Author Topic: Obama: "If You've Been Successful, You Didn't Get There On Your Own" - lmfao!!  (Read 44723 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
POLITICAL HAY

No, You Can't!

By W. James Antle, III on 7.17.12 @ 6:10AM

Obama reminds us there's no "I" in government.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama's slogan was "Yes, we can!" But if you thought that was an inspiring call for individual empowerment, think again. His new message is, "Oh no, you didn't."

On Friday, the president laid bare the logic behind his call for higher taxes on the wealthy. "You know, there are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back," Obama said in a campaign speech. "They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own."

"I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart," Obama continued. (He is apparently not struck by people who think they can centrally plan the economy or wield substantial political power over others because they are just so smart.) "There are a lot of smart people out there."

Having dismissed the old noggin as a possible explanation of individual success, Obama next started in on hard work. "It must be because I worked harder than everybody else," he imagined the winners of life's lottery to believe. "Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Okay, people don't succeed because of their inherent brain power or hard work. By now the audience must have been sitting on the edge of their seats, wondering how dear leader would explain success. Obama finally obliged: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help."

In one particularly unfortunate line, Obama said, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen." Just like he's going to raise somebody else's taxes, not yours.

Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, made similar comments a few months back: "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody." The speech -- which in turn echoes Obama's comments that the rising debt is due to the Bush tax cuts, wars, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit (policies the current president mostly kept in place) -- was wildly popular in progressive circles.

On one level, Obama and Warren are obviously right. No man is an island. People benefit from growing up in strong families or having good teachers. People can be fortunate in the friends and relatives who come into their lives, in the doors of opportunities that open before them. Life isn't always fair. Sometimes good people have bad luck; the opposite is also true.

Does anybody really dispute this? Even many libertarians understand we are not atomistic individuals but social creatures. As George Constanza once reminded his Seinfeld co-star, "We live in a society, Jerry." To the extent that we are talking about government, no serious person is advocating the end of military, police or fire protection. We all benefit from not having the country overrun by foreign attackers.

A 35 percent top marginal tax rate and a premium support model for Medicare isn't the stuff of anarchy. A gradual reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio over a period of decades isn't some radical rejection of the social contract.

Yet on another level, the president's little lesson is self-evidently absurd. Lots of people attend public schools and have teachers. Very few people become Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Everybody uses the roads and bridges the factory owner uses to bring his products to market. But not everyone builds a factory.

The tax dollars that paid for those roads, bridges, schools, and teachers didn't just come from "someone else" or the "rest of us." They came from the innovators, the factory owners, and the entrepreneurs too. In 2009, the top 400 taxpayers paid almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom 50 percent combined.

The jobs created and the wages paid by those business owners fueled a lot of the tax payments made by "someone else" and the "rest of us." The taxes imposed on those business owners could help entice them to ship jobs overseas.

Barney Frank is often quoted as saying, "Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together." But we do lots of things together apart from government, in families and communities, churches and synagogues, private associations and what Edmund Burke called the "little platoons" of civil society.

The market itself is something we do together. Pace Obama, the market found uses for the Internet that far exceeded anything anticipated by the early government designers. Beyond Al Gore's wildest dreams, is the inconvenient truth. And when the government acts outside of its constitutionally enumerated powers, it may be doing things that none of us freely chose to do together.

Just because government built the Hoover Dam doesn't mean we should celebrate when government blocks the Keystone Pipeline. Just because tax revenues support valuable infrastructure and public safety doesn't mean excessive tax rates can't kill jobs.

By all means, thank your mother or father, a teacher or soldier, a friend or supportive group for contributing to your success. Thank even your lucky stars, if you don't want to cling bitterly to religion and thank Someone Else. But don't belittle personal achievement.

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," Obama conceded. When the president says, "Yes, we can," it may be worthwhile to ask: "What do you mean 'we,' kemosabe?"

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 :)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 ;)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama's Shaggy Dog Story About the Golden Gate Bridge

Matt Welch | July 17, 2012


http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/17/obamas-shaggy-dog-story-about-the-golden?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29


In President Barack Obama's fairly maligned "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" comments the other day, he also said this:
 

When we invested in the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Internet, sending a man to the moon -- all those things benefited everybody. And so that's the vision that I want to carry forward.
 
To which the engineer W.J.J. Hoge replied:
 

The federal government did build Hoover Dam. However, the Golden Gate Bridge was funded by a $35 million dollar bond issue by the six counties in the Golden Gate Bridge District. It was a state-authorized project built by a partnership of local governments.
 
What's more, the conservative commentator Thomas Purcell asserted last November (Obama having been playing the Golden Gate card for a while now), "it was the 'One Percenters', as is the term coined of the rich and powerful these days, that built the Golden Gate, not government. More importantly, it was government that posed more obstacles for the building of the bridge than any other entity and if the Department of Defense had their way it never would have been built at all." More Purcell:
 

The Department of Defense (then called the Department of War) kicked and screamed saying that the bridge would be dangerous and block the channel from ships going in an out of the Presidio base.
 
Since the DOD owned the land on either side of the channel, there was no way to build it without Federal approval, and they refused to grant it.
 
After another year of wrangling, and some heavy support from the fledgling automotive industry lobbying (yes, they had lobbyists back then too), the DOD finally relents and allows construction of the bridge, but only sells the land back to the state commission and does not participate in its construction.
 
Construction did not go as smoothly as planned. It takes another FIVE years for the government and the architects to come to agreement on the design. Furthermore, Federal contractor unions wanted the contracts to build the bridge and stalled the government on the issue, demanding they take action to halt construction unless they got the contract. Fortunately, local authorities insisted that as part of the contract only local labor would be used instead of Federal union contracts, insuring the area had work during Depression era unemployment.
 
A second problem in 1929 when the US Stock Market collapsed made for more problems. The Golden Gate committee now has trouble issuing the bond needed for the construction of the bridge, even though the citizens of the surrounding area had put up their own personal lands and farms as collateral. It takes 3 more years and the wealthy President and founder of Bank of America, A.P. Giannini, to personally buy the 35 million dollar bond which he then finances through the bank. Without the bank and the intervention of private industry fueled by personal wealth, again the bridge would not have been built. By 1937 the bridge is completed—and [architect Joseph] Strauss delivers the bridge 1.7 million UNDER budget, using local non-union labor and private contractors.
 
My biggest problem with the Golden Gate metaphor isn't necessarily the federal vs. state/private distinction, it's that government spending at any level is being confused for the construction of gorgeous, useful bridges. That $35 million during the Depression is worth around $530 million today, or far less than 1 percent of Obama's stimulus package. So, where the hell are our new Golden Gates? What, exactly, has been the return on all this added "investment"?
 
Government, from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol, has gotten exponentially more expensive while delivering a fraction of the results. Every dollar that governments spend on every level gets inflated by contracting rules, social engineering, environmental aspirations, and sops to public sector unions. That's the vision that Obama–like so many other politicians–is, through his deeds, carrying forward.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19258
  • Getbig!


Hate to tell you this but the Harland Sanders used 105 dollars from his first Social Security Check to build his franchises traveling accross the states.  His orginal restaurant was closed due to the highway being built and diverting traffic away from it ::)


In this case....Socialism won.  Harland Sanders was bankrupt at the time.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders

In other words, Colonel Sanders used the money that was TAKEN FROM HIM, during his working years with his having no say in the matter.

That's like saying that socialism won, because someone started a business with his income tax refund. Socialism didn't win JACK.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama believes success is a gift from government
 Examiner ^ | 7-17-12 | Michael Barone

Posted on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 7:54:20 AM by Mikey_1962

Perhaps the rain made the teleprompter unreadable. That's one thought I had on pondering Barack Obama's comments to a rain-soaked rally in Roanoke, Va., last Friday.

Perhaps he didn't really mean what he said. Or perhaps -- as is often the case with people when unanchored from a prepared text -- he revealed what he really thinks.

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back," he began, defending his policy of higher tax rates on high earners. "They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, 'well, it must be because I was just so smart.' There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.' Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"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."

In other words, Steve Jobs didn't make Apple happen. It was the work of a teacher union member -- er, great teacher -- and the government agencies that paved I-280 and El Camino Real that made Apple happen.

High earners don't deserve the money they make, Obama apparently thinks. It's the gift of government, and they shouldn't begrudge handing more of it back to government.

And that's true, as he told Charlie Gibson of ABC News in 2008, even if those higher tax rates produce less revenue for the government, as has been the case with rate increases on capital gains. The government should take away the money as a matter of "fairness."

The cynical might dismiss Obama's preoccupation with higher tax rates as an instance of a candidate dwelling on one of his few proposals that tests well in the polls. Certainly, he doesn't want to talk much about Obamacare or the stimulus package.

Cynics might note that he spurned supercommittee Republicans' willingness last year to reduce tax deductions so as to actually increase revenue from high earners, without discouraging investment or encouraging tax avoidance as higher tax rates do.

But maybe Obama's Captain-Ahab-like pursuit of higher tax rates just comes from a sense that no one earns success and that there's no connection between effort and reward.

That kind of thinking also helps to explain the approach taken by Sen. Patty Murray in a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday. She wants a tax rate increase on high earners so badly she said she'd prefer raising everyone's taxes next year to maintaining current rates.

Murray was first elected in 1992 as a state legislator, who had been dismissed by a lobbyist as "just a mom in tennis shoes." But in 20 years she's become an accomplished appropriator and earmarker.

"Do no harm," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told members of Congress at a hearing yesterday, urging them to avoid the sharp spending cuts and tax rate increases scheduled for year's end.

But Murray is threatening to do exactly that kind of harm. Those prattling about how irresponsible Republicans are might want to ponder her threat.

And to consider that Republicans remember what happened to the last Republican who agreed to such rate increases, George H.W. Bush in 1990. Seeking re-election in 1992, he won only 37 percent of the vote. Republicans won't risk that again.

The Obama Democrats seem to believe there's no downside risk in threatening huge tax increases for everyone and in asserting that if you're successful "someone else made that happen."

But the Wall Street Journal's Colleen McCain Nelson reported yesterday how affluent Denver suburbanites have soured on Obama. Obama tied John McCain 49 to 49 percent among voters with more than $100,000 income in 2008, but in NBC/WSJ polls this year, they've favored Mitt Romney 50 to 44 percent.

Affluent voters trended Democratic over two decades on cultural issues. But economic issues dominate this year, and they may not appreciate Obama's assertion that they don't deserve what they've earned.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama's Statism vs. the Self-Made Man
By Rich Lowry - July 18, 2012

Via RCP
   
 

If Bartlett’s ever puts together a collection of insultingly deflating quotations, it should include President Barack Obama’s take on business success before a crowd in Virginia the other day: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”

Obama was explaining — as is his wont — why the rich should pay more taxes. They might have had a great teacher. Or they drive on public roads and bridges. “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that,” the president explained, apparently in the serene confidence that he wasn’t speaking to an audience bristling with proud business owners. “Somebody else made that happen.”

The Obama theory of entrepreneurship is that behind every successful businessman, there is a successful government. Everyone is helpless without the state, the great protector, builder, and innovator. Everything is ultimately a collective enterprise. Individual initiative is only an ingredient in the more important work when “we do things together.”

The Obama riff is a direct steal from Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts who sent liberal hearts aflutter by throwing the same wet towel on the notion of individual success a few months ago. The Obama/Warren view is a warrant for socialization of the proceeds of success. Behind its faux sophistication is a faculty-lounge disdain for business, and all those who make more than tenured professors by excelling at it. Behind its smiley we’re-all-in-it-together façade is a frank demand: You owe us.

For that most American figure of the self-made man, exemplified most famously by Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln, President Obama wants to substitute the figure of the guy who happened to get lucky while not paying his fair share in taxes. What a dreary and pinched view of human endeavor. What a telling insight into his animating philosophy. In his Virginia remarks, greeted with warm applause, Obama took down a notch anyone who has made it: “I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

True enough, and we should value the dignity of all work, no matter how humble. But the hallmark of the man of extraordinary accomplishment isn’t simply work. Some of us may work as hard as Steve Jobs. Few of us are as single-minded, risk-taking, shrewd, or visionary. Millions of us could work twelve-hour days for years yet never come up with the idea for the iPad, let alone successfully manufacture and market it.

To redefine Steve Jobs as the product of the (necessary and unremarkable) infrastructure and government services around him is to devalue human creativity. The Obama formulation goes something like this: Steve Jobs couldn’t get to work every day without roads; he couldn’t drive safely on those roads without a well-regulated system of driver’s licenses; ergo, the San Jose, Calif., DMV practically built Apple.

And the likes of Steve Jobs had better pay higher taxes to fund the foundations of their greatness. Needless to say, no man is an island. We are a product of our families, schools, and churches. Without the liberty and rule of law that characterize America, entrepreneurship would indeed be impossible. Any successful American who is not a patriot is a rank ingrate. But the president believes that among the highest expressions of patriotism are a 39.6 percent top individual tax rate and a 25 percent capital-gains rate.

There are few phrases that President Obama likes less than “on your own.” He considers it a lie when people think they’ve made it on their own, and he thinks that the most damning thing that can be said about the Republican vision is that it will leave people on their own. For him, “we’re in this together,” and the inspiring institution embodying that togetherness is none other than the Internal Revenue Service.


//
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.
© 2012 King Features Syndicate

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/18/obama_you_didnt_build_that_114830.html at July 18, 2012 - 05:34:09 AM PDT

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 :D

Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25760
  • GETBIG3.COM!
The government funded Apple's garage laboratory where the company got started.  ::)


The Apple II wasn't the best computer at the time.  The Atari 800, Commodore Pet, and the IBM computer was around as well.  Apple won the government contract and the rest is history.....Apple II computers were in every classroom....some of them still there to this day.  There's no telling what might have occurred without Apple winning that government contract
A

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
July 16. 2012 6:46PM

Obama to entrepreneurs: Your success belongs to the state

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120717/OPINION01/707179995/1004/opinion





President Obama has transitioned from “the private sector is doing fine” to “there is no private sector.” That is the gist of the argument he made in a campaign speech in the critical swing state of Virginia on Friday.

Speaking of American entrepreneurs, Obama said, “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.”

Obama explained his theory this way: “...look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘Well, it must be because I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”

He mentioned teachers, firefighters and builders of roads as examples of those who are responsible for the success of America’s entrepreneurs. The economic illiteracy of the President’s thinking is staggering.

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together,” Obama said.

The point, though, is pointless. Of course successful businesses rely on roads and schools and firefighters. So do businesses that fail. But the existence of public infrastructure does not explain the difference between successful entreprenuers and failed ones. The difference is born from the very thing President Obama attempts to downplay almost to the point of denying it — the hard work, resourcefulness, creativity and ingenuity of those who persist until they succeed.

Under Obama’s formulation — “You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” — All private success is nonexistent. There is only the glory of the state, as expressed through collective action. The ditch digger and social worker share equally in the success of the small-business owner and the tycoon. Therefore, they deserve an equal, or at least much larger, share of the fruits of the entrepreneurs’ labor.

This is the thinking of a man who views businesses as entities to be milked for the good of the collective. This is the message he intends to try to sell in New Hampshire, where New Englanders often flee to start their own businesses because their home states tax and regulate too much. Good luck with that message, Mr. President.
 


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 :)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
g

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 :)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
hahahahah sand castle

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 ;)

pedro01

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4800
  • Hello Hunior
no,  I am using an absurd analogy to expose absurdity of obamas analogy.  


If a communist like Obama wants to credit teachers w the success of business people who are successful why not equally. Give them blame for the failures?  


Well - like I said before, it is a shame your life has been so void of people helping you out.

I would totally agree that if a teacher abused a child and the child became an axe murderer, then the teacher should be given blame.

As Obama says, there may be a teacher that sticks in your mind. As I said, I had 3 teachers that had a huge impact on me and my life. These people did indeed play a part in my success.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Well - like I said before, it is a shame your life has been so void of people helping you out.

I would totally agree that if a teacher abused a child and the child became an axe murderer, then the teacher should be given blame.

As Obama says, there may be a teacher that sticks in your mind. As I said, I had 3 teachers that had a huge impact on me and my life. These people did indeed play a part in my success.


Fine, and teachers who sucked ass should equally be given blame.     can't have it both ways!

Mr. Magoo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9808
  • THE most mistaken identity on getbig
He's right.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
He's right.

Lol.    where does the govt get the money to "invest" from? 

Mr. Magoo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9808
  • THE most mistaken identity on getbig
Lol.    where does the govt get the money to "invest" from?  

It's not an issue of original causation. It's about a common misconception of individualism that ignores the principle of reciprocity. Hart discussed this in his paper "Are there any Natural Rights?" At least thats the way I took it.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
It's not an issue of original causation. It's about a common misconception of individualism that ignores the principle of reciprocity. Hart discussed this in his paper "Are there any Natural Rights?" At least thats the way I took it.

I don't owe the govt or obama anything.  He and his communist thugs can go f themselves.  We pay ridiculous taxes already to fund he saintly govt.

Mr. Magoo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9808
  • THE most mistaken identity on getbig
I don't owe the govt or obama anything.  He and his communist thugs can go f themselves.  We pay ridiculous taxes already to fund he saintly govt.

that begs some very important questions. It deserves more attention than I'm willing to give on a getbig post. Let's just say we should be careful not to oversimplify complex issues.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39837
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
that begs some very important questions. It deserves more attention than I'm willing to give on a getbig post. Let's just say we should be careful not to oversimplify complex issues.

we  pay energy tax, gas tax, real estate tax, sales tax, estate tax, income tax, fines, tickets, surcharges , penalties, etc for all the things Obama wants us to grovel for. 


He is full of shit as is Liz warren, as are the leftists. 

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
that begs some very important questions. It deserves more attention than I'm willing to give on a getbig post. Let's just say we should be careful not to oversimplify complex issues.
I dont feel anyone owes the government anything. I do, however, feel that we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to pay taxes to keep certain things going, such as Infrastructure, Police, Firefighters, necessary Government functions, etc.

Thats the only reason to pay taxes IMHO. I think its horseshit that our politicans act like we need to give them our money to make everything fair for everyone, thats not their fucking job.