Politics Romney - Is he ready?

Businesses are started in a bubble but Olympic athletes need help. Ok, Mitt if you say so.

 

Romney has an ad featuring a small business owner saying he (and his father) built his business on his own.



Not mentioning the fact that he received $800,000 in state tax exempt revenue bonds and another $500,000 or so in SBA loans that were matched by the (federally funded) state trade assistance center.

 

Government taking credit for the vision, work, sacrifice and creativity of business owners. This is some kinda joke isn't it?

 

Who suggested government is "taking credit for the vision, work, sacrifice and creativity of business owners."

Certainly not Obama, unless you accept the selective editing of his remarks by the right wing talking heads and Romney campaign.

"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. (commentary: certainly state/local tax incentives, low interest SBA loans, matching state funds, etc. helped) ...​

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."​

If you actually read the full speech, you might find that Obama was simply challenging the conservative idea that wealthy and successful individuals have never benefited from government programs.

No man is an island, ace.
--- merged: Jul 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM ---
Selective editing

 

​

Simply looking at the portion above, Obama's view is off.​

​

By the time the Federal government passed the first national roads bill in 1916, Henry Ford had already sold well over a million vehicles. By the time the roads were completed millions more vehicles had been produced and sold. Here is a link to some Model T production data.​

​

Ford Sales 1908-1919​

​

It is the success of business that feeds government.​

​

As a business owner I know I owe much to those who have helped and supported me. Along the way those who have help me have been helped by me, i.e. I pay fair wages. If I get a loan from a bank, I pay interest. If I use a vehicle on a road, I pay taxes. Outside of my HS education, I pay tuition. I have no understanding of what Obama's point is, but it seems like it has to be a joke or perhaps he misspoke.​

​

I have had a few mentors who have helped me, and in return I have mentored others - simply based on the concept of giving back. During certain periods growing up if my family had to depend on the good will of others, I have always make a point of giving back many times over when I was able. I know I am not unique - if Obama's view of successful business owners is so skewed that he thinks all we want to do is count dollars his views are in fact foriegn. he need a reality check.​

 

​

​

Only if you take it out of context.

​

​

Go back further than Ford and the vision of the railroad barons who were dependent on the federal government granting of free right-of-way to build.

Or fast forward from Ford to WW II and beyond and the significant federal research program to develop synthetic rubber.

​

​

I would suggest it is a two way street.

Look at the history of federal investment in basic research across the board in all areas (science, technology, medicine,...) over the last 100+ years (more than 40% of all basic research) that led to private sector entrepreneurship to put the results of that research into manufacturing processes, consumer products, etc.

Or in the case of the NH small businessman in the Romney ad. Would he have been able to start-up or expand w/o that $1-2 million in govt loans, matching grants, etc.

 

I listened and read what he said, and his point is confusing to me. I don't argue against the point that everyone is a part of society - that is, as my friend Roach often accused me of, tautology. Is Obama saying business people are selfish and don't do their fair share in society? If that is his point he is wrong. It appears you can not clarify what he is saying.

​

​

I agree that the government from time to time has selectively done things for selected individuals and companies, i.e. picking "winners". I don't support this type of government activity. The railroads should have been required to pay fair prices for the benefits they got from railroad land acts. I also agree that some people, perhaps like Obama, got free rides while going to college, or free government money to start a business or do research - so outside of that extreme small number - everyone else had to bust their butt to get ahead.

​

​

 

See the 90+ years of federal oil subsidies chart I posted elsewhere.

As I noted, Government has bankrolled much of the basic research of the last 100+ years to the benefit of commercial development by the private sector.

I think this is critical to maintaining and/or restoring US competitiveness. In the last 10 years alone, the federal government has invested $tens of billions in nanotechnology research that will result in new and cutting edge commercial enterprises in medicine, energy, materials development, batteries...the list is endless.

Your point of Obama getting a free ride while going to college? As opposed to the $1-2 million that New Hampshire small businessman got?

 

If the money was a grant, I think government should not have given the money to the New Hampshire business person. If it was a loan, I assume the government collected fair market interest. If the point is that if not for government he could not have gotten market financing, we have to wonder why and why would the government give a loan when people in the business of assessing risks and giving loans would not.

Regarding some people getting government college aid not available to all is wrong in my view.

 

I don't know how you could get that impression from what he said. I saw a response speech from Romney, where he essentially paraphrased everything Obama said (while omitting the "You didn't build that" line) and his audience fucking loved it. There was nothing revelatory about what Obama said.

What Obama meant was that there's no such thing as a self-made individual, and this is indisputably true.

​

​

​

​

The government providing funding for R&D for technologies which private business wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole isn't picking winners. For all the hullaballoo about private industry taking over space travel, what frequently gets lost is that if not for government research into space travel, the private space travel industry would be a lot farther behind than it is today. Is government picking winners when it provides funding for basic research into medical technologies (which private business wouldn't touch)? Is it picking winners when the government then licenses that technology to the highest bidder? Or when the researchers associated with that technology license the technology and start up companies themselves?

There are probably only a handful of companies that are wealthy enough (and thus insulated enough from the stupid demands of the stupid stock market) to be able to sink a ton of money up front on long-term R&D. The idea that the current market is infallible at allocating assets towards R&D is dumb. Government, when not being run by short-sighted ideologues, is perfectly suited to fill the role that short-term-growth-driven private businesses can't.

Is overseeing and maintaining basic infrastructure "picking winners"? Is providing a system of laws and law enforcement procedures "picking winners"? Because these are things the government does which make it possible for your business to succeed as a business. These are the things you ignore when you pretend that you did it all yourself.

And I suspect that you (maybe not you, but people who think like you) don't really care about the injustice of "picking winners", because the status quo provides a pretty robust winner-picking system. One prominent beneficiary of this system is Mitt Romney, who through a combination of both hard work AND wealth AND political connections has had a very (financially) successful life.

 

I stated I am a bit confused by Obama's point, and I was asking a question. I am not clear. I too would say I had help. I too would say I did not build roads and bridges. I too would agree that I owe a debt to society. O.k., if we all agree, what was Obama's point? I believe his intent was to make a broader commentary on the current political debate involving his economic agenda. But, my belief is not important - what is important is what he was trying to accomplish with his words.

As Roach would tell me if I made that point - it is tautology.

What is government investment in R&D compared to private sector investment in R&D?
--- merged: Jul 26, 2012 at 6:48 PM ---

Society can make determinations on how they want their government to act. That as a given, if the people of the US want to tax themselves for high-risk R&D research and award grants and special research opportunities to selected individuals - I would not use the term "wrong". Personally, there are some areas where I would support this type of activity (call me hypocritical if you want - but it is as in most things a question of degree), my support would be limited relative to many others. For example, government involvement in polio research was well worth while - but government support of solar energy companies has not been worth while. What is the difference between the two? I think the differences are significant.

 

He should be in my opinion. But unfortunately, no. There's a rather large group of folks who will not vote anything but GOP. There's other groups that won't vote Obama because he's black, sad but true. There's a group who watches Fox News et el and believes the lies they spread and think Obama is a Marxists. That he's responsible for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he's completely responsible for all the current US debt... oh and he bailed out the banks. People who believe all that horse shit will never vote for Obama. Then there's the current voter suppression movement being made by the GOP. It' basic design is to keep a % of voters who normally vote Dem away from the polls. They've worked at passing these laws, surprise, surprise mainly in swing states.

Even with that working against him Obama's still leading Mitt. My guess is Obama will pull it out by a small % or the voter suppression laws in swing states will hand it to Romney. I certainly wouldn't be putting money on either candidate right now.