say "Solyndra".  I could point out that the money for these 'government' loans/grants comes from the taxpayers who predominately are the successful business that are so often demonized these days.

I think the best way to respond is to say that these opportunities exist equally for everyone with only the exceptional capable of distinguishing themselves through such usage.  If the differentiation is made that these successful people are the norm then that means that everyone else is then a 'failure'.  I suspect that most successful business (particularly small businesses) get the bulk of their capital from personal resources and private loans and investors.  I find it difficult to locate any compiled data indicating a general idea of the overall picture though.

A clearer picture could be made with an analogy of a foot race.  Who does the person that wins the race owe their success to?  What if they ran on a track that was built and maintained by the federal government?  What if the federal government loaned them all the money to purchase the shoes they ran with?  If the crowd rooted louder for one particular competitor than the other, does that matter?  It seems to me that when all things are considered the success ends up entirely upon the individual that actually trained/competed/won the race and even if someone believed in them and encouraged them along the way it was only because they demonstrated qualities and an attitude that was indicative of success.  The more I explore the questions, the more clear it appears to me that with all other things being seemingly equal that success ultimately rests with the individual.

Interesting... So you're saying someone who wins a foot race did it alone?  Hmmm, me thinks you might be wrong:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/565491/romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own/?mobile=nc

[Abrupt]

Interesting... So you're saying someone who wins a foot race did it alone?  Hmmm, me thinks you might be wrong:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/565491/romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own/?mobile=nc

Yes I do.  I am aware of the link you posted and I actually anticipated that someone would bring that up here since it is among the talking points of the left.  The reason most are aware of that is because of the gaffe that Obama made by revealing himself and the research they put to try and counter that.  This was the best they could come up with since their attempts at a walk-back have failed.  I disagree with Romney as much as Obama on the statements.  The two, while similar in some areas are not quite the same.  Romney says to also cheer for the parents, coaches, and communities whereas Obama says you couldn't have done it on your own.  Romney wants to share credit with the people and Obama give credit to the government.  One uplifts others and the other puts down those that achieve -- while both mediate the success they are not all that similar when you break it down.  One extends and the other apportions.

[sigmapi1501]

Interesting... So you're saying someone who wins a foot race did it alone?  Hmmm, me thinks you might be wrong:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/565491/romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own/?mobile=nc

Yes I do.  I am aware of the link you posted and I actually anticipated that someone would bring that up here since it is among the talking points of the left.  The reason most are aware of that is because of the gaffe that Obama made by revealing himself and the research they put to try and counter that.  This was the best they could come up with since their attempts at a walk-back have failed.  I disagree with Romney as much as Obama on the statements.  The two, while similar in some areas are not quite the same.  Romney says to also cheer for the parents, coaches, and communities whereas Obama says you couldn't have done it on your own.  Romney wants to share credit with the people and Obama give credit to the government.  One uplifts others and the other puts down those that achieve -- while both mediate the success they are not all that similar when you break it down.  One extends and the other apportions.

No. I LOL'ed at your "best they could come up with" throw away. I think they did pretty well considering they got the Opponent saying almost the exact same thing.

Obama doesn't want to give all the credit to the government.  He praises the entrepreneurial spirit of those who started the business. He also says that the government helps those people out. And it does. 

You can't just dismiss something because it is adverse to your idea. People with successful businesses DO use roads, bridges and infrastructure.  This is very, very important and not just a "yea, so what"

Show me that a majority of businesses have succeeded with out the aid of government subsidy, use of interstates, use of paved roads, use of the public school system, and no customers, and I will gladly agree with your position on this.

[Abrupt]

Interesting... So you're saying someone who wins a foot race did it alone?  Hmmm, me thinks you might be wrong:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/565491/romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own/?mobile=nc

Yes I do.  I am aware of the link you posted and I actually anticipated that someone would bring that up here since it is among the talking points of the left.  The reason most are aware of that is because of the gaffe that Obama made by revealing himself and the research they put to try and counter that.  This was the best they could come up with since their attempts at a walk-back have failed.  I disagree with Romney as much as Obama on the statements.  The two, while similar in some areas are not quite the same.  Romney says to also cheer for the parents, coaches, and communities whereas Obama says you couldn't have done it on your own.  Romney wants to share credit with the people and Obama give credit to the government.  One uplifts others and the other puts down those that achieve -- while both mediate the success they are not all that similar when you break it down.  One extends and the other apportions.

No. I LOL'ed at your "best they could come up with" throw away. I think they did pretty well considering they got the Opponent saying almost the exact same thing.

Obama doesn't want to give all the credit to the government.  He praises the entrepreneurial spirit of those who started the business. He also says that the government helps those people out. And it does. 

You can't just dismiss something because it is adverse to your idea. People with successful businesses DO use roads, bridges and infrastructure.  This is very, very important and not just a "yea, so what"

Show me that a majority of businesses have succeeded with out the aid of government subsidy, use of interstates, use of paved roads, use of the public school system, and no customers, and I will gladly agree with your position on this.

Obama does want to give most, if not all of the credit to the government, just as you also did here.  Both of you seem to be under some illusion that these people had to have the government in order to succeed.  You totally implied that in your last sentence.

I can and do dismiss the idea as it is entirely moot.  People with unsuccessful business or no business at all also use roads, bridges and infrastructure.  The important thing would be to mention that these successful business pay for these roads and bridges and infrastructure and that the government doesn't since it doesn't generate its own money.  These successful people would succeed without these roads, bridges and infrastructure as they are successful people driven with purpose.  In order for your statement to have any relevance, everyone that ever used a road, bridge or infrastructure would have to be successful -- and we know that is not the case.  Granted these things might make certain commerce more attractive or lucrative in certain areas but they are not pertinent to success -- and again these business pay for them so it most definitely becomes a "so what".

Talk about moving the goal post lol.  You mean that the only way I can be right is to show you a company that succeeds with "no customers"?  So you are saying that if a business has customers that it automatically means that the government was responsible or that the business had help?  I know you are not saying that "because people use a product that it means the company owes it success to them" as that would be insane (because a successful company makes a product that the people want and not that people buy products they don't want just to keep a company in business).  I mean, if I turned your argument around you would have to show me how the majority of people who live in a place with interstates, paved roads and public school systems have a successful business (and yes it would have to be a majority of people and not a majority of business).

[sigmapi1501]

No. No. They would not succeed without infrastructure. I  am in no way saying that government GUARANTEES a successful business. But no use of government be it, a road, railway, interstate, internet, public school, subsidy, can all but guarantee a failed business.

Your argument that some businesses fail with government assistance so that means government doesn't help is full of holes. The logic is null. You don't believe that is a valid connection, do you??

[Abrupt]

No. No. They would not succeed without infrastructure. I  am in no way saying that government GUARANTEES a successful business. But no use of government be it, a road, railway, interstate, internet, public school, subsidy, can all but guarantee a failed business.

Your argument that some businesses fail with government assistance so that means government doesn't help is full of holes. The logic is null. You don't believe that is a valid connection, do you??

Roads, railways, interstates, internet, public schools, subsidies, etc are paid for by the success of people and cannot be used as a debt against them.  These things were built with the money of successful people.  Even if you were simple enough to imagine that the successful businesses owed their success to these things you come back circular to the source of these things -- which is successful people.  Your argument then becomes "people owe their success to successful people".  When considering that first, in order to construct these things, money was required we see that it is actually the successful people being needed.  If their could be successful people being needed first then it is quite easy to realize they were first.

If a business fails with government assistance; if it fails in the presence of  roads, railways, interstates, internet; public schools, subsidies, etc, if it fails in these conditions then an important point is realized, and that is that these things are not what is critical to success.  They are helpful (with the possible exception of public schools) but they are not critical.  If you make a product that people want and at a price they are willing to pay and you develop a method to deliver the item or service to them they will purchase it.  You can ship it by sea on a private vessel, you can fly it in on a private plane and land on a private field, you can deliver it by horseback or run it in on foot -- it doesn't matter, if people want it they will purchase it.

You seem to have it backwards and put the cart before the horse.

[bobes915]

I'm just glad that the government is doing my fusioncash work for me.  It's like I don't even have to log on anymore. 

[BJohnsonPP]

Awe man. I was going to open a new thread regarding our last talk and it actually is along these lines. I'll still open it but this kinda steals its thunder. Anyway...

Your view of what he meant is definitely based on your bias 'cause there's no way you can get

Personally I view this as a "you are not special or exceptional and everyone gets a trophy" speech.

from what he said. He's pointing out the FACT, which is 100% correct, that talent alone doesn't mean anything with out a little help. Do you realize how many smart and talented people are out there? They don't all make it. There's a reason for that. Do you seriously think it's because they're lazy and don't try? You're telling me an amazing singer who knows no one has the same shot as an amazing singer who has a cousin that knows Barry Gordy (I don't know how relevant he still is, I just picked a name)?

Where in what he said did you get "everyone gets a trophy" other than from your own head? It's your insistence on wanting him to be whatever you want to label him so attach things to his statements that aren't there. Someone born into wealth that has great ideas has the same chances of developing those ideas as someone born into a poor family? Your circumstances combine with your individual talents (or shortcomings) to determine where you end up. This is 100% true and not hard to understand. It's honestly like you don't want to get it and therefore you just don't.

You conveniently left this out

"The point is, 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."

I see it as a "you owe the government and society for any achievements you made" speech.

Where did he say that? Where? Where did you get that other than from your own head? Seriously, where? Again, this is obviously about what you want to believe period. He's pointing out a reality that conservatives will die before admitting to.

Where did you get that from this:

"The point is, 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."

Where? Are you telling me that statement is not true? Are you willing to go that far?

I see it as a "anybody else would have done just as well as you in your shoes" speech.  I do not like the ideology and actions of this President, though, and am biased against him.  How do others view what he meant?

No, those that have the same drive, passion, initiative, and talents just might though under the same circumstances. This is exactly what he's saying here:

"I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. 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."

What about that statement is untrue? What? 

As far as him walking anything back, that's politics. It doesn't matter what you're actually saying, it matters how it's presented by those that want to attack it and perceived by those who you're presenting that skewed version to.

[queenofnines]

There's nothing wrong with what Obama said. In fact, I commend him for it. Way too many people think way too highly of themselves. We all depend on each other like cogs in a machine to keep the wheels of society running. Give credit where credit is due and show a little appreciation is all he was saying.