Obama:
"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."
"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."
I guess in essence he's telling us that we don't have natural rights, that they come from Washington. I guess he's forgotten that it's the stolen wealth of entrepreneurs that have built this infrastructure.
Here's the quotes as they appeared in the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/16/morning-bell-obama-tells-entrepreneurs-you-didnt-build-your-business/?roi=echo3-12563386370-9161355-9d027d5d930b60891fe84484d84b2925&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
How does one owe anything for things that have already been paid for by others? It's like parents telling their children, "We brought you into this world, so you owe us for that." It's just a mindgame - an attempt at getting people to willingly pay for positive externalities. Certainly, if money is simply taken from people under this pretext, I'd call that "theft".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
and then he'll turn around and give a speech to his dependency class that'll build them up by giving them excuses for their failures. Everything is upside down in his world.
That right there is probably the heart and soul of the "progressive" mindset: the idea that because you had to interact with society in some way to make your fortune, society has every right to take from you as they see fit, for you were just a beneficiary of favorable circumstances.
Never mind that you already paid "society" for most, if not all of the benefits it provides: educated workers command a wage premium, vehicle taxes pay for the roads you drive on, you pay your utility bill every month and so on.
Never mind that public provision of these goods, which progressives always cite as the ex post facto reason to extract ever more funds, crowds out or outright denies competitive opportunities for the private sector, effectively forcing you to make use of them. Thus, tax-provided infrastructure really becomes essential to your life, allowing progressives to gleefully extol taxes as the "price you pay to live in civilization".
And lastly, never mind that entrepreneurs aren't leeches that latched onto an opportunity that just happened to present itself to them. Entrepreneurship is associated with great financial and personal risk and many entrepreneurs fail many times before they finally succeed.
Of course, the progressive preference for cushy government and academic (but I repeat myself) jobs makes them oblivious to this reality.
Mmm, imagine the President's mindset right now... All his 'friends' coming in to remind him that he did not become President by himself, and that they won't help him a second time around if he doesn't help them.
He wants it both ways - he wants to impose laws that reduce the division-of-labor (tariffs, MW, etc. etc.) while at the same time taking credit for... the division-of-labor. There is no doubt that the individual entrepreneur is not even close to being fully responsible for his own success. And the more thriving and free the market is, the more this is the case! Every UPS driver who has ever delivered one of his packages, every phone lineman who has ever kept his phone call connected, every IT professional who has kept his serverse up, every software engineer who has developed his spreasheet software, every auto mechanic who has kept his fleet cars on the road, etc. has contributed to the entrepreneur's success and has been paid as he expected to be.
Clayton -
This reminds me of de Jasay's "Your dog owns your house," essay.
Obligation already discharged, sir. Already discharged.
Considering his PR people built him up as a man of mixed descent who gained everything he has by his own strengths and worked his way to the very top... there must be a communication breakdown somewhere in his staff.
OK, joke time is over. This is just the representation of the Big Government mindset: if you have something is because we allowed you to. Thinking of it is not too far from the mark: any government thug can shut you down whenever he pleases. Think of all the children who had their lemonade stands kicked down by "overzealous" city officials. Think about air travel: you can lose your flight if the "overzealous" TSA officer thinks you are "suspicious". You are a salesman with an important appointment? Better pray Big Government allows you to get there in time.
Some government officials really think we should be grateful to them because they allow us to keep something after taxation. We should be grateful for the lousy "services" they provide us at inflated prices without even the "opt out" option (Apple doesn't force me to buy an iPhone if I want a cellphone, let alone forces me to own a cellphone). Their behavior is starting to betray their absolutist mindset: criticism is usually met by the same words usually reserved for an ungrateful child. All in all they resemble my father: they do nothing useful but want gratitude and respect they did absolutely nothing to deserve. You should be grateful to them just because they exist and bear a fancy title.
Kakugo: yep, this is part of the reason why I consider the state to be an extension of the (authoritarian) family in origin. The mentality really is the same.
It's the same arguments that many statist's, especially liberals, have been using to justify their actions for decades, there's nothing really ground breaking here. It might be a good rallying cry against Obama, however... Because what we really want is more support for Romney.
Sigh.
Autolykos: Kakugo: yep, this is part of the reason why I consider the state to be an extension of the (authoritarian) family in origin. The mentality really is the same. At least an authoritian does something. My father was exactly like many politicians: he did nothing but destroy wealth (my grandfather's). He wasn't even good at threatening the use of force, something most government officials at least are good at, because he was afraid to be cut off the dole by my grandfather (who had many fault but didn't tolerate violence of any kind, especially in the family). But he was very good at demanding "respect" and pontificating about moral values. That's probably the reason to this day I consider hypocrisy the worst possible vice. Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 5
PMpockets: Obama: "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: "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." I guess in essence he's telling us that we don't have natural rights, that they come from Washington. I guess he's forgotten that it's the stolen wealth of entrepreneurs that have built this infrastructure. Here's the quotes as they appeared in the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/16/morning-bell-obama-tells-entrepreneurs-you-didnt-build-your-business/?roi=echo3-12563386370-9161355-9d027d5d930b60891fe84484d84b2925&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
He's a socialist statist. He's a horrible president; he's like Alexander Hamilton on crack.
"He's a socialist statist. He's a horrible president; he's like Alexander Hamilton on crack."
Can you back up that statement? I don't understand the extreme Obama hatred, from what I've seen he's just like the rest of them, no better, no worse.
Can you back up that statement?
Presidents suck, no doubt, but this current one is the worst.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I dont think anyone here wants Romney.
Here's a video that somewhat ties into this. It talks about how local governments are treated differently when they file for bankruptcy. Usually, if a business has debt and files for bankruptcy, the assets they hold go toward satisfying those debts. Listen to what they do with governments filing bakruptcy. If you dont want to hear about silver, fastforward to 8:45.
Well look at me, anarchist apologist for Barrack Obama XD
"Partially nationalized the banking system"
This was already being undergone by Bush, I think that it's hard to argue that any other president other than Reagan who presided in the last 50 years wouldn't have done the same thing given the chance.
"Partially nationalized the medical care system"
Definitely true, although once more Clinton and presidents dating all the way back to Truman wanted to do a similar thing, it just happened that Public opinion was more in-line when Obama was in office. Indeed you could already argue that this was already done with the advent of Medicare and Medicade. This still doesn't really qualify as socialist, however, if we want the term "liberal" to actually mean anything.
"Increased fiscal expenditure more than any other president in U.S. History (more than all other previous presidents combined)"
How does this compare in real terms? Although once more you're almost certainly correct.
"Has a department of justice that blatantly attacks property rights and has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law"
Source?
"Has a department of labor that that's anti-business"
"Surrounded himself with monetary cranks and old-school Keynesians"
Isn't that pretty much what modern economics is?
"His regulations and proposed regulations have created torrential uncertainty and moral hazard in the financial system"
Source? I've herd something similar from various sources, especially surrounding environmental issues, but what specific regulations are you talking about?
"Wants to dramatically increase taxes"
I know this is true, at least on the rich, I haven't heard (because I'm usually too wrapped up in other things to look at whatever idiotic schemes the politicians are trying to pass next) exactly how high he would like them in his dream world. Has he ever come out and said this? At any rate, there have been plenty of presidents in the past who have overseen periods of extremely high taxes, much higher than they are now, on the rich, at least on a federal level.
"Places know-nothing, lunatic liberal judges on supreme court"
Seriously, I never heard a single redeeming factor about Sotomayor, but nonetheless this doesn't make him any more statist or socialist, just a worse president.
I'm not defending Bush, but the difference between Bush and Obama is a matter of degree. Obama is Bush on steroids; he carried out what Bush began and then some. This makes him worse than Bush.
Definitely true, although once more Clinton and presidents dating all the way back to Truman wanted to do a similar thing, it just happened that Public opinion was more in-line when Obama was in office.
Listen, I don't need all this useless crap. If you concede the point, then just concede it.
This is just off the top of my head. There's a lot more, but I don't feel like doing HW for other people.
No, not at all. Old-school Keynesianism has been dead for a long time (so we thought).
Read up on the Dodd-Frank bill.
At any rate, there have been plenty of presidents in the past who have overseen periods of extremely high taxes, much higher than they are now, on the rich, at least on a federal level.
This is true, but it's merely one thing amongst many. Either way, the wealthy are disproportionately carrying the tax burden today, relative to any other period. Tax rates were much higher in the past, but the effective tax rates were much lower. The top 20% income earners account for 94% of federal revenue, and this isn't enough for Obama.
[EDIT]
If you just listen to their rhetoric, Obama is definitely more big-government when it comes to the economy. He wants tons of regulations and taxes and he wants to transfer wealth to the unproductive from the productive. It's very true that the repubs do a lot of this too, but Obama proudly does it and wants to convert more and more people into this way of thinking. I think that if Obama were given the power to do so, he would most definitely expand the role of government in the economy much more than his republican opponents would.
Look at his so-called mentors. It appears that everyone of them are communists, literally.
Personally, I hate his freakin arrogant guts!
And here's Bush's retarded self buying into the 'housing for everyone' mantra that emanated from the left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8
These people are CLUELESS and arrogantly parade their ignorance. Even if Romney and Obama were equally pathetic, I think it'd be better to avoid a lame duck president in Obama because I have a feeling his ambitions know no restraints.
Looks like he's playing the bullshit Elizabeth Warren card.
As usual, Peter Schiff was right on the money:
"If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
What a patronizing and ignorant thing to say. From a guy that's never started a business no less. The amateur indeed.
‘UTTER LACK OF UNDERSTANDING’: BI-PARTISAN BUSINESS GROUP FIRES BACK AT OBAMA‘S ’YOU DIDN‘T BUILD YOUR BUSINESS’ SPEECH
“What a disappointment to hear President Obama‘s revealing comments challenging the significance of America’s entrepreneurs,” NFIB President Dan Danne said in a statement to Mail Online.
“His 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,” he added.
“They know that hard work does matter,” he added. “Every small business is not indebted to the government or some other benefactor. If anything, small businesses are historically an economic and job-creating powerhouse in spite of the government.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/utter-lack-of-understanding-bi-partisan-business-group-fires-back-at-obamas-you-didnt-build-your-business-speech/
how many business got there
without using puplic
-roads
-education ( consumers and employees)
-internet
-registration as a company from the government with speacial privaliges that individuals don't have
-utilities
-law
the enterprenour builds the business, but they don't build it alone isolated from government in the majority of cases. many business use usa law at their backs to give limited liability. those that choose to use the government did not build it alone, those that choose not to use the government can have more of a claim to building it alone and inspit of government interferance
How many
-education [institutions] ( consumers and employees)
-internetz
-registration [facilities]
-laws
got there without the wealth generated by businesses and the people they employ?
thank god theyve let us live! I owe them my life.
"how many business got there
the enterprenour builds the business, but they don't build it alone isolated from government in the majority of cases. many business use usa law at their backs to give limited liability. those that choose to use the government did not build it alone, those that choose not to use the government can have more of a claim to building it alone and inspit of government interferance"
Plenty, because the government had to first confiscate the wealth of existing businesses before it could go around taking over such industries, crowding out competition, and then taking credit for it all. You've got your process reversed. Wealth has to be created before it can be spent, even by the government. Claiming the government enables businesses to grow is like an art thief claiming credit for a Picaso painting.
the enterprenour builds the business, but they don't build it alone
No kidding, even the lowly pencil isn't built alone! This is a debate that we (libertarians) want to have because we are the champions of social harmony and cooperation. It is the statists who believe that people can't get along without the government smacking them over the head with a nightstick all the time.
now a meme I've seen on facebook:
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
so this is getting to chicken and egg
it took private citizen to create government
part of what the citizens did was create law for the government to run
part of the law created limited liability and corporations and all that unnatural entities that don't exist outside of law.
the relationship between government and business is simular to that of a business and customers. a business is a customer of government.
business don't grow without customers
are there legal entities without government? can a person go to a private company and register a corporation that then gives them all the privaliges of a corporation and all the limited liability that a corporation has?
the privaliges government gives to corporations, such as limited liability and copywright, have encouraged investers beyound what would happen in a world where everyone was fully liable.
in a mixed economy, there are certainly business that contract with governments and grow that way. we have business with private gain and socialised lose with bailouts. some enterprenours and business depend more on government than others.
then there is putting the military factor in the debate. without the usa military, the world would be a different place, i doupt that the geography would not be controlled by another state if not for the usa military.
there are people that see some of government costs as investments, rather than stolen money.
there are places without a government, i don't see a private registration business there where all the corporations are flooding to in order to register there, but i am seeing business registered in other governments that have less taxes than usa
i think the type of enterprenourships is a factor here. some business types don't depend on government, but other types of business are fictional entities created through government registration.
Nope. Private production necessarily must precede public consumption. Government - for all its supposed magic powers - can't steal something that has not yet been produced.
Neodoxy: "He's a socialist statist. He's a horrible president; he's like Alexander Hamilton on crack." Can you back up that statement? I don't understand the extreme Obama hatred, from what I've seen he's just like the rest of them, no better, no worse.
You defend the indefensible. Take that picture of Nietzsche off as your default, you are paying him an ingratitude by offering up such apologist notions in defense of statism. No matter the evil, it is still evil. Why do you AnCaps always feel the need to qualify something by making a stupid comparison? You can't critique a democrat without mentioning that you would also critique a republican. Who gives a shit? Like I said, corruption is corruption, and evil is evil, all without petty comparisons. You are simple minded, apparently.
Not only are entrepreneurs using the nations resources, food stamps help the economy. Entrepreneurs are arrogant resource consumers. Food stamp recipients are economy builders. According to the most powerful man in the world...
Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: "Well, obviously, it's putting people to work. Which is why we're going to have some interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this morning, we're going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and Secretary Chu to announce something that's never happened in this country -- something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/16/obama_ag_secretary_vilsack_food_stamps_are_a_stimulus.html
Government sponsored ad promoting the benefits of foodstamps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1nv8G6UFfc
I could just imagine us shipwrecking on an island in the middle of nowhere and everyone scurrying about, building shelter, fire, hunting for food and water and I just sit there, "I'm helping this economy out because I want food, shelter, fire and water. Now hurry it up." I would be like Obama's idol or something. Cool.
Clayton:Nope. Private production necessarily must precede public consumption. Government - for all its supposed magic powers - can't steal something that has not yet been produced.
private production is different from a corporation and other limited liability entities that are government created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
government created, first company to create stock
its different from a couple of individuals tradings carrots for turnups.
the history of corporations started with government
No business inherently relies on government. To claim we owe the gov something because they, for instance, have a monopoly on the mail system and roads--two things that can be privately provided but that the gov uses to coercion to prevent, is to confuse the issue utterly.
Brit Hume On Obama's View Of Business: "Explains Nearly Everything"
But not stock-shares, which is the part of corporations that is actually good. I find it amazing that you actually praise the limitation of liability.
cab21: private production is different from a corporation and other limited liability entities that are government created.
How do you think corporations originally got their start? They weren't government actions, they were basically wealth protection via fraud.
What you would do is claim the owner of the business as a made up person, let's call him Smith. Everyone involved in the business their money with Smith, even though he doesn't exist. If the corporation goes belly up, the creditors get directed to the made up person, Smith, whom of course cannot be found, and thus everyone who invested has plausible deniability and no further financial liability.
Later the law caught up to what was happening and made it legal. It had been happening for so long on the sly, and resulted in such amazing wealth production, that it went mainstream and gained legal acceptance.
Limited liability corporations could still exist without a government as well, even in modern day, established by contract.
cab21:the history of corporations started with government
Bull.
His rationale is intellectually dishonest.
If you have the power of the masses behind you, you can take anything you want from anyone you want. Period.
People have options. They can try to leave and pay their taxes to some other organization or perhaps to no one. They can stay and try to elect people who won't tax them as much or they can rebel and try to overthrow the existing organization and replace it with a new one. I'm sure there are other options but these are just some that come to mind.
if this guy gets into office again and doesnt have to worry about re-election, theres no telling what he's capable of. Any of you guys have any ideas or speculation on this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
"A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members"
what is the true definition of a corporation and the true history if that is bull? what is the source of the "smith" history? the "smith" corporation is not like the government granted corporation that usa has.