Thread: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

First, I'll be a bit partisan and note that Obama and Romney proposed exactly the same thing with different words (NYT - Philosophic Clash...):

“The point is, that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
[...]
“I know that you recognize a lot of people helped you in that business,” Mr. Romney told them. “Perhaps the banks. Investors. There’s no question your mom and dad, your schoolteacher, the people who provide roads, the fire and police. But let me ask you this: Did you build your business? If you did, raise your hand.”

One says "x but y" and the other says "y but x". What's actually interesting is that, even if his comment has been answered page one, around post four of this thread, even if it's put back into its context and the entire speech was read, people will still see Obama's comment as being what he really meant. And as a linguist, I kind of have to agree.
As I proposed, both candidates pretty much said the same thing, "you did it but someone helped" and "someone helped but you did it". The importance of that order is an inference produced by "but", undefined at that point in speech, which what follows will help to define. So the inference the president is trying to make might be something along "you owe society something" while the inference Romney would focus on would be more like "society owes you something". It's a question of focus, as obviously it goes both ways, but that focus changes a lot in terms of policies (and by that I mean taxes).

Now, I'm actually not too sure... I mean, yes, it's out of context, and obviously the rest of the speech tells much more. But I'm willing to say this quote is still accurate enough to represent his intent, which is, in "x but y", to focus heavily on y, with due consequences. So I don't know, I wouldn't be too hasty to classify it as a new bar for speech gaffes. It's actually quite close to what he meant.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

It's really amazing how Republicans can take obvious truths (i.e. that people who are successful did not achieve their success without help) and make them controversial. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go buy something from Amazon, a business that become successful because Jeff Bezos invented the internet, computers and the electrical grid while personally writing 20 million books.

Bezos didnt build Amazon, somebody else made that happen. The Dept of Transportation came up with the idea. The dept of education designed the website. NASA put all the content on it. DHS marketed it, and Obama delivered all the items people bought.

Originally Posted by goober

read the speech, I did, there's a link in the OP

The quote is even in the OP in context



When he says " you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." he's referring to the infrastructure, not the business .
You've been punked, again

You will never convince SOME people that in actuality, their business success was NOT 100 per cent, absolutely their own work, the sweat of their brow. They would rather not give any credit to what came before them, the system, the infastructure, the schools that taught them to read, the list is quite large.

This is the nature of the human ego, and it looks to me the biggest ego lie on the right side. Meglomaniacs.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

You will never convince SOME people that in actuality, their business success was NOT 100 per cent, absolutely their own work, the sweat of their brow. They would rather not give any credit to what came before them, the system, the infastructure, the schools that taught them to read, the list is quite large.

This is the nature of the human ego, and it looks to me the biggest ego lie on the right side. Meglomaniacs.

Successful people will admit every bit of that. What the left wants is for them to pay for what they got over and over again. The producers paid for that infrastructure and those teachers. Libs want these same producers to now redistribute their wealth to others who neither paid for the infrastructure or contributed to the business.

What Obama wants people to believe is that the "little people" were not paid for their work or, since they are not as wealthy as the business owner, that they didn't get their "fair share" of his wealth. This all plays well with the wealth envy crowd.

Originally Posted by goober

read the speech, I did, there's a link in the OP

The quote is even in the OP in context



When he says " you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." he's referring to the infrastructure, not the business .
You've been punked, again

Speaking of punked, have you found this mysterious definition of "biggest" that supports your specific claim that MA is the "biggest incubator of businesses in the US"? Mind you, you said businesses, not industries.

BTW, it's OK to admit you were wrong. Everyone else already knows it, and you probably do too.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Lutherf,

thanks fer linkin' the speech, matey.

it was an interestin' read, and it kinda confirmed to me the idear that thar no liberals 'round no more. imma not sayin' that be a good or bad thing, but thats how it appears to this pirate.

on the "left" what ye have be folks who resemble President Clinton - i felt thar was a great deal 'o trianglulation goin' on.

And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.

Triangulation? You mean, change the subject. The Left hates the idea that someone, somewhere, does not need government. That is why they need to re-define what it means to be a self-made man. The new criteria is that unless you never walked on a road and changed your own diapers then it is impossible to be self-made.

As far as the change in subject, that government cannot solve every problem, no shit. The problem with Leftists is they fail to accept The Law of Identity - there are self made men AND government cannot solve every problem. To those who try to make something of themselves, they KNOW GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM, as Reagan said. To those, who want to be taken care of, sure, government cannot solve every problem.

Here's a libertarian response to Mr. Obama:

Dear Ruler:

First, let me say how thrilled I am that you went off-teleprompter last week. This “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” thing was just wonderful. Now I know how Chris Matthews felt.

Oh .. I know. Your handlers weren’t all that thrilled with your amazing screw-up, and, frankly, they have been worried this day was coming for a long time. They know how you feel about the private sector. They know of your antipathy toward free enterprise and those evil small businessmen out there who are not likely to support your move to a government centrally-controlled economy. They had hoped to keep your true feelings in check with those teleprompters … but nooooooooo … you just had to improvise, didn’t you? You just had to wander off the tightly-controlled rhetorical reservation. Well, thank you. You certainly didn’t gain any significant voter support with that asinine utterance, but you most certainly did lose some.

Now we’re having fun watching and listening to your sycophants trying to defend your “somebody else made that happen” line. Somehow they have to make your blunder sound marginally reasonable. Apparently they’ve had a meeting somewhere, because they’re all running with pretty much the same message. It was the government that built the roads those trucks travel on to bring stuff to your business for you to sell. It was the government that built those utility systems that keep your offices cool and the water clean. They really love that quote from Henry Ford about not being able to build his cars if the government had not built those roads.

Well guess what, Dear Ruler. We built that stuff too. Not government --- the private sector – America’s evil private businesses.

Get in Marine One, Obama, and fly off to visit a road construction project. Look at those graders, rollers and the machines that lay the asphalt. See those logos on the doors? Those logos are for private construction firms. Those workers in yellow vests? Their paychecks and benefits are coming from private businesses – many of them the very small businesses you want to hit with tax increases.

Next you can fly off to take a look at a utility project somewhere. Maybe you can find a sewer line being laid, or some electrical transmission lines being strung. Again – those are private companies doing that work with private sector workers.

You see, there’s a document out there that, frankly, I doubt you have ever read. It’s called The Declaration of Independence. I’m sure there’s a copy around your office somewhere. But I do want to save you a bit of trouble here -- knowing you busy you are fundamentally transforming American and all -- so I’ll provide you with a little excerpt from that document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

There! Do you see that? That government you’re so enamored of … that government you credit with Americas greatness … well, to paraphrase one of our presidents, “You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” That’s right, Dear Ruler, somebody else made that government happen .. and that somebody else is US. The government is OURS. We built it. We hire the people to run it. We have regular meetings every two years or so to decide whether we want to keep those managers or get rid of them to find better talent. Those roads .. our national infrastructure? We HIRED the government to build those things for us, just as we hire contractors to build our business locations and to design and manufacture the equipment we will use in the course of our businesses. We created this government – the government did not create us – and we contract with this government to do things for us on a grand scale because we recognize the inefficiencies of trying to do those things for ourselves. Government is just another contractor we hire to get our private business done.

But hold on a minute, Ruler Obama. There’s something else I want you to read before you put this letter down. You see, I didn’t include the whole quote from The Declaration of Independence above. I left something off … and here it is …

---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m of the opinion that when our elected leaders become so enamored of themselves, and of the government we have hired them to manage, they become a grave danger to those unalienable rights set forth in The Declaration – you know, the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration says we may “pursue” happiness. It does not guarantee it. You and the party you represent seem to think that happiness is a right, and have created a government that has now become destructive of the very ends it was designed to support.

There’s more than one way to alter or abolish at government, Ruler Obama. We’ll give one of them a good old college try in November.

Again .. thanks for your incursion into extemporaneous speech. We’ve learned a lot from and about you in the last week.

With all DUE Respect.

Neal Boortz.

Hey ... Obama. We Built That Stuff Too | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com

Originally Posted by Oreo

Bull-Shit Obama just lashed out at business in this country AGAIN--and Romney caught him on it. Romney never defended Obama's statement--in fact he is out there making fun of it right now.

I never said he "defended" Obama's undeniably true statement that everybody succeeds with help, I said he "unwittingly conceded" his point. (The fact that Romney is arguing both sides of an issue is, I'm sure you'd agree, part of Romney's M.O.) What I am specifically referring to is this statement by Romney:

I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad, your school teachers, the people that provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help.

I fail to see the substantive difference between that statement and Obama's statement:

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.

So like I said, Romney unwittingly conceded the point.

You have elected the most anti-business administration in the United States--a President who has never owned or operated his own business--one that has never gotten his hands dirty--one that has never worked a single day in his life in the private sector. Obama is nothing more than a Harvard educated--community organizer MORON. Your Wonder Boy President can't even accept his own failures without blaming anyone
and everything else.

Leaving aside your hyperbole, you have your facts wrong. Obama has indeed worked in the private sector as a lawyer for four years. And it is unclear why not owning his own business proves he is "anti-business." Moreover, the idea that being president is like running a business is patently absurd, and not just because of the disastrous track record of the The Bush/Cheney "CEO Presidency," but because the two entities are nothing alike. America is not a giant corporation and Bain wasn't a tiny Constitutional Republic and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Bezos didnt build Amazon, somebody else made that happen. The Dept of Transportation came up with the idea. The dept of education designed the website. NASA put all the content on it. DHS marketed it, and Obama delivered all the items people bought.

This represents a basic misunderstanding of Obama's point. He was not saying (selective editing notwithstanding) that people don't get credit for what they've done; merely that they could not have possibly done it alone.

I am a huge fan of Amazon, but obviously, Jeff Bezos relied on the internet (which was made possible by the government), his packages are delivered on roads (made possible by the government), etc. Everyone who succeeds does so because of help, both public and private. I honestly do not see why people are so resistant to this unquestionably true idea.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

This represents a basic misunderstanding of Obama's point. He was not saying (selective editing notwithstanding) that people don't get credit for what they've done; merely that they could not have possibly done it alone.

I am a huge fan of Amazon, but obviously, Jeff Bezos relied on the internet (which was made possible by the government), his packages are delivered on roads (made possible by the government), etc. Everyone who succeeds does so because of help, both public and private. I honestly do not see why people are so resistant to this unquestionably true idea.

Because its the other way around. Govt wouldnt exist without individual work.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Because its the other way around. Govt wouldnt exist without individual work.

Actually it works both ways. Individuals make the government and the government has been put into the position to do things to help business.

But, if we could do without one, which would it be?

Considering what our pioneers did as we moved west I believe we can do without the government easier. I suspect there might even come a time when government may pass away. Such a think could happen if a cataclysmic situation occurred. People would survive, create trade (even if only barter) and they could start all over. Kinda a horse before the cart thingy.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

This represents a basic misunderstanding of Obama's point. He was not saying (selective editing notwithstanding) that people don't get credit for what they've done; merely that they could not have possibly done it alone.

I am a huge fan of Amazon, but obviously, Jeff Bezos relied on the internet (which was made possible by the government), his packages are delivered on roads (made possible by the government), etc. Everyone who succeeds does so because of help, both public and private. I honestly do not see why people are so resistant to this unquestionably true idea.

All true. However, Amazon pays massive taxes to cover those costs. It's the contention of the libs that since Amazon's deliveries are made on public roads that the public in general should share Amazon's wealth via confiscation and redistribution.

Originally Posted by Vuld Edone

First, I'll be a bit partisan and note that Obama and Romney proposed exactly the same thing with different words (NYT - Philosophic Clash...):
One says "x but y" and the other says "y but x". What's actually interesting is that, even if his comment has been answered page one, around post four of this thread, even if it's put back into its context and the entire speech was read, people will still see Obama's comment as being what he really meant. And as a linguist, I kind of have to agree.
As I proposed, both candidates pretty much said the same thing, "you did it but someone helped" and "someone helped but you did it". The importance of that order is an inference produced by "but", undefined at that point in speech, which what follows will help to define. So the inference the president is trying to make might be something along "you owe society something" while the inference Romney would focus on would be more like "society owes you something". It's a question of focus, as obviously it goes both ways, but that focus changes a lot in terms of policies (and by that I mean taxes).

Now, I'm actually not too sure... I mean, yes, it's out of context, and obviously the rest of the speech tells much more. But I'm willing to say this quote is still accurate enough to represent his intent, which is, in "x but y", to focus heavily on y, with due consequences. So I don't know, I wouldn't be too hasty to classify it as a new bar for speech gaffes. It's actually quite close to what he meant.

Obama didn't say that.