Obama’s View Of Government And Business

It’s long been a narrative that Obama doesn’t like the free market.  Titles such as socialist and statist have been thrown at him.  Pages and pages have been written that Obama is a lover of big government, more regulations and higher and higher taxes.  He’s been a target for not understanding how the economy, or even just business, really works.

He’s had to fight the continual drum beat from the right that he’s not friendly to small business and prefers the government to provide.  That’s he’s anti-capitalist and more for ideals of fairness and equality for all.

But I have to ask you, if you owned your own business, worked hard to get it to where it is today, sacrificed soccer games, vacations and new cars.  Set aside the addition to the living room or gave up on the new boat, how do you think you’d feel if you heard this:

You didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.

 

17 responses to “Obama’s View Of Government And Business

  1. I’d say “Hmmm, what did he say in context?” And I’d find that he wasn’t saying what you are saying he said: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/today-in-lazy-mendacity/2012/07/16/gJQAxRNFpW_blog.html

    • 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.

      Who do you think it was that helped “create this unbelievable system that we have?” Is it your contention that the bureaucrats in DC did that? Or is it possible that it’s Americans, taking risks, not because of government, but in spite of government, that have created this environment?

      But let’s look at roads and bridges. Who pays for them? How are they financed and constructed? I suspect that it’s through taxes, local, state and federal. Is it your contention that the landscaper, paying for gas that hauls his mowers around, the gas that powers the mowers themselves, isn’t “building that?” Do you think that the local construction company isn’t paying for the roads every year when it pays for the tags on it’s 12-wheel dump truck? Or paying the sales tax on it’s shingles and tar paper?

      You cannot think that the only person contributing to “building that” is the teacher, or the cop or the iron worker. That it’s only their taxes that go to the infrastructure. That only they pay taxes on each gallon of gas.

      America is not great because of government. We’re great in spite of government.

  2. Obama is absolutely correct. Any business, any success, anything accomplished is not by the individual along, but only because of how society works together, is stable, and functions. That’s why everyone owes part of their success to keep society stable. No business built the infrastructure it depends on for success, the legal structure protecting it, a stable political climate with minimal corruption (unlike much of the third world) without the entire society together. What galls me is people who work hard and succeed, and somehow think that all they earn is only because of their own doings and they don’t owe anything back to the society that made their success possible.

    • Obama is absolutely correct.

      Sorry Scott; he’s wrong.

      Any business, any success, anything accomplished is not by the individual along, but only because of how society works together, is stable, and functions.

      This isn’t true. Have you ever tried to manage a large group of people in a business setting? Or a charity? Or a non-profit board? Almost invariably the success of the venture is the result of the drive and unrelenting will that prevents failure and excludes it completely from consideration. Are there people involved in the venture? Sure. Remove one of them and you can almost literally replace them with another individual. Remove the leader, the driver, the innovator the engine? You have nothing. You have Occupy Wall Street. A large group of people who have ideas and great sounding ideas, but ultimately fail to accomplish any meaningful milestone.

      No business built the infrastructure it depends on for success, the legal structure protecting it, a stable political climate with minimal corruption (unlike much of the third world) without the entire society together.

      This I will agree with you on. Critical to the free market is the enforcement of individual property rights and contracts.

      What galls me is people who work hard and succeed, and somehow think that all they earn is only because of their own doings and they don’t owe anything back to the society that made their success possible.

      What does the successful doctor owe society that the humble school teacher doesn’t?

  3. what exactly is your problem with this? “we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” Sounds pretty obvious to me.

    • what exactly is your problem with this? “we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” Sounds pretty obvious to me.

      That’s not his message. His message is that the shop owner didn’t create the success. Government did. And therefore the wealthy shop owner should somehow feel obligated to “pay his fair share.” As if he weren’t already paying MORE than his fair share.

      • How isn’t it his message when it was the language he ended those remarks with? That’s a direct quote from his speech and it is the conclusion he was working toward and it is entirely uncontroversial.

        • Oh, dedc, don’t use facts to argue against Pino’s emotional hatred of anything Obama says. That’s a liberal strategy that offends his absolute faith in, for some reason, anti-government propaganda!

        • How isn’t it his message when it was the language he ended those remarks with? That’s a direct quote from his speech and it is the conclusion he was working toward and it is entirely uncontroversial.

          I think the message is this:

          We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

          And the rest is justification for that.

          His message is that we want to keep the Bush Tax cuts in place for everyone but the wealthy. And the reason the wealthy need to pay more taxes, their “fair share”, is that they didn’t build there business on their own. That “we do things together” is the validation of his desire to raise taxes.

  4. Pino ,

    I agree with you on this 100 % . Successful businesses for the most part do pay their fair share for the roads and schools government provides . President Obama and Elizabeth Warren believe they should pay more than their share . They have the view of the Beatle’s song The Taxman . ” Be thankful I don’t take it all . ”

    Government should stick to defense, roads and schools . Not green energy, welfare, and crony capitalism .

    • Government should stick to defense, roads and schools . Not green energy, welfare, and crony capitalism .

      It’s the problem of the left. Folks will readily admit that government is limited and that there is a proper “role of government.” Ask them to define that limit, that place where government can’t go and there is no answer. Even the mandatory purchase of any product they desire is within the power of the government. Ask them to define what isn’t the proper role of government and you get an equally non-answer. It can be anything they want it to be.

  5. By the way that quote from Obama apparently was taken out of context and selectively edited by FOX news to make it seem like Obama was saying something he wasn’t. The fact that FOX would edit and run such a thing as a main story shows that it is propaganda, perhaps created out of fear that Romney is at risk of being sunk by “Baingate” and clamors for his tax records.

    Pino, I can put the most skilled CEO in a third world country without a good infrastructure, rule of law, and social stability and the best he might be able to do is create a little mafia gang. Yes, the individual matters, but the capacity of the individual to succeed in a particular way comes in large part from the social context in which he or she finds himself. What is dead wrong — in fact so absurd that to claim it true would be irrational — is that a person who creates a business that makes him $500,000 after paying employees somehow deserves all that money because it all came from his effort. That business would not exist if not from the infrastructure, rule of law, etc., that make it possible to build such a thing. My argument is only that the business justly is taxed for its share of that effort — that businesses have an ethical duty to do their part in upholding the society which makes it possible for them to succeed. That is a conservative ideal — it’s not a socialist desire to have the government own the means of production or effort to say everyone should have an equal share of the wealth, only that we all have a duty to help uphold our society/community since without it we would not have the opportunities we enjoy.

    • By the way that quote from Obama apparently was taken out of context and selectively edited by FOX news to make it seem like Obama was saying something he wasn’t.

      Which quote? The YouTube clip or the one I quoted Obama saying that the rich need to pay more?

      What is dead wrong — in fact so absurd that to claim it true would be irrational — is that a person who creates a business that makes him $500,000 after paying employees somehow deserves all that money because it all came from his effort.

      Of course he deserves all that money. The company paid the tax already. He’s paid the tax already. The roads have been built, the police are being paid, the judges are being p aid. He’s entitled to all that money in the same way that you’re entitled to keep your money. After all, you drive to work on roads, people drive safely because of the state police and you get a paycheck because your boss would be arrested if he didn’t.

      that businesses have an ethical duty to do their part in upholding the society which makes it possible for them to succeed.

      Besides paying taxes, what would that duty entail? And why would not such a duty extend to all of us individually?

      only that we all have a duty to help uphold our society/community since without it we would not have the opportunities we enjoy.

      If this is true, would you reconsider your stance that certain of us are able to live as a net “receiver” of government while others of us are net “payers?”

  6. Pino,

    I always think of government as a business . It provides essential services, for a price. So does my grocery store, my plumber, my car mechanic, and my bank . Whenever any of these good folks gets too expensive , I go to a different grocery store, plumber, car mechanic, or bank . My government has become too expensive . Mitt Romney says he can give me better service, at a cheaper price, and without bundling my health care in with my roads and bridges . I think that is a better deal than I can get from Barak Obama .

    • My government has become too expensive . Mitt Romney says he can give me better service, at a cheaper price, and without bundling my health care in with my roads and bridges . I think that is a better deal than I can get from Barak Obama .

      The irony is that Obama doesn’t even pretend to offer better government at a cheaper price.

  7. The question is what tax level is appropriate. I think at this point big businesses and corporations, as well as the very wealthy, are paying very little. They tell the “commoners” that they’re job creators, but they’re really playing the system. They trot out the “freedom and small government” defense to get people to defend them without letting on that they’re the ones gaming the system. Alas, it’s working.

  8. Scott ,

    How about we speak of unions playing the system . All over the country public sector unions played this game . They contributed heavily to certain politicians . Those politicians gave them big pensions because the cost was far into the future . We are far into the future now and cities and School Districts cannot afford these pension obligations . All I read about is layoffs and service cutbacks in the public sector because of this .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *