Hey Mitt, Your guy that had “no help” had millions of dollars worth of help

In a speech, last week in Virginia, President Obama stated, “If you were successful, you didn’t get there on your own” and added, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”

Mr. Romney’s campaign took offense.  In response, the Romney campaign released ,  “These Hands”  – an ad showing a “business owner” named Jack Gilchrist, Gilchrist Metal Fabricating, stating that he, not the government, built his business.


No help from the government or anyone else, right Mr. Gilchrist?

As reported by JOHN DiStaso, July 23. 2012 3:32PM, on UnionLeader.com, it appears Mr. Gilchrist may have forgotten that he did, in fact, get help.

Help specifically from the US government:

1) In 1999, the company received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds “to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment.”

2) In the 1980s , Gilchrist Metal Fabricating obtained a U.S. Small Business Administration loan of around $500,000

3) Gilchrist Metal Fabricating has received several sub-contracts.  Last year, a sub-contract from the U.S. Navy  totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 from the Coast Guard

just to name a few………….

Oh, THAT help!

It appears, not only, did Mr. Gilchrist “forget” he received a great deal of help from the government, but also, the Romney staff forgot to check out Gilchrist ‘ statements.

Is this simply a matter of incompetence or just another “they will say anything, they think we are stupid, and when all else fails, blame Obama” moment?

Visit the The Cosmic Surfer on Rantings of A Mad Woman by The Cosmic Surfer: The Mad Woman Speaks

  • http://myshambhalavillage.wordpress.com Paul Frank

    The even bigger help that Jack Gilchrest and everybody else got was the social and economic infrastructure that we all participate in. There are the of course the roads that transport him and his workers to and from work as well as his product to market. an educated labor pool, police and fire protection, and so on and so on.

    But at the deepest level it takes the participation of almost everyone to have a functioning economic and social system that provide the circumstance that even makes Jack’s business possible. And in my view, it is the people — not the corporate oligarchs currently running the show — who appropriately decide the rules under which Jack and everybody else should operate.

    • Ben Fallon

      %51 of households in the US had no income tax liability in 2011… there is hardly “participation of almost everyone” if we had participation of almost everyone we could afford to pay for all the social services the %51 demands. Liberals cry for everyone to be the same, until their forced to pay the man.

      • PK

        You realize that 51% of households had no income tax liability in 2011 because a majority of that 51% was too poor to pay taxes? The reason? Because the top 1% if hoarding the majority of the wealth in this country.

      • Joey Bigtimes

        They’re. It’s “they” and “are” combined into a contraction. “Their” is possessive.

      • Matt Ferguson

        Just because they paid no federal income tax does not mean they paid no taxes at all… in fact it is extremely likely that almost all of them paid taxes at the federal, state, and local level.

      • James Larson

        Not sure that 51% is even close to right. However all of them did pay S.S. at 14% + medicare taxes at 3% which is about all the feds offer for social services. Thats more then Mitt pays. Think about it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/Y6DERIG7IZ23DFN7KOC5Z364LA CK

    I propose a challenge all you self-made men/women out there: Go show us how all your hard work, industriousness, and independent determination work out in say…Somalia. If you can build a successful, private, legal business with no reliance on any government assistance (financial or infrastructure ), then we’ll listen to your story! Hurry up.

    • http://www.visiv.ca hunter2

      Also, since they’d be paying virtually no taxes in Somolia, they would theoretically be making way more money.

      • guest

        Making more money? There’s not very much infrastructure in Somalia. They’d have increased transportation and shipping costs, not to mention the need for increased security and the costs associated with paying off certain people to be able to do business (bribery is the norm in some places, and it’s not always cheap). They also wouldn’t have the same level of communication infrastructure as is available in the US, nor would they necessarily have steady power at the needed levels.

        There are reasons that businesses thrive in countries with advanced infrastructure. Without the taxes paid by those profiting off the use of our infrastructure, government wouldn’t be able to maintain it.

        • 112

          He was being sarcastic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1330953108 H Jay Gee

    The bond was help, the loan was help (sort of) the contracts, were not help. At least make it accurate.

    • 90210

      Of course the government contracts were help. They are paid for with tax payer dollars, and supplied to the manufacturer as revenue. Without government buyers approving the orders and directing the funds, his company would not have received the revenue. How more direct can “help” be then in the form of MONEY?

      • Jay

        I love it. First, they whine about government spending. Then they whine when you point out the businesses they so revere were built by trading goods and services for, wait for it…..government spending!

        Cognitive dissonance isn’t just a confusing multisyllabic phrase for conservatives – it’s a way of life!

    • baklazhan

      In fact, I’d go further: the government provides enormous help to small businesses such as this one by enforcing contracts. If someone breaks the terms, the business owner doesn’t have to go to the mafia don or hire a strongman: they can get restitution in court, and they can rely on estabilshed legal precedent to confidently engage in business. That’s huge.

  • James Davis

    I think people really miss the point here. It is a travesty to denigrate the entrepreneurship of a business owner. Their skills are rare and necessary for businesses to be successful – most people starting a business fail.

    Which brings another point – if someone fails at a business is that also the government’s fault? If you are responsible for success are you not also responsible for failures?

    • bigyaz

      Nobody is denigrating entrepreneurship, simply pointing out that everyone has some kind of help along the way, and it’s important to recognize that. In this case Mr. Gilchrist clearly had a LOT of help — from the government.

    • http://www.facebook.com/derekscruggs Derek Scruggs

      Sometimes the government does make life harder for business. No system is perfect. Fortunately the government also provides bankruptcy as a legal method of failing without risk of debtor’s prison.

    • blurb

      It’s not the goverment or the entrepeneur but the whole society which determines whether the company succeeds or fails. In a different society/market a failed business would have been successful and vice versa.

      Every entrepeneur must give back to the society for allowing him be a part of it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  • Jared Plank

    I love how everyone spins what they want to hear.

    • MoeLarryAndJesus

      Nowhere do I hear him doing anything but whining. He hasn’t been “demonized.” He’s been helped over and over again by the Obama and Clinton administrations.

      He’s just another teabagger moron.

  • RHOE

    Well when you look at it from a business point of view Obama and Romney; Democrats and Republicans. are not all that different. They just have two different business strategies. Romney (Republicans) want tax breaks for the wealthy and major companies because it allows for growth which in the long term leads to more money later on. Obama (Democrats) believe that the wealthy should pay more (in %) than their fellow Americans so that the government “can provide the means for less fortunate folk to acheive similar success”. Basically they want their money now ultimately so that their (the government) spending power is greater and they can leverage it to make more money.

    The truth is that both systems are flawed and corrupt. The Republican way allows companies and the wealthy to bypass paying their fair share, but has far better benifits in job creation, economic growth (long term through interest on loans). The Democratic way allows for the wealth to spread more (not completely) evenly, allowing for economic growth (short term start-up business and newer tax collection) but stunts business growth long term.

    The government is a business, Obama can state that everyone has had help and that is true but the government has profitted billions off the help that they give. the truth is the government needs these companies to make money without them this country would be truly poor and weak.

    Romney can claim the government is too involved but where would Boeing, GM, and even this guy be without the Government.

    So when you actually think about it there is no better side. They need each other for growth. when you think about it if we all paid our fair share and the government actually was for, by and of the people it would worry less about the economic growth of the government and more about the economic growth of its people. That only by our prosperity can this country be great!


    • jpuwa

      I appreciate your illumination of both sides, but there is a flaw in your reasoning, sir. The flaw is that the sides are presented as equal – as if they were in at least an approximate equilibrium around a happy center. There’s no evidence that this is the case.

      It seems to be a practical certainty to me that the pro-business Republican economic ideology of the pre-Reagan era has vanished from the Republican party, to be replaced by a rapacious class of sociopathic oligarchs. Likewise, it seems to me that the old-fashioned, courageous social and environmental progressiveness of the Democratic party has been replaced with inane pandering to appease a mislead, angry, and disenfranchised majority.

      Government policy may be chosen democratically, but bear in mind that truth isn’t democratic. Just because most people have an attachment to their political party doesn’t mean that anyone – democrat or republican – knows what the hell is going on or how to fix it.

      • http://twitter.com/MicheleBach666 Dr. J

        The Dems know basic things like don’t put an idiot in charge of FEMA. Can you please cite how many major cities have been destroyed because a Democrat screwed up the emergency response? Can you please cite an example of stupidity by Clinton or Obama that rivals Bush’s policy of cutting taxes while fighting two wars? I know you think it makes you cool because you don’t like Republicans or Dems but pretending both parties are the same just proves you don’t pay attention or learn from the mistakes of the past.

    • Derpo Derp

      Flip it around. Republicans aim for short term growth and Democrats create long term growth.

  • http://twitter.com/DakotaRainmaker Dakota Shepard

    I Didn’t read, Just because incorrect “Your/you’re” in title. Although, I’m sure it was great.

    • Trevorlinden

      The usage of your (possessive, in this case “your guy” refers to Mitt’s guy who did it all by himself) is correct. You’re a dumbass.

      • grammar extraordinaire

        *Your a dumbass

        • Saddened.

          …. Really. Either you are an incredible troll, or you really just have no idea that your is possessive and you’re is a contraction of you and are.

    • bigyaz

      Fail — on your part. The only thing worse than a grammar nazi is an incompetent grammar nazi.

      • http://twitter.com/DakotaRainmaker Dakota Shepard

        You guys.. No bait catches more troll fish than an incorrect you’re/your. Except a reversie! I’m still working on a catchy name, This one is not as catchy as I hoped. Trollversie!? Revertroll? Hmm that one sounds like a herpes medication…

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pat-Tildman/100000418747365 Pat Tildman

          It’s called “puppetmastering” and it just makes everyone think you’re a dumbass

          • Galloglas

            That’s because…….. ???? They are.

          • AntonioD

            Although, in this case, I think he did inadvertantly stumble on something: incorrectly trying to correct a your/you’re. Gonna have to remember that one.

            But yes, agreed that the “troll” is puppetmastering.

            Unless I am really the OP in disguise…then all is going to plan. (Exxxxcelent)

    • Daniel Gomez

      I can’t tell if you’re trolling or just really stupid because that’s the correct usage. Not only that, but your comment has random words capitalized, is missing multiple words, and has an extraneous comma. I don’t even know what to say.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dom-Woganowski/100001561280818 Dom Woganowski

    “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” I love how the author leaves this part out. Just print the entire quote, or none of the quote. don’t cherry pick. R.I.P. Journalism

    • stellar678

      You mean the quote that goes “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.”?

      Because that’s what the entire article is about. Business thrive in part thanks to the environment fostered by the government. (See: various assistance received by Gilchrist Metal Fabricating, not to mention the infrastructure on which they depend on a daily basis.)

    • Robert

      Well, actually the ENTIRE quote is as follows: “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, that — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

      In its proper context, the antecedent of the word ‘that’ becomes more clear. It does not refer to the individual’s business, but to the roads and bridges, educational system, and other aspects of the larger society which
      make it possible for the business to develop.

      Mr. Woganowski would do well to take his own advice, and avoid cherry-picking which distorts meaning. There are plenty of reasonable debates and points of disagreement we can have in this campaign; it serves no purpose — and just clouds the conversation — to claim people said things they obviously didn’t say.

    • Galloglas

      Read the entire quote instead of taking something out of context and believing the batshiit crazy crap that its made out to be. Hope you’re proud of your intellectual dishonesty you predaderp.

  • http://www.facebook.com/danpitrowiski Dan Pitrowiski

    Just a million plus… is a million a lot?

  • Bbourgeois87

    The idea that anyone builds a company purely on their own is BS. At the very least, they have many others helping them and almost certainly have benefited from the government in some way, I be it even just infrastructure, favorable tax laws, and etc.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001748522048 Jason Kelly

    “I did it all on my own.” That’s the biggest lie any entrepreneur ever said. Let’s see how industrious a nation we become when our economy runs on tax cuts, fucking morons!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_34BYFWWG23RPFRVGYD4KJLSMDM amazingly, not

    Already well-established that Romney does not believe the truth applies to anything said will campaigning. Gotta love the balls on the guy that he will lie about anything to get elected.

    • http://twitter.com/MicheleBach666 Dr. J

      Mitt is the perfect example of the religious right. Mitt is very religious when it comes to hating gay people or using his faith to dodge the draft. However when it comes to telling the truth all the time or helping poor people his faith is out the window.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/O2ZNOAFNB2JKWHLGJILWIHXN5M Brinkmanship

    Romney is an empty suit. Thank God we have a real President already in office.

  • beckerist1

    I can’t believe this thread just like I can’t believe Obama’s speech! Let me get this out of the way first, I can’t stand Romney and I don’t support him. This has nothing to do with politics.

    As an entrepreneur and small business owner, I can HANDILY say that the government has done SQUAT for my business! I’ve received exactly zero handouts, zero tax breaks, zero grants or interest free loans or initiatives. I’ve paid corporate, income and filing taxes along the way. My net gain from the government is 100% negative.

    My company has designed a product in energy conservation. You’d think the mouth pieces of the movement would be all over that, but sadly, no. With that said, I’m not asking for a handout. I, with the help of a few other VERY intelligent engineers have created a product that in turn drives a service that is already turning heads and gaining steam. To say that we didn’t do this by ourselves though is an insult, and frankly sounds like a subtle nod of subversion to Big Brother. I find the implication that no one takes initiative without the “helping hand of the government” an absolute disgrace to the freedoms this country has provided, and frankly, a horrible step in a dangerous direction.

    I know I’m in the minority reading through these comments, and that saddens me.

    • Matt Ferguson

      The point of Obama’s speech goes beyond tax breaks and subsidies. Do you employ people that were educated in the public school system? Do you use public infrastructure? I think it was poorly worded on his part, but not meant in the vein that you and a lot of others seem to have taken it. If he had said it in a way that fits what he meant, at least my interpretation of what he meant, it’s that we’re all in this together and no business or individual succeeds or fails in a vacuum.

      On an unrelated note, the U.S. govt might look pretty bad as a business owner…until you start comparing it to other govts.

    • Cooklaw2

      What is your product? Sounds cool.

      • Guest


  • Steve

    Allow me to list out a sequence of transactions:
    1. I pay you $100
    2. You loan me $50
    3. I pay you $100
    4. You loan me $50

    Now let me write this article:

    Your guy that had “no help” had $100 dollars worth of help

    Help specifically from you:
    1. $50 loan
    2. $50 loan

    Just a thought.

  • Demscantwin

    When did Mr. Gilchrist or the ad ever mention “no help”? False narrative by the loony left. you guys are intellectual lightweihts and intellectually dishonest.