Businesses don't create jobs?

[davekc]

And people want this lady for president. Really?

Hillary Clinton backpedals on job creation remark - CNN.com

Yep, "You didn't build that". Right out of the same playbook.

 

[cheri1122]

Yep, right out of the same playbook: taken out of context, made to look as if it meant something else.
Obama's "You didn't build that" remark was preceded by the line "Somebody invested in roads and bridges" but that gets left out, and changes the meaning entirely.
Now, Clinton is making the point that what creates jobs is demand - if it doesn't exist, neither do the jobs to fill it.
How many new jobs did Bush's tax cuts create?

 

[Turtle]

Sorry Cheri. Hillary's had to backpedal like crazy over what she said, because what she said was in the exact same context as Obama's retarded statement, yet both believe firmly in what they've said. Obama's statement within the context of who built the roads and bridges is the sane context s Hillary's statement... that businesses don't create jobs, the same people who built the road and bridges create jobs - the government creates them. It's got nothing to do with demand, and both statements are incredibly stupid and incredibly arrogant. They're saying "we the government, not businesses, create jobs for you."

 

[skyraider]

I think the Benghazi babe should go home, see her new grandchild, make cookies and change diapers for about 10 more years....OB can do the laundry for them...

 

[davekc]

Without business, government won't have the money for those roads and bridges. The idea that the government is the job creator is pretty arrogant no matter how they try to spin it.
As to whether Bush taxes cuts created jobs, it depends on your source. Republicans say 8.1 million and the democrats say zero. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle depending on what you are looking at. This is one of those you can arrive at different conclusions based on the formula used to arrive at the answer.

 

[Turtle]

The idea that the government is the job creator is pretty arrogant no matter how they try to spin it.

Look, 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.

There's just no way to spin that to make it sound good. So how did the left try and spin it? They didn't. They ignored it and tried to deflect everything to Romney by digging up a "similar" quote of Romney to US Olympians from 10 years earlier where he said...

"For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!"

As if to make the equivalency of the builder of roads and bridges using taxpayer money to creating jobs, to that of parents, coaches and communities to creating Olympians. Lame, dear left, lame. That's lame by political hack standards. Scientists today stand upon the shoulder of giants, but that doesn't mean the government invented gravity, and that's exactly what Obama and Hillary means when they say the government creates jobs.

 

[davekc]

It is amazing where they get the thinking that they do. You are right, I forgot all about the whole Romney thing going on at the time. I did give Obama a pass back then because he knows virtually nothing about how businesses operate.

 

[Turtle]

It's the attempt, because they likely really believe it, to make people believe without government you'd be nothing, you need the government, the government is your primary provider of everything you have and could possibly want.

The use of roads and bridges as the shining example of this is particularly retarded, since throughout all of history all trade routes have been build by business, driven by commerce.

 

[davekc]

It's the attempt, because they likely really believe it, to make people believe without government you'd be nothing, you need the government, the government is your primary provider of everything you have and could possibly want.

The use of roads and bridges as the shining example of this is particularly retarded, since throughout all of history all trade routes have been build by business, driven by commerce.

Without a doubt. I do think they really believe that. That is why they have so much problem governing. Sadly, some fall for it hook line and sinker.
Business can survive with minimal government. The same can't be said for the government.

 

[cheri1122]

Did you guys listen to that speech, or just read it? Because if you heard it, you can tell that Obama wasn't talking about government, but taxpayers. The context was the Republican drumbeat of 'tax cuts', and the jobs they'd create with them [except they didn't].
I think Obama was right to remind them that there's a great deal that they take for granted, forgetting that taxes paid for the 'amenities' they enjoy in the US - not the least of which is the legal system.
Taxpayers just like you and me have invested in the US, and even though we're getting really squeezed by rising costs & flat income, it isn't us who is complaining about it, it's the Chamber of Commerce, and the Koch Brothers. That's how income inequality got to the horrendous point it's at now, and it's scary. When there's no middle class left, then what?

 

[Turtle]

Yes, I've watched video (and audio) of the entire speech, more than once. I know exactly in what context he made the speech, and know exactly what he was talking about. What he said, and meant, is that the socialist acts of others for the greater good makes is possible for you to be in business at all and to hire people, that you were able to build your business solely because "somebody else made that happen." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now, even when you bring up income inequality and the Koch Brothers.

 

[Unclebob]

Yes, I've watched video (and audio) of the entire speech, more than once. I know exactly in what context he made the speech, and know exactly what he was talking about. What he said, and meant, is that the socialist acts of others for the greater good makes is possible for you to be in business at all and to hire people, that you were able to build your business solely because "somebody else made that happen." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now, even when you bring up income inequality and the Koch Brothers.

If your view that the "socialist acts" such as building roads, providing police protection, providing public transportation, trying to maintain the infrastructure, providing education for the masses, etc. have no bearing on a business being able to succeed it would stand to reason that ANY business person in America could go to a third world country and succeed.

There are certain American business people that would be successful no matter where they were. But they are the exception not the rule.

America is not perfect but it provides a better chance for success than just about any other place I can think of. And EVERYONE plays a role. Yes, even the welfare mother who enables the local grocery store owner to stay in business.

 

[Turtle]

No, it is not my view that the above list has "no bearing" on a business being able to succeed, but it is my view to not lose the view of where that money chiefly comes from to pay for the things on that list, namely, business and commerce. The exception on the list is education for the masses, since that happens at the local level more efficiently and successfully when government is not even involved. People will educate their children with or without a government. The roads and infrastructure, that is directly driven by business and commerce. Without business and commerce, none of that is necessary, and before the government got involved in building roads (1891, actually) all of the roads and bridges necessary for business were built by the merchants who needed the roads to be built, just like driving force to build the railroads and the shipping canals. The largest agitator for quality rural roads was agriculture, and to link rural communities with the cities in commerce. (The bicycle enthusiasts (the League of American Wheelmen) jumped on board and lobbied heavily to local governments for good roads with the Good Roads Movement in order to not be cast aside in favor of horse drawn carriages. And that's why today bicyclists are accorded more or less equal rights with other users of highways and streets.)

And no, the welfare mother does not play a role by keeping the local grocery store in business, the people who fund the welfare mother are the ones keeping the local grocery store in business.

 

[davekc]

If your view that the "socialist acts" such as building roads, providing police protection, providing public transportation, trying to maintain the infrastructure, providing education for the masses, etc. have no bearing on a business being able to succeed it would stand to reason that ANY business person in America could go to a third world country and succeed.

There are certain American business people that would be successful no matter where they were. But they are the exception not the rule.

America is not perfect but it provides a better chance for success than just about any other place I can think of. And EVERYONE plays a role. Yes, even the welfare mother who enables the local grocery store owner to stay in business.

Saying that business wouldn't succeed without government would be a socialist concept. Turtle is correct, roads prior to government involvement has been completed by private industry. Without the taxes of those companies now, you would have a problem maintaining any of them.
As for the welfare mother, if she is drawing off the taxpayer, she isn't contributing anything. That grocery store, other businesses and neighbors are footing the bill for her.

 

[Unclebob]

So you must believe that an American business person can succeed in any third world country since they will just build their own roads, hire private police forces and do everything on their own.
I reject your reality and substitute my own!

 

[cheri1122]

Yes, I've watched video (and audio) of the entire speech, more than once. I know exactly in what context he made the speech, and know exactly what he was talking about. What he said, and meant, is that the socialist acts of others for the greater good makes is possible for you to be in business at all and to hire people, that you were able to build your business solely because "somebody else made that happen." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now, even when you bring up income inequality and the Koch Brothers.

I guess we disagree, then. What I heard Obama say was in the vein of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech - basically, a reminder that patriotism requires more than a flag pin on the lapel, and a successful business required at least some support from taxpayers. The kind they have become so used to, they don't even think about it anymore.
He made the speech because businesses were making a lot of noise about tax cuts, calling themselves "job creators". ['Jobs' had become a hot topic, on account of there being too few left after outsourcing, mergers, layoffs, etc, that contributed to the ever growing profits of businesses, and the growing misery of the unemployed.]
And job creators they are, but [and it's a critical 'but'], only when demand justifies it. No business creates jobs for the good of anyone other than the business, but they sound like they feel entitled to be applauded for it. Or rewarded, for doing what they would do anyhow, like build a new plant, or move their headquarters. Oh wait: they already are being rewarded ['incented'] to do those things! But enough is never enough: they want tax cuts, too, and they're perfectly okay with budget cuts to balance them - because nothing they care about is affected.
There is already talk about removing the spending caps placed on the Defense Dept in the last budget showdown.

 

[davekc]

So you must believe that an American business person can succeed in any third world country since they will just build their own roads, hire private police forces and do everything on their own.
I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Sure. Happens all the time. Just have to know your market. How Big Companies Thrive In The Third World (COKE,PEP,AAPL)
Business will continue to thrive there because there is less regulation and labor is considerably cheaper.
Substituting "your reality" doesn't change the actual facts.

 

[Unclebob]

Sure. Happens all the time. Just have to know your market. How Big Companies Thrive In The Third World (COKE,PEP,AAPL)

Business will continue to thrive there because there is less regulation and labor is considerably cheaper.

Substituting "your reality" doesn't change the actual facts.

Sure a large multi national company can go into a third world company and take advantage of the situation.
But you're not going to see very many local entrepreneur succeeding like they would in America.

 

[davekc]

Sure you do. They are the fastest growing economies. Just for the reason I stated. Small and large alike. Less regulation and labor is cheaper. Much easier to launch a business there than it is here.

 

[Turtle]

I guess we disagree, then. What I heard Obama say was in the vein of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech - basically, a reminder that patriotism requires more than a flag pin on the lapel, and a successful business required at least some support from taxpayers. The kind they have become so used to, they don't even think about it anymore.

Yeah, taxpayers who get their money from jobs they have at businesses, and the business owners who already pay the highest corporate tax in the world. And Obama wants them to pay more, because, you know, it's patriotic.

And job creators they are, but [and it's a critical 'but'], only when demand justifies it. No business creates jobs for the good of anyone other than the business, but they sound like they feel entitled to be applauded for it.

That statement certainly clears up why you think Obama meant something other than what he conveyed, and why you seem to be just as disconnected from what small business are all about as Obama is.

Quite apart from whatever taxes they pay, small-business owners are part of the very fabric of their communities. Someone has to run the pharmacy. Someone has to run the gas stations. Local businesses don’t send their profits back to some far off corporate land. The restaurant owner gets his produce and meat from local stores, the mechanic hires a local painter to spruce up his shop. They are the ones who not only give money to the athletic and band booster clubs and the PTA, but show up to help out at fundraisers. And if that teacher who helped them with their math homework stops by, the owner gives her a free oil change or an extra slice of pie for dessert.

The president’s comment implies, explicitly, that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look utterly clueless of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. <snort> Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Nope. They feel entitled to it. Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation? Nope. Politicians don't care. An neither do their supporters.