This latest line is now a arguing point around the Internet, Fox News, bloggers and whatnot.  The line: "You didn't build that":

In this is the "You didn't build that".  If you study it linguistically, it can either refer to the infrastructure or the business.  To me, it looks like it is an intentionally vague statement written that was to intentionally generate this firestorm and have people discuss the issue, and it puts it on the line here about whether someone is really completely self-made, or they have others who have helped.  It is meant to tick off some parts of the political spectrum.  But, I go back and look and see it can mean either.  It seems to be to be an inkspots.  Will see how it plays out.

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

He looks in his element in that topic. Very much for the people kind of speak, and I like it.

When I first heard it, I went "WTF? He said people who have their own business didn't build it"?  Then I see it can mean that OR it can refer the infrastructure in the prior sentence.  It isn't a gaffe in my book, but something calculated and said on purpose, probably generating the exact response it is now in some circles.

On my end, I have had the experience of both doing welfare and trying to build a business.

If he said you haven't build your own buisness, he meant the society helped you get there.Intentionally or not. He practically said alone in a jungle noone can build a CPU. You need infrastructure knowledge money. You can't become rich isolated and thus you should help society if it needs you. Without poor people no rich people and money gives you responsibility.

The way I heard it was, that successful businesses in the US have become that way not only because of the owner's hard work, but also because of the infrastructure that was created through taxes.

Like:

Roads - to ship products to consumers

Internet -  ininitial infrastructure both hard line fiberoptic and software

Judicial system - helping protect your brand and ideas. helps prevent tons of knock offs using your brand name.

I know this is only part of his idea, but this makes the most sence for what he is trying to say. Many of the rich get rich due to the systems that are already layed down for them. Even someone who gets rich from trading stocks would not have gotten rich if there were no public companies, relying on government infrastructure, with stock available to trade.

The way i understood it was that he was saying that a business man did not build everything around them, thus they also depend on people for help and assistance and cant be stingy with what they have now because they did not "build" that fortune alone

Schools get government grants to develop alot of technologies used by businesses. The internet is just one of those things.

he is saying he hates rich people (well rich people that dont donate to the obama campaign), and they dont deserve their money, so they should give up their money and redistribute it to other, poorer people, as to buy votes for the democratic party.

yeah, thats pretty much what he said.

Even though the person who starts a company may not have gone to a public school, many of his employees / customers / contractors / connections / etc may have. Also good public education helps reduce the amount of crime which could prevent a business from being successful.