Skip to comments.Obama facing mounting questions over 'you didn't build that' remark
Posted on 09/03/2012 12:32:51 AM PDT by Innovative
After being pummeled for days at the Republican National Convention for his remark that business owners "didn't build that," President Obama heads to the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina this week facing mounting questions about how he will respond to charges that he is hostile to free enterprise.
On Sunday, senior Obama advisers suggested that they will not address the anti-business allegations directly but will instead try to turn the tables on their GOP rivals by accusing them of being dishonest about what Obama meant.
Nevertheless, there are signs that they see a vulnerability. Obama has not repeated the words that sparked the controversy, and he has toned down the broader argument - that government help is essential to business success - in the six weeks since he ad-libbed the line near the end of a long campaign swing.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Government with ever more regulations stifles the economy and business, not helps them.
Emperor Zero should try to start a new business someday within a market/field where all the business and academic experts claim the business cannot be done. Then fight the entire establishment every step of the way as you market the appeal of the new product the business is promoting. Some of us have done that.
It’s a pretty interesting piece.
I think if we get those empty chairs out there tomorrow we can maybe expect another WaPo piece.....
Obama faces mounting questions over empty chairs.
We are keeping them off balance.
There was a little sign in a bodega I used to shop in in Brooklyn, years ago (and yes, the proprietress DID build it) regarding why you couldn’t buy on credit: Better you mad than me mad.
Better them mad than us mad.
Fedex him a list.
The trouble with government help it that with it comes government interference and government control.
Given the constant and ridiculous charge of "lying" that Obama and his surrogates scream at the drop of a hat without any solid foundation, this strategy is obviously deliberately planned. Will it be effective? We have seen how stupid and gullibe the voters were in 2008. Will people start to wake up now or will they just keep drinking in the Koolaid. That is the real question in my mind. And what is the best strategy in terms of answering or not answering these foolish claims? Probably a response needs to be made to every silly claim for the record by someone, but to what extent would it be better to ignore the utter foolishness with the contempt it deserves?
Another great article I just came across:
“Rising wages, incomes, prosperity, and living standards do not result from increased government spending, increased deficits and government debt, increased Fed money creation, greater income and wealth redistribution, or any other fever swamp of Obamanomics.
If this generation of Americans does not get it, they will not enjoy the world leading living standards, and American Dream, of prior generations of Americans. Moreover, they will not deserve it. There is no law of the universe that says America must be the richest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world. If the American people do not choose the wisest leaders following traditional American, free market, economic policies, but instead choose the hope and change of the economic policies of Argentina and Venezuela, then they will get, and deserve, the prosperity and living standards of Argentina or Venezuela.”
Obama’s Accelerating Downward Spiral For America
since he ad-libbed the line near the end of a long campaign swing....Yes. He was tired, near exhausted and his mouth couldn’t clearly express his thoughts.
And what is the best strategy in terms of answering or not answering these foolish claims?...Something like: “He SAID it! I’m not convoluting, spinning or lying. He said it and he MEANT it!” Period.
There is no way that he can spin this and come out unbloodied.
This is a Marxist concept, and whoever debates him should point this out. Marx felt that Capitalists exploited workers, government and were exploiters who “didn’t build that.”
Someone should ask him if he thinks that his Marxist platitudes are a good substitute for a sound understanding of Market Economics.
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
Sounds like a manifesto the AntiChrist would follow to destroy a country to me...: )
Bull crap. He didn't "ad lib" anything...he knew what he was saying, he planned to say what he said, and he MEANT what he said.
He is wrong, and he knows it...of course, he is going to "double down" on the argument by having a big business stooge--the head of CARMAX--defend that remark in a speech at the DNC.
My hope is that either the boss of CARMAX backs out OR that CARMAX pays a price for defending the communist Obamugabe.
Jon Stewart has been spiing it for days. Does he really think he gets to have dinner with Napoleon?
Even if we follow Obama & MSM explanation that behind every successful business there’s a list of government’s involvements,it doesn’t explain why only certain business are successful while others are not. Everyone has access to roads, bridges, etc. But only few made it. The best we can make out of that argument is such assistance was necessary condition to success, while individual’s efforts are the sufficient condition for it. Even this way of seeing is already a stretch.
It’s the communist manifesto Obama’ creed
At heart, Obama is a communist - his style is just a little smoother and more devious than Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Castro and others.
His comment “You didn’t build that” is not a stand alone idea. It is part of his communist agenda. The declaration is a precursor to making a case that your business belongs to everyone.
What he really means is this:
If you didn’t build it you don’t have a right to claim ownership.
If your business came into being only because you used raw materials that belong to “everyone”. And you used roads and infrastructure and knowledge that belong to everyone, then your business rightfully belongs to everyone.
And the income generated by your business belongs to everyone as well.
And who is “everyone”? It is the collective and ultimately, the collective is the government. After all - businesses and enterprises should not exist to enrich the few (Obama’s 1%), it should enrich everyone.
This is the logic and belief system he applied when he bypassed the legal bankruptcy procedure and stole General Motors from its rightful owners to award ownership to the government and the labor union (a government sponsored collective).
This is nothing but government nationalization of private property - the same as we see happening in places like Argentina and Venezuela. Obama uses other words and is less direct but the action and result are the same.
And now he has declared that he wants to “help” all American industries the way he helped General Motors.
And, of course, the way he is helping to nationalize health care industries under Obamacare.
He intends to gradually eliminate or to totally control private ownership. If he gets reelected he will carry through on that threat.
Those roads and bridges were built with bonds and debt. That entire business model requires future profits from taxation to eventually pay the bonds or debt. So in areas where the local tax base has collapsed (Detroit, California Cities (4), etc.) the municipalities that issued the bonds and acquired the debt have gone bankrupt. Since some of the places that went bust, had decent roads and bridges, do not think the roads and bridges are the main issue.