Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'

[C.Puffs]

Are the companies that weren't started by couple people? They all are.

Many are conglomerations who's "founder" is debatable. Who founded Lockheed Martin? No single person did because one group founded Lockheed way back in the day and another Martin. How about Northrop Grumman? Same thing. General Dynamics?

[Mackie]

Was it started by a couple people? (I think that's the criteria here.)

Started by a man that would be called socialist by people like you.

[C.Puffs]

Started by a man that would be called socialist by people like you.

If the shoe fits. . .

[Nyusu]

Many are conglomerations who's "founder" is debatable. Who founded Lockheed Martin? No single person did because one group founded Lockheed way back in the day and another Martin. How about Northrop Grumman? Same thing. General Dynamics?

Conglomerations arent new "founded" companies. They just unite several other - and they were founded by single or few persons.

[C.Puffs]

Conglomerations arent new "founded" companies. They just unite several other - and they were founded by single or few persons.

Exactly. But the united company itself wasn't founded by a single person.

[Nyusu]

Exactly. But the united company itself wasn't founded by a single person.

Well, ye. Btw. - what does it have to do with the topic?

[C.Puffs]

Well, ye. Btw. - what does it have to do with the topic?

Read post #28.

[muck]

Are the companies that weren't started by couple people? They all are. And that not what Obama was talking about. He was talking about that this couple of people did receive education and used state infrastructure, etc. to become successful.

So fricking what. Do they employ people, thus allowing them to make a living? Do they pay their taxes? If yes, they don't owe shit to the government.

[Nyusu]

So fricking what. Do they employ people, thus allowing them to make a living? Do they pay their taxes? If yes, they don't owe shit to the government.

You know that he was talking about not prolonging Bushs tax cuts, dont you? So its all about the taxes. Obama was describing his opinion on why they pay taxes in first place.

[muck]

"Not affordable" would be a better argument than this sort of quixotic talk.

[DS73]

All this companies listed employ around 190.000 people and fill most of the "business" papers headlines these days.
The company I work for employs 303.000 people and is never mentioned.

No offense. Just something, I notice these days.

Common, Siemens rather regularly appears in niews. Like here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16166354

US authorities have charged eight former executives at German industrial giant Siemens in connection with a $100m (£64m) foreign bribery scheme.

or like here:
http://www.cbn.co.za/dailynews/6060.html

The department of Labour has lost R1.9 billion because of a mismanaged IT contract with Siemens.

or like here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...24-711707.html

FRANKFURT (Dow Jones)--Siemens AG (SI) will slash 490 jobs at German transformer factories by the end of 2014 due to falling prices and overcapacity, Siemens energy spokesman Torsten Wolf told Dow Jones Newswires Thursday.

[DS73]

You know that he was talking about not prolonging Bushs tax cuts, dont you? So its all about the taxes. Obama was describing his opinion on why they pay taxes in first place.

He separates "successful" people from the rest and implies that "successes" should be shared. it's not a bad thing by itself, and in times of troubles it is a common solution, but normal politicians go to these succesful people and ask for help or for more active "participation in state life". Separating "us" and "them" and claiming that "them" should give more is a socialistic thing. No matter how you turn it around.
Sha-a-a-ring.

[Ought Six]

He separates "successful" people from the rest and implies that "successes" should be shared. it's not a bad thing by itself, and in times of troubles it is a common solution, but normal politicians go to these succesful people and ask for help or for more active "participation in state life". Separating "us" and "them" and claiming that "them" should give more is a socialistic thing. No matter how you turn it around.
Sha-a-a-ring.

Sharing is voluntary charity. 'Redistribution of wealth' is armed robbery by the state.

[shermbodius]

Obama= foot in mouth.

[IconOfEvi]

We all know that sherm DID build his hog barbequing grill, and his beer holding lawn mower

Well at least tacked on certain elements