In economic speech, Obama reveals true colors (and reveals he is insane)
 

I'll apologize in advance for posting a link from Foxnews, but you can ignore commentary and look at the actual quotes attributed to Obama...

Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that' | Fox News

In a speech to supporters, Obama downplayed the role of the individual in starting successful busineses. Instead, in true socialist fashion, Obama lectured business owners that they didn't do it on their own. Look, no one has any issues with reminding business owners that the capitalist system creates the environment in which they thrive, and that it must continue to be supported. No one disagrees with that.

But why can't Obama acknowledge that, and at the same time, remind the rest of us that business owners are to be commended for taking the risks they take? Why can't he stop bashing business leaders?

Moreover, Obama took this notion to deranged, Twilight Zone levels. He said this, it's an exact quote from our Bolshevik-in-chief...

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"

Read that again. And a third time for good measure. That statement came from the mouth of the sitting president of the United States.

JohnR, aren't you relieved to hear Obama declare that it wasn't YOU that built this great website? Nope, it wasn't YOU who toiled away with building this. Rather, it was the FCC! Hooray for the government!! John, therefore you OWE it to the rest of us to give even more of your revenue to the feds. Otherwise, you are a selfish, greedy, bastard.

Individuals who start businesses from the ground up are to be honored, not dismissed. (I have never started a business, never so inclined). Those who start businesses from scratch work endless hours, take second mortgages, max out their credit cards, take enormous risks. Does Komrade Obama congratulate such folks? No. He derides them, to remind them that they owe the rest of us, big-time. He casually dismisses successful entrepeneurs who think they got where they are because of hard work. Even though that's irrefutably true, Obama cannot acknowledge it, because it contradicts liberalsim. Obama reminds business leaders that there are lots of smart, hard-working people out there.

In other words, those who start businesses from the ground up, aren't any different than anybody else, and therefore, they don't deserve anything more than those who don't start businesses. That's obviously what Obama is implying, and it's complete, 100 percent, bullsh*t.

JohnnyD, according to Obama, you never built a business. Someone else did it for you. No doubt some member of a public labor union.

Unfreakinbelievable. And here in CT, Obama will win with 98% of the vote.

How long, O' Lord?

Go ahead Spence, defend that...

Obama is also making the false assumption here that conservatives are somehow opposed to government infastructure, and that we need to be reminded that public schools and the fire department are good.

No sh*t. Nobody disagrees with that.

Again, since he cannot point to any record of presonal achievement in the area of economics, instead he demonizes those who disagree with him. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I think his point about "you didn't make that" is that your business was built on the backs I your employees.
Cost of living has gone up about 20%-30% in the last 15 years... Wages... Not so much.
Must be that mental illness again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Speaking in terms of minimum wages:

Minimum wage in 1997 = $5.15
Minimum wage in 2012 = $7.25

That is a 29% increase over the last 15 years and appears to be on par with cost of living...............

Explain how you could live on that wage today. It's impossible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm glad I can't :)

It has increased with the cost of living though, just saying.............

(1) Your assumption of what he meant is quite a leap, if you look at what the man actually said. Obama said business folks benefit from folks who build roads and bridges, and they benefit from sacrifices made by schoolteachers. (All that is true, by the way. But it's also pointless, because business owners continue to support that infastructure by paying taxes. I don't know why Obama felt the need to point out that we benefit from roads and bridges and schools, because I have never heard an influential conservative say otherwise)

(2) Do employees break their backs at work for free? I sure don't. Your point assumes that business owners are exploiting their employees. Where's the evidence of that? Unfortunately for liberals, not every wealthy American is a sinister, cartoonish version of Mr Potter from "It's A Wonderful Life" or Mr Burns from "The Simpsons". Liberals can beat the "blame the rich" drum all they want, and I'm certain they believe it's a valid point, but it's stupid nonetheless.

Eben, you sarcastically throw around the term mental illness. What do you call it when a President consistently blames succesful people for the challenges faced by others?

One person's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Bill Gates earns another million today (and he probably will), that does NOT mean there's a million less for the rest of us. In fact, it's better for all of us if he earns another million, because he pays a high tax rate on that, which lessens the burden on the rest of us.

To claim otherwise is, well, a mental illness. The irrefutable fact is, the existence of wealthy people is a good thing for the non-wealthy. As a group, they pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes, they create jobs, and they give a lot to charity. Yuo never hear Obama say these things. Because it's easier for him to blame them for his idiotic decisions.

And are you saying that small business owners are to blame for that? I'd love to hear that reasoning...

"Yes, that is part of the point he was making. And "built on the backs [of?] your employees" is the kind of class warfare rhetoric he may well have wished to imply. Everybody's backs are being "ridden" in a business, including, and especially, the backs of those who start and run the business. The employees are riding the backs of the employers whose backs created and maintain the business that creates the jobs to which the workers voluntarily donate their backs for the remuneration that enables them to have a functional, if not a good, life. And a free enterprise system REQUIRES that there be entrepeneurs. They are its life blood. It requires individual effort from top down and bottom up. It's purpose is to make possible individualism and individual liberty, as opposed to a socialistic system which requires collective effort (whatever that is) to maintain Woodrow Wilson's concept of society as a well functioning beehive. Socialism's benefits are to the hive not the drones.

So the entrepeneur does not owe anything more to society than his effort. The society depends as much, or more, on him than he depends on society. He has already contributed greatly and more meaningfully than his employees to a society whose purpose is individual liberty

The biggest problem is when business owners outsource to china and give their employees the boot. That is the problem. Then those employees go on unemployment, then possibly welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Business owners take most of the risk and should get most of the reward.

And, no. I'm not a business owner.

What you see as a problem is actually a solution. The static idea of a never ending unchanging hive is possible with bees and ants. Humans appear to be more complex and seem to have a wide array of yearnings. Many, if not most, do not wish to be merely drones. Business owners "outsourcing" rather than maintaining the inflexible hive, creates a more fluid society with varying possibilities. New opportunities for new entrepeneurs and new jobs are made with shifting demographics. This is what usually happens when the free market is allowed to function. Is that uncomfortable? Freedom is not comfortable. It requires constant vigilance and constant effort. The comfort of one nice paying job for life with great bennies is only possible if it is sustainable. If you wish the comfort of the hive, how do you propose to sustain it?

On that, I agree with you 100%. Outsourcing to China has hurt many American workers.

But (1) that's not what Obama was addressing. As someone else on this thread stated, Obama's speech that I posted is pure class warfare rhetoric, and it is has zero validity.

and (2) while outsourcing has caused problems, that's not the fault of wealthy people, nor is it the fault of business owners, nor is it the fault of on epolitical party.

Obama cannot address the outsourcing issue by telling his base that business owners are to blame for their lot in life. Obama is demonizing a group of people that have done nothing wrong. It's completely immoral.

Another part of the poverty problem is that, in the black community, 72.5% of babies are born without a father in the house. The black community will not , can not, rise out of poverty en masse, until that is addressed. But instead of giving them the tough love they need, Obama tells them to blame rich white folks.

If you see honor in that, that's your right. But I see no honor in it.

Just left a business where many of the employees made the same or more than I did in an average year. They also had less responsibility and worked fewer hours.

Then there's my current business with one employee (me) and the occasional Boston freelancers that I'll hire.

Because he's pandering to "the working man", Obama intentionally neglects to mention that 99% of all businesses are small businesses and they employ half of all working people in this country. Not to mention that 52% of those small businesses are home-based - meaning that the owner is likely working harder and longer hours than their employees.
Frequently Asked Questions

Obama intentionally neglects to mention that the business world is made up of more than just Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and other massive businesses (that also happen to be top Obama Donors).
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638
Obama prefers to paint any person who owns a business as someone that has to find time between golf at their country club and trips on the yacht in order to make business decisions and decide on how best to screw over the average worker. Unfortunately because of this philosophy being preached by Obama, anyone who owns a business is assumed to be part of some secret society that has members that have never known a hard day's work.


I guess I should get started writing thank you letters to all those employees that worked for free in order to keep me propped up in high society.

How about you Nebe? Have you written thank you letters to all the employees of yours that have kept you propped up so The Glass Station can continue functioning?

Bingo.

I couldn't help but notice that when Obama (you know, the one who sympathisizes with the little guy) vacations on Martha's Vineyard, he's not pitching a tent or staying in a youth hostel. So it's OK, I guess, for him to pursue the rewards of wealth and prestige. But if anyone alse does it, we are the enemy.

I also notice that when Obama goes to fundraisers in Hollywood, he doesn't lecture Barbara Streisand and Steven Spielberg about the fact that their servents (employees) make a lot less than they do..

So if you are wealthy and vote Democrat, then you are a swell guy. If you are wealthy and vote Republican, you are a sinister crook hell-bent on screwing your employees.

That's "hope and change"?

Unfreakinbelievable. And here in CT, the only unknown this November, is how badly my side will lose to these people.

You guys are funny.

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP.

Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP."

Spence, let's pretend for a second that I agree with you on this statement (which, of course, I do not). Why is Obama going to a scheduled speech for the purpose of provoking the GOP? Doesn't he have better things to do? In the 2008 campaign, he said he didn't believe in red states vs blue states, just the United States. He said he was going to be a uniter. He said that HE was going to bring change, and put an end to partisan rhetoric.

If you are corrcet, that he was just provoking the GOP, how does that fit in with his promises to unite all of us.

Hmmm?

"Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites."

No. Once again, you are categorically dismissing any and all things that Obama says, that make him look like an idiot. Once again, you are the one editing htings and taking things out of context, and making assumptions about his intentions that you cannot possibly have any knowledge of.

I'm discussing what the man actually said. He said that business owners did not create their businesses, someone else did. That's what the man said.

OK, so I read it. Other than the "sound bites" quoted here, the rest of it was the usual political platitudes, lies, distortions, contradictions, and promises one would expect from a politician running for re-election. Other than the "sound bites" (which were truly revealing), the rest is the typical pablum meant to "provoke" agreement.

At a minimum, Obama believes that business owners owe their success to the government which created the system in which they could thrive.

It's true that the feds created a capitalist free market which allows some to excel. However, what Obama fails to acknowledge (probably because he genuinely doesn't believe this) is that the system can only take you to the starting line. The individual, not the government, is largely responsible for the outcome of the race.

I cannot believe this guy has a shot at re-election.

Here is what Obama said, verbatum...

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"

Telling entrepeneurs that someone else, not they, is responsible for their success. That's not taking a shot at business owners?

the key part of this post is: "Posted from my iPhone"

Hmm, where was that manufactured? :uhuh:

The irony is painful.


Saw this today and found it pretty amusing...
"Hey Wright Brothers..."
http://i.imgur.com/tUi7w.png

Going back 5-7 years a small business worked 4 months for the fed & state before the business saw one dime of profit.
Now a small business works 7 months a year for the state & fed.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube


google it and it has a crapload of pages http://www.google.com/search?q=If+yo...w=1280&bih=638
I think he's getting too much publicity from this


people are going to spin it however they take it or see fit

truth is the truth, he said it


sounds like desperation to me

3-1/2 years and has not accomplished much

America is tired of going backwards

My exact thought.

Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at.

Source? I can't say if you are right or not, but a quick search shows this from the CBO as reported in the wall street journal

"Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008."

Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com

and this:
"Small business sole proprietorships pay an average
effective tax rate of 13.3 percent. Sole proprietors
make up 84 percent of businesses with gross
receipts of less than $25,000 (13.5 million out of
15.9 million)." http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs343.pdf

Originally Posted by spence
Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at."

Zimmy..What??? do the math on this

The other 90 percent is too busy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a result of a century of "progressive" socialistic political philosophy infiltrating our educational systems which in turn spawned journalists and commentators and judges and polititions who espoused that philosophy and reshaped a good portion of society to be dependent instead of self-sustaining. It is a philosophy that insists, as Obama demonstrated in his speech, that self-actuating, self-sustaining individuals are not possible. Ergo, the Federal Government that the Founders created, and limited, was an impediment to a society whose individuals depended on others, especially a beneficent central government.

Context is everything, the only desperate folks around here are you guys trying to analyze it by itself.

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, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Jim, why do you hate JohnR? Why do you think he's a selfish greedy bastard? He puts in alot more work to keep this place running than you do. You should apologize to JohnR. Right now.
You make me sad.

Why do you bother?

Its amusing.

And do you see how much he hates this site?
Disgusting isn't it?

Zimmy, please show m ethe data that suggests that half the country thinks Obama was not born here?

Obama says something that is clearly stupid and divisive. I call him on it. Your immediate reaction is to dismiss me as a kooky hate-monger.

I believe he was born here. I also believe he hates much of what the country stands for, and I'm not crazy for concluding that. I'm just oblectively lookingh at the facts.

Obama's wife admitted that she was never proud of the country before he got elected.

Obama's spiritual advisor (Rev wright) clearly hates the country. The man said that the US Govt invented the AIDS virus to eradicate the black man.

Obama's political mentor is an unapologetic domestic terrorist named Bill Ayers, whose group planted bombs in police cars, targeting policemen who had done nothing wrong. Ayers hosted a fundraiser in his home for Barack Obama. That indicates a close relationship.

Obama's wife, spiritual advisor, and political mentor, clearly dislike the country. And many of Obama's apologies suggest he doesn't view America they way many Americans do.

Facts, Zimmy. No crazy, unsubstantiated conjecture, just facts.

The only thing here thats crazy is your mancrush on Obama.

Likwid, if you read my post and concluded that I hate John R, you desperately need to take an elementary school reading comprehension course.

I was saying that based on what Obama explicitly said, John R didn't build this site. In Obama's words, "someone else made that happen". Therefore, if you believe Obama, John R doesn't deserve any rewards that this site provides. Those rewards rightfully belong to the "someone else" that Obama says created this site, and that "someone else", according to Obama, is the government.

Likwid, everything I wrote in that post, is what Obama, not I, clearly believe. Obama, not I, thinks that John R didn't create this great site. SO if you think my words were hurtful to John, then you must also think that Obama's sentiment, which I was relying on, was wrong.

So in effect, you proved my point. Thanks for the assist.

Jim, I agree that you didn't say that.

but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here?

Likwid, who is suggesting that we all start our own firehouses?

What Obama did there, and you sucked it up like a Hoover deluxe, is put radical, extremist, kooky words in the mouth of those who disagree with him.

Likwid, no rational person opopses property taxes being levied to fund a fire department. However, a very strong case can be made that you shouldn't take so much from me in taxes, so that the firemen can retire at age 45 with a fat pension and insane health benefits for teh rest of his life.

It's perfectly valid to question the validity of fire department benefits that are bankrupting cities everywhere. Rather than engage in that discussion, Obama says "see, conservatives want to get rid of the fire department".

We don't want to get rid of the fire department. We just don't want to overpay them.

That's off topic. But the point is, liberals have a recurring habit of taking a conservative issue, and taking it to a kooky extreme, in order to dismiss it. So in this case, Obama suggests that Republicans are suggesting we should get rid of the fire department. In reality, no one is saying that. But it's a lot easier for liberals to pretend that conservatives are a bunch of lunatics who want to get rid of the fire department, than it is to defend those insane benefits that firemen receive.

Put down the Kool Aid for 2 seconds, and listen to what each side is saying. Don't listen to what MSNBC says that conservatives are saying. Listen to what we are actually saying.

Small businesses have a responsibility to pay taxes to support the system that allows them to thrive. They should not be forced to pay confiscatory tax rates, particularly when that money is wasted to create burdensome regulation, or to go to political payoffs like Planned Parenthood funding, or billions to wasteful green energy projects, or to welfare priograms that give poor teenagers a financial incentive to have kids out of wedlock. That's what conservatives object to.

Jim, you called JohnR a selfish greedy bastard, your words.
Why are you trying to put your words into context you dirty liar?

This type of hypocrasy is disgusting. You should leave this site and go to "the other place" immediately where people like you belong.

You sound like you belong in a trailer park.