July 15, 2012

Obama is channeling Elizabeth Warren.

"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."

Link. Via Drudge.

And here's the famous Elizabeth Warren riff.

238 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 238 of 238
MadisonMan said...

"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that."

It bears repeating...this should be used in Romney's campaign ads. Often. Beyond creepy.

200?

Sunslut7 said...

Ann

Darpa at the Pentagon created the Internet as amilitary communications project with very significant help from LLL at Stanford, Los Alomos Labs, ATT/ Bell Labs and IBM. \

My step-mother worked on some of the sub-components at ATT/ Bell labs and my sister's BiL worked directly for B. Cerf at DOD.Without American industry's input this project would not have developed. DOD had the cash but industry had the brains.

Obama needs to STFU.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Obama is once again needlessly pitting one group against another. Of course solid bridges and roads are important. Sad part is that our best bridge building days and road building days are behind us.
Now we pay for 10 year studies that cost $10 billion dollars and we never actually build anything.

Bryan C said...

"You know, the basic idea is obviously true and important, but what is the point?"

The premise is true in the obvious no-man-is-an-island sense. It's obviously not true from a you-owe-me perspective Obama intends.

That great teacher was paid to do a job. A road crew was paid to build that road, and will be paid to maintain it. And the military, educational institutions and technology firms were paid to create a portion of the network that served as the core of the Internet. Now we individually pay private industry to maintain and expand it.

Likewise, the government exists to serve the people. We pay for it. We elect it. We control it. We are it. We don't owe it anything for doing what it's been paid and permitted to do.

Seeing Red said...

--"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.---


Dead white slaveowners?

Issob Morocco said...

So just who is the somebody Obama refers to that gave help to the sucessful business person?

The Government?

This isn't what the governed meant by Government.

Nathan Alexander said...

The more this discussion continues, the happier I am Obama brought it up.

It kind of cuts through a lot of the "compassion" bullshit that liberals try to use as justification for confiscatory tax policy, and cuts right to the heart of the matter:

"What, exactly, is any one person owed as a benefit of being an American citizen?"

It is looking like an increasing number of people are realizing that it is:
the freedom of being responsible for your own success or failure.

Rusty said...

Chip Ahoy said...
So what is the point?

I'm curious about that. What point is Elizabeth Warren and Barak Obama making? That is a compelling restatement of the human condition as a social creature they remind us but what leap am I supposed to make from that reiteration? We are social creatures therefore socialists at the core? If it is an attack on individualism then it is an attack on cartoon individualism and misses entirely exceptionalism based on individualism. I think it is an attack on exceptionalism, the idea that US is outstanding in any way due to exceptionalism based on individualism. If only liberalism could do for everybody what it has done for Elizabeth Warren and for Barack Obama their own very real and personal accomplishments notwithstanding then I think we would all share a similar attitude of cartoon individualism.


If you could cook as good as you write, man you'd have somethin'.

Unknown said...

Reason would tell us some people are incapable of learning despite the effort extended.

In that case, you can't blame education for ignorance.

Aridog said...

Lyle said...

Roads and bridges come into being thanks to commerce, not the other way around.

Thanks for the concise answer to the provocative question.

I was beginning to wonder just how Obama, Warren, and perhaps even Althouse (who re-stated a premise as true) might view the life stories of men like William Sublette, John Bozeman, and Nelson Story, Charles Goodnight, Oliver Loving, John Chisum, Hugh Glass, Jim Bowie, Jedidiah Smith, (among many many others)who went west ahead of government, government roads, and essentially were entrepreneurial sole proprietorships or partnerships.

I am very sure old Nelson Story would contest the idea that government support aided him, given he had to ignore the US Army blocking his passage on the Bozeman Trail (which eventually the US Army lost control of completely for a period of time, due to defeat by the Sioux and later treaty with same). Others like Sublette, Chisum, Bozeman and Smith might contest the debate of just who built what for whom.

Lewis & Clark were exploring ("surveying")untamed wilderness, as a government expedition nominally, such as their trip down the Lolo Trail into Idaho by water, guided by Pikee Queenah, a Shoshone Dog Soldier. They certainly did not leave a usable passage for civil transportation. Drive down it from Missoula, Montana, 99 miles of descending riverside road along US 12. When Lewis and Clark were there, there was no road, they moved by water over the continuous rapids of the Lochsa River. The Nez Perce used foot trails beside the river long before white men arrived, let alone "government." See it today and wonder how they ever managed it.

Commerce and businesses, large and small, paid for the infrastructure, sometimes actually built it themselves, in the west long before government(s) stepped in to control it.

Joe said...

So what is the point?

I'm curious about that. What point is Elizabeth Warren and Barak Obama making?


They are simply putting words to their Marxist view of the world. It is how you justify the slogan "[f]rom each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Nathan Alexander said...

In that case, you can't blame education for ignorance.

No, but we can (and should) blame liberals for the inadequate liberal education system.

Mousebert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mousebert said...

My twitter take on the situation:

Hey farmers, you didn’t do it on your own. You didn’t make the rain, soil or seeds so why should you be entitled to the harvest? #obama

n.n said...

Basically, he's rejecting the axiomatic concept of individual dignity. He supports a perception of reality which engenders the principle where individuals are ever and always disposable and interchangeable.

What an exceedingly corrupt philosophy. He does not recognize reasonable compromises in a world filled with nearly 7 billion individuals, each with their own unique dignity. His faith is clearly incompatible with the Christian faith he claims has guided his passage through life and is confrontational with the principles of enlightenment.

Obama is a relic of an ancient, corrupt age.

Amartel said...

Maybe Lord Barry the Munificent would like to try this case for me. Wouldn't want to hog all the credit for myself or anything.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. Some teacher etc"
Which I paid for. College and law school. With money that I earned.
Roads and bridges.
Same response. Paid for with tax dollars.

Back to work. Given the taxes that are coming in 2013, I wonder if I'm still working for the government even as of 7/16. This government that has given me everything.

Chris said...

Quite possibly THE most un-American utterance since the defining "you've made enough money." Boy, he sure saw to THAT, didn't he?

ampersand said...

Perhaps he's talking about Pelosi's husband?

Clorinda said...

I think I've seen this analogy around. A good rebuttal even for those who claim all that "infrastructure", prior knowledge and research, etc are what REALLY built your business.

Who earned the gold medal? Applying the the President's statement "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen", no athlete deserves any medal. It must be passed along to their mother, coach and the university that provided the track to run on. Others provided the "infrastructure" that made that sport possible. Your mom made you get up. Your coach shared the important techniques. It doesn't matter that you have natural talent. That you took your mom's words to heart. That you practiced night and day. All the "work" that that athlete did would be completely in vain without those others.

We don't give the medal to anyone but the athlete. Why? Because the athlete was the one that ran that race and won it. Not mom. Not the coach. Not the university. The athlete appreciates those who helped him get there. But he was the one that did the work that took him across the finish line.

Michael K said...

:"Conservative: How about making those highways toll roads?

Liberal: Wingnut!"

After Jerry Brown shut down highway construction when he was governor in the 70s, no new freeways were built in southern California. Finally, toll roads were built in Orange County to relieve the congestion. Toll lanes were added to the 91 freeway to San Bernardino County. Brown is back to wreak more havoc courtesy of the teachers' unions.

NotClauswitz said...

"If you were Congressman, somebody along the line helped. If you became President, somebody else made that happen." - Who? And how about that $200K/yr job Michelle had, the one they did't re-hire when she left?

BarryD said...

This is the strawman that lefties have been erecting for decades. Individual choice and liberty does NOT mean "atomistic individualism", but it is what lefties want libertarians and conservatives to mean. Libertarians and conservatives recognize that the wonderful progress made in the last two centuries is due to non-coercive cooperation - the backbone of capitalism and free markets.

I think a lot of conservatives want libertarianism to be about this, too. In fact, I've seen it right here, in those words.

The fact is, libertarians and conservatives of the non-social-conservative type, are the farthest from a belief in "atomistic individualism."

It's the left, and conservatives who believe in using the government to force social norms on people, who believe that "atomistic individualism" is the natural state of humanity. Otherwise, why would government guns be required to force some sense of "community" on people?

It's the libertarian types who believe that humans are so naturally social and community-oriented, that it's WRONG to use government guns to force certain social ideals on people. People will gravitate towards better communities and social interactions, on our own, because these things are innate.

cubanbob said...

Ann Althouse said...
You know, the basic idea is obviously true and important, but what is the point?

7/15/12 7:51 PM

No actually it isn't. Each previous layer was paid for by other private sector taxpayers who were employed by others who built a business or were self-employed.

As for the internet, it's a super structure on top of then existing private sector built phone companies and so is it today along with private cable companies.

Andrew_M_Garland said...

In fairness, Obama's speech can be read in a less disturbing way:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that [the roads and bridges]. 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."

Don't get me wrong. What Obama says is bad enough.

Obama actually says that the collective is a partner in your business because it provides roads. You would have no customers without roads. So, you are only in business because of what the collective did for you.

Then, Obama pre-emptively attacks the idea that a business doesn't need roads if it has the internet. Too bad, the government also developed the internet.

By the way, the "internet" was a small, high speed network run by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) connecting government laboratories. Tim Berners Lee designed and implemented the communication protocol HTML (HyperText Markup Language), and his idea took off.

This early network prohibited commercial use and advertising. The government had almost nothing to do with the modern design, expansion, and use of the Internet.

Obama is repeating a vicious excuse for expropriating the work of citizens.

Leftist:  We would all be better off if you would be reasonable. Please give us all of your money for the greater good.
Citizen:  No way, I earned my wealth. I created my wealth.

Leftist:  Do you understand that you would be nothing without government? We built the streets, kept the law, regulated away the things that would have killed you as a child, and supported your education. You are lucky to be smart, unlike most others, yet you won't share what we supported in you.
Citizen:  You already take 40% in taxes.

Leftist:  As you can see, our society is in decline. We need the rest.
Citizen:  No way.
Leftist:  You are a selfish and ignorant man. Why can't you meet us half way?

Your Dog Owns Your House

The government happens to construct roads and utilities, but citizens have already paid for these through taxes. Government agencies protect us, but we don't therefore owe the government everything. A free man can arrange a better deal than that. Of course, a slave has no such option.

Anonymous said...

and that's why I prefer paying people as they provide me with goods/services. This way there is no confusion going forward that I don't owe them anything.

Mike H. said...

The first roads were started by horses and delivery wagons, not by Eisenhower.

He just spiffed them up with our money.

And those other guys that helped, they already got paid.

jkmack said...

If it is true that all success is owed to some degree to government, the inverse must also be true, all failure is owed to some degree to government.

I bet this relationship has even been discussed and institutionalized in the Nation's founding documents and laws since the founding...to bad Mrs. Althouse does not seem overly familiar with them.

Oh well, guess she will be voting for Obama again. Go figure.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Bagoh,

Many of your rulers see you as Alec Baldwin in GGR. They think you intimidate and force, by virtue of your race in part, your will on others in an exploitive manner.

So they are doing to you what they think you do to your employees.

The only solution is to get the fuck out of California. They will beat you harder and harder until you die or leave.

Godspeed.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Ted Koppel: Ma’am? Do you have a question?

Undecided Female Voter 1: See, it’s like, you look all around, and you see all this stuff? And, everybody’s got stuff but me! Where’s mine?! Where’s MY stuff?! I’m young, man! I should have stuff, too! WHERE’S MY STUFF?!!

Bill Clinton: Well, that’s a really good point. I hear this a lot. I think if this election is about anything, it’s about . . . “stuff”. It’s about the fact that, under Reagan, Bush, Quayle, more people are working harder and harder for less stuff. [ Hillary nods and smiles ]

Undecided Female Voter 1: [ twitching ] Where’s my stuff, man?!"

They've won.

Big Mike said...

According to one study, as many as 2/3 of all small businesses survive the first two years, and only half make it to four.

So if the government is the primary reason for the success of a business, does it not stand to reason that the government is equally responsible for the failure of the ones that failed?

jmatt said...

I would dearly love to see every business owner lock their doors and stop paying their employees and stop producing goods and stop paying taxes for just ONE MONTH, so that this idiot can see where the public at large would be without them.

And then refuse to go back to work until he formally apologized for his worthless existence.

Principlex said...

The idea that you didn't do what you did to be where you are is to be grossly out of touch with reality - I mean so out of touch that anyone who for a minute believes this is in serious trouble. This is not only an erroneous statement, I think it may be the source of all that is evil. You can wreck yourself thinking this way and you can wreck your children, students and anyone else you have an influence on.

virgil xenophon said...

As Rush pointed out today, when Henry Ford built the automobile and rationalized its efficient (and low-cost) production by developing the assembly-line, the nation had few roads and what did exist were largely corduroy log roads. Smooth Roads that didn't allow the car to sink in mud up to the axels were built by governments (via the taxpayer, need it be said) to accomadate the privately-developed automobile, NOT the other way round..

SH said...

Ann Althouse said...

"You know, the basic idea is obviously true and important, but what is the point?"

And/or how much paying back is enough for these people? They'll never say btw....

Oso Negro said...

Obama to the Little Red Hen: "That bread you're holding up - you didn't bake it. Some other animal made that happen."

Principlex said...

I don't think "paying back" is ever necessary. As long as you exist in society and are freely trading with people in that society, they and you obtain value with every trade. That's the object of trade. Given that you created value and that went out into the world, how does that bring upon you more debt to pay? That view, it seems to me, make living in society a burden, rather than a value.

Anthony said...

From Instapundit:

There is no woman in this country who got hot on her own. You have a really nice ass and a great boob job? Good for you.

But I want to be clear. You got to the gym on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired a plastic surgeon the rest of us paid to educate. You're safe from hotter foreign women because of INS agents and border security the rest of us paid for. YOu didn't have to worry that Colombian or Polish women would come and steal your boyfriend.

Now look. You work out and wear nice makeup and look fantastic - good for you. A big chunk of the sex you have should be with people you choose. But part of the underlying social contract is that you take a chunk of the sex you would have had and have that sex with people the government chooses.

VekTor said...

I think Chip S. had one of the key insights earlier on, which helps to distinguish two very different points which are being conflated here (I believe for entirely political purposes).

Yes, there are a plethora of things that are present today in which government has had a hand: basic infrastructure like roads, bridges, clean running water and sanitation, the Internet infrastructure, police and fire protection, a basic social "safety net", an educational system which on some occasions provides a good experience with a teacher that actually helps someone in a profound way.

All of these things contribute to the "no man is an island" sense that no one today can accurate claim that 100% of their existence is attributable to themselves alone.

But this is an utterly facile observation, and a straw man to boot, because no one who is claiming to have successfully built a business "on their own" is making that sort of claim.

What they are rightly claiming is that the incremental, marginal success above and beyond the baseline standard of living that most people experience today is a result of their personal effort and sacrifice.

The infrastructure and other benefits that result from government programs (which are paid for by taxpayers... they are not simply largesse bestowed upon us by a benevolent goverment) redound in very great degree to everyone in the country, and in a generally equal way.

Yet despite having access to all of this, not everyone creates new wealth and opportunities through the creation of new and successful businesses. No, very far from it.

Very few people create jobs where there were no jobs before. These entrepreneurs have created something new at the margins, and the success that they accumulate in the form of wealth above and beyond the general population is something that they did, indeed, create.

It is that marginal success, that marginal increase in available jobs, and that marginal increase in wealth produced that they very well did create, and in many cases, that act of creation was done "on their own".

If Obama's "point" were true, and the existence of this infrastructure was both necessary and sufficient to cause success to spring up, then everyone would be successful, and everyone would be running their own businesses.

The distinguishing point is this: Ann points out that "the basic idea is obviously true and important", and yet some on the Right are outraged by the President's statement... because it fails to distinguish between necessary and sufficient.

It's "obvious and true" that infrastructure is largely necessary to success.

It's false to assert that infrastructure is also sufficient to cause success. It's not. The credit for the "sufficient" part of the equation (and the rewards that accompany it) belong to the ones who went that extra mile to create something at the margins that didn't exist before.

That's what the business owner typically means when they say that they created their business "themselves, on their own". That owner may well have provided that sufficiency themselves, and without their personal efforts, that business would not have existed.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 238 of 238   Newer› Newest»