Try running a business in Somalia. There is no government so you should have
unlimited opportunity to prosper. Of course there is no education, so good luck
with your workforce. There is no infrastructure, so good luck moving your goods
to market. There is no court system, so good luck enforcing patents and trade
marks. For that matter, good luck keeping thieves, extortionists, arsonists,
plunderers, and kidnappers at bay. Good luck getting the U.S. State Dept. and
military to protect your capital, as they do for U.S. corporations.In short, good luck with that.
Jeez, is this really that big a deal?Again with the all or
nothing.It is a partnership. At least I hope it is, between
business and government and people.YOu can try to parse every word,
and assign your own meanings, but in the end, it is a combined effort of many
entities.Try running your business without roads and electricity.Here is a great, concise example.Las Vegas is a huge city
with many businesses making lots of money.Take away Hoover Dam and tell me
what Las Vegas would look like.Now tell me what "business"
would have built the Dam.I have see people on both sides take this
discussion to illogical extremes.The bottom line is that there are
things that the government provides that help business succeed. That
is what was meant.Quit making more of it than it is to suit your
"Hogwash" is exactly how I respond to baseless claims Mitt makes about
his expertise in job creation.Our magnificent President Obama has
done so much to correct the ugly situation brought on by Republican policies and
he absolutely deserves a second term to continue.
Mr. Myers has completely missed the point being made. Does our
economy, and therefore Myers' business, not depend on the existence of
roads, bridges and waterways?Does our society, and therefore the
quality of life Myers and his employees enjoy, not depend on police and fire
protection?Do Myers' customers, and therefore his business, not
depend on schools, sanitary water, health/safety inspectors and a justice system
to make living in this community possible?I hope Mr. Myers'
business is successful. I also hope Myers realizes that his success is also
dependent on the existence of public infrastructure and publicly funded agencies
that he and too many people are taking for granted.
I'm in favor of business, but we need government too. Government comes in
handy when, for example:1. A business hires workers educated in government
schools.2. A business licenses technology from universities funded with
federal research grants.3. A business wants to protect its patents,
trademarks or copyrights (can you imagine an information based economy
succeeding without patents and copyrights?)4. A business wants to use the
courts to collect debts or enforce contracts or stop unfair competition.5.
A business wants the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department to be
protect it from monopolistic practices by its competitors.6. A business
wants a level playing field in the marketplace for which it needs the Securities
and Exchange Commission.And when businesses fail (as they sometimes do),
government comes in handy by:7. Administering the bankruptcy of the
business.8. Under certain circumstances, guaranteeing pensions.We
all want government to be more effective, but to ignore its benefits is
ostrich-like. I'm glad we don't live as hunter-gatherers any more.
Obama was not necessarily talking about government. He referred to a teacher or
someone that had an influence. No man is an island. To say anything was 100%
original with no outside influence is patently false.
It has been interesting to read the comments on both sides of this issue. If we
leave the politics out of it - that the President is making a case for higher
taxes on the wealthy and that Governor Romney's campaign has blatantly
taken his words out of context in an effort to discredit him - then it seems to
boil down to what we are as a nation. It is interesting to note that the early
leaders of the nation were lead by two factions, the Jeffersonian wing that was
considered liberal for promoting the rights of the individual and the Adams wing
that promoted a more communitarian approach. They were considered conservative.
In the 236 that have passed things have morphed in our interpretations of those
two terms. But it seems to me that in a culture such as the one built in Utah,
the idea that the collective efforts of all have lead to the general benefit of
society as a whole was practiced early on and still exists today. We are a
nation of people, not just a group of individuals. And until we accept that
concept our progress will be hindered.
God. You forgot God made everything and is a government in himself with
commandments laws and regulations. He made it all, so you could hunt
down those berries and claim you did it all on your own.He created
the constitution and thus the government of the USA so we could make roads......
ect and then you could claim you did it all on your own. Oh, look at you, all
grown up. I'd like to see you floating in space and claiming you did it all
on your own.
Another letter showing that people either don't get it, or they
deliberately choose to misrepresent and distort. Which is it?
Apparently this letter writer doesn't feel like the government's heavy
investment for the invention of the Internet did not help Google, Amazon, or
The proof is in the pudding. Shut up all of us "pro government"
types by telling us of one country with a weak federal government that is
prospering.Somalia, Afganistan, and Mexico, have weak or non-existant
governments, and they're sure doing great.
Really, people? How many times are we going to read essentially the same letter
which essentially agrees with what Obama said but the author is completely
unaware because said author has failed to do any research on the (completely
taken out of context) quote to which the letter refers?We get it.
We know that you do not really read the paper to which you are writing and that
you will blindly follow Romney no matter what he says or does. We also know
that it really isn't Romney you are blindly following but the (R) after his
name.Good for you! You are a mindless voter and proud of it!But do we really need an accurate statewide count? Do we really need a
"new" letter every day about this issue? Is there really nothing else
Obama has said and done that is worth writing a letter to the paper?Come on - and least be creative and write something new! This letter is based
on lie - the next one doesn't have to be any more truthful! Just please,
cover a different topic already!
No one is suggesting we dismantle the government but considering the fact that
all tyranny comes from governments, the power we allow our government to have
over our lives is crucial. Dictatorship or personal freedom is the choice and we
are moving fast toward a dictatorship in America by an expanding, intrusive, and
very expensive government!
Roland is right, we could not operate in an environment such as exists in
Somalia.But the argument made by many that the government is the
benevolen creator of all good and in its infinite wisdom has bestowed wealth on
us all is also flawed. That idea leads to the approach taken by BO
and many of his ilk that since under the current system some have flourished and
some have floundered, wealth MUST be taken from the prosperous and given to the
flounderer to correct some flaw in the system. That approach is wrong.BO's approach ignores the effort, ingenuity, risk taking, effort, and yes
- in many cases luck - of the flourisher. Because IF all is made possible SOLEY
because of the government, ALL would flourish and none would flounder.No, we should strive for equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
"No one is suggesting we dismantle the government"Unless you
consider the FDA or the EPA or the NEA or FEMA or the , uh, what was that next
one? Oops.Maybe they are not suggesting that we dismantle the WHOLE
government, but certainly some.And, lastly, Why is no one suggesting
we dismantle the government?Could it be that it does some things
that we need?
Somalia has no strong government? Baloney, they have a strong socialist
government! So much for that lame arguement!
lost in DC,"government is the benevolen [sic] creator of all
good and in its infinite wisdom has bestowed wealth on us all..."I know absolutely no one that believes this. Our president and his party do
not believe this. Is your political foe the Boogyman?
JoeBlow is spot on.It is a partnership between people and businesses
and their govt. The govt. in this case specifically formed and financed by the
people and their businesses to help with the things markets cannot or will not
do.In the old days, a town sheriff or school was often financed by
the local business community. Certain really big projects (damns, highways,
etc.) are beyond the kind of investment paybacks that businesses need. Govt.
does these better. Does the govt. do them all directly? Nope. It often hires
contractors to do the actual work. Govt. is, in that sense, a financing
mechanism for extremely large projects where the payback is diffuse.Overall, it is simply not all or nothing. Do we feel the need to trim back
our govt.? Great. Do we feel that there is something it should do it is not
doing? Fine. These are the discussions free people should have in a free
society.But all of this all or nothing stuff is nonsense. Govt. is
neither all good nor all bad. It is simply the collective will of the people to
do certain things. That will is expressed via the ballot box.
>MountanmanSomalia has a strong socialist government? What
you're referring to, I believe, is the former Somali Democratic Republic,
today known as the Somali Republic. They are, as you say, socialist. They also
control almost none of the country. They control a small part of the capital,
Mogadishu, and that's all. The Transitional Federal Government controls a
small part as well. So does the self-governing northwest region called
Puntland. 90% of the country isn't under the control of any government at
all. So, sorry, Roland's right on this issue.
@Mountanman"Somalia has no strong government? Baloney, they have
a strong socialist government! So much for that lame arguement!"I know this letter is about the United States, but I can't let a
bold-face ignorant statement like yours go unchallenged. According to the CIA
Worldfact website:"Somalia has lacked any internationally
recognized central government since the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991.
The current Transitional Federal Government is the seventeenth attempt to create
a formal state, the most recent of which brought the opposition Alliance for the
Reliberation of Somalia into the government in February 2009. The country is
currently controlled by various political and regional factions as well as local
warlords in the south and in two "republics" in the north."I know many people who have served as peacekeepers in Somalia and their
experience dictates far different than a strong socialist government. Their
government is "survival of the fittest" in the most extreme sense of the
That's right Brian, you were just dropped out of the sky just as you are
and did it all by yourself. I'll bet mommy and daddy appreciate your
attitude. By the way, how about a refunded the government subsidies for your
The purpose of the US government is to protect its citizen's rights to
life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism can by government-free
if, and only if, it doesn't infringe on a citizen's rights.
Government by the people should be involved whenever there is the violation of
citizen's rights such as theft of property, fraud, or exploitation;
otherwise, you end up with the pirate's version of capitalism aptly
summarized by Captain Sparrow, "A man can do, whatever a man can do."The debate isn't about business. It is really about public goods
and services. For example, mobility is considered a citizen's right in the
US, so the ability to cross State lines or even just the ability to drive around
necessitates public goods and services like roads, traffic rules, and police.
Sure, I think capitalism could provide similar goods and services, but because
of the Great Depression and now the Great Recession, we start never-ending
government public projects and have grown accustomed to being taxed for them.
"From the first time a hunter traded part of his kill for berries from the
gatherer, buisness has been conducted without the help of government"And I'm sure the hunter/gatherer society would flourish under the
complete lack of government influence. However, the rise of agrerian societies
happened about the same time as the start of government. Industrial societies
have never existed without government.The two need to work together
if we want to stay out of the stone age.
Let's make this simple and bring common sense. There has to be the correct
balance between business and government. The letter about Somalia is right on
the money. Without any government, no business rather than what described above
(one based on stealing, kidnapping, violence, extortion) can exist. However,
government can go too far and strangle business with too many regulations. The
Hoover Dam construction shows a good balance as does the 1-15 construction
generally. Monies came from government to fund these projects but they were
actually built by private enterprise. Business with proper government oversight
work best. There is a danger when the government controls everything. Think of
Chernobyl. There was nothing to protect the citizens of the Ukraine region from
the Soviet government if they wanted to cut corners and show no regard for their
people. But if the plant was privately own but had some amount of government
oversight, then that is a better situation. Also, obviously government should
provide basic infrastructure (and I would say providing good quality schools is
infrastructure) and do some amount of regulation to protect fair competition and
consumers and settle disputes. But government can go too far too. BALANCE!
Obama's mistake is to think that most people think like he does. He thinks
that because he never had to work a day in his life, that nobody else should
have to. He thinks that because he was educated at the expense of others, that
everybody should be educated at the expense of others. He thinks that because
he didn't build the roads, the schools, the infrastructure that makes
things easier, that nobody paid for them. He can't comprehend the sacrifice
required from taxpayers who paid for those things AFTER they worked at a job
that created a profit that the government took from them in taxes to pay for
that infrastructure AFTER the government took the lion's share to pay for
pork-barrel projects for Congress.Obama doesn't get it. Those
who parrot for him don't get it. Those who allow him to take credit when
he has done nothing to EARN that credit, don't get it.America
was built by the hard work of the individual, not by the "hardly
working" government. Hard working Americans paid the taxes that paid for
everything that is part of our infrastructure.
mountman:Understand that I am not a liberal but you are wrong on
Somalia. What exists in Somalia is as pretty close to anarchy as one can get.
Most of the country is "controlled" by warlords who have their minions
drive around in jeep like vehicles with guns mounted to intimidate the people.
The small amount of "government" that exists is around the capital and
might call itself socialist. We could, conservative and liberal alike, could
even hope for that government to become stronger and actually take control of
the country and help end the mindless violence that grips this country. Because
even the seas around the country are not safe because these thugs often board
ships in acts of piracy, not the cute cuddly pirates we think of in Johnny Depp
movies. Somalia is a mess and because no real organized government exists
beyond small regions of the capital, no business will flourish. Again, balance
between the right amount of government and private enterprise is needed.
According to Mr Richards, Obama "never had to work a day in his
life"That may be news to many. Lets see- Graduated
Columbia University and Harvard Law School- President of Harvard Law
Review.- worked as a community organizer before earning a law degree- civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law -- 6 years in
Illinois senate- 4 years US SenateCare to list your work and
life experience so we can compare?
How many of you who are posting actually own a business? Why not? The government
is the same for you as it is for Larry Miller.The fact is that it
takes a special individual with a willingness to take risks, make sacrifices,
spend countless hours, etc to create a business. THAT is the point.The government is just one of the conditions businessmen need to consider.
Businesses were in operation before our revolutionary war. They were created by
men like Franklin who were willing to put all on the line with the expectation
of being rewarded for their efforts. There were few roads and little education
yet there were still people creating businesses.There are also
businesses in Somalia.The government's role in creating
business is vastly overrated. However, the government's role in hindering
business is even more underrated. High taxes and over-regulation are just two
government influences driving jobs overseas. The businessmen I know would love
to keep jobs here but they just can't afford to do it and stay competitive.
It's greedy government, not greedy businessmen, that is the problem.
This debate is really funny. The liberals all believe that it is because of
government that businesses survive or can even be built. I believe that it is
because of businesses that government can succeed.Think of it this
way. When a home developer builds a new sub-division, it is the privately owned
utility companies that run the utility lines, the developer and private
companies that pay for the roads to be built, and pays for all of initial build
up of the infrastructure. The government is only able to increase their tax
revenues after the resource is developed.Public schools were a
result of manufacturers growing and concentrating a labor force into a small
area. Since there were so many people congregated and kids running free, they
had to contain them using tax dollars generated by business.The
government's primary purpose is supposed to be an arbitrator and enforcer
of uniform rules. Businesses created the government to enforce the rules, but
the government thinks it knows more than those who created it.
Joeblow,There is no history of a Harvard University. Since the
government didn't build it, it doesn't exist. John Harvard, the
minister who left half his estate and his entire library to found that school is
just a figment of your imagination. Since Obama didn't create it, it
doesn't exist.Since King George II founded Columbia by royal
charter, it, too, does not exist. No foreign government ever created anything
of value for America. Just ask Obama. If it wasn't his idea, it
doesn't exist.Of course you would admire the Community
Organizer in Chief. He was so very successful getting thousands of unregistered
voters to the polls. His chief accomplishment as community organizer was
getting people to squat in our city parks for months on end because they, like
him, didn't know how to work after being "educated".You
stated that he taught Constitutional Law. Whose Constitution? Surely not the
Constitution of the United States which he reviles every day of his presidency
as he refuses to enforce the laws - even after taking an oath before God and man
that he would FAITHFULLY discharge the duties of his office.
>Redshirt"liberals all believe that it is because of government
that businesses survive or can even be built."You actually don't
know what liberals believe, but that's not it. We believe that business
and government can and should work together productively.>Mike
RichardsYou have the most astonishing ability to read the mind of
President Obama. "Obama believes" is, I think, your favorite phrase.
But you don't actually know what he believes at all. You're just
making it all up. Based on, I suppose, your own ideology. Instead of
going on and on about how "Obama believes it's okay to torture
kittens," why don't you cite some specific policy of his that you
disagree with, and tell us what specifically you propose instead?
@Mountanman"No one is suggesting we dismantle the government but
considering the fact that all tyranny comes from governments"Tyranny comes from power sources. It's not necessarily just governments.
Consider corporations that run sweatshops overseas, or the working conditions
plenty of workers in this country faced 100+ years ago. Heck, consider slavery.
Right now .0006% of Americans have paid 80% of the campaign
contributions to superpacs. We have elections that, quite possibly, can be
bought, and I'm sure those big donors are looking for something in
@Redshirt"The liberals all believe that it is because of government
that businesses survive or can even be built."Not at all, we
believe that government can create an environment that helps make it easier for
businesses to survive or be built. The business building is still started by the
entrepreneur and sustained through consumer purchasing of goods and services. In
the end it's consumers who keep the business alive and fuel job growth
since hiring is a means of last resort for businesses since I mean, let's
be reasonable, why would a business hire a person unless they needed another
Mr Richards,I completely understand. I would not have
wanted to compare my work experience to Obamas either.Especially if
I had made the statement that you did.You really had no other option
than to dodge.
To "Eric Samuelsen" and "atl134" do we take Obama at his word?
Or is he being deceitful when he needs to be. Remember recently Obama when
discussing businesses, said "If you've got a business, you didn't
build that. Somebody else made that happen." Since then it has only been
made worse as Obama spokesmen have said that he was referring to infrastructure,
and how government made it possible for businesses to succeed.Thanks
to both of you for reinforcing my point. From Eric's collectivism outlook,
where no individual can be successful on their own, to "atl134"
admitting that it is because of government that we have the environment needed
for businesses to grow.It isn't because of anything that
government does that businesses grow. It is in spite of government that
Question: If Barack Obama was not the current President of the United States
and object of Republican "vilification by any means", would Mitt Romney
be the presumptive Republican candidate for President?Answer:
No!Question: Will conservative evangelical and Tea Party
Republicans continue to support Mitt Romney if he is elected President.Answer: No!Question: Why do conservative evangelical and Tea
Party Republicans support Mitt Romney if they don't really like him?Answer: Because he isn't Barack Obama! And they've been
taught that Obama is "foreign".Question: So if anyone (i.e.
Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann) had been nominated as the Republican candidate
regardless of qualifications, would conservative evangelical and Tea Party
Republicans vote for that person?Answer: Yes. Question:
So why didn't another candidate become the nominee if conservative
evangelical and Tea Party Republicans don't really like Mitt Romney?Answer: Because he had more money! And since he is one of them, the
Money Men will receive a big payoff if Romney is elected. Since social issues
disappear after the election, they don't worry about conservative
evangelical and Tea Party Republicans having any influence in what Romney would
do if elected.
Isn't it interesting how the liberals smother Obama with kisses, even while
they claim that Romney's action at Bain Capital killed people? If there is one thing that can be absolutely fact-checked, it is that
Obama's actions in the White House cost Brian Terry his life and that NO
ONE lost their life because of Mitt Romney at Bain Capital.Look at
the attacks that Obama and his friends are making against Mitt Romney. What
kind of person would make those kinds of attacks? A desperate man who has
failed at everything that he has ever attempted, that's who. Everything
that Obama has touched has failed.There is no "partnership"
between business and government, unless you call "forced participation"
a partnership. Business can get along just fine without government, but
government can't get along without business. Government needs millions of
people to feed it. It's appetite for money is insatiable. Obama knows
that the only way he can keep from being fed to that beast is to feed everyone
else to the beast first.That's his "noble" plan. He
wants to be the last one to be eaten.
Redshirt,In every community in which I have lived, the business
community is extremely active in political issues. Though I am no historian, it
is my understanding that this has (more or less) always been so. That business
folks were very interested in forming townships and cities. For the formation
of territories and then states.If govt. was not important to them,
why invest so much of their time and energy into creating them? Surely it is
because they saw stable govt. as important for their businesses to flourish and
for their families, customers, and workers.Those of us who are LDS
have scriptural backing that our constitution (which creates the federal govt.)
was established by God and "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto
this very purpose".Hence, govt. itself cannot be evil. It can
only become perverted from its true course (an issue you have addressed
frequently).Therefore, govt. is not in and of itself bad nor is it a
hindrance to business. It MAY be that our current govt. has become a problem
(or not). But that is far different from stating that business grows in spite
of govt. You know better, right?
Let's hear it for government! I remember my history well. When the
pioneers entered the valley, were they greeted by government officials who
warmly welcomed them? Did they see streets paved with gold, homes and business
just waiting for them to take occupancy? Were there dams and reservoirs filled,
just waiting for them to turn on the spigot? Were there schools and factories
waiting to teach their children and give them jobs?Oh right,
that's the way that Obama tells it.What really happened?Who built the roads? Who dug the ditches?Who
planted the fields?Who taught the children?Who built the
factories?It is surely a different world from what Obama has told
us, isn't it? There was only opportunity - far from the
despots who let the mobs rape and murder the Mormons in Illinois and Missouri.
No government helped. In fact, the government did everything that it could to
destroy Utah and to shackle the people of Deseret so that they could NOT
succeed.That's what Obama wants to do to everyone. As long as
people pretend that he knows anything about governing, they will prolong the
agony for us all.
HaHaHaHa wheeee! Now that is the funniest letter to the editor since
the last one I read by a conservative! Too funny. Business exists in spite of
government. Okay, if that's the case, then tomorrow we will get
rid of all funding for roads. Poof. . . gone. Tomorrow. All road
crews can go home. All traffic cops, your service is no longer needed. All
stoplights will no longer be turned on. Just that one small part of government
gone. Poof. . . tomorrow. Let's see how your business does the
day after tomorrow. Maybe you can go back to trading berries.
If you read some of Steven Pinker's work you'll see that the hunter
gatherer period of human excistence was actually increadibly violent as tribes
fought each other constantly over territory. Pretty much what they
have in somalia without a central government.
Of course the answer has been provided. Move to Somalia - a conservative
paradise where you will not be taxed.
"When the pioneers entered the valley, were they greeted by government
officials who warmly welcomed them?"You need a history lesson.
Who was the government for the Mormons between the 1850s and 1896
(when Utah was finally admitted as a state into the USA)? Mormon
settlers quickly set up a government as Brigham Young was set up as governor
over the Utah territory. Mayors, bishops, and other governing bodies were set
up. Who dug ditches, built infrastructure, and educated? The Utah
government of course. It operated as a theocracy. Education? Believe it or not,
Utah communities set those up as well. So there goes your argument.
Private farmers didn't do everything in Utah.
@lost in DC:"Roland is right, we could not operate in an
environment such as exists in Somalia."If you and Roland think
that Somalia doesn't have a government you are grossly misinformed. There
is a government... a strong socialistic government run essentially by a
dominating and powerful religion. The government is so large and all powerful
that it has killed all creativity and incentive.Unfortunately, with
the current White House occupant, we are creeping steadily toward a government
not unlike Somalia. And he's seems proud of it with statements like
'you didn't build that.'
@The Real Maverick:"Who dug ditches, built infrastructure, and
educated? The Utah government of course... Education? Believe it or not, Utah
communities set those up as well."I think you'll find that
a church did most of it... under the tutelage of Brigham Young who just happened
to be governor AND a significant church leader.
wrz:I am going to suggest you go and google somalia. Real easy.
Then look at the wikipedia section on Somalia. Go to paragraph 4 and there is a
nice description on the government situation of Somalia. Further down there are
some nice sections on the civil war and what is going on in Somalia since 2000
and even more recently. To save you the trouble, the country is a mess. It is
divided into several warring and rival factions. No central government exists.
There is everything from sharia law to socialism to just plain chaos. There is also a real interesting movie call "Black Hawk Down." It was
set in 1991 when basically the central government of Somalia went belly up and
President Clinton set in troops to help restore order or whatever. It
didn't go well. But to say Somalia has some strong centralized government
would be false. Is it as chaotic as 1991? Maybe not as some warlords have more
control over their areas than others. I'm not sure a lot of Americans are
jumping at the chance to set up McDonald franchises. I wouldn't ride
around in a boat offshore either...
You need only to look at Asia where historically and even currently those
countries with the strongest economies are one with exceptionally strong and
orderderly governments. Indeed under the British influence both Hong Kong and
Singapore have flourished.
WRZ and MountanmanReference Somalia. The following is from the CIA
World Fact Book:Government type: no permanent national government;
transitional, parliamentary federal governmentConstitution: none in
force note: a Transitional Federal Charter was established in February 2004 and
is expected to serve as the basis for a future constitution in SomaliaGovernment - note: although a transitional government was created in 2004,
other regional and local governing bodies continue to exist and control various
regions of the country, including the self-declared Republic of Somaliland in
northwestern Somalia and the semi-autonomous State of Puntland in northeastern
SomaliaSo . . . they have not yet dug themselves out of the hole
reference having a functioning govt.BTW, per capita GDP is about
$600 which puts them about 5th from the bottom (out of 194 countries).
"I think you'll find that a church did most of it... under the tutelage
of Brigham Young who just happened to be governor AND a significant church
leader."Yes, Alfred, what that is called is a theocracy, and I
believe if you look into it you will find that a theocracy is a form of
government. In fact it is a rather strong form of government. That is what the
LDS church set up in early Utah. There is absolutely no way that the settlers of
the Salt Lake Valley would have succeeded, let alone set up businesses, without
a government. Maybe part of the problem here is that people might
not understand what constitutes a government. For instance many of those who see
government as "the problem", also praise the founders, apparently
forgetting, or never knowing, that the main thing the founders did, everything
they fought for, was to establish a government. That was their entire goal. That
is ALL the Constitution does, is set up a government. It is the ONLY thing it
@Redshirt"Remember recently Obama when discussing businesses, said
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else
made that happen.""A little hard to forget considering the
daily reminders conservatives gives. "Since then it has only
been made worse as Obama spokesmen have said that he was referring to
infrastructure, and how government made it possible for businesses to
succeed."Because he was referring to infrastructure and I
don't even know what your problem is because within a week of that comment
from Obama we got this from Romney."There are a lot of people in
government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow
entrepreneurs and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and
create jobs. We all recognize that. That's an important thing.... I know
that you recognize that 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, and the police. A lot of
people help."I agree with both of them, because I'm
Nobody has taken Obama's statement out of context. The words are
absolutely plain. People try to explain what he actually ment but his words are
clear. Government never gave us anysthing. They take money from us in taxes
and then build roads etc. I have never built anything myself with out the
contribution of someone else. Someone built my home. I payed them (I am paying
them). Someone built my car and I paid them. Government built my road and I
payed them. You can quibble about when I actually paid. Obama is saying that
he wants you to show your gratitude by paying more money in taxes. Paying a
"reasonable" tax in necessary and desireable but we don't owe Obama
anything because taxes paid in the past have been used to give us a benefit.