Quantcast

Are the Rich Responsible for Their Own Success? (President Obama Thinks Not)

Chris D 2012/07/16 21:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The quote in question is from a recent presidential speech in Virginia is: 'If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.' What in the world could President Obama have meant by that?

DAILYMAIL.CO.UK reports:
In a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, the President said: 'If you've got a business - you didn't build that'. It sparked a furious response from the National Federation of Independent Businesses on Monday, who said it showed an 'utter lack of understanding'.
sparked furious response national federation independent businesses onmonday utter understanding

Read More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174160/Ob...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • TheBorg 2012/07/16 23:22:21 (edited)
    What the... ?
    TheBorg
    +45
    WTF? Never seen a quote taken more out of context. What I heard was that the workers of a company have a part in making that company successful and should be recognized by the company for their hard work. It is not the CEO who is taking the risk when creating a business, it is the worker.

    My case in point: in 2012 the Koch brothers made 11 billion in profit yet still laid off over 25% of their workers in Green Bay, many middle aged. Now they need to find retraining, find a job, and still support their families. Most ended up losing their homes or at the very least downsizing. What CEO has every lost their home, needed to be retrained, or lost their life savings trying to make ends meet after a business went under or they got fired?

    What I heard from Obama is that one man cannot make a successful business without good workers and good workers should be recognized for their contribution to the organization. Currently the climate is that only the CEO is of any importance and should take advantage of their workers any way they can.

    workers workers recognized contribution organization climate ceo importance advantage workers

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • SW gocar 2012/08/06 16:18:03
    SW
    +1
    Trump got 34 million... Bill Gates had a 4 million dollar trust fund when he dropped out of harvard. Rush Limbaughs family were rich politically connected lawyers. The American Dream has become "If you're rich you can get richer." not "anyone can make it with hard work ...etc."
  • ★Calliope★ 2012/07/19 16:45:59
    Yes, of couse they are!
    ★Calliope★
    +3
    They may have a bit of help - but they pay for it - over and over and over - and have paid for it all along.

    It's not taken out of context. I read the statement, the ENTIRE statement over and over and still came to the same conclusion - Our president, having never made anything, never built anything, not once contributed a tangible thing, has no clue.

    It's not like this is a revelation. He's marxist, taught, marixist befriended, marxist steeped. It's inevitable that's his 'take' on America.
  • nancyisnow ★Calliope★ 2012/07/19 17:24:18
    nancyisnow
    I was believing you for a while, then saw the rest and realized these statements are insane - more ditto from the spin devils.
  • ★Calliope★ nancyisnow 2012/07/19 17:29:10
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    Yeah, keep thinking that nancy. Whatever makes you sleep better.

    You've taken it right from Alinsky - ridicule what you can't or won't answer.

    Same old crap with you folks.
  • Small m... ★Calliope★ 2012/07/19 18:15:34
    Small man big mouth
    +4
    Any educated person can see that this is more marxist rhetoric. That's why only morons support obama cos they are seduced by his illusion of being for the people when all along he's been making it harder to employ these people by businesses. This is another clue to social justice. Claiming that a rich mans business doesn't really belong to them indicates what he intends to do with it. Remember that the government produces NOTHING. Anytime they want to give, they first must TAKE from somewhere else.
  • ★Calliope★ Small m... 2012/07/20 00:38:20
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    Very well said.
  • amoobrasil Small m... 2012/07/22 19:24:46
    amoobrasil
    Calliope, below, likes your name-calling rant. Would you care to substantiate your hateful claims with verifiable facts and data?
  • SW Small m... 2012/08/06 16:28:45
    SW
    Any Educated person knows what "Marxism" is and doesn't use that word out of context with obviously no clue what it actually means.

    Educated people learn by actually reading history not watching Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

    Government produces "Nothing?" So drove to work on a private road then? Went to only private schools? If your house catches on fire is a private company gonna come put it out? The space shuttle and mars robots are "nothing?" The internet you're typing all this Glenn Beck nonsense on is "nothing?" Public parks are "nothing?" I go to a very nice one all the time and it's awesome! Look around. You take way too much for granted.
  • bt sedlock SW 2012/08/11 04:41:19
    bt sedlock
    +1
    Al Gore claimed that he invented the internet.
  • amoobrasil bt sedlock 2012/08/20 16:42:32
    amoobrasil
    No he did not. Provide the source with the quote from Al Gore and you will show us all that he never made such a claim. Now, what relevance does your false claim have to do with this discussion?
  • amoobrasil SW 2012/08/20 16:38:28 (edited)
    amoobrasil
    Your points are well taken, SW, but I really do not think that all educated people agree on the definition of "Marxism". One must at least specify whether it is the writings of Marx in Das Kapital or whether it is the policy practiced in countries that falsely claimed to be Marxist. Marx never envisioned a small aristrocracy acting as the dictatorship of the proletariat. The workers, the common folks, were supposed to be working in common, sharing their bounty, each taking only what he needed and producing to the greatest of his capability.

    The "conservatives" writing here clearly show no clue of understanding what Marxism really is. To them, it is just a hate word that masks the anger and resentment they feel as they react to what they view as a challenge to the supremacy of the white social paradigm. Non-whites must stay in their place; those that do not are lazy parasites or they are socialists, Marxists, American-haters, etc., etc.
  • amoobrasil Small m... 2012/08/20 16:33:05
    amoobrasil
    Another rant. Why do you accuse people who stand up for the needy in this country of being "morons"? What is "marxist" about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked?

    You may not realize that the USSR was an aristocracy controlled by a privileged nomenklatura of less than a million people. They believed that they deserved their position of privilege and that everyone else should be grateful for what they had.

    This is exactly what the GOP is preaching: the wealthy and influential deserve what they have; the rest of us must earn our way by playing by corporatist rules.

    Few "conservatives" really want a few hundred wealthy families calling the shots in our government.

    So I ask: it is REALLY worth the dizzying, intoxicating glee of gloating over an Obama defeat when you know from the lips of the GOP candidates themselves that the consequence is a victory for a policy of privatization of Social Security, an end to Medicare, more tax cuts for the likes of Romney and the Koch brothers, and more tax breaks and subsidies for corporations that outsource American jobs?
  • bt sedlock amoobrasil 2012/08/21 16:42:34
    bt sedlock
    Who are the Koch Brothers!?
  • amoobrasil bt sedlock 2012/08/21 17:46:52
    amoobrasil
    The funders of the TEA Party, they are among the most powerful forces pandering to Obama-haters while working for a complete corporate takeover of our government.

    The following is from The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com /reporting/2010/08/30/ 100830fa_fact_ mayer#ixzz24Ccg4BeH--I have to break up the link because SodaHead truncates links, it seems):

    "The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation... In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States...the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the KOCHTOPUS.

    ...Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdo...



    The funders of the TEA Party, they are among the most powerful forces pandering to Obama-haters while working for a complete corporate takeover of our government.

    The following is from The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com /reporting/2010/08/30/ 100830fa_fact_ mayer#ixzz24Ccg4BeH--I have to break up the link because SodaHead truncates links, it seems):

    "The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation... In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States...the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the KOCHTOPUS.

    ...Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, 'The Kochs are on a whole different level...They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.'

    Peggy Venable [who organizes events for the Kochs]...warned that Administration officials 'have a socialist vision for this country.'

    Five hundred people attended the [event], which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. 'Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,' it said...The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. David Axelrod...said, 'What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.' "
    (more)
  • bt sedlock amoobrasil 2012/08/27 02:25:57
    bt sedlock
    I don't agree that the voices of average Americans are being drowned out lobbyists and special interests.
  • bt sedlock ★Calliope★ 2012/08/11 04:29:44
    bt sedlock
    +1
    Is Alisnsky supposed that late social activist who inspired Obama during his teenage years and college days at Harvard?
  • ★Calliope★ bt sedlock 2012/08/11 22:18:36
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    Why yes, you can see Obama illustrating Alinsky here.
    obama the professor
    rules for radicals rules for radicals
  • bt sedlock ★Calliope★ 2012/08/14 17:27:15
    bt sedlock
    +1
    Were these the words of Saul Alinsky or Lucifer?
  • ★Calliope★ bt sedlock 2012/08/14 18:54:08
    ★Calliope★
    Saul Alinsky about Lucifer.
  • bt sedlock ★Calliope★ 2012/08/14 18:58:49
    bt sedlock
    What the "devil" is Alinsky talking?
  • bt sedlock bt sedlock 2012/08/14 19:02:03
    bt sedlock
    I mean what the "devil" is Alinsky talking "about."
  • ★Calliope★ bt sedlock 2012/08/14 22:08:29
    ★Calliope★
    He was saying that Satan i.e. Lucifer was the original 'radical'.

    He likens his tactics to Lucifer. As if that gives him some kind of biblical edge.
  • bt sedlock ★Calliope★ 2012/08/17 14:39:45
    bt sedlock
    He sounds like a big jerk.
  • ★Calliope★ bt sedlock 2012/08/17 20:48:01
    ★Calliope★
    Colossal jerk.

    Obama's hero.
  • amoobrasil ★Calliope★ 2012/08/20 16:47:33
    amoobrasil
    Since your are being neither cute nor clever, please cite your source for this statement.
  • ★Calliope★ amoobrasil 2012/08/20 18:24:56
    ★Calliope★
    Since you're acting the colossal jerk, whyn't you do your own research? The onus is not upon me to educate idiots.

    Rules For Radicals - published in 1971 - had the dedication to Lucifer. It was subsequently removed from later editions.

    http://www.americanthinker.co...
    http://www.hudson.org/index.c...
    http://www.nationalreview.com...
    http://www.crossroad.to/Quote...
    'Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky - pub 1971 - A Summary & Overview of Progressive Far Left's Tac...
    http://online.worldmag.com/ta...

    They pretty much left the Christian and Jewish pages alone.

    I found the scan of the 1971 dedication page but alas, I'm not paying 49.95 for you or anyone.

    Lefties ... ie Obama supporters have done a brilliant job of scouring the first edition of Alinaky's book from the internet -
    Here's some scrubbing -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://pubsub.com/Saul-Alinsk... Those are just a sampling.
    Since you're acting the colossal jerk, whyn't you do your own research? The onus is not upon me to educate idiots. rules for radicals

    Rules For Radicals - published in 1971 - had the dedication to Lucifer. It was subsequently removed from later editions.

    http://www.americanthinker.co...
    http://www.hudson.org/index.c...
    http://www.nationalreview.com...
    http://www.crossroad.to/Quote...
    'Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky - pub 1971 - A Summary & Overview of Progressive Far Left's Tac...
    http://online.worldmag.com/ta...

    They pretty much left the Christian and Jewish pages alone.

    I found the scan of the 1971 dedication page but alas, I'm not paying 49.95 for you or anyone.

    Lefties ... ie Obama supporters have done a brilliant job of scouring the first edition of Alinaky's book from the internet -
    Here's some scrubbing -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://pubsub.com/Saul-Alinsk... Those are just a sampling.
    (more)
  • amoobrasil ★Calliope★ 2012/08/20 20:39:25 (edited)
    amoobrasil
    I am neither a jerk nor an idiot. If you believe that I am, provide your evidence. Your sources are all propaganda creations of Corporate America. See my posting about the Koch brothers above and then tell me that you have not been taken in by them and their ilk. Please.
  • ★Calliope★ amoobrasil 2012/08/21 21:28:22
    ★Calliope★
    If you aren't an idiot or a jerk, you shouldn't have barbed your comment.

    And no, not propaganda. If you would have read them, you would have seen a book review prior to the dedication being removed in a subsequent printing. You would have further noticed that I said there is a copy available, but it takes MONEY and I'm not paying because you like to cry 'propaganda'.

    You can save the KOCH nonsense. Not unless you want to start chatting about SOROS.
  • amoobrasil ★Calliope★ 2012/08/22 00:48:54
    amoobrasil
    Review the comments in this thread and then tell me whether it is the "conservative" whites or everyone else who "barbs" comments. To be fair, I have come across childish name-calling by those whom you would call "liberal". (When I run across content with which I agree but words that are insulting, I take the "liberal" to task.)

    You cannot help but find that the overwhelming comments of this nature, however, issue from angry "conservatives".

    The Koch information is simply a summary of who they are and what they do. You correctly do not question the source. I must ask, then, do you reject the facts? If so, why?

    And I know of no similar bio of Soros. He is reasonable and he adheres to scholarly discipline. However, he is not sympathetic to the corporatocracy, which--of course--targets him for telling the truth (especially any former "conservative", like David Brock).

    Anyway, if you know of verifiable facts and data that show him to be anywhere as dishonest and self-serving as are the Koch brothers, please enlighten me.
  • amoobrasil bt sedlock 2012/08/20 16:46:45
    amoobrasil
    Saul Alinsky taught people to stand up for themselves and not be bulllied by the wealthy people who demanded that they knuckle under and work for a wage that would not permit them to dlive in dignity.

    He inspired me, too. And I am a true conservative, one who believes in keeping true to the best of our traditions, who believes that mom 'n pop businesses are superior in service and qulity to the mega-corporations that take taxpayer subsidies and run everything through a blender.
  • ★Calliope★ amoobrasil 2012/08/21 21:29:27
    ★Calliope★
    Saul Alinsky taught people that the ends justify ANY means.

    That's a terrible message.
  • amoobrasil ★Calliope★ 2012/08/22 00:49:46
    amoobrasil
    Wrong. You will be hard pressed to show otherwise. I do welcome any honest attempt to try.
  • Diane ★Calliope★ 2012/07/20 02:14:40
    Diane
    This quote was taken out of context.

    Here's the full quote.

    "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build
    that. Somebody else made that happen."

    When he said, "you didn't build that," he was talking about roads and bridges.
  • ★Calliope★ Diane 2012/07/20 03:13:47
    ★Calliope★
    Roads and bridges.

    So all these businesses owe their success to roads and bridges? If that is the case, why are there poor? They pay nothing for those roads and bridges and use them.

    If roads and bridges cause success why are folks struggling?
  • SW ★Calliope★ 2012/08/06 16:30:34
    SW
    +1
    "So all these businesses owe their success to roads and bridges? If that is the case, why are there poor?" That makes no sense at all! "If 2+2 = 4 then why are there letters?"
  • ★Calliope★ SW 2012/08/07 07:41:26
    ★Calliope★
    WHY ARE PEOPLE POOR if all it takes is ROADS and BRIDGES to make them RICH?

    The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's a logical progression of your argument (and coincidentally, Obama's), that success hinges on roads and bridges that other folks built. Or some teacher or some other fictional character. Nothing like demonizing hard work dedication. Oh no. Obama would never disdain the successful would he?

    Steeped in collectivism, the little dorm-rat never held a real job. His momma was a communist, his father.. His grandparents too. And you expect THINKING Americans to discount his past? It's obvious what he thinks.

    But hey, delude yourself. I hope the end of his term doesn't shock your sensibilities too much - all that withdrawal from hopium...
  • SW ★Calliope★ 2012/08/08 12:57:23
    SW
    +1
    No it's not. It's a retarded mischaracterization of my argument. Just because there are opportunities doesn't mean everyone uses them or is in a position to benifit from them. That doesn't mean there are no opportunities or those opportunities got here by magic.

    Donald Trump inherited 34 mil and a hotel in Manhattan. He got to benifit from the Brooklyn Bridge and the NYPD more than I did even thought he didn't make those things happen --just like Obama says.

    It's not an "all or nothing" thing. If there was better infrastructure, better education available, better "roads and bridges" etc there would be fewer poor people, because more people would have the opportunity to succeed.
  • ★Calliope★ SW 2012/08/09 03:21:35
    ★Calliope★
    Oh GOD.

    Who exactly pays the lions' share of taxes? Thereby providing the money FOR the roads and infrastructure?

    It's a stupid argument. Collectivism is NOT what makes businesses successful. Nor government largess. Nor a particular teacher. Business succeeds because of the drive of the business owner and whether he provides a product or service that is necessary by demand.

    Businesses succeed DESPITE the government, not because of it.
  • SW ★Calliope★ 2012/08/09 13:14:01
    SW
    +1
    Really? then go to try to incorporate in Somalia. There's no government, no taxes go ahead you're sure to be successful without all that government "in the way." Send us a post card from your mansion.

    If you own a busineess you "built" with all your "drive" who educated your employees? Who enforces your contracts? If it catches on fire who's gonna put it out? Who built the roads you ship your products on and regulates and maintains them? Who did a hydrological study of your watershed and made sure that no one upstream of you can cause flooding on your property? Who created the internet protocols your business website is run on? Who's military and police protect your property, patents, and copyrights? the only reason you "own" your business is because there's a government building somewhere with a piece of paper in it that says you do and government courts and police to enforce that ownership.Go somewhere without all that and try to start your business. Not to mention lots of businesses get their money from government contracts. Clearly they're not doing business "in spite of" the government!

    And your earlier question "why are there still poor people" is asanine. It's like if I said "Doctors and hospitals help sick people" and you asked "Then why are there still any sick people?" I didn't say "roads and bridges automatically gaurantee everyone will be successful." but Amazon would have a hard time giving you a free shipping deal if there were none.
  • ★Calliope★ SW 2012/08/09 18:13:21
    ★Calliope★
    That argument makes no sense.

    NONE. It doesn't hold water. Somolia? Really?
    As for poor folks, those programs for poor folks were to end poverty. That's how the government touted 'em.

    Instead, those programs have resulted in what? over 75 percent of households in the black community being headed by single women? Why? Want to take a stab at that?

    Poor in this country has typically been younger folks and old folks. Now there's a whole new dynamic of staying on welfare generationally. Why? Used to be folks worked, then worked at a different job or the same job and their paychecks would rise. More experience, better jobs. Now? No work and Obama wants to end work requirements for entitlements. Why work? Free cable, free phones, free food. Section 8 housing. Folks at 17 can get more benefits that any job they can get. Why work? Why get experience? Why pay dues by working to get a higher salary? Ah.. why not? It's a whole voting block for Democrats.


    Your stupid argument regarding DOCTOR's is laughable.
    Doctors help sick people, That's not the same argument. Ridiculous in fact. Doctor's aren't incentivizing folks to STAY sick. Doc's don't give freebies out.

    But boy howdy, medicaid sure does. And exactly how do the POOR use medicaid? Massive fraud and abuse. 6...









    That argument makes no sense.

    NONE. It doesn't hold water. Somolia? Really?
    As for poor folks, those programs for poor folks were to end poverty. That's how the government touted 'em.

    Instead, those programs have resulted in what? over 75 percent of households in the black community being headed by single women? Why? Want to take a stab at that?

    Poor in this country has typically been younger folks and old folks. Now there's a whole new dynamic of staying on welfare generationally. Why? Used to be folks worked, then worked at a different job or the same job and their paychecks would rise. More experience, better jobs. Now? No work and Obama wants to end work requirements for entitlements. Why work? Free cable, free phones, free food. Section 8 housing. Folks at 17 can get more benefits that any job they can get. Why work? Why get experience? Why pay dues by working to get a higher salary? Ah.. why not? It's a whole voting block for Democrats.


    Your stupid argument regarding DOCTOR's is laughable.
    Doctors help sick people, That's not the same argument. Ridiculous in fact. Doctor's aren't incentivizing folks to STAY sick. Doc's don't give freebies out.

    But boy howdy, medicaid sure does. And exactly how do the POOR use medicaid? Massive fraud and abuse. 65 percent use emergency rooms instead of doctors' office visits for minor illnesses. That's not counting the clog of illegal aliens in the ER.

    So keep flapping. You don't understand, you refuse to learn and you keep spouting progressive cant.

    YOU didn't bother addressing the huge amount of money business folks put into the infrastructure. You also don't address the amount of money people put into the educational system.

    I sent my children to private school. But my taxes EVERY YEAR were on top of tuition. My taxes for school? over 9K a year. That's not my property tax burden, that's pure school tax. Think of all the folks that are childless. Think of all the folks that pay that are in their 60s and 70s and 80s? They've paid and paid and paid. That's only property owners. Not the renters, not the section 8 housing folks. So who exactly pays for education? It's not the poor. It's property owners. Outside of NYC - 61% of property taxes are used to fund schools. You know - the property owners that are 98 percent more likely to own their own business.

    Who exactly has the burden?

    You folks are incredible. The silly notion of 'it takes a village' to raise a child sounds so warm and fuzzy until you look at the economic reality.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/26 04:36:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals