A SPEECH THAT SHOULD ENCOURAGE OR INFURIATE.

To many people, it was to encourage...

President Barack Obama's speech was very simple to understand that, whatever business one was in, one did not do it all by oneself. One had all kinds of help to finally put the business "puzzles" together.

If any business persons thought that they had succeeded without the input of others, they would be lying to themselves; and that was true with almost all businesses, no matter what they were.

Also, government played a vital role in all businesses, as the president said, by maintaining the infrastructure that was needed for any business to be possible. That was seen in the building of roads, bye-ways, bridges and tunnels, and keeping them in good condition for all citizens, including business owners.

"Prominent business groups are joining conservatives and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in calling out President Obama for his recent comments about the relationship between government and business." (foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/17). In a nutshell, they did not take kindly to what the president said.

If that wasn't the most preposterous reaction by those so called "prominent business groups", then nothing should be; because they were the ones that were benefiting from a sound business environment more than any other. That was the responsibility of every government, without which nothing could be accomplished.

If business groups were forgetting about what made them to succeed, and for their owners to become rich, then it should even take a twelve year old to remind them that they did not do it all by themselves, let alone the president of the United States.

It was an election year, and so political leanings have become the total basis from which many people expressed their feelings; and many of those prominent groups made sure that the party or the candidate they supported should be favored in their public statements and utterances.

They even made huge political contributions toward campaigns and parties for the sake of them winning elections, at the expense of the average person, who did not have the resources to do the same for his or her party or candidate.

If Obama was against business, how come the stock exchange markets were thriving? The Dow Jones Average, NASDAQ, NYSE had collapsed in 2008, but they were now prospering under Obama.

Small businesses have had more tax breaks than at any other time in history to boost their profits under his administration, and for them to hire more people. It was only that many of those businesses would want the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to go away, so that it would not cut into their gains; but that would be rather unfair on their part, as they should be able to pick up the health care tab for their own workers.

Yet, some of them would want all the money to come to them, when their employees were sweltering under high private insurance premiums for themselves and their families. The ACT made it possible for business owners and their workers to share the health care burden equally; however, that was what many of those business owners hated.

The president would be the first to acknowledge the fact that the country's economy depended on businesses, and he would not require David Chavern, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Commerce, an organization that has been on his back since his inauguration, to tell him what he should say.

Or the National Federation of Independent Business chairman to blur out an inequitable statement such as,

... "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." (foxnews, 7/17/12).; referring to the president's speech as being inappropriate.

If that wasn't hypocritical of the business world to attack Obama, who has made many banks to survive on Wall Street through TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), and for some of those same businesses to obtain the loans they should have in order to carry on, then the public should be the judge.

The Republican Party organ would use any and all avenues to derail the Obama campaign; hence the bringing in of those entities that would want to free-load on their fellow Americans, and so condemn a simple, benign speech by the president that even a child could understand.

The Republicans knew that there was nothing anybody could do without the participation of government. They realized that to throw government out of people's lives was impossible; but were they telling that to anyone? You bet they weren't.

They would rather criticize Obama for political gains; but many Americans were wryly watching the whole political atmosphere to know who was telling them the truth; either Obama or Romney, for them to be able to make up their minds on November 6th, 2012 election day.

No amount of dirty tricks by either side, Democratic or Republican, would sway them. They also were aware of the fact that without government investment in infrastructure and such, through taxes that every citizen should pay his or her fair share, nothing could prevail; and there would no country to be proud of.

Over to you, Romney.

Comments 2 comments

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas

Government plays a part alright...it can legislate and regulate in a manner that creates and sustains a positive business climate...that is so far out the window right now we cannot even see it. Obama's remark about business was tailored toward the continued divisive nature of his administration to pit groups against each other...one more log on the fire. Yes, goverment does get involved..either in a good or a bad way, yes, banks get involved, people get involved...a litany of things happen but in the end the person or persons taking the risk are the ones who nurture a new business from infancy to success...without that effort, the rest is a sheer waste. As for your point on the healthcare act, you miss the point completely. The subsides for monthly insurance premiums to those making under $60K annually will generate over $600 billion dollars a year in red ink. I say red ink because the federal government under the SCOTUS recent ruling cannot penalize State sor non-participation. If the states do not willingly shoulder the burden of that short-fall under their own Medicaid Program, then the federal government will simply slide it into the deficit spending column. This is the point that is missed about the "tax" aspect of the bill and the point that was nover voted on by Congress. Obamacare can still be instituted even if all 50 states refuse to participate and the bill can be offloaded on the taxpayers as deficit spending. $600 billion dollars annually is the same amount of money that is required to administratively run this monster federal government we have developed under Obama. It is also equal to the amount required to sustain our military on an annual basis...two of the largest line items other than entitlement spending. Given that premise, there is nothing there that benefits small business or even approaches a neutral ground...thanks to the assistance offered by the federal government. I would say that is a wonderful example of how the government is assisting the businessman in developing a successful business. Ultimately, those costs, are going to be pushed through to the end consumer which means we, those of us who pay taxes, not only carry the burden of the additonal debt but we also see an uptick in the prices of goods and services in the process. Sometimes the concept of "it's the right thing to do" falls outside the scope of what we can actually afford...this is certainly one of them and a very good indication of what a lousy businessman and economist this president represents. When we finally destroy everything which drives the economy, we can all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-Ya around the campfire. I appreciate your writing and your perspective but our situation in this country requires a president and some leadership that realizes we are approaching a financial abyss as a nation. Sometimes the strength of a leader comes in saying "no" when the easiest and most popular thing to do is say "yes". Voted Up. WB


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi Wayne Brown,

The length and breath of your text make a great deal of sense; as you are able to hit the nail right on the head that, "we are approaching a financial abyss as a nation."

Those are your own words, not mine.

However, if you have bothered to listen to President Barack Obama carefully, he has plans to move the country from the old capitalist idiosyncrasies that have always given the wrong impression that the people in the business world were different from those responsible for making them successful; meaning the middle class and ordinary workers were not their coequals.

The truth was that all, irrespective of status in our communities, worked toward the same objective; and that was to build a better way of life for ourselves and our families.

The only difference was that average people worked from pay check to pay check; but that should not demean them in any way. They must be respected just as those "who have made it".

The level of their standard of living must be raised or should be updated as the years went by.

To leave them out of the prosperity that the upscale individuals and their families enjoyed would be preposterous. It would be creating a "class society"; of those with much and those with very little or nothing.

The capitalists looked at the brighter side of the economy for making them profits, and whatever happened to society in general was of very little concern; while average people, who went to work just to earn a living to take care of their families considered what they have, through their everyday struggles, was so invaluable and must be protected by all means, because there was no "plan B", if anything went wrong for them. The wealthy have that privilege; the disadvantaged did not.

Obama's main plan was to bring some type of equilibrium in American society, for ordinary workers to have their fair share of prosperity, which was a product of a strong economy built by all and sundry.

At present, what was going on, or what Romney and his ilk were proposing was the old "free market" system, in which prosperity was lopsided, with the rich getting richer, and the poor, poorer.

That (system) should be left to the Reagan-ites, who thought that "trickle down economics" should be America's identity, and that it should last forever; whilst Obama and the present day Democrats expected that system to be old fashioned and therefore it must be replaced for all members of society to have a sense of equality, even if that would be just a sensual feeling for the majority.

That would ensure a somewhat peaceful atmosphere to curb the acute divisiveness that existed today among all sections of society in the country.

By the way, Obama was the only candidate that has mentioned the word "unity" on the 2012 election campaign trail.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working