“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” – Barack Obama
And the right goes insane. He’s the most anti-business president in history! Or something! But if you read his remarks in context it becomes clear that his meaning is other than what these two unscripted sentences alone would seem to imply. Really. Take a look.
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.
“The point is, when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
(Emphasis my own.)
When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. Radical, I know. And when he’s saying “you didn’t build that,” he’s quite obviously referring to the “roads and bridges” of the previous sentence. If you seriously don’t get that…well, no. I don’t even believe someone doesn’t get that.
But wait! The president is still awful and a communist! He doesn’t seem to realize that the business owner himself paid the taxes that built those roads in the first place! He doesn’t get it!
Or maybe it’s the right-wingers who don’t get it. Sure, the successful business owner paid taxes for the roads. (Well, some of them do.) But here’s the thing your’e forgetting: So did everyone else. It’s not that “you didnt build that”–it’s that you didn’t build it alone. We built that road together, through our taxes, through our government. And having done so we created an environment where business can thrive–your business, my business, everyone’s business. If you are successful in America, you owe a little of that success to other Americans. The ones who helped pay for the infrastructure in which your business could thrive.
And, importantly, if we forget that doing these kinds of things together is part of that recipe for success, then we risk having less success in the future. It is not only necessary that wealthy individuals and successful businesses pay taxes, it’s only right that they do so. Not to pay back the people who helped them. But to extend that nurturing environment forward so that the next hard working person with a big dream can be successful, too.
Anyone who reads the presidents remarks to mean something different is engaging in, shall we say, “motivated misunderstanding.” His meaning is obvious and factual on its face.
Hear! Hear! Well said. At Boots and Sabers they’re pretty much foaming at the mouth.
Some of those guys will believe anything that denigrates Democrats or elevates Republicans, but I expected more from others. Owen himself, certainly. It’s sad the way he tosses these bleeding steaks to the nut jobs, often with little more than a “heh” when you know he knows better.
I”m reminded of yesterday when a liberal pal shared Ann Romney’s “you people” comments with me. I told him so what. She may indeed be a “let them eat cake” type, but her remarks aren’t particularly indicative of it. Stop making such a big deal out of it. It’s pure “gotchaism” without much substance. I wish people wouldn’t do that.
Scott, At least for me, it’s not about what the president believes it’s about the faux pas of saying what he did, the way he did.
Of course I understand his point. Of course I don’t believe he thinks that business owners didn’t build their own businesses. But I still get a chuckle out of how horribly he put it into words. It was a bone headed phrase much like Romney’s “I like being able to fire people” quote. Remember when the left went insane over that?
I sure don’t remember any left leaning commentator saying “Look, obviously what Romney meant was he likes being in a position where he can reward hard work and discourage poor performance” but that’s what he meant and everyone with an IQ higher than that of a common garden slug knew it. Instead the Left made political hay (The same thing that’s happening now) over it and Romney looked like an elitist jerk.
On top of all that you have to realize that you and I are in a very small minority. I don’t have the actual numbers at my finger tips but maybe 10% of the population actually follows politics? The rest of the population get’s it’s info from 30 second sound bites, headlines or Jon Stuart.
What’s going on here is the Republicans trying to create one of those 30 second sound bites for the people who don’t care enough to research but just may vote. “Obama thinks other people are responsible for your success and not you… Well, that’s what he said.” Compare that with “Romney likes to fire people…. Well, that’s what he said.” and you should see what I mean.
Personally, I would like to see both sides stop doing this kind of thing. I would like to see a real discussion of the issues and the positions of the candidates. It’s just that, that seems to be something that’s pretty hard to find.
I can tell you this though. If I vote against Obama it won’t be because I believe he thinks I didn’t earn my success. And if I vote against Romney it won’t be because I believe he likes to fire people.
Sorry about all the run on sentences. I’m not very good at this whole writing thing.
On the contrary, Steve. I think that’s pretty well said. It’s exactly like “I like to fire people” and “we’ve given you people all you need to know.” And, yes, I wish people would stop doing it. It’s distracting to the grownups who are trying to talk. But your explanation as to why this happens and who it’s for is pretty spot on as far as I can tell.
I get his point, and the rightwingers are being jackasses to take it so out of context, but I also think he should admit that, although infrastructure and government provide things that businesses need to succeed, the same government also does impede business a lot.
Well, I guess so, sure. The government (that is, we all) provide all sorts of public goods and services, many of which businesses utilize to their advantage. But the government (we all) also restricts businesses in certain ways, also in the name of the public good. Yes, your meat has to be inspected. No, you can’t charge people 50% annual interest on a loan. No, you can’t just dump your manufacturing waste in the empty lot. Yes, you have to provide evidence of efficacy and safety to sell medicine.
The government is in the business of providing public goods. Sometimes that’s advantageous to a particular private enterprise, sometimes it’s not. You take the good with the bad or you do business elsewhere, I guess.
But it doesn’t change the truth of what the president is saying, even if that particular sentence construction was unfortunate.
Incidentally, Mitt Romney has expressed the exact same sentiment several times:
“There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That’s an important thing. ”
“a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help.”
It’s sad that his campaign tries to demonize the president for saying the exact same thing. It’s even sadder that such a message might actually work to his advantage anyway.
“It’s sad that his campaign tries to demonize the president for saying the exact same thing.”
I agree, it is sad. And I wish they didn’t do that.
“It’s even sadder that such a message might actually work to his advantage anyway.”
It might. I doubt it will help much but it might help a little
The thing that strikes me on this though Scott is (And maybe I’m reading too much into your statements) you seem to want the Republicans to fight with one arm tied behind their back while being less strict on the Dems.
I do note above where you commented that both sides should stop doing this and I appreciate that sentiment but it kinda feels to me like you’re pulling your punches on the Dems while letting loose on the Repubs.
I dunno… I guess thinking about it more it’s probably human nature to ignore some of the shenanigans on ones own side (Or at least the side you tend to lean toward). I know I do. I find it easy to write off some Republican transgressions as “Well, bad people are just bad people and it doesn’t negate the whole party” and I imagine you probably do the same to some extent. Maybe recognizing that in myself is a step in the right direction.
A childish side of me wants to complain that the other side engages in this tactic so my side should be able to also. At the same time I like to think my side takes the high road more often than not. This is probably just wishful thinking on my part though. I do know it stings when I’m trying to talk friends out of behaving badly because “We’re better than that” and then the other side goes and does something just as bad and I get these looks of “Why did you let us be suckers?”
After a while it feels too much like a losing battle and you just want to strike out at it all.
Sorry I seem to have changed topics a bit here. That might be an interesting post sometime though. “Why is it that otherwise honest and honorable people tend to turn a blind eye on transgressions from their ‘side’ while holding the other side to higher standard?”
you seem to want the Republicans to fight with one arm tied behind their back while being less strict on the Dems.
Not at all. I totally get that it would be foolish to adhere to some high-minded campaign principle and lose the election because the other side didn’t. I’m just bemoaning the fact that politics isn’t the fact-based, intellectual debate over policy ideas that I think it should be. It isn’t even remotely that and it gets right under my skin.
it’s probably human nature to ignore some of the shenanigans on ones own side
Sure, it’s that. But it’s also the fact that I don’t, as a habit, read highly partisan liberal blogs or listen to liberal talk radio (is there even such a thing?) so I am not exposed to the worst transgressions on my own side.
I like to think my side takes the high road more often than not.
My immediate reaction: surely he’s not suggesting that Republicans are fairer about these things than Democrats. Surely not!
I don’t think it’s required that we all demonstrate complete even-handedness in our criticisms. It’s perfectly natural for us to be inclined to keep the other side honest and let them do the same for us. Self-policing rarely works in any area of life, after all.
“surely he’s not suggesting that Republicans are fairer about these things than Democrats.”
Of course not.
I said “I like to think” which is probably me just fooling myself or more accurately, projecting my ideals on other members of my side (See, I told you it would be an interesting conversation)
“I don’t think it’s required that we all demonstrate complete even-handedness in our criticisms.”
Now see I’m not sure if I agree with you on that or not. I’ll need to give it some more thought. My kneejerk reaction is to respond “What’s sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.” If the Democrats need to lose face over Anthony Weiner then the Republicans need to lose face over Newt Gingrich. (And others, he was just the first that came to mind).
Maybe what you’re telling me is that because you recognize that it’s human nature to “give a pass” or be less critical of one’s own side, you aren’t going to sweat it too much and force yourself to be Switzerland on calling out all issues equally. If that’s what you mean I can get behind that sentiment to an extent. I guess I want to try and take the high road as much as I can and nudge “My side” to do the same when I see it.
“I don’t, as a habit, read highly partisan liberal blogs or listen to liberal talk radio.”
Maybe that’s part of my problem too. Being a bit of a political junkie, I read some liberal blogs (I won’t name them as I don’t want to start a war) and think ” Good gravy! Is this what main stream progressive Wisconsin REALLY thinks and believes?” Of course they’re no worse than posts I see on conservative blogs that claim Obama is a Socialist/Muslim/Communist/Freedom Hating/Anti Constitutional/Anti Gun/America Hating/foreigner/Nazi. (Not sure how you mix Nazi and Socialist together but I’ve seen it done.)
Anyway, It’s kind of refreshing to talk about this stuff with you and not worry too much about being flamed for an observation or opinion.
Thanks for that. Seriously.
“Incidentally, Mitt Romney has expressed the exact same sentiment several times:”
That’s not really incidental. Of course he has. They’re basically the same guy, aren’t they?
Well, it’s certainly true that American politics is extremely narrow. It’s silly how we make such an extreme deal out of the small variation.
Still, I think there are meaningful differences on women’s rights, gay rights, issues of economic fairness, the social safety net, etc. Also, Mr. Obama seems to be quite a bit more genuine than Mr. Romney, the latter being a political chameleon extraordinaire and also seemingly quite out of touch with the concerns of average Americans. I wouldn’t think of voting for him and I think I have pretty good reasons for that, aside from brand loyalty.
Your list is sort of hilarious. Women’s rights: Obama and Romney take basically the position while Johnson supports women’s rights. Gay rights: Obama spent the majority of his first term holding the same position as Romney on DODT and gay marriage until finally advocating for gay rights, while Johnson supports equal rights for gay people. Economic fairness: Both Obama and Romney want to heavily regulate the market while Johnson advocates a free market and fair trade. Social safety net: both Romney and Obama support regressive taxes and other policies that hurt the poor, while Johnson supports policies that would strengthen the economy and improve possibilities of upward mobility and also including social safety nets. Social security: both Romney and Obama support this failing system while Johnson would try to reform it. Romney and Obama are both the bad guy.
Johnson supports women’s rights.
So he’s for expanding access to contraception, in support of abortion rights and would sign the Lilly Ledbetter bill? I don’t see those on a quick perusal of his “issues” page. Obama is onboard with those issues, Romney is not.
Obama spent the majority of his first term holding the same position as Romney on DODT and gay marriage until finally advocating for gay rights, while Johnson supports equal rights for gay people.
The president did away with DATT and came out in vocal support of marriage equality. Romney is against those things. Johnson?
Both Obama and Romney want to heavily regulate the market
Obama and his party maybe have a chance at reinstating glass-steagall. Maybe. Romney wants to deregulate further. Johnson? He’d probably eliminate the word “regulation” from the dictionary. What I mean by “economic fairness” is policies that would halt or even reverse the perverse and growing gap between the very wealthy and everybody else through tax changes, maybe minimum wage changes, support of unions, etc.
Social safety net: both Romney and Obama support regressive taxes and other policies that hurt the poor, while Johnson supports policies that would strengthen the economy and improve possibilities of upward mobility and also including social safety nets
Yeah, I’m not into the whole trickle-down, supply side economics thing. One of the reasons we’re in the spot we’re in is because the middle class hasn’t received a pay raise since the 70s and corporate America has run away with all the money. Doubling down on it doesn’t strike me as a recipe for success.
Social security: both Romney and Obama support this failing system while Johnson would try to reform it.
I don’t know what you mean by “failing.” It’s a perfectly sound system. Bump up the income limit on the SS tax a bit and fix employment–done. What really worries me is Medicare (and all of health care.) What’s Johnson’s “reform”? Don’t’ tell me it’s Ryan’s plan to replace it with coupons for private insurance.
Johnson does seem to be in the right spot on the drug war, though. I’ll give him that much.
He supports abortion rights up until fetal viability. I’m not aware of his position on the Equal Pay act but I would suspect that he wouldn’t see a regulation as the appropriate way to deal with that issue.
He supports gay unions but would take government out of the marriage business altogether. He said he thought the repeal of DADT was long overdue.
He’s said he supports Glass Stegall and One Dollar of Capital. His economic policy in general would seek to reverse teh perverse gap between the very wealthy and everybody else, but he doesn’t support minimum wages or unions in the way you’re thinking.
You know social security isn’t sound as it is. He would bump up the retirement age and income limit and fix employment.
He does support the Ryan plan.
he wouldn’t see a regulation as the appropriate way to deal with that issue.
So basically he’s against it. “Good idea in principle, but I won’t sign the bill” is exactly what Romney says.
take government out of the marriage business altogether.
Good luck selling that one!
His economic policy in general would seek to reverse teh perverse gap between the very wealthy and everybody else,
Uh, how? Especially since he presumably doesn’t support the very things which helped create the middle class between WWII and the 70s.
he doesn’t support minimum wages or unions
I rest my case.
You know social security isn’t sound as it is.
On the contrary, I don’t know it. If we raised the cap on the tax, allowing it to hit 90% of income as it once did instead of letting more and more US income escape the tax, that’d help right there. I’m not at all convinced that raising the retirement age is a good idea. Just because well-to-do people can work a few more years that doesn’t mean garbage haulers can. It’s a last resort. Very last.
Well, anyone who supports ending Medicare and instead giving seniors vouchers with which to purchase private insurance is one small notch above the devil in my universe. I’d never vote for anyone who supported such a thing. Ever.
“Good luck selling that one!”
More and more people are coming around to the idea that bigger government is not the solution. I don’t think Johnson has a chance to win this election, but if he can get enough support to debate and get these ideas out into the mainstream, the Dems and Reps will have to pay attention. You agree with his position here, don’t you?
“he doesn’t support minimum wages or unions”
“I rest my case.”
Far from it. Minimum wage laws keep people from having first jobs. Low wage jobs aren’t supposed to be the kind of job you raise a family on. You get rid of those (which is what minimum wage laws do) you end up with less experienced adults.
“is one small notch above the devil in my universe.”
How well-reasoned and grown up of you to say. Just in case I wasn’t sure you were still on the side of the Democrats/Republicans, you compare me to the devil.
You agree with his position here, don’t you?
No. I can’t imagine what possible benefit we get from doing that.
Minimum wage laws keep people from having first jobs.
Sure, I’ve heard the argument. I just don’t buy it at all.
How well-reasoned and grown up of you to say
My apologies! I was referring to politicians like Paul Ryan not to the people who vote for them. And in any case I was being hyperbolic. I didn’t mean to insult.
I think this comparison sums up for Obama’s comments on success:
From the American Spectator, titled “You Didn’t Win That” written by Daniel J. Flynn on 8-3-12:
“Michael Phelps has a thing or two to learn about Olympic fairness. Swimmer Michael Phelps won his twentieth Olympic medal last night when he defeated fellow American Ryan Lochte in the 200-meter medley. And his Olympics haven’t yet ended. Should he qualify, Phelps could extend his medal record in the 100-meter butterfly later today and the 4×100-meter medley relay on Saturday. “I thanked [my teammates] for being able to allow me to have this moment,” Phelps explained after his 200-meter relay victory earlier this week broke the all-time Olympic medal-record of eighteen. “It has been a pretty amazing career but we still have a couple of races left.” Despite verbal graciousness toward teammates and all the third-person “we” talk, Michael’s message is loud and clear: I accomplished all this. The 29 “individual” world records that the swimmer holds all feature the name “Michael Phelps” and no one else’s in the books. For the ten “individual” Olympic gold medals won, Phelps stood alone atop the podium. And 2008′s Sportsman of the Year camera-hogged the cover of Sports Illustrated, appearing with hands on hips and eight shiny gold medals hanging around his gloating head. If Michael Phelps has been successful, he didn’t get there on his own. I’m always struck by Olympians who think, ‘Well, it must be because I was just so athletic.’ There are a lot of athletic 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 athletes out there! If you were successful at swimming, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great coach somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to pay for your swimming lessons that have allowed you to thrive. Somebody built the pool. If you’ve got a medal — you didn’t win that. Somebody else made that happen. A modest proposal to counteract Olympic arrogance: share the gold. When you spread medals around, it is good for everybody. There are enough grains of gold to go around. It isn’t fair that Phelps was born with an 80-inch wingspan, size fourteen flippers, and the ability to metabolize 12,000 calories daily and still look like an Abercrombie & Fitch model. Nature endows him with gifts; man further endows him with awards. The Olympics is an elitist affront to egalitarianism. In the Olympics, the rich get richer. The haves feast on the have-nots. Unfettered competition leaves the “1%” with all the silver and gold and the “99%” with nothing. Rampant discrimination against the obese, no head starts for underprivileged athletes, and a hierarchical winners-losers dichotomy characterize the London games. Occupy the Olympics. To bring a relic of 8th-century B.C. Athens into the 21st century global village, everyone, as some enlightened soccer leagues in the northeastern part of the United States understand, should get trophies, or, in the case of the Olympics, medals. The elitist practice of placing “winners” on pedestals should be immediately abolished. We all stand as one on the planet pedestal. And competition, which brings out the worst in people, should be replaced with cooperation. If a strongman can’t clean-and-jerk 500 pounds, how about another athlete lends him a hand? Snobs might say that abolishing victory’s incentives, and compelling athletes to work together, will inevitably bring slower times. But we will place burdens on the most advantaged for the purposes of fairness. When everybody wins, we all win. Because Michael Phelps is so extraordinary, swimming requires extraordinary measures to maintain social justice against the scourge of individual “accomplishment.” Throwing a life preserver to the trailing swimmers, or pooling resources in the pool, simply won’t cut it. The Baltimore Bullet’s gaudy gold too conspicuously flashes his sins against equality, fairness, and all that is good. Tying fifty-pound dumbbells to each limb should achieve the desired results in the pool. This may have the effect of forcing Phelps underwater, putting him out of the swimming business forever, and literally drowning him with an excess of rules. But at least the summer games would be fair.”
If you were successful at swimming, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great coach somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to pay for your swimming lessons that have allowed you to thrive. Somebody built the pool. If you’ve got a medal — you didn’t win that.
Total bullshit. The author deliberately misconstrues both the remarks of the president (and those of Mitt Romney) and also the obvious truth of their meaning. Flynn draws a parallel between these two items:
“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
And his own:
“If you’ve got a medal — you didn’t win that.”
He deliberately misconstrues the intent of the president’s remarks. Anyone fluent in spoken English can easily discern that the president was referring to “roads and bridges” when he used the word “that.” This deliberate misunderstanding allows for great sloganeering and brilliantly effective ads against the president, all for the purpose of telling people he’s hostile to business. But of course that isn’t what he said. It’s fine to believe he is hostile to business, but his remarks in no way reflect this. Using his remarks out of context and deliberately misconstruing them is, as I wrote above, the worst kind of gotchaism. And frankly, the kind that Romney has been using since the beginning. Remember his very first ad against the president? He showed a clip of Obama saying “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose!” Only, the president was quoting his opponent’s campaign when he said that, not making that remark himself. Nauseating.
Whoever this Flynn guy is, he’s an asshole for writing this piece. And he’s proven himself an untrustworthy source of news and analysis.