The damage Barack Obama did to himself in Roanoke, Va. when he said ”If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen” has become the occasion for his defenders and apologists to say he didn’t say it, or he didn’t really say it, or he’s being taken out of context, or he didn’t mean it, or something.
Fine. Here’s the whole thing:
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.
I would argue the context makes the quote worse, not better.
Obama’s utter contempt for the idea that people deserve to prosper due to the fruits of their own labors and their own skills is made even deeper and more apparent from the entire quote.
The president is saying that people who are successful in business do not deserve credit for being successful in business. He scorns those who say “it must be because I was so smart” by citing the fact that there are a lot of smart people out there. So what sets the smart people who do well apart from the smart people who don’t? Is it that they are hard-working? No, of course not, because “there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.” So if you do well, and it’s not because you’re smart or because you’re hardworking, what do you owe your success to?
Answer: “Somebody else.” As in “somebody else made that happen.” Somebody gave you some help. You had a great teacher. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. Not you.
Oh, yes, you. The whole idea of being a productive citizen who pays his taxes in a progressive system is that you are paying your own way—and even more than your own way to help others less fortunate. In other words, you are the one building the roads and bridges, or at least paying more than your share for your own use of them and their maintenance and their upkeep. The government gathers the money from every other user (and everyone else who pays for more than his use to help carry the burden of others who can’t) and pools it. That money is collected and pooled through the actions of a democratically elected legislature and signed into law by a democratically elected president, who are fulfilling the mandate assigned them by you.
Government doesn’t build it. Government doesn’t make it possible. You do.
For the president to say a taxpaying citizen didn’t build the infrastructure he uses is a fundamental denial of the entire concept of a self-governing citizenry.
So Obama defenders really ought to think long and hard about whether they want to continue advancing this meme. The longer it goes on, the worse he will look.
To underscore your point, about 30 years ago my father started a business. One thing I remember from the early days was that even before he earned a penny in profits he was paying out – not just start up costs such as rent and inventory – but taxes, especially payroll taxes. In this context, a small businessman's success is accomplished despite – not because of – government.
Payroll taxes are for the benefit of the workers — workers who helped your father start and maintain his business. Your father helped them by giving them a living, and they helped him. Payroll taxes insured that the workers would receive unemployment compensation, Social Security and Medicare. n nThe government also helped your father by providing fire and crime prevention, infrrastructure, etc.
And the tax receipts that he generated—both directly and via the jobs he created—went to pay for that fire and police protection. As for the workers, they assumed none of the risks involved in starting and running a business. They came to work, put in their time, and collected their paychecks. And that's fine. But if the business had happened to fail, they'd simply move on, leaving the business owner to deal with the consequences.
it isn't just fine. they are valuable. without workers, if your dad's business required them, your dad didn't have a business. he wouldn't have consequences to deal with–and guess what, when circumstances change workers get laid off on 2 weeks notice–goodbye, so long–and they have to deal with the consequences. well, used to. I guess now folks get what? one or two years unemployment welfare which may not be the best solution….
Never said that they aren't valuable. My point was that employees have only a limited stake in a business. Sure, if times are tough they can be laid off, but on the other hand if an employee finds a better job he or she can and will bail with little or no notice. Happens every day. Bottom line: It's the business owner who assumes the risks of starting and running a business. Employees' liability is limited.
Hillel – didn't the father help pay for all those services in the taxes he paid and collected? Do the employees who used the money and experience from that job now owe the father? Because he contributed to some services and benefits he did not use, does government "owe" him? I think not. n nBy celebrating, and not taxing or diminishing individual achievement, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. I understand Mr. Obama to mean that the whole IS the sum of its parts, and each of the parts owes its existence to the collective whole, without which each part is worthless.
Payroll taxes were paid on behalf of salepeople who didn't sell or who quit on a moment's notice. My point, of course, wasn't that taxes by themselves were wrong, but that at the very beginning of a business present an additional burden to someone with limited means who is trying to succeed.
Your use of the word "help" is obnoxious. There was no help. These were transactions as in you perform this task and I pay you this amount. Government is a giant siphon draining money away from business transactions which, after being deeply discounted, is passed back to the parties to the transaction as "help." Imagine a world in which the parties to the transaction kept 100% of the proceeds of the transaction and engendered other unencumbered transactions that provided for their health care and their retirement. They would be helping themselves to the benefits of their own money. What a concept.
No, the payroll taxes helped create an environment in which your father could start a profitable business, just as did the system of private property (rent) and availability of transportation and credit (inventory). We all take so much infrastructure for granted…because it is all we've known, we assume somehow it is our God-given right, appearing by magic. Government creates private property rights, government creates interstate highways and airports, government educates the vast majority of workers, and most of all our government creates a stable society in which businesses can prosper. We forget this at our peril!
WRONG!!!! Government cannot "create" or grant rights, it can only take them away or leave them be. n nAnd those things you mention – highways, airports, dams – were all built using money taken from us in the form of taxes. n nThe only thing you got right is "government creates a stable society in which businesses can prosper". n nNow if only someone would tell Obama/Pelosi/Reid about that – the part in the Constitution that says "… provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," n nUnfortunately, they take the word "welfare" way too seriously.
hmmm, under the American constitutional system property rights are the foundation of a free government and not the other way around–a proper limited government protects property rights, but our liberty is the result of our own discipline, thrift, good habits, etc. if we lay all this on the government we will end up with arbitrary rulers
1 of 2 n nSo, why do you statists replying to soccerdhg's comment think Obama has been so spectacularly UNSUCCESSFUL in reducing the employment rate and growing the economy? n nAfter all, we're getting MORE government help than ever before. We've spent BILLIONs of stimulus on infrastructure, putting even more roads out there or repairing existing ones. n nWhy isn't there a successful business along every foot of the road frontages? n nBecause, as anyone with common sense can tell you, successful businesses depend on an entrepreneur with an idea, and the incentive of getting to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor, to incentivize them to put in the long hours, forego vacations, risk their savings, and make all the other individual sacrifices required to start and grow a business.
2 of 2 n nFree markets require a risk/reward analysis by the entrepreneur. They do not simply blindly "leap" into a new business startup. If the government is going to take a larger and larger percentage of the profits through forced insurance compliance (Obamacare), increased regulations, increased paperwork, etc. then fewer and fewer people will take the risks to start/maintain their own businesses. n nIt's not exactly rocket science. n nObama just handed the republicans an excellent campaign theme, if they are smart enough to run with it. n nAnd you statists will never admit the truth of Obama's economic illiteracy, so it's a perfect way to rally the small business owners to Romney.
"Fine. Here’s the whole thing:" n nSorry, John, that's NOT the whole thing. (Hard to get away with fibs in the Info Age.) nHERE'S the whole thing: n nOBAMA: [L]ook, 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. n nIf 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. n nThe 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. n nSo 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.
Including the extra paragraphs does not ameliorate the remarks because it's another classic straw man argument. Who has ever argued that we accomplish anything completely by ourselves??? The President's implication is that business and business owners don't understand this, that they are greedy, self-centered, fat cats who trampled over everyone else to get what they have and do not want to give back. The President is the one who is dividing. He's saying there is a whole class of people who do not care for another class and the bad people, incredibly, don't understand the basics of government. I don't see any attempt to unite in his campaign but rather to pander to groups and to rile up segments of the population against others. That's HOW he is running for President despite his assertion to the contrary. n nFurthermore, I don't think he understands America if he believes all the great things this country has accomplished DID NOT come about because of our unique understanding and practice of individual liberty. GI Bill, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge would not have been possible without American exceptionalism (which he doesn't believe in anyway) which is part and parcel with Americans' individual liberty. n nIncluding the extra remarks make it even worse!!!
So, what's your point? What you've quoted just rounds out Obama's "hive" utopia. Individualism must be stamped out. You are a drone. You are a worker ant. Follow the ant in front of you. Do not look up! Do not look around! Conform. Conform. Conform. I am the State. You will listen to me. Conform. Conform. Conform….
What's my point, Keith? I thought that was obvious: What Podhoretz presented as the "whole thing" was not the whole thing. Not nearly. n nAnd your interpretation of Obama's points, is — there's no other word — stupid.
Great points, HilleIA. Reading Podhoretz' stuff, one wonders whether conservative pundits are being deliberately malicious, or just plain stupid. The "Obama hates the rich" meme suggests it's both.
Where in the President's comments do you read any reference to stamping out individualism or a "hive" mentality? Most of us choose to live in a complex, interdependent society. The President is just breaking down what that means…
Boy John, two comments, and you get an apologist already for Obama. Look HillelA, when Obama talks about "someone else," that someone is ALSO me. I paid my taxes as a citizen so that we ALL can benefit. I get that. But, when my wife and I started our business, putting our own money into it, paying our workers, not sure when the next check was going to come in, waking up at 3am and stressing out, I don't recall the local government office calling me up to give me a hand. Oh, they were there when I had to pay for regulatory fees and taxes, but other than that…crickets. How did "someone else make that happen" in my business if I didn't get up everyday to open up shop and get to work? n nYour argument is so paper thin, it's not worth refuting. Unless you think all conservative knuckle draggers are selfish scrooges, who just love to see our neighbor's kids starve, their houses burn down, and all that evil stuff you know we're just planning. Heh.
"Somebody else made that happen. " n nIt probably happened despite high taxes, EPA regulation, Obama, Democrats etc etc. n nThe whole point of a modern socialist state is to make it as hard as possible for individuals to succeed without paying big bribes to corrupt Chicago-type politicians. n n"There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own." n nWe do if it is necessary. n nHowever, we do start businesses on our own. Yes we avail ourselves of the infrastructure and services, and the future businesses may build on what we accomplish, but Obama is clearly sending a message: there is nothing special about risk takers who start businesses. n nThats a lie. n
HillelA are the things you mention, like fighting fires and building bridges and dams, what make America truly what She is? No. These are things that a Communist peasant could say about Stalin or Ceausescu who, after all, built some awfully impressive public-works projects. These are the sort ot things that could have been said about the Roman aqueducts and the Egyptian pyramids, in order to ignore complaints about conquest, slavery and tyranny. As Jonah Goldberg has stated it so eloquently in his new book, The Tyranny of Cliches, "(w)has separates our great projects from those of other civilizations are the values — moral, legal, constitutional — of those who produced them. It is the difference between inheriting a mansion from your father or grandfather and inheriting the values that enabled your grandfather to afford one." n nIt's the values, stupid, and not the economy or the public works projects or the fire fighting. These are the effects, not the causes. These are only the effects of the hardworking and bright, intelligent citizens who are taking advantage of the greatest political and economic system in the world.
"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…" n nWe funded the GI Bill and built Hoover Dam from taxes laid on the rest of us. About the Golden Gate bridge: n n"On November 4, 1930 voters within the district went to the polls and put their homes, farms, and business properties up for collateral to support a 35 million dollar bond issue to finance the bridge (Golden Gate Bridge: History of the World and People)." n nSo much for Federal Funding. And anyone running for President – especially if he IS President – should know that. He evidently thinks we're all idiots.
It is true to a degree that we are "in this together" but it is individuals with the intestinal fortitude to wade through mountains of paperwork and regulation to start a business, then risk everything they own, work countless hours who are the reason it succeeds or fails. While it used to be true that the government does help some, (by providing roads and public services to provide less hindrance for success) it is no longer true. The obstacles put in the way of any individual trying to succeed in business these days FAR outweigh any supposed help they send our way. We don't need Change, we need Reformation.
Louisville Slugger might have made the bat, but Albert Pujols wears the World Series ring. Even in team sports, we recognize, even celebrate individual achievement. Sure, trainers and his family did a lot to help Cal Ripken surpass Lou Gehrig's consecutive games record, but that doesn't diminish Cal's individual achievement. __What I believe this President does is to diminish individual achievement (even to tax it), perhaps in the sincere (although I believe mistaken) belief that success is a fixed asset whose growth does not depend on incentives – what some might call greed, others ambition. It's almost as if he believes that Bill Gates didn't invent Windows – he was just lucky enough to find it before any other smart, hardworking people did. And for that, he deserves scorn and a higher tax rate.__As Adam Smith wrote, it is not by the benevolence of the butcher or the baker that dinner is served – but Mr. Obama casts a dark light on the profit the butcher and baker derive from the demand for their products.
Why not post the whole speech, Hillel? Did the next two paragraphs invalidate the commentary? In fact, the next two paragraphs make the President look even more the demagogue. The Golden Gate Bridge doesn't help me in Omaha, NE, to get to work today. Sending Neil Armstrong to the moon doesn't put food on my table. Only goes to show Obama doesn't know how businesses work or even how neighbors help neighbors.
"Why not post the whole speech, Hillel? Did the next two paragraphs invalidate the commentary? In fact, the next two paragraphs make the President look even more the demagogue. The Golden Gate Bridge doesn't help me in Omaha, NE, to get to work today. Sending Neil Armstrong to the moon doesn't put food on my table. Only goes to show Obama doesn't know how businesses work or even how neighbors help neighbors." n n nIf you do business with people in San Francisco, it certainly does. If you are posting or reading this on the internet using a microcomputer, whose ancestors were invented to allow computers to be taken with astronauts heading to the moon, it certainly does.
We need to stress that America was founded on the principles of the Hebrew Bible. See Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living. Rational thinking starts with clearly stated principles, continues with logical deductions, and then examines empirical evidence to possibly modify the principles. Here are some quotes from the book: n nAmerica began by the revolution against Great Britain. Judaism began by the revolution against ancient Egypt. Egypt, the world's superpower, was a society that believed in strong central government that controlled most aspects of people's lives. America celebrates the Revolution on July 4. Judaism celebrates the revolution by the holiday of Passover, "the time of our freedom." Passover stresses choice and asking questions, not mindless acceptance of authority. The goal of the Egyptian was a good place in Heaven. The goal of accepting Judaism and acting in accordance with the religion is a good society in Israel. Christianity and Islam also keep the focus on Heaven, not building society. For example, a Jew would never permanently lose his means of production, his property, for it will always be returned in the Jubilee year. Safety nets are intrinsic to Judaism. n nEgypt was the world's superpower. It was a statist society, with government control over everything. It was successful for many centuries. The Bible tells us that Joseph, the acting ruler of Egypt, moved people around the country. That is, the government told people where they could live. n
Here is a continuation of the post: n nA society ruled by strong government controls depresses economic advances and is very unpleasant to people. The Israelites left Egypt after negotiations, sanctions, and finally military action killing many Egyptians. Talking and sanctions failed. War was the only way to achieve freedom. This was very similar to the American Revolution in every respect, where talking and sanctions did not work, with only war, killing many British people, was the only way to achieve freedom. n nJews celebrate Passover to remember the exodus from the slavery of ancient Egypt. We must never forget what caused the tragedy of this slavery. It was caused by debt. The Israelites accrued such large debts that they had to become indentured servants. Their condition was hopeless in ever being able to repay the debt. The Bible tells us over and over again never to forget the exodus from Egypt. We must always remember the unspeakable horror debts can cause. n nPassover reminds us of the slavery in Egypt. We must remember the cause – debt, forcing them to become indentured servants. Jews must remind Obama and Americans that debt and big government is the way ancient Egypt was run. Jews believe in weak government. The American Founding Fathers got their ideals of liberty from Judaism. Jews must oppose the evil Democrats. Jews must say Obama's ideals are contrary to Judaism and the American Founding Fathers. n nThroughout history, people were ruled by rulers that demanded obedience and control. Throughout history, the state was all-powerful. The rulers claimed divine authority. The first revolution against statism was the Israelite exodus from ancient Egypt. The Hebrew Bible stresses freedom and choice, with minimal government interference. The American Revolution against Great Britain was modeled after Hebraic Law, referring to the Hebrew Bible. One of the major holidays in Judaism is Passover, the holiday of freedom. The emphasis is on asking questions and trying to understand principles. The ideal of freedom is responsible for the success of the Jewish people throughout the millennia. The ideal of freedom is responsible for the amazing success of the American nation throughout the past few centuries. n nLet us do all we can to keep the ideal of freedom alive. Let us fight with all we can against people like Obama and Sharrod who wish to impose severe restrictions on our freedom. Let us fight against columnists like the above who want less freedom and more government. Let us get out and vote out the politicians who vote for more government actions. Let us vote in the coming elections for people who will support freedom and liberty! n nThe best way to help the economy is not by focusing on suffering, but by focusing on freedom. For this end, we need to remind ourselves of our Jewish heritage. Jews escaped from statist Egypt to freedom. The slavery there was caused by debt. We must never forget this lesson that debt causes suffering. The huge debt that Obama is causing will result in horrible suffering for Americans. Jews survived for millennia against powerful destructive forces because of the Jewish ideal of freedom. America was founded on the basis of this Jewish ideal of freedom. America will continue to prosper as long as we remember the dangers of debt and the vital necessity of freedom. n nPopular national leaders sometimes lead the nation towards suicide. Hitler was extremely popular. People loved to hear him speak. He led his nation to murder and suicide. The German people failed to understand the great evil of their leader. Great Britain committed suicide in 1945 when Labor nationalized industries, condemning Britain to generations of poverty. British citizens, unfortunately, did not realize the harm and danger of the new government policies. The moral is that citizens have to be aware that popular leaders can do extremely great harm. We all know that when a doctor recommends a serious procedure, one must get a second opinion. We have to take the same attitude towards our leaders. We always have to ask the question, "are the policies our leaders are taking leading to disaster?" We do not ask this question. Instead, we look at polls, or we discuss the policies. Again, we must explicitly ask, what are the possibilities that the policies may lead to disaster and poverty. n nSince Obama wants to raise taxes, it is instructive to see what the Hebrew Bible says about taxes. The story about the Egyptian enslaving the Israelites begins with (Ex. 1:11), “And they placed upon them tax collectors.” The slavery began with taxes! Jews are commanded never to forget the lessons of the slavery in Egypt and the redemption from this slavery, and celebrate the Passover festival. We all must never forget how this slavery began with taxes! n nOne lesson is that going back to an earlier high tax government will anger the people, enough to revolt. Let us not forget that America revolted against Great Britain because of the taxes. Solomon was extremely popular, but when the next king wanted to continue the high taxes, it did not work. Clinton was popular, but if Obama continues high taxes, it will not work. n nAnother lesson is that the way to national prosperity is by lowering taxes. n
Pesach and Judaism are not just about mans relation to man but also about mans direct relation with God and how we appreciate the spiritual miracle that permeates all existence. The work we do as Jews cant all be political or interpreted politically i dont think. God did not lead Moses directly into the Promised Land but into the wilderness. The root of society's slavery to oppressors is the individuals slavery to sin.
No, you talk nonsense. Stop talking about God. "No one can see Me and live." The Torah teaches us how to live. This means to fight Obama with all our strength and will power, to fight our friends and relatives who support Obama. This is our holy responsibility from the Torah.
Could someone please remind me why so many reporters and pundits consider Obama to be the greatest political genius since the Big Bang…?
well, he's President and we aint. as a junior senator with a thin resume. he may be a lot of things but stoopid as rocks aint one of them.
So that teacher, that road builder, every other influence in their life, THEY deserve credit and praise and respect for the work that THEY do, but the people who build businesses don't? There it is, Obama's contempt for business, for all the world to see, and his apologists are still trying to cover for him. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Obama (and Elizabeth Warren before him) are essentially asserting a MORAL justification for turning successful workers and businessmen into little more tax serfs, to be squeezed at will by "society" (the State), on grounds that government — not you — is responsible for your success because they provided the physical and social infrastructure without which your success would be impossible. n nThey're basically just Marxists, when you come right down to it.
Marxism is not only statism but an ideology of revolutionary determinism and a true conviction that understanding of economics strips away the conventional joys and truths of daily life as bourgeoise illusions. One of those illusions is property which the Marxists will take and due process, which they will ignore when taking. And property is only the first thing the the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is prepared to strip from you on the road to utopia. Then comes your family. Your church. Your life. Conservative Germans who supported Bismarck also prized the all over the individual and exalted the State. But they weren't Marxists.
Podhoretz: "The president is saying that people who are successful in business do not deserve credit for being successful in business." n nObama: "… when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." n nIs that enough credit, John. Hey, even Walmart has employees. And many of those employees who helped built that business did so by supplementing their low wages with government assistance for health care, etc. Walmart even issued pamphlets instructing employees on how to sign up.
What lucky teacher gets the credit for your web posts?
This is a rough crowd to preach the gospel of labor. But Obama isn't really talking about it either. Samuel Gompers was not a preacher of government. But of the working man.
"For the president to say a taxpaying citizen didn’t build the infrastructure he uses is a fundamental denial of the entire concept of a self-governing citizenry." n nActually, for the president to say a taxpaying citizen didn't build the infrastructure he uses is a fundamental misunderstanding of how governments work — all governments, whether those, like our own, comprised of a self-governing citizenry or those comprised of the non-self-governing, hapless sods who live under dictatorships or socialist/communist regimes.
I first thought that the context helped clarify what Obama said. But it doesn't. I have a slightly different take on what Obama said. Like a lot of things he says, it's inherently (and purposefully) ambiguous so that it can be read to say different things. Podhoretz makes a good case for his interpretation. But there's enough text to support the view that Obama doesn't discount completely individual effort. If I had to choose, I'd give Podhoretz's construction the nod as expressing predominantly what Obama meant.
or Obama's just riffing superficially–he takes a lot for granted, he doesn't get that things can fall apart much more easily than they can be built to last–the effort and work required to keep things from sliding into the crapper escape him–he can be a hard worker when the goal is right (like being elected) but he's easily diverted into wasting time with his rich friends.
—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. n nThe point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.— n nThe second paragraph does not recover the first. n nThe first makes individual achievement debatable, possibly even delusional and suspect. Taunting the inhabitants of Fishtown to dream flat dreams. n nThe second is a throw-away line to every Belmont burgher who might take offense.
yeah, but look the first line is a throw away too, a call-out to the teacher's unions. He pounds traditional New Deal liberalism into bazooka gum wrapper cliches–the formula we do things together = Government-so-there is the last station before lights out.
There are two points of view toward life and most Americans have one and Obama and his followers have the other.r n To most of us, businesses and people flourish by providing services to others, services that others want. They succeed by satisfying their customers. Working for a private company is honorable and good. On the other hand, working for a charity or a foundation, which after all means being yourself supported by the charity of others, is definitely no better. Governments, which demand payment by the threat of force, and produce nothing positive, are worse.r n To Obama and to the young and naive, private enterprise is mere greediness, and the only pure pursuits are working for a charity, a foundation, or government. r n Actually private enterprise employs greed (otherwise known as ambition) for the benefit of customers, it harnesses ambition to produce wealth. r n Greed in government workers on the other hand causes corruption, bribery, and extortion. r n Why did so many big business types support Obama and the Democrats? Here is the answer: to protect themselves against retaliation (as experienced by Koch and that guitar maker) if they do not, because the Democratic party has become the party of corruption.
Your note on "greed" strikes me as highly relevant to what Obama was saying (meaning Obama's greed)! n nThis from Thomas Sowell: n nPious talk about "giving back" distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom. n nEven the envy that politicians stir up against "the rich" is highly focussed on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of "greed." n nfrom Newsmax.com: 'Slick-Talker-in-Chief' Inspires with Absurdity
Of course there are/were others who helped or contributed to the success of others, that's a given, but, it is individual initiative that can make the difference between success and failure. n nObama's underlying theme, to me, is that if not for the government, there would be no success.
what? no. DARPA was research. profits? nit took many years for it to be spun off as a commercially-oriented network and then, yes, people made profits out of it. But no, the goal of the scientists and engineers of DARPA and ARPAnet was to develop the technology not to monetize it. Folks didn't make money off of it until they were permitted to open up the Net for commercial exploitation. And pop-ups. Well, some folks at least are making money off of it. directly but its wider value is generally as infrastructure. Like bridges.