Free Markets, Free People

Quote of the day: Silly collectivist edition

Apparently Barack Obama was channeling Elizabeth “Fauxahontas” Warren the other day in a speech when he said:

Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.

The natural angle of attack when one wants to demean accomplishment is to attempt to portray it as something you were given vs. something you earned.

In this case, where Obama denigrates the accomplishments of the successful (and my goodness when did success become something you attack?), he’s attempting to do just that.  Because, so the collectivist thinking (oxymoron alert) goes, if he and others helped the successful become successful then they can justify claiming a portion of the pie the successful have.

Of course that requires ignoring how the successful become successful.  We heard Elizabeth Warren talk about public works that she claims enabled businesses to succeed.  Like roads, power grids, etc.  What she would have you believe is everyone else paid for those things but apparently the entrepreneur was just a net beneficiary.  Silliness to the extreme.

Also always shunted aside are the sacrifices the “successful” made to reach the stage of success they enjoy.  I personally know “successful” people who mortgaged their house to the hilt, cashed in whatever they had in savings and borrowed the rest to start their business. 

They took all the risk, and yes, some of them failed.  But they didn’t have anyone holding their hand when they set out on their journey to success.  They simply worked harder than anyone else, made the additional sacrifices that had to be made (80 hour weeks, little time with the family, etc). to make that success a fact.

The focus for the collectivists starts at the big house the successful have now, not the risk, work and sacrifice they went through to build that house.

And now that they are a success, suddenly they have a bunch of leeches who want to claim a portion of it (remember about 50% of those in this country pay no income taxes at all).  It reminds me of the lottery winner who suddenly discovers he has cousins, nieces and nephews he’s never heard of all clamoring for some of the winnings.  But in this case, what Obama is trying to justify via this nonsense is not asking for money, but taking it “legally”. 

His is the same song the communists sang in 1917 Russia.  Those who worked hardest and achieved the most don’t “deserve” what they have accumulated because they did it on the backs of everyone else.  We’ve heard variations on the theme quite often from leftist politicians:  “It takes a village”, for instance  or claiming the successful are simply  “the winners of life’s lottery”, etc.

Naturally where Obama wants to strike is precisely where jobs are created.  Almost a million of those in the tax bracket he wants to hit with higher taxes are small businesses.  You’d think the guy who obviously thinks he’s a economic genius would know that.  You’d think a guy who said “the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes” would actually follow through on something he got right.

But no, instead he plays the class warfare card and essentially parrots the communists. 

No, I’m not calling him a communist, I’m simply pointing out the irony of what he’s doing.  Draw your own conclusions about what he is, but one thing he isn’t is a friend of the free market.  He certainly isn’t the economic genius he thinks he is and frankly, he’s leading us down the same path Europe went down years before and we all know how that is turning out.

It is envy cloaked as “fairness”.  Class warfare designed empower government even while it cripples business and, in the end, would contribute to increasing our economic woes.

However, there is value in such quotes as his above.  When you hear him say things like this, it becomes much clearer as to his true ideological roots and what an additional 4 years would bring.  The press may not have done the job of vetting this president before he took office, but quotes like this do as much for that process as any vetting by the press would accomplish There’s no question of where he lives ideologically.   And it isn’t an ideology that belongs in the most powerful office in this land.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

35 Responses to Quote of the day: Silly collectivist edition

  • If all of this makes you faint, the paralegals in the reading audience can help you out and advise you how to deal with that lightheadedness.
     
    Smartest man in the world, yessirree….
     
    On topic, I want to know which of you sumbitches helped the President get where he is, because he for sure didn’t get there on his own.

    • Involuntary hands raise in the crowd.  Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, we see you!

    • What is a Post Turtle? for $50.

      • HEH…. I can see that cartoon in my mind’s eye right now.   To make sure no one misinterprets, he should be sitting in an fancy executive swivel chair perched on top of the post.  Probably ought to be looking pensively skyward as he is so wont to do in photos.
         
        It helps the vision to have spent some time driving around three wire fence in West Texas.
         
        Post President, I’ll be damned.

  • However, there is value in such quotes as his above.  When you hear him say things like this, it becomes much clearer as to his true ideological roots…

    Oh, yeah.  AND all the “straining to be dictator” history of this administration.  Interesting how much support he has, too, to keep pushing toward totalitarianism.  Innit?

  • If you’re in the business of administering hand-outs and big government dependency, of course you’re going to demonize hard work and personal responsibility.

  • “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
    I hope that Somebody is going to be there when its time to put in 80 hours a week with no salary.
    I hope that Somebody is going to be there when you’re tearing your hair out trying to meet payroll.
    I hope that Somebody is going to be there when you have to put up your house for collateral.
    But, if this is the new logic, then public employees should have no problem taking pay cuts and pension cuts because “somebody else made that happen, and that somebody else can’t help any more, sorry.”

  • Actually, all Obama and Warren are saying is that there are certain things in the ‘commons’—such as highways, air traffic, shipping ports, crime and fire fighters, etc.—that have supported entrepreneurs in their rise to success (not the thought from the radical right that the government was soly responsible for their success, but only sets the environment for it).  The gist of this article is “Obama walks like a communist, talks like a communist, and looks like a communist…but I’m not saying he is a communist…draw your own conclusions on that score.”
     
    Nowadays, with the off-shoring of much of our business and manufacturing—and the consequent increase of unemployment and stagnation (if not destruction) of the middle-class—the infrastructure may seem less important than previously, but it still has to be maintained.   And during a period when 50% of Americans—many of whom are just throw-away people in this population of unemployment—who better than those who profit by it?

    • So how was it that fortunes were built before Eisenhower got the brilliant idea to build a military highway system from the Germans?
       
      How many of your modern airports started out as military fields or as fields built by manufacturer’s like Douglas during the war?
       
      If ‘the rich’ owe anyone for highways and airports in the last 60 years, it’s the Pentagon.
       
      How many ports started out as commercial wharves?  How many as a result of privates shipyards?
       
      Government railroads?  Union Government Pacific?  Kansas City Government Southern?  Southern Government Pacific?  Baltimore and Ohio Government?  New York Central Government lines?  Atchinson, Topeka and Santa Fe Government?
      Boston and Maine Government lines?   Did I miss that part?
       
      The ‘rich’ owe the ‘other rich’.   Must be nice to be so ignorant of actual history.

      • Oh, and Tad…what do you think KILLED the railroads, massive transportation networks built by ‘the rich’ that REALLY helped build the country?
         
        I love it when people who live in their own little worlds make up history for the rest of us.

      • “How many of your modern airports started out as military fields or as fields built by manufacturer’s like Douglas during the war?”
         
        Yep, no government spending there…????

        • Government spending with the intention of building an airport for commercial purposes Cap?    I can name some of those, but just as many are carry overs from a war effort.  And EVEN more of those are gone, vanished, because there WAS no commercial use for them.  Many are dying today, because there is no commercial use for them.  How come the ‘commune’ isn’t keeping them open Cap?  Where are all the individual workers who aren’t rich keeping the planes landing and fueling?
           
          It’s just swell the way you guys would like history to start AFTER the cities have been established by private commerce, FOR commercial purposes.   You guys think cities were built by GOVERNMENT?  Seriously?
           
          And when streets are built now, and sewerage, and street lights, and power, and etc, you think ‘government’ funds that, or is it done by commercial interests as part of their agreement with the cities for developing property?   And when the ‘robber barons’ built factories, was it the GOVERNMENT that built the tenements that were constructed to house the workers the factory knew it had to have or was it government?
           
          the original Universities, private or government?
           
          the list goes on and on.  This country had only one NATIONAL road at one point early on.  The canal systems, the rail lines, all done by private interest for the purposes of making profit, and rather a large number of investors lost their shirts on some of the projects.  The government tended to follow on the heels of individuals and companies, not the other way around.
           
          And yes, we all know Carnagie didn’t build his factories by himself – but to listen to Obama and Warren tell it, every worker in one of his projects owned just as much of it as he did.  That’s great if you’re living in Marx’s workers paradise.  And that’s always worked so well in modern societies, this sharing of ‘the means of production’, no?
          I mean, look at what vibrant power houses Cuba and Venezuela are.
           
          So this ‘you didn’t build it alone’ – that’s something a 5th grader might spout, knowing it to be true in the sense that it’s not possible for one man or one woman to do that alone, but it’s childish.  The dream, the vision, the investment, frequently, one man or a few men, not a commune.
           
           

          • We didn’t get our share of Bill Gate’s dream Cap, because you and I didn’t HELP him.  You and I aren’t having dinner with the Obama’s or the Romney’s, because we didn’t make enough money to be in their social circle and we’re not movers and shakers.
             
            there’s no shame in that, most people aren’t movers and shakers.  But I’m damned if I’m going to listen to some pair of over educated half wits tell me I’m entitled to a share of what someone ELSE earned so they can buy my vote now and tell me to do as I’m told later.
             
            At least my ‘betters’ who hire me pay me, Obama and Warren and people like them want to pick my pocket, take my property and then piss down my back and tell me they’re trying to keep me warm.

    • No single president in our history has done more to destroy the middle class in America than President Composite…the spawn of the Collective.
      He is a fascist in economics.  (See the period, moron?)  Fascist economics cannot abide entrepreneurs.  Too little control.

    • I paid for the commons so screw you. That 50% who don’t pay taxes shouldn’t be allowed to use the commons how about that?

      • Queue the ‘they pay taxes’ meme.

        • NO Representation without taxation! Time to treat the taker class as they deserve

          • Yes, brillian idea.  Let’s make them all slaves. 

            Oh, wait, the banksters already did that.  Debt slaves.

    • “there are certain things in the ‘commons’—such as highways, air traffic, shipping ports, crime and fire fighters, etc.—that have supported entrepreneurs in their rise to success”

      And those entrepreneurs helped pay for all that just as much as anyone else. Often even more than most. And let us not forget that most of that ‘commons’ stuff didn’t exist for many entrepreneurs. Where do you think government got the money to build that stuff?

    • If the infrastructure was so important, why was only 5% of the “stimulus” targeted there (and teachers, firemen and police aren’t the infrastructure).  They talk of “investments” but they gamble other people’s money.

  • Well Barack earned nothing in his life so I understand how he can feel this way

  • Yes, well, the government should take investment over and build glorious new tractor factory or green energy firm!

    What good are shareholders? Not much, say Jay Lorsch, a Harvard Business School professor, and Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review. They outline the shortcomings …

    http://news.investors.com/article/618149/201207131919/what-good-are-shareholders-new-study-asks.htm

    You can’t make this up, folks!
     
     

    • I just see “Harvard” and automatically discount whatever is said. Our best and brightest have stunk up the joint for quite awhile now. Eff the Ivy League

  • I don’t think that *Romney* could repair the damage that this monster has done. But I know that American entrepreneurs and businessmen can repair it. If Obama loses a boom will begin the next day. Americans should be prepared to take advantage of it, and be prepared to take the economy back from the government. As for Barack, keep your eye on him if he loses, because he’ll stick around to take credit for the boom that his leaving inspired. And then, as it slows dow after a couple of years, he’ll say it’s because Romney’s policies are finally having their effect, and then Barack will run again in 2016, saying that it’s the “Obama recovery” and you need him back to keep it going. This guy is like Jerry Brown or the Clintons, he will never, ever go away. Look at Brown. He had two terms as governor of California back in the 70s, then he was mayor of Oakland, then attorney general, and now he’s the bloody governor again. These people never go away.

    • But I know that American entrepreneurs and businessmen can repair it.

      A free people can do it.
      Yeeeeup.

  • No, I’m not calling him a communist, I’m simply pointing out the irony of what he’s doing.  Draw your own conclusions about what he is, but one thing he isn’t is a friend of the free market.

    One thing I hear repeatedly from the cocktail class of the republican establishment is how it is so wrong to call Obama a socialist, or Marxist.  Michael Medved regularly berates his own side when they call Obama an Alinskyite.  Frustrating because it plays into what Jeff Goldstien has been railing against for years – namely a linguistic coup by the left on how we are tolerated to use language.
     
    It doesnt matter if Barack isnt technically a socialist, or doesnt perfectly align with Marx/Engels, nor never personally met Saul Alinsky.  His education is steeped in their theories, admonishments, and policy wishes.  I know this because I attended school roughly the same time that Berry did – in fact, my little sister was earning her graduate degree at Harvard the same time Obama was.
     
    A majority of the elite left (those learned and published and lecturing folks) are brainwashed into believing that if only Lenin’s vanguard were allowed to assume total societal control (yes, it goes far beyond just governmental control) then heaven on earth can be manufactured.  Moreover, these folks are convinced that once their enlightened societal policies are in force, the masses will miraculously understand and embrace their genius, as well as their proper place as benevolent dictators.
     
    Something I learned a long time ago that is prevalent within all extremes, and increasingly more so in today’s left, is their inability to comprehend that their arguments have, in fact, been understood and considered, yet still rejected.  It is the ultimate slap in ones intellectual face – often so much so that the person has to rationalize away why their (within their own mind) brilliant arguments are not persuasive.  And Obama is utterly emblematic of this arrogance.  No surprise there though, as that has been his upbringing, education, and experience.

  • It’s the exact opposite of what Obama said….Govt takes wealth that private individuals create. The guy is an awful human being

  • Every now and then, he pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the veil slip from time to time. … His straw man argument is this ridiculous caricature where he’s trying to say if you want any security in life, you stick with me. If you go with these Republicans, they’re going to feed you to the wolves because they believe in some Hobbesian state of nature, and it’s one or the other which is complete bunk, absolutely ridiculous. But it seems to be the only way he thinks he can make his case. He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.
    His comments seem to derive from a naive vision of a government-centered society and a government-directed economy. It stems from an idea that the nucleus of society and the economy is government not the people. … It is antithetical to the American idea. We believe in free communities, and this is a statist attack on free communities. … As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of the 20th century.
    This is not a Bill Clinton Democrat. He’s got this very government-centric, old 20th century collectivist philosophy which negates the American experiment which is people living in communities, supporting one another, having government stick to its limits so it can do its job really well … Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.
    How does building roads and bridge justify Obamacare? If you like the GI Bill therefore we must go along with socialized medicine. It’s a strange leap that he takes. … To me it’s the laziest form of a debate to affix views to your opponent that they do not have so you can demonize them and defeat them and win the debate by default
    I think he believes America was on the right path until Reagan came along, and Reagan got us going in the wrong direction. And and he wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the entire Reagan revolution. … I think he sees himself as bringing about this wave of progressivism, and the only thing stopping him are these meddling conservatives who believe in these founding principles so he has to caricature them in the ugliest light possible to win the argument.

  • Chris Matthews: I Know There’s An “Ethnic Piece” to the Puzzle of Why Republcians Attack Obama
    He has got us guys … it’s because Obama is ……. Hawaiian

    Will Obama’s Election End ‘Kill Haole Day’ in Hawaii? Kill haole day has been around for decades. It’s not a myth; young people say it happens, and sometimes incidents hit the press on the islands. Local school kids in Hawaii will harass and sometimes beat up on mainland young people, largely Caucasian. Tourists don’t know of this culture, but local people do. It isn’t discussed openly or written about in newspapers, but it has been part of island practice among some of the young people.

    In some of Hawaiʻi’s schools, the last day of school before summer is reputedly known as Kill Haole Day. The origins of the day are unknown, but the tradition dates back to the 1950s.
    I’m sure we can guess which side Obama was during Kill Haole Day