Barry O’s recent insult to small business owners, ”If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” will likely haunt him the way this previous Obama insult did…“It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…” Conservative media has already labeled the moment his ‘you didn’t build that speech’.
Much hay is being made already. I suspected this would occur the moment I heard it. In context the remark is softened to be sure. It’s still a telling moment. The reveal here is in his working assumption. His world view. In Obama’s world the people work for the government. All of them. If you’re a success financially you owe the government which allowed you to become successful. In Obama’s mind the benefit derived from any personal initiative must logically flow to the government. The tell is at the end. Somebody else made that happen. This sentence is as insulting and nasty a public remark as I’ve ever heard an American President make about people in his own country.
Un-American is overused. But it’s the correct modifier here. In practice we’ve passed this moment (Civics isn’t even taught in many schools any longer.) but most Americans still see the rightful place of the government as working for the people. Not the reverse. The government exists because the people allow it to…not the reverse.
As a New Dealer who has come to the conclusion that the New Deal is dead. (Hey, it had a good run!) it’s fascinating to think about Obama’s angry world view. It did not emerge directly from FDR. It is the voice of FDR’s angry, ungrateful grandchildren. FDR and LBJ said “We won’t allow the elderly to starve” and “We won’t allow the indigent, children and elderly to go without medical care or food” These initiatives have been mishandled and corrupted but the impulse remains civilizing. Obama’s impulse is far nastier. With the gutting of welfare reform, the promotion of food stamps and revealing moments like the one noted above Obama is reversing a Clinton era talking point: We want to give you a hand out, not a hand up. Alas, someone has to pay for it. Obama views entrepreneurs as a trust fund he gets to raid to buy votes. The tragedy of America now is that many, many millions also view other people’s success as something they are entitled to.
However, many millions more still bitterly cling to the notion that pluck and drive are in the American DNA. If someone builds it, that someone deserves the wealth it brings. No one, especially not the government, has a right to get in the way of the pursuits of happiness. Whether or not this is true anymore in reality is beside the point. Many assume it is.
Like his off the cuff remark blaming the Cambridge cop for Louis Gates’ petulance, this off teleprompter remark will haunt him going forward. The sound bite is damning. After a week of putting and keeping Romney on defense, Obama handed him the ball. Obama’s politically inept remark promotes Romney’s narrative up for him.
As always, the media will do what it can to minimize the damage. But the GOP and its off shoots have plenty of money this year. Expect You didn’t build that ads including but not limited to: Independent contractors, Mom and Pop hardware stores, inventors of all stripes, landscapers, restauranteurs, and lemonade stands.
Related articles
- Is Obama Ripping Off the Mask? (americanthinker.com)
This one is a good read to:
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/07/top-dem-senators-have-all-told-me-obama-doesnt-know-what-hes-doing-horrified-democrat-senate-leaders/
Blame Canada!
Canada is George Bush’ fault.
I really like this post, John, and not just because I do buy that old American dream stuff. It’s what I was taught by a very strong mom who had to go on welfare for a few years after a divorce to get her degree, and worked her butt off every day after and made it into the middle class. But I really like this line:
That, my friend, is a keeper. Sheer rhetorical brilliance, encapsulating all the unease I’ve felt about the trajectory of the Democratic party in recent years into one sentence. Soundbite worthy. Repeatable. Promotable. I like it very much. Sorry to gush.
Great post. This may very well be the tipping point for Obama. I bet there’s a lot of gnashing of teeth in the WH right now about ever letting him go speechifying without his TOTUS.
Think about it. He’s an incredibly Manchurian candidate. He most certainly did not get to where he is on his own steam. I’d imagine he probably thinks that this is the way it is for everyone.
Bingo!
No no no, John, that’s wrong and the way it’s wrong is important if your point is where it came from, how we got here, and what happened to dreams and programs like the New Deal.
“FDR’s children” are now in their 70s and 80s, they’re the ones who worked for what they had, had appliances repaired rather than replaced, studied critical thinking and civic responsibility in school, built businesses and brand names that the Obama generation is living off of and squandering and angry that there isn’t more to take. And by “Obama generation” I mean the Bushies and Obamabots and Romeyites, the vast population that makes these bad choices, who think they’re entitled to toys and trophies and if it takes deception and scamming and tossing workers and their pensions under the bus to get these things for themselves then that’s okey dokey with them.
The voice you’re hearing from Obama is not that of FDR’s children; Obama’s grandmother was FDR’s child — she worked and supported her family and took care of the nuts and bolts responsibilities that FDR took care of and urged others to take care of. The Obama generation is the product of how FDR’s children’s children parented and what they taught — and how they ended up doing that is, I think, fascinating. But there is a lot more distance, and events, between FDR and Obama’s angry world view than a parent/child analogy would indicate.
Yeah Zal, I know…i worried about that word “children” and trust me in my nighttime blog practice i rarely worry about one word. (the close reader here knows this already) I meant ideological off spring more than generational. Hubert humphrey is FDR’s “child” if one is thinking of generations….but maybe i’ll add a “Grand”…
Your point came across perfectly to me John. I took it metaphorically, not literally.
Exactly, John; I’m glad you got where I was going. It wasn’t nitpicky. The sameness of FDR and his metaphorical children and then the difference between them and FDR’s grandchildren is enormous; and the differences help explain how we got dug into this hole and why we’re digging deeper rather than digging out. Those few of us, of any age, who are still FDR’s children struggle to find others who support those ideals and principles of integrity, fairness, responsibility, finance and economy.
Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly by citing Hubert Humphrey – I used many words when just those two would do.
Obama projects a lot. I think he is talking about himself and doesn’t even realize it.
Right on with that Lulu. It is so true. How else to explain the many, pointed fingers and tsk,tsking, and shaming and blaming.
Another reason why Obama should never go off-teleprompter. The point was more to the point in the original Warren.
It’s not that you didn’t build it. It’s that you didn’t build it all by yourself. There is (or was) an infrastructure in this country that’s conducive to the American Dream (which is probably why it’s been known as the American Dream and not some other country’s dream). And our infrastructure isn’t comprised only of gifts from the government, although roads, public schools, public works, and the Internet do go a long way in helping people get their ideas to market. Some very entrepreneurial people can’t make a go of it in nations where most of the citizens do not have indoor plumbing and things like that (and a population that used to have an attribute known as Yankee Ingenuity).
He’s still an asshole and he can’t even plagiarize well.
It got lost in translation from the Cherokee.
Warren’s message comes across as ‘we’re all in this together’. She doesn’t devalue entrepreneurship. That’s the difference.
Actually, if you hear her make the speech in person, she does. While the “we’re all in this together’ message is there, she does devalue the initiative that entrepreneurs have that the rest of the population doesn’t have. She believes that the people who are smart enough to make money owe the people who aren’t a larger share of their wealth. If the argument is that businesses should pay their fair share, then we need to define “fair share”. If a homeowner is charged for the number of running feet of frontage his property has when we assess for sewer taxes, do we charge the business owner the same rate per foot, or do we expect the business owner to kick in more? A business that doesn’t do laundry and has fewer flushes per square foot of property than the average home? Business property tax rates are 50% higher than residential taxes in my town. Does a business call 911 50% more times? Unless they are a company with a lot of trucks, do they use the roads 50% more? Is the business owner more responsible for paying for the roads its workers use to come to work than the person driving to work, or should they share equally? Until we define “fair”, we really don’t know what she’s thinking.
” She believes that the people who are smart enough to make money owe the people who aren’t a larger share of their wealth”
No. I hear her to say (and she literally says so in the clip here) that the social contract is such that we give back. That’s not devaluing the entrepreneur. It’s increasing their responsibility. I agree.
But in this particular discussion, no one is pointing out the businesses already pay lots of taxes, unless they’re as big a GE. And the vast majority of businesses are smaller smaller than that, some 2.5 million in fact. They are already overburdened with taxes and regulations that come with an additional cost of compliance.
I’m all on board with raising the capital gains tax. That’s a point that many can agree on. Income is income and it shouldn’t be taxed at different rates. And go ahead and restructure the corporate tax code and close a lot of loopholes (btw, did you know that Mitt R0mney closed $300 million worth of such loopholes as Governor of MA?). But regular, non-corporate businesses already pay their fair share for those roads and such. That’s a point worth making.
For the record, I believe in the Social Contract. But this is heavy-handed BS designed to fire up the prog mob.
EW and obama have morphed into one proglodyte “hero”, with the associated hero-cult worship. EW’s website & messaging are indistinguishable from BO’s. No doubt Axelrod of Evil is behind her fabrication — & she was fabricated — as well. obama stole from Deval Patrick in ’08, why not steal a speech from stable-mate EW in ’12?
I’ll believe Warren’s a bad guy when I discover it myself. Haven’t yet, Cherokee nonsense and all.
You don’t have to look too far. http://news.yahoo.com/harsh-foreclosure-critic-elizabeth-warren-reportedly-made-fortune-050708111.html
Flipping foreclosed homes is totally legit. She didn’t cause the foreclosures so what’s your point?
EW is a creation of the same people who brought us obama. Just like obama, EW:
1) Has “Truth Team” droogs to harass & smear opposition;
2) Has astroturfed support groups;
3) Gives lip service to campaign finance reform, then raises millions from Hollywood and other out-of-state heavy-hitters;
4) Played dirty tricks to remove her primary opponent;
5) Refuses to release key college and job application records;
6) Makes shit up about her past;
7) Is too inexperienced for the position she’s running for;
8) Has a reputation based on a speech;
9) Was anointed by the Machine.
I know you don’t like her. I do so far.
DO I LIKE WHAT SHE SAYS: Yes.
DO I BELIEVE THAT SHE BELIEVES WHAT SHE SAYS: Yes.
DO I THINK THAT SHE’D TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THE VISION SHE RAN ON?: Yes.
That’s all I need in a politician. I don’t expect a moral giant, nor do I know any.
I did like EW — at first glance. The more I see of her, the more her pervasive mendacity & fabulism, her hypocrisy, and how she’s fully plugged into the obama machine, plus the cultish, obot-like venality of her supporters, makes me feel about Scott Brown the same way you’re feeling about Romney.
All I see in the Obamabots is a bunch of really tall children. When a real child becomes interested in say, legos, and is building something cool, often another child will either try to knock it over, or co-opt for themselves. Then they get mad and frustrated because building something cool is not in their DNA. They don’t have the patience or the vision for this type of toy, so they become envious of the kid who does. This is your typical under-achiever, it’s not lack of smarts that hurts them nearly so much as their failure to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, becoming envious and resentful.
What a great observation and so spot on Sophie.
Pingback: Top Dem Senators Have All Told Me Obama Doesn’t Know What He’s Doing – Horrified Democrat Senate Leaders | Maggie's Notebook
You don’t have to be smart to make money. You have to have a certain kind of flexible ethics and a set of values that places the acquisition of things above the welfare of people.
If you want to be Republicans, go ahead and do it, but don’t kid yourselves about what you have become here.
Remember the book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”? Some researchers looked at those habits, and discovered that nearly all aspiring entrepreneurs, successes and failures included, practiced them. The real key to success? Luck.
(Cheating also seems to help. Consider 7 Habits poster child, Stew Leonard, who went to prison for hiding $17 million in profits from the IRS.)
Pfffft. Stupidity at its finest. I know plenty of perfectly moral business owners. Two of my best friends are sisters who run a pizza joint. They make a good living, enough to purchase houses for both of them, and they have many happy employees, the full timers of which even get health insurance. Many of their employees have been able to afford their own homes through their pay and the connections they’ve built at the business (heavily patronized by equally good professionals and small business owners). Children are born and supported throughout this family-oriented business. Loans are made, pay advances granted (and not always paid back), and people are happy.
They are celebrating their 25th anniversary in business this weekend and I’m making a special trip back to my hometown to help two of the finest women I know celebrate their success. Not an immoral bone or flexible ethics in either of their bodies.
Some people just hate anybody who does anything with their lives. Sally appears to be one of them. And here she is intra-policing again. You can’t think for yourself or trust what you see for yourself because if you do, you’re a dirty stinking republican. Fuck that noise.
And if you consider getting sexually abused by their dad and their mother giving the business she won in the divorce as an apology for not paying attention as luck, well, I don’t know what to tell you.
“I know plenty of perfectly moral business owners.”
So do I. I also met Stew Leonard.
Hard work and sound practices are necessary, but not sufficient. But if you cheat and steal, you can get ahead without anything else but your cheating and stealing.
As to ‘flexible ethics’ I was going to say that described Obama perfectly, but actually his ethics are non existent, even flexible is preferable to none, in his case.
Sally, all we have in this race, are flip sides of the same coin. At least Romney is charitable, and his wife is ladylike..That alone, is an improvement.
How people oriented is O ? Gutting welfare reform is not empathy, it’s pandering. Once you understand that he does not give a feck about the jobless or the economy, except as it affects his re-election, he finally becomes an open book.
Enough money to lead a decent life, can still be made honestly. It’s all about hard work, and one’s definition of ‘enough.’ I can personally attest to putting the needs of others before my own, all my adult life, it’s called parenthood, and it was worth it.
As someone who works his ass off yet rarely gets paid for it, people getting paid for not working sticks in my craw.
What Obama has done in essence is an attempt to re-define traditional U.S. social ideals – the idea that everyone in the United States has the chance to achieve success and prosperity. I’m sure (judging from his performance in office thus far) that it is only for political gain, but I really don’t think he was expecting the kind of backlash he’s been getting. IMO, it is well deserved.
There is nothing wrong with working hard to achieve success – success and the prosperity that comes along with it are part of the fabric of our culture; they are the components of The American Dream. It is a dream we all share, and should aspire to achieve.
Making that dream a reality requires another pair of components: A timeline and a plan. That is called “setting goals”. I applaud anyone who has the tenacity to realize that dream, and for the life of me can’t figure out why the POTUS is trying to make it something to be ashamed of.
you don’t think it is called “class warfare”? It’s not enough for him to see the possibility for divisiveness, it appears he needs the turmoil, the distractions.
Of course he needs the turmoil and distractions. That’s the only thing thats going to postpone the inevitable scrutiny of his record. The class/racial/partisan warfare has been part of his game from the early days of the 2008 primary, and maybe what I can’t figure out is why he is oblivious to the fact that we’re not ignorant.
Still, the shame that is now attached to success is growing fast enough to rival “white guilt” – even among those that consider themselves “enlightened”. Go figure…
Nobody -even Obama from what I’ve read- is saying success is shameful.
There’s a big difference between success and greed.
Nobody here (except you) is talking about greed. I was talking about the rewards of hard work. Not everyone who works hard and enjoys success is greedy.
“Still, the shame that is now attached to success is growing fast enough to rival “white guilt” – even among those that consider themselves “enlightened”
Again, targeting his base of ‘creative classers’ — who feel vaguely guilty about being born into comfort with a guaranteed path to college and then a secure career — and can’t suppress the urge to shout, “Otis, my man!” at the Dexter Lake Club.
Anyone who actually busts their butt day-in & day-out will resent all this talk; while it may be directed at the rapacious 1%, it sounds like an attack on hard-working people.
When the discussion’s about the private equity business, Mitt Romney, 20 million a year in unearned income that’s taxed lower than most middle class income, and people who were Democrats and Clinton supporters are not talking about greed then there’s some Kool Aid being passed around. And I’m pleased as punch that I passed on having a sip.
Once again, Zaladonis, nobody is talking about the private equity business or greed
except you. John’s post was about Obama’s insult to small business owners. My comment was about Obama’s verbal assault on same.
Why you harp on this is beyond me, unless you’re just looking to start trouble. I suggest you back it up and stick to the topic at hand.
Maybe you need a nap?
And those of us who do bust our butt day in and day out DO resent that remark. I work hard in a creative business. I always have, and after years of struggle as a creative person who didn’t take an easier route, I am proud of what I’ve accomplished against the odds. I am one of the millions who resent Obama’s talking point.
Amen, It is the structure we build around us, called society that holds us up at times. Going to night school at 40 so I could switch careers, with 5 children still at home, could never have been a reality without a wonderful support system, I even include my never-failed-me Chinese laundryman in that structure, In fact he and his wife came to my Master”s degree party. He knew I wouldn’t have made it without him, he was proud of that, rightly so. It is always about the advantage of living in a free society, that helps define our lives. So in that respect, O has a point. Sometimes it does take at least, a small village of friends and family to achieve goals. His blind spot is that he doesn’t see and never will, the difference between societal, familial structure and goodwill, as opposed to government ‘assistance. Probably because he never experienced it.
Tamer, most people stuck in airless offices doing mindless tasks would love to be you, or think they would. A successful life is being able to live your passion, even though that does not diminish the sacrifices made. It helps if one’s passion keeps beans on the table..But at least it is a conscious choice, and an enviable one.
I have been reading Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men.” He describes in great detail how Obama applied principles of private equity management to solving the bank crisis and in dealing with the auto companies. Obama’s use of the government’s funds is Bain. So Obama cannot criticize Bain too much or he will both undermine his own policies and contradict his staff, Geithner and Summers. One of the main reasons I didn’t support Obama in the first place was his inclusion of Summers among his advisors. From Suskind’s book, he has appointed a whole bunch of the wrong people to jobs in which they have done a lot of the wrong things. Obama’s personality allowed them to “manage” him to achieve their own goals, which are congruent with those of the financial industry (which has become essentially, the government). We do not make products any more — we trade intangible assets back by nothing whatsoever. So you cannot expect Obama to have any affinity for people who do make things and provide real services to consumers. He doesn’t care about that because it is not the real economy, not where the money is to be made, and not where the players are (because they follow the money). Obama likes moving among the movers and shakers and has bought inclusion into that circle by giving them the country.
That is what you should be angry about, in my opinion. You will never hear Republicans or conservatives voice these criticisms because they too want to be part of the money-making, want to keep the pyramid scheme going long enough to get their own payoff and don’t really care about returning our country to a solid financial basis. Somehow we lost the focus on reforming Wall Street and providing relief to workers. Don’t let the empty dialog of this campaign keep you from seeing where the real problems are. It isn’t about whether Obama values small business (of course he doesn’t) or whether Romney lied about Bain — it is about why Obama didn’t have the guts to reform the financial industry and why he hasn’t addressed the structural problems of our job market — why there has been no recovery for anyone except Wall Street.
Sally, it seems to me the answer is obvious. Obama never was a reformer. My argument against him has always been in the tagline used around here forever “We knew Obama was a fraud before it was cool.” I wrote back on the old Liberal Rapture that the first group Obama would chuck under the bus after he won would be the Krugman types. And he did. Summers was one of his 1st picks. It’s too bad so many fell for his bullshit but I didn’t. Most people who comment here didn’t. Obama never intended to fix anything.
Sally- Your last paragraph is a keeper!
Hear, Hear!
In my opinion, there is no use in examining Obama’s words for clues about his true philosophy or motives. He is not involved in- nor is he interested in- governing this country or trying to solve our problems.
Remember 2010 and the first part of 2011? Obama was SO obviously out to lunch the entire time that even Obots started to worry. He didn’t even bother pretending to be doing anything important. But his handlers knew that it didn’t matter. They could just sit in neutral until the re-election campaign began and then he could start “calling for” and “urging” and “challenging” about this or that. Of course, no real beneficial action has resulted from the word spillage. He has never even bothered to meet with any of the people who could have an effect on what he has “called for”.
And all those empty months when “change” could have at least been attempted with some sincere effort but wasn’t? Well, the big ol’ media eraser will take care of any memories of that!
The “you didn’t build it” stuff is just another meaningless bauble thrown out to those who still want to believe. If anything, it’s an insight into what a lazy and unsophisticated “thinker” that he is. But O knows that the broom and shovel brigade is always at the ready to make him look good at the end of the day no matter what. No worries.
You’ll just give yourself a headache trying to figure out Obama’s worldview. He has none. He is nothing but words, and when he clocks out for the day he doesn’t give a shit about any of it.
O has been referred to as Chauncey Gardener here on several occasions. The now somewhat old movie feels like it was written by someone with the gift of foresight. Right down to the last scene where he walks on water, or seems to. Maybe the writer knew, as we all should have, that a Chauncey was inevitable eventually.
More like “Being There” in reverse, isn’t it? Chauncey Gardener / Barack Obama starting out as capable of walking on water, then getting celebrated, admired, idolized … until finally they are “found out”.
Jon Lovitz (the comedian) sent out an awesome tweet today re: “you didn’t build that.” A picture of Obama with his Nobel award captioned:
A big problem with Obama’s argument is not just that it uses the straw man that “smaller” government is the same as “no government” (which it does — despite the way Obama presents it, *no one* is arguing we don’t need roads, teachers & fireman; people on the right would say we already pay for those things & businesses themselves pay more than enough already for those things — that’s the usual fight between the two sides — how big or how small is enough) and it isn’t just that it conflates federal & state expenses (firemen, teachers & roads — except the federal highway system — are paid for with local, not federal, taxes) but that it discounts one very important thing about people who create successful business. People who create successful businesses *are* smart & hardworking (two traits Obama mocked right before the infamous “You didn’t build that” line — he said “I love when people think they are so smart and hard working and that’s why they’re a success. A lot of people are ‘smart’ and ‘hardworking.’) but they also TAKE THE RISK. And having the nerve to take the risk is probably a lot more important than being smart & hardworking. There isn’t anything wrong without having the nerve to take the risk — I think a lot of us understand the wisdom in & desire to play it safe. You have to be very brave to put all your savings, etc. on the line without the guarantee of a weekly paycheck that working for someone else gives you. And I think most people recognize this. Yes, Obama, being smart & hardworking — while necessary — isn’t all it takes — a successful business requires the ability to take risk. And being brave enough to take the risk — not knowing what fate awaits you from the course you are choosing, wealth or bankruptcy — is at the very heart of the American “spirit” — it’s how this entire country was established (with the initial settlers in the colonies) & created (with the American revolution) — although then it was life or death.
Hear, Hear!
Nobody here is arguing Obama was right, he was not. And it’s true that’s it’s the person who is bold, takes chances, works hard who can be, and deserves to be, a success.
But it’s also true that there’s more than one way to be bold and take risks, and one’s character determines the choices that lead to one way or the other. Character matters because a rotten character results in a rotten success. Martin Luther King, Jr, dreamed that our character is what we all would be judged by; and we can see all around that very clearly his dream didn’t come true.
Recognizing the dismissiveness and idiocy of Obama’s comments does not mean Romney’s success is clean or that his choices that made that kind of success would translate to public policy beneficial to the working and middle class.
Championing Mitt Romney and the kind of character that brought us Wall Street greed and the ruin of much of our middle class is no better than championing what Obama said.
While I address no one in particular with *this* post, I do wish to clarify that my above post wasn’t addressing anyone here nor was I under the impression that anyone here was *arguing* that what Obama said was “right.” I was merely expressing my opinion on what struck me about what Obama said. I thought that it was patently clear that in my above post I wasn’t engaging anyone in particular — other than Obama in a theoretical way. I even wrote “Yes, Obama, being smart & hardworking . . .”
My point is risks is part of what leads to success but the kind of character the risks emanate from determines the nature of what the success will create overall.
For instance in 2008 Obama took a risk in going after the Clintons, especially in suggesting they’re racists and dismissing our Democratic President’s successes, particularly the prosperity his policies helped to seed. That, I think everybody at this blog will agree, is not risk taking or a success that resulted in something beneficial to our country.
Likewise, Romney’s risk taking in venture capitalism, which very lopsidedly made rich people richer and created hardship for workers, including joblessness and lost pensions, is undeserving of praise by people who truly believe in worker’s rights and a strong middle class.
“Nobel Peace Prize? You didn’t earn that. Someone else made that happen.”
Brilliant.
Truly is.
Pingback: Obama’s Bigoted Campiagn « peacocks and lilies
Pingback: Obama’s Bigoted Campaign « The Crawdad Hole