Obama says business success takes a village. But d

[teflep]

In case you missed it over the weekend, President Obama said the following about entrepreneurs: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Now I am the first to say that entrepreneurs do not build a business alone. They need help from employees, customers, investors, suppliers, family members, and the broader community.

That being said, entrepreneurs are the ones who take the risk to launch the business. They are the ones who do not get paid if money is tight. They are the ones who personally guarantee the business’s loans.


RELATED: Unemployment rate: How many Americans are really unemployed?

NFIB President and CEO Dan Danner nailed it today when he said, “His unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs. “I’m sure every small-business owner who took a second mortgage on their home, maxed out their credit cards or borrowed money from their own retirement savings to start their business disagrees strongly with President Obama’s claim.”

Entrepreneurs do not owe any of their success to what politicians do in Washington. They do not owe their good fortune to government.

It is the government that owes its successes to the entrepreneurs who built our once mighty economy through the pursuit of free enterprise.

Amy Payne at the Foundry put it this way: “The slap in the face to hard-working Americans conveyed Obama’s belief that it takes a village—a heavily subsidized village—to create that venture you’re profiting from.”


RELATED: Unemployment rate: How many Americans are really unemployed?


The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on www.drjeffcornwall.com.
www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Entrepreneurial-Mind/2012/0717/Obama-says-business-success-takes-a-village.-But-do-owners-agree?cmpid=addthis_email#.UAbOmYDj7sU.email

[eliseb0323]

There's a speechwriter out there who should be fired. I get what Obama was trying to say, and it was a good theme. But it was horribly executed.

[lys]

I think Obama was off script when he said that --- and showing what he really believes, just as he did with Joe the Plumber. He believes in Gov't and not private enterprise.

Obama - Shovel ready jobs? Oops, guess there were none. (gov't tax dollars gone where?) Solyndra, Light Squared etc - oops again, and again, and again --- with gov't money (well really OUR tax dollars.)

Private enterprise - my dollar, my loss or gain. My business - so get your nose out of it ad get out of my way.

[downtoearth]

Obama's message was so poorly made with that comment - if only he could have just said, "it takes a village to help an entrepeneur to build a business - even government can help." It would have been so much better.

Mittens jumped on that one already, but did you hear about Mittens' own campaign making posters for his rally that attacked this point and then handed them out so Mitt could comment on the posters? (NPR this morning - can't find a link)

Is that normal for the campaign team to give the audience posters for discussion points?

[lys]

There are "plants" of all kinds in campaigs - verbal, signs, and questions. Nothing new. (And watch the media to see how they use the same talking points, almost word for word. That is not just coincidence.)

[cookiemdough]

Context always helps...

"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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Unless the business owner is in the business of building roads and bridges, is what he said incorrect?

[cookiemdough]

Jul 19, 2012 7:46:24 GMT -5 lys said:

I think Obama was off script when he said that --- and showing what he really believes, just as he did with Joe the Plumber. He believes in Gov't and not private enterprise.

Obama - Shovel ready jobs? Oops, guess there were none. (gov't tax dollars gone where?) Solyndra, Light Squared etc - oops again, and again, and again --- with gov't money (well really OUR tax dollars.)

Private enterprise - my dollar, my loss or gain. My business - so get your nose out of it ad get out of my way.

So why the constant whining about tax cuts for small businesses?

[charminglife]

Jul 19, 2012 8:15:28 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

;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 alone. Somebody else helped you to made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Add in the bolded and I'm fine with what he's saying - sounds like he's trying the Elizabeth Warren pitch. But as he said it, yeah, I understand why people are upset.

[julief]

I didn't like it the first time a few months ago when Elizabeth Warren said it, and I don't like it now. It's very telling that the mainstream media is aglow with reports that Bain attacks are working, that the Obama team is finding its voice with the "class warfare" argument, then you see a CBS poll where Romney's leading 47-46, Obama has miserable numbers on the economy, only 41% approval on foreign policy. www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57475178-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-in-presidential-race/

Another poll has it tightening in NM to the point where if Martinez would've been picked for VP it would've narrowed to one point. roundhouseroundup.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-slipping-in-nm.html?spref=fb

This was a tone-deaf statement but an absolute truthful articulation of what Obama thinks. It reads the same within the context. This comment should go in a political ad along with other gems like "the private sector's doing fine." I think Romney's on to something with his talk of the jobs council not meeting. It's a powerful argument that Obama was too late focusing on the economy because he wanted his new entitlement, the ACA, passed.

Again, I believe that comment is an absolute truthful articulation of what Obama really thinks. Individuals can do nothing without the help of the government... which I might add is not an entity of its own doing good in the world but only works as a result of taxpayer funding, a majority of whom are the job creators and wealth-producers.

This argument is only powerful if you are struggling and want to believe that no one can do it on their own because to believe otherwise is to admit that you are lacking and others made superior life choices, have superior creativity, have more business acumen, etc. He's creating a straw man argument where government helps people succeed but has no accountability for people's failure.

[julief]

I concur with lys that this is kinda like the "spreading the wealth around" comment in 2008. It will have more resonance because it's a tight race that could go either way.

[MrsDL]

Jul 19, 2012 8:15:28 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Context always helps...

"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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Unless the business owner is in the business of building roads and bridges, is what he said incorrect.

I know what you're saying Cookie, and I actually quasi-defended Obama to another conservative friend because I don't like when anything is completely taken out of context.

That said, I find the comment interesting and I have seen some outrageous reactions (like the nutty lady on youtube defending the statement and bashing business owners by saying "you built a business, good for you! But WE paid for roads and bridges, and the teachers used to educate people you hire" (I need to find a link to the video)

Yes - we ALL need infrastructure, good teachers, etc. - things paid for with our tax dollars. However, that's a constant for all of us. We all use those things. It's not like successful people are getting free roads and teachers paid for by everyone else but them - right? So even though I know what Obama was saying, he was also saying that those who have been successful owe more to the rest of society because of these things. I do have a problem with that - because it's a poor argument. It's one thing if the rich/business owners didn't financially contribute to these things - but they do. The crazy woman in her rant - WE paid for teachers so you can hire people. WTW? Isn't that what we want?

We need rich people to pay more (at some point anyway) simply because they have more. It's not fair, but it's the reality. However, it is not because these people don't pay their fair share. The fair share thing is just meant to divide - and with purpose.

Obama wants to keep the risk in business privatized, but, based on this statement, wants the rewards to be socialized. The government, on the other hand, has the opposite approach in it's examples of "crony capitalism" - it has shown that, for the most part, it has no problem socializing the risk, but the rewards are then mostly privatized. How do you recover jobs and strengthen the economy when you rely on private business but you have this philosophy? More and more voters are thinking - you can't.

[julief]

"Obama wants to keep the risk in business privatized, but, based on this statement, wants the rewards to be socialized. The government, on the other hand, has the opposite approach in it's examples of "crony capitalism" - it has shown that, for the most part, it has no problem socializing the risk, but the rewards are then mostly privatized. How do you recover jobs and strengthen the economy when you rely on private business but you have this philosophy? More and more voters are thinking - you can't."

Great point. Thanks a lot for articulating what I was thinking----way better than I could. :-)

[pamela]

It's the line of "Somebody else made that happen". Different that just saying "you can't do it alone".

I totally disagree with his theme because it's sounds like he's trying to push that you can't celebrate and own your success. You have to share it. Everybody wins type of thinking.

[MrsDL]

Jul 19, 2012 8:51:37 GMT -5 julief said:

"Obama wants to keep the risk in business privatized, but, based on this statement, wants the rewards to be socialized. The government, on the other hand, has the opposite approach in it's examples of "crony capitalism" - it has shown that, for the most part, it has no problem socializing the risk, but the rewards are then mostly privatized. How do you recover jobs and strengthen the economy when you rely on private business but you have this philosophy? More and more voters are thinking - you can't."

Great point. Thanks a lot for articulating what I was thinking----way better than I could. :-)

And really Julie - there is nothing wrong with it depending on what you believe about the role of government, the importance of business, how to get the economy growing, etc. But it does seem to be his philosophy. If you agree with it - vote for him. If you don't - vote for the other guy.

[teflep]

The you didn't build that is crappy, even in context. He should have said, you had help, etc.

[druidp]

Jul 19, 2012 9:21:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 19, 2012 8:15:28 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Context always helps...

"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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Unless the business owner is in the business of building roads and bridges, is what he said incorrect?

I figured it was something like this.

It was unequivocally very poor choice of words. I absolutely understand the train of thought he was taking, but it boils down to the mentality of, "You know what, Einstein, I don't know why everyone keeps thinking/saying you're all that and a bag of chips for your inventions. It's not like you thought those up and created them all by yourself - how about you let other people share the limelight and credit?"

To which I say bullshit. YES, tons of factors come together in an innovator's or entrepreneur's life to bring them to where they create something that wasn't there before. But the "you didn't build that" line is both inaccurate and insulting. And I think highly indicative of his view of business builders/owners in general. Bang up view for an American president if you ask me.

I admit I'm a bit saucy today because of my insane shit at work that is driving me crazy, but this statement he made has been bothering me since he uttered it.

[KateAggie]

Jul 19, 2012 8:15:28 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Context always helps...

"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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Unless the business owner is in the business of building roads and bridges, is what he said incorrect?

Even in context, the statement angers me. It discounts the biggest part of being a small business owner--the risk. My DH deals with small business owners all the time. Most of them are not coming from $$, or with investors, they're borrowing against their homes and other assets. If their business fails, they lose it all. It's the reason I won't let DH open a small business of his own--I have a ton of faith in him, but I can't handle my family taking that kind of financial risk, or deal with the stress of knowing that our whole life is built on the success or failure of that business. Obama's statement reads like a big "fuck you" to small business owners.

[meg]

Jul 19, 2012 9:37:06 GMT -5 KateAggie said:

Jul 19, 2012 8:15:28 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Context always helps...

"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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Unless the business owner is in the business of building roads and bridges, is what he said incorrect?

Even in context, the statement angers me. It discounts the biggest part of being a small business owner--the risk. My DH deals with small business owners all the time. Most of them are not coming from $$, or with investors, they're borrowing against their homes and other assets. If their business fails, they lose it all. It's the reason I won't let DH open a small business of his own--I have a ton of faith in him, but I can't handle my family taking that kind of financial risk, or deal with the stress of knowing that our whole life is built on the success or failure of that business. Obama's statement reads like a big "fuck you" to small business owners.

DITTO. As the daughter of an entrepreneur and small business owner, my family and I took great offense to this. Quite honestly, my father made his own way. He got very little help along the way; not his family, teachers, etc. I guess the government "helped" him thanks to the GI bill. But I argue that was an even exchange since he was ya know, serving in hte air force in korea.
He didnt get help from friends or family financially, even after asking. Our family made the sacrifices and we were lucky his risks paid off.

So, no, his business did not take a village. It took a person. His drive, his entrepreneurial spirit, his willingness to take a calculated risk were all from his own core. And now he pays for the privilege of success because obviously he owes the government something. Um no.

Obama has no fucking clue.

[downtoearth]

KateAggie - is the "biggest part of being a small business owner" really risk?

That might be the biggest concern of being a small business owner. But why do people go into small business? It's not for the risk it's for the business and owning something of your own and making money, right? The personal risk is just what keeps some people from actually doing it.

I guess I sort of got lost in your comment - are you getting at that Obama wants small business people to take on the risk individually, but wants them to share the wealth with everyone? I did not read that in the (poorly worded) comment Obama made - and it's still a little out of context above.

Here's the whole quote which does credit the individual initiative AND doing things together as both equally important to US success.


"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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

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. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."

[smock]

I was just about to come in here to say "no man is an island" must have been written by a socialist, right? Except sbp beat me to it.

[MrsDL]

Jul 19, 2012 10:00:57 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

KateAggie - is the "biggest part of being a small business owner" really risk?

It is absolutely one of the biggest parts. From a start-up, to growing it, to maintaing it. Many risk everything they previously had as collateral to get the money. The other part is hard-work and smart-decision making.

Anybody who can argue that your 4th grade teacher or roads and bridges are a bigger part of the sucess of small businesses than the other things I mentioned, is frankly dilusional. Things like the GI Bill, student loans (gov't backed for example), definately can play a greater role - but we also know that plenty of highly educated individuals go under in business ventures, and college drop outs can make it. It might not be the norm, but education is not necessary - capital and your own sweat is.

[worthyfox]

Jul 19, 2012 9:55:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 19, 2012 9:45:57 GMT -5 meg said:

CUT.

You guess the govt' helped him thanks to the GI bill? Jesus Christ.

This whole thing of "I own my success completely" is just a thinly veiled way to tell people who are poor that they deserve it. If they worked harder, or were less "risk averse" or some shit, they too could be a successful business owner. They too could preside over the dynasty that is "Widget Makers, Inc."

This is the flip side of "bootstraps."

:Y: ({)

[MrsDL]

Jul 19, 2012 10:03:48 GMT -5 smock said:

I was just about to come in here to say "no man is an island" must have been written by a socialist, right? Except sbp beat me to it.

Please. Nobody is saying that business owners live in a vacum and do it on their own. The debate, however, is all about how much of the individual is responsible for success compared to the collective. Obama's ideology seems to indicate that the collective is as, or more, responsible and therefore, rewards should be higher for the collective, not the individual.

Let me give you an example - if your work your ass off all year and your on a team that also contributes, but not as much and so you have to take-on more yourself to make it successful - do you feel you all should get equal rewards? You might say yes because of the arguement we are having, but I can't count the number of actual scenarios posted here where that is NOT the mindset.

The collective (who also uses infrastructure) is not penalized for using these same resources but not contributing in a greater way - like employing people. Part of the distribution to the collective is not only more tax revenue (and we want them to pay more) - these people hire others, pay salaries, finance other people's lifestyles. That is a payment to the collective as well - ya know.

[meg]

Jul 19, 2012 9:55:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 19, 2012 9:45:57 GMT -5 meg said:

DITTO. As the daughter of an entrepreneur and small business owner, my family and I took great offense to this. Quite honestly, my father made his own way. He got very little help along the way; not his family, teachers, etc. I guess the government "helped" him thanks to the GI bill. But I argue that was an even exchange since he was ya know, serving in hte air force in korea.
He didnt get help from friends or family financially, even after asking. Our family made the sacrifices and we were lucky his risks paid off.

So, no, his business did not take a village. It took a person. His drive, his entrepreneurial spirit, his willingness to take a calculated risk were all from his own core. And now he pays for the privilege of success because obviously he owes the government something. Um no.

Obama has no fucking clue.

You guess the govt' helped him thanks to the GI bill? Jesus Christ.

This whole thing of "I own my success completely" is just a thinly veiled way to tell people who are poor that they deserve it. If they worked harder, or were less "risk averse" or some shit, they too could be a successful business owner. They too could preside over the dynasty that is "Widget Makers, Inc."

This is the flip side of "bootstraps."

Yeah well considering we had the effing draft at the time, yeah I dont exactly think he falls all over the government for giving him some huge gift. Put himself through grad school through work.

If has nothing to do with saying those who are poor deserve it. He grew up on a farm that was taken over by eminent domain. He was not rich. Took a massive personal and professional risk to start a company. And now IS rich, and employs people who also do quite well, have very stable jobs in a growing business.

Entrepreneurship is somethign that not everyone has within them. I dont. It has nothing to do wiht how rich you are or how educated you are. It is a matter of personality. And the willingness to work really really really effing hard. Again, harder than I am willing to work, and harder than most people I know are willing to work - regardless of their level of education, wealth, etc.

Honestly, I lived it. It takes a unique PERSON to do it. Education or wealth are not determining factors.

[NitaX]

Jul 19, 2012 9:05:59 GMT -5 pamela said:

It's the line of "Somebody else made that happen". Different that just saying "you can't do it alone".

I totally disagree with his theme because it's sounds like he's trying to push that you can't celebrate and own your success. You have to share it. Everybody wins type of thinking.

I don't think that's what Obama's saying here. Honestly, I find it to be more of a jab at the "Bootstraps" mentality that plagues this nation. We want to think we did everything all by ourselves. But the reality is that there are certain things in place that help you along the way.

Example - my first job out of grad school was the direct result of getting a call from a professor telling me about an open position. Did I have to interview and qualify, yes, but the truth is I wasn't even looking at that organization for a job. It wasn't on my radar. Because someone else saw it and thought of me, I can say they get some credit there. as a result, I've been very active with my grad program as an alumna because of that direct benefit.

Same thing here with your small business. A friend is working on a new business venture, and I'm helping get the word out about her product. No, I don't expect her profits to be "socialized," but if she's successful, I'm sure she'll thank me for the help in getting started.

Gov't has done the same. Whether is't PILOTS (Payment in Lieu of Taxes), small business loans, fiber optic cable installation, incubator programs, some companies have certainly taken advantage of government backed/sponsored programs and incentives.

[wawa]

Jul 19, 2012 8:20:46 GMT -5 charminglife said:

Jul 19, 2012 8:15:28 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

;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 alone. Somebody else helped you to made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Add in the bolded and I'm fine with what he's saying - sounds like he's trying the Elizabeth Warren pitch. But as he said it, yeah, I understand why people are upset.

I completely agree with this.

[druidp]

Jul 19, 2012 9:41:30 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 19, 2012 9:31:58 GMT -5 druidp said:

It was unequivocally very poor choice of words. I absolutely understand the train of thought he was taking, but it boils down to the mentality of, "You know what, Einstein, I don't know why everyone keeps thinking/saying you're all that and a bag of chips for your inventions. It's not like you thought those up and created them all by yourself - how about you let other people share the limelight and credit?"

To which I say bullshit. YES, tons of factors come together in an innovator's or entrepreneur's life to bring them to where they create something that wasn't there before. But the "you didn't build that" line is both inaccurate and insulting. And I think highly indicative of his view of business builders/owners in general. Bang up view for an American president if you ask me.

I admit I'm a bit saucy today because of my insane shit at work that is driving me crazy, but this statement he made has been bothering me since he uttered it.

It's interesting that you would choose Einstein, who was a socialist and once said in a paper he wrote entitled "Why Socialism":

So basically he's rolling over in his grave whenever someone credits him solely with inventing a staple or mainstay of our society. Good to know. I'll put a mental asterisk by his name so I know when someone touts him as the inventor of E=mc². 8-D

[meg]

Really? So entrepreneurs owe their success to those who pave the roads? That is a stretch. Obviously in a society, we all benefit from the work others do, although it is never free - it isnt like that work is done out of the goodness of anyone's heart. On the flip side, anyhow, without manufacturing or reselling, etc there wouldnt be a need for the massive trucking industry that we have, or the highways those trucks use. Sure, a manufacturer like the one I work for uses trucking companies. But those trucking companies need us too. I dont believe EITHER is responsible for the other's success. Trucking companies dont OWE their success to shippers. They see a need that has a value and fulfill it. Money exchanges hands, and services are used.

Because I shop in a grocrry store doesnt mean I owe my life to stop & shop because well without them Id starve since I dont grow my own food. This giving credit for success to everyoen involved in creating an infrastructure honestly sounds just as extreme as that.

And saying that people own their own success and that someone who have the cajones to start a business has created his or her own success does NOT mean that one is also saying that anyone who doesnt do that is a lazy sack of shit. In part, we all make our own choices. I honestly think I could have a greater career than I do... make more money, have more professional success at a higher level etc if I had really wanted to. For many many reasons, that isnt what I want. I dont want to work the hours it requires and I am not willing to make the tradeoffs for my family that it requires. To loop in another hot topic - I dont WANT Marissa Mayer's life. That means I wont get the fame or money she has and I wont get to have lunch with Oscar de la Renta. That is fine because I have made different choices. (not saying I could have been her, I dont have the creativity etc innate that she probably does).

[worthyfox]

"Let me give you an example - if your work your ass off all year and your on a team that also contributes, but not as much and so you have to take-on more yourself to make it successful - do you feel you all should get equal rewards? You might say yes because of the arguement we are having, but I can't count the number of actual scenarios posted here where that is NOT the mindset."

You do understand this isn't the same example? It sounds like you're arguing that socialism is pretty much saying if you're lazy, no worries, the rich will work for you and give you their money. You do realize poor =/= lazy, yes?

[MrsDL]

Jul 19, 2012 10:13:17 GMT -5 worthyfox said:

Jul 19, 2012 9:55:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

You guess the govt' helped him thanks to the GI bill? Jesus Christ.

This whole thing of "I own my success completely" is just a thinly veiled way to tell people who are poor that they deserve it. If they worked harder, or were less "risk averse" or some shit, they too could be a successful business owner. They too could preside over the dynasty that is "Widget Makers, Inc."

This is the flip side of "bootstraps."

Nobody is saying a business owner owns their own success "completely." The debate is over how much of the rewards from that success is due back to the collective that contributes. Throwing the "successful rich people hate poor people" because "bootstraps" and "get off your ass and work a little harder" rhetoric doesn't contribute at all to what is an important topic in the E12 debate. It's this type of rhetoric that divides and completely destorys and potential for a thoughtful, albeit passionate, discussion.