Obama, Dems Double Down On “You Didn’t Build That”
July 20, 2012 10 Comments
It’s been truly amazing to watch the reaction to Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment. You’ll recall that Obama suggested that people who have made it didn’t do it without government help. The Romney camp was not surprising in its response, they’ve attacked it up and down. Obama on the other hand hasn’t backed off of it and Democrats haven’t distanced themselves from it. Indian Squaw Elizabeth Warren backs Obama’s comments wholeheartedly. It is in these comments that we find the fundamental divide between the two candidates. Obama has given us a clear choice, it’s up to America to decide which direction we go in.
To be fair, the Obama camp claims that what Obama really meant was that successful businessmen didn’t build the roads in front of their business. But that was only a portion of the comments. But even if we just look at that, it is absurd to suggest that a road in front of your business is the key to success. There are lots of roads in Detroit but not many successful businesses. What makes a successful business isn’t a road, but an innovative idea and a lot of hard work. That’s exactly what Obama is criticizing and suggesting doesn’t really exist without government. He claims government created the internet (I thought Al Gore did) but what he doesn’t tell you is that government didn’t do anything with it. It was innovative ideas from businessmen that created the internet we use today.
Obama is coming at this issue from the leftist position, in fact he comes at it from a community organizer viewpoint. Businessmen are evil and exploit workers and really just live off the government. Henry Ford didn’t innovate, he exploited. The local shop keeper didn’t work hard, he exploited everyone. Romney obviously comes at it from a different angle, that it is businessmen who work hard, invest their time and money into a business, innovate and become successful. The choice is very clear heading into November, which vision of the future do you prefer?
The Wall Street Journal suggests the race is Solyndra vs Staples. Solyndra is of course the company Obama spent $500+ million of taxpayer money on which went bankrupt. Did we mention the major players at Solyndra were Obama campaign bundlers who directly lobbied in the White House? Staples was largely built by Bain Capital and is one of the largest Bain successes. In fact, Bain companies generally out performed the S&P 500 and the US Economy when Romney was at the helm. Some jobs were lost and some of Bain’s investments didn’t work. But many did, in fact many more jobs were created by Bain than lost.
Obama betrays his trust of government, his trust of a top down approach to the economy which has failed wherever it has been tried. Businessmen did in fact build their own business, they did come up with the ideas themselves, they did know how to manage employees better than others. That’s why they’re successful. Others aren’t as successful, even if they’re as intelligent. Perhaps others aren’t willing to work as hard or perhaps they didn’t come up with the right idea at the right time. Obama doesn’t seem to understand that, nor does he particularly care. Leftists like Obama who were mentored by Communists generally don’t.
About Steven
I was listening to NPR on the way home from work and they had a discussion about the remarks by President Obama. Both “experts” were declaring that Romney was making a failed attempt to focus on one sentence of an otherwise clear quote by Obama. They accused him of trying to divert attention away from his questionable tax returns and offshore financial dealings.
The truth be told, I think both of these so-called experts missed the mark completely. But, given their liberal leanings, that is to be expected.
It’s NPR, I’d expect no different analysis.
You boys managed to pull me out of retirement for this one…
“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.” BHO.
Do you guys honestly not understand the gist of that statement? Seriously, is it really unclear? You have to work really, really hard to miss the point – or change the point. Romney has had a terrible couple weeks. He undoubtedly wants attention off of ‘retroactively retired’ and, at least for you faithful followers, it is clearly working. The NPR ‘experts’ are bang on and you are the evidence.
Oh, and I note you say, Steve, “…what he doesn’t tell you is that government didn’t do anything with it. It was innovative ideas from businessmen that created the internet we use today.” (SBS). Except that he tells us exactly that. In the very same sentence. Interesting, eh?
There is more, but the punchline of (this part of) the speech is, I think, summarized with “So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.” BHO. The idea that today the right is unable to agree with even this obvious statement is really a testament to just how unreasonable you guys have become.
You’re missing the setup though. Obama set it up saying ” 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.”
What Obama is saying is that if you’re successful, you didn’t do it on your own. That’s the opposite of the American Dream, which teaches that with hard work and innovation you can make it on your own. He’s directly attacking the American dream and adopting the It Takes A Village mentality.
I will agree though it’s been a tough few weeks for Romney. That said the polls have remained unchanged. That suggests that undecided voters are looking for a change but Romney is going to have to seal the deal otherwise those undecided voters will either vote for Obama or stay at home which would be a defacto vote for Obama.
“What Obama is saying is that if you’re successful, you didn’t do it on your own.” And that right there is the conundrum the right faces these days. On the one hand, ‘Hoooray for America and what she stands for cause we are the most awesomest system on the planet and love it or leave it…but on the other hand ‘nobody in any way benefits from being part of the American collective system and every single success is purely through hard work and innovation and has zip to do with the fact that we operate in a system of laws and other cooperative social conventions called the United States of America’. I honestly don’t get how you guys can manage that cognitive dissonance. Show me one successful person in the country today that didn’t benefit in some way from the system of government. Who achieved every single thing in a complete vacuum, free of US infrastructure, health care, public education, system of laws, whatever. You just can’t!! People are successful because of, not despite, the system in place in our society.
Again, the fact that this is controversial among you folks on the right is just stunning.
Oh, and give me some examples of “…top down approach to the economy which has failed wherever it has been tried.” Are there top down approach countries today? If so, which?
North Korea is a current example. We could look to the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, China during the reign of Mao in the past to see the failure of top down economics. I’m not one who really believes Obama is a Marxist. I believe he’s a fascist, he believes in state capitalism with a handful of large corporations taking their dictates from government and managing things on the governments behalf. That’s essentially what Mussolini had in Italy, the American progressive left loved it when he first took power. Obama seems to harken back to that vision.
Nothing collective in this country created any innovation or idea that became something. It appears the government schools want a pat on the back for every successful person that may have attended. But the government schools didn’t create the innovation, they didn’t come up with the idea, they didn’t figure out how to manage people in a successful manner. Apparently the government would like a pat on the back for building roads. But again, isn’t the road that is responsible for success. If roads were all it took, Detroit would be a highly successful city.
Holy cow. Nobody is saying that public schools created the innovation or the ideas, etc. Nobody. What they (we) are saying is that public investment in educating the citizens provides positive returns in myriad ways. This is just patently, demonstrably obvious.
Are you seriously arguing that you, as a potential innovator, don’t benefit from an educated population? That society would function better and more efficiently if you had to provide a person with an engineering education in order to hire an engineer? That you don’t live in a safer, more productive, more creative nation because our people are reasonably well educated? That is just nuts.
Show me one actual quote, one actual policy position or piece of legislation that supports “he believes in state capitalism with a handful of large corporations taking their dictates from government and managing things on the governments behalf.” Otherwise, you are just making stuff up to fit what you ‘know’ about BHO’s heart of hearts.
And NK as the example? He ‘harkens back’ to Mussolini? Srsly? Come on, Steve.. There are 50 nations that have implemented policies you would call fascistic, etc. that are far closer to the reality being discussed in the States – go with Sweden or Holland or Canada. Are they all teetering on the brink? Abject failures, what with their high levels of education, wealth, long life spans and good health?
Obama’s quote is what it is. I’m responding to what the left, including you, have suggested Obama really meant. I believe he meant to attack businessmen in just the manner I suggested. But if you guys are right, that he’s really talking about teachers and roads, then his comment is even more absurd. The fact is that successful people did do it on their own. They’re the ones who had the idea, they’re the ones that came up with the innovation.
I would suggest you look at the Financial Reform law he passed with a Democrat Congress. That does little more than serve major financial institutions at the expense of smaller ones. I would look at Obamacare, which has the support of major, large corporations but is a major drain on small and medium sized businesses. (ex: Look at the exemptions handed out to one Fortune 500 company after another, these aren’t available to small businesses) Look at Obama’s support for TARP, which aided big banks at the expense of small banks.
The fact is that Sweden, The Netherlands and Canada aren’t countries with state capitalism. They’re their own form of socialism: Democratic socialism. It hasn’t been all that successful in Canada where waiting lists for basic health services are through the roof. It’s not all that successful in Holland either, which has similar healthcare issues. Sweden is a complacent society that doesn’t create much of anything. Take Ikea away and what has Sweden produced? In fact, what has Holland produced?
Simple hypothetical. Assume an individual with a given business idea, given resources (including personal abilities) and given market demand. Place her in one of two worlds. In one, there is a system of laws and contracts, existing public infrastructure (e.g. transportation conventions, etc.) and law enforcement. In the other, these things do not exist – she must enforce agreements on her own, learn about transportation conventions and construct her own roads and hire mercenaries (i.e. for profit officers/soldiers) to protect her shipments (and enforce her contracts, presumably). All else equal, is her decision whether to start her business likely to differ depending on the world?
I sincerely wish I could understand why the idea that we might all benefit from the investments of society (of being in a society, really) is so offensive to you guys. I mean, it’s not unlike Romney’s recent comments: “You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities.” Why would he denigrate and insult their personal initiative and skills and stuff?!!!? Why does he disparage the American Dream?!!?
And of course it isn’t the road that created the success!!! Nobody said it was. Undoubtedly there are a lot of failed businesses along roads, but how many successful businesses do not have roads adjacent? Transportation to/from the business is not sufficient for success, but (with few exceptions) it is necessary.
The not successful Canada has, on average richer, longer-lived, healthier and happier citizens than the US. Just sayin.
I believe that you have the causation backwards re: large corporations and their relation to the government (regardless of who is in power).
You’re just repeating Indian squaw Elizabeth Warren’s point. The problem is that this nation was created without all of that and in the 20th century business has thrived in spite of everything you cite. That government is providing a common defense like it’s supposed to doesn’t in any way take away from innovative business decisions. Government doesn’t deserve credit or a pat on the back for doing its job.
Actually, Obama’s people have suggested that Obama was crediting road creation. That’s been their best argument against the conservative interpretation of “you didn’t build that.” I’m glad you recognize the absurdity of their argument.