Government Did Not Build Your Business

[Bfgrn]

Hard work and creating value in myself have created demand for my services by people with money. The best chance to see more of that out of the two choices for the next 4 years is Romney.

I gave you evidence that the conservative era has been a failure by any meaningful economic measure. I'm sorry. I was talking about my country. But it's really just about you.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

We didn't create that...somebody else did !

The biggest myth we have is that we ever had much of a free market.

No, the biggest myth is the fanatical religious believers who see the 'invisible hand' as the sole solution to all problems. The Marketist, cousin of the Marxist.

The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government non-intervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Listening]

I gave you evidence that the conservative era has been a failure by any meaningful economic measure. I'm sorry. I was talking about my country. But it's really just about you.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

We didn't create that...somebody else did !

The biggest myth we have is that we ever had much of a free market.

No, the biggest myth is the fanatical religious believers who see the 'invisible hand' as the sole solution to all problems. The Marketist, cousin of the Marxist.

If you want to continue to lap up this guys piss, be my guest. He is only potificating. His few conclusions can't be taken seriously as he attributes his causes to things that never really existed.

I'll contend we've had very few free markets in the last 30 years.

 

[BlindBoo]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

"Clearly, in his Virginia speech, President Obama was making a point about the way infrastructure supports business and the interconnectedness of the economy and government with personal success and hard work. But, you see, he accidentally said "that" at one point when he meant "those." So release the hounds."

"...hanging your attack on a person's slight grammatical misstep is what people do in an argument when they're completely fucked and know they have no argument."

Jon Stewart Slams You-Didn't-Build-That-Gate In Romney, Fox News' Faces (VIDEO)

 

[Pho_King]

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).[/

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

If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

If he meant roads and bridges he should have said those meaning roads and bridges.
He said that meaning business....


You guys can try all you want but it ain't gonna happen..
I will make sure each and every day that people remember what he said.


“If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Barack Hussein Obama[/Q

let's assume obammy had slipped back into his native tongue where grammatical rules, spelling, and syntax are irrelevant. The meaning behind the words was the same. If you run a successful business, it is thanks to da gubmint. You owe us. Get out your checkbook.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who ever said Government built your business?

Fucktard Obama

Try and pay attention.

That is stupid?

Obama is stupid. Not for spewing this Marxist crap, but for thinking it would aid his campaign.

 

[Pho_King]

People on the right have never really understood how markets work.

The goal of any business is to increase market share.

Shareholders want market share.

Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.

A monopoly is the point of building market share.

Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.

The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.

In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.

Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.

Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.

The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".

God help us.

I was going to reply to you intelligently, then I read your post.

You should post this in the appropriate forum.

Conspiracy forum...really?

The modern corporation is the dominant form of business organization in the world today. Corporations' reach, however, is not limited to the business world. As they have multiplied in number, size, and power, corporations have also begun to exert extraordinary influence over the civic, economic, and cultural life of the human societies which host them. Although corporations are effective mechanisms for generating certain kinds of wealth, much of their influence can rightly be regarded as pernicious and even dangerous.

There are two linked problems with such concentrations of cor*porate power. First, that power increases corporations' ability to influence societal affairs, from fixing prices to altering laws. Second, while corporations and governments may have similar amounts of power, the latter are designed-at least nominally-to serve the public interest, and many are accountable to these publics. Because of shareholder pressures and other demands, most corporations today focus almost entirely on maximizing profits for their shareholders-and they do so primarily by externalizing as many of their social and environmental costs as possible.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995 - four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

Parasite hosts are generally helpless to alter the destructive behavior of the parasites that have invaded their systems-a limitation that is often fatal. Humans, in contrast, can regain control and shape the role of the corporation to benefit the host rather than destroy it.
more

Pay attention folks. One of our resident parasites is offering a lesson on the nature of parasites.

 

[Papageorgio]

“If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Barack Hussein Obama

According to our leader it wasn't the business owner.
I'm thinking Obama was stating that government is responsible.

Retards think?

He wasn't talking about the government.

He was talking about how it takes a society of folks to get the big things done, like building businesses.

One person can build their own lemonade stand, but it takes a bunch of folks to build a fucking store.

Taking it in that context makes his statement less coherent.

 

[Goodoledays]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

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

Yes somebody did invest in roads and bridges. It was the taxpayers that did. And the businessman was one of those taxpayers. It sure as hell didn't come from Mars.

 

[Goodoledays]

The OP is close to the bullseye on "what ails this economy".. Lemme repost the critical clue...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4323443-post1.html

Nobody commented on those scary graphs.. Everyone wants to ignore what we SHOULD BE DOING, in favor of what they hear from our fuckwad "leadership".. Or they haven't been TOLD how serious that problem really is by Rachael Maddow or Sean Hannity..


Mounting regulation has made it less attractive to throw capital at NEW INNOVATIVE ideas and companies. And EASIER for the GIANTS to consume and stifle attempts to take away their market leadership.. MOST regulation is nothing but protective shields for the MEGA corps..

And if we don't get that IPO volume up --- Our employment situation and standard of living will take a massive dive..

What will Obama say then ?

You didn't go broke on your own....someone else (the government) did that. ????

or

You didn't drop into poverty on your own. The government did that ?

It is amazing what he does not get.

He only gets it if its an improvement. If its a failure its always someone elses fault.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

"Clearly, in his Virginia speech, President Obama was making a point about the way infrastructure supports business and the interconnectedness of the economy and government with personal success and hard work. But, you see, he accidentally said "that" at one point when he meant "those." So release the hounds."

"...hanging your attack on a person's slight grammatical misstep is what people do in an argument when they're completely fucked and know they have no argument."

Jon Stewart Slams You-Didn't-Build-That-Gate In Romney, Fox News' Faces (VIDEO)

Again -- the context in the speech makes it EXTREMELY unlikely that this was misinterpreted. He started out by asserting that "a lot of folks work hard" and that all sweat equity is approximately equal.. Same thing with "there's a lot of smart folks".. Thus minimizing the focus, risk, resolution and creativity of folks that DRIVE a biz to success.

NONE OF THE FOLLOWING comments about who provides "roads and bridges" or "you didn't build that" would mean anything --- until you make the Collectivist assertion that biz leaders contribute nothing special to the venture.

NOT out of context.. Not " a slight grammatical misstep".. It was a complete Collectivist primer of all Hard Work is equal, risk and creativity don't matter, and you owe the Collective more money.. The bill is in the mail.

 

[Goodoledays]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

You are taking that out of context, which Republicans do a lot of..

Its not out of context. Next time you listen to your almighty nitwit you follow turn up the volume.

 

[BlindBoo]

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

"Clearly, in his Virginia speech, President Obama was making a point about the way infrastructure supports business and the interconnectedness of the economy and government with personal success and hard work. But, you see, he accidentally said "that" at one point when he meant "those." So release the hounds."

"...hanging your attack on a person's slight grammatical misstep is what people do in an argument when they're completely fucked and know they have no argument."

Jon Stewart Slams You-Didn't-Build-That-Gate In Romney, Fox News' Faces (VIDEO)

Again -- the context in the speech makes it EXTREMELY unlikely that this was misinterpreted. He started out by asserting that "a lot of folks work hard" and that all sweat equity is approximately equal.. Same thing with "there's a lot of smart folks".. Thus minimizing the focus, risk, resolution and creativity of folks that DRIVE a biz to success.

NONE OF THE FOLLOWING comments about who provides "roads and bridges" or "you didn't build that" would mean anything --- until you make the Collectivist assertion that biz leaders contribute nothing special to the venture.

NOT out of context.. Not " a slight grammatical misstep".. It was a complete Collectivist primer of all Hard Work is equal, risk and creativity don't matter, and you owe the Collective more money.. The bill is in the mail.

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

You are the one who is asserting that the president said something he simply didn't say. "that biz leaders contribute nothing special to the venture" was never said or implied.

But be that as it may, the Romney camp isn't going that deep. They're sticking with the original misrepresentation("He said you didn't build that")\lie as part of their strategy.

 

[BlindBoo]

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

You are taking that out of context, which Republicans do a lot of..

Its not out of context. Next time you listen to your almighty nitwit you follow turn up the volume.

Of course "you didn't build that" was taken out of context. It's all a lie, Romney and his supporter have nothing but. Can't very well base a smear campaign on....."The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

 

[Listening]

You are taking that out of context, which Republicans do a lot of..

Its not out of context. Next time you listen to your almighty nitwit you follow turn up the volume.

Of course "you didn't build that" was taken out of context. It's all a lie, Romney and his supporter have nothing but. Can't very well base a smear campaign on....."The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Oh yes you can....and we are.

We do things together....first of all is bogus. He never said who "we" is.

You didn't build that road....well who the hell did ?

And if he wants to do things "together" it's high time he put a minimum 2% federal income tax on everybody.

Oh, and John Stewart can shove it up his ass sideways. You can too.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I approve of this thread but I did not create my thought to do so.

Stop riding the partisan train Grampa, you admitted the other day it was taken out of context.

True but even in context it was a stupid thing to say the whole paragraph is a disaster

 

[BlindBoo]

Its not out of context. Next time you listen to your almighty nitwit you follow turn up the volume.

Of course "you didn't build that" was taken out of context. It's all a lie, Romney and his supporter have nothing but. Can't very well base a smear campaign on....."The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Oh yes you can....and we are.

We do things together....first of all is bogus. He never said who "we" is.

You didn't build that road....well who the hell did ?

And if he wants to do things "together" it's high time he put a minimum 2% federal income tax on everybody.

Oh, and John Stewart can shove it up his ass sideways. You can too.

Nice..

 

[BlindBoo]

I approve of this thread but I did not create my thought to do so.

Stop riding the partisan train Grampa, you admitted the other day it was taken out of context.

True but even in context it was a stupid thing to say the whole paragraph is a disaster

It was uplifting and it was praising Americans past and present. Only in the sad realm of the Republican propaganda machine, aka the GOP Echo Chamber, does this loose its intended meaning and devolve into a disingenuous yet voracious attack on American business owners.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

You are the one who is asserting that the president said something he simply didn't say. "that biz leaders contribute nothing special to the venture" was never said or implied.

But be that as it may, the Romney camp isn't going that deep. They're sticking with the original misrepresentation("He said you didn't build that")\lie as part of their strategy.

"If you have a business, it's only because we took our boot off of your throat."

This isn't going away. All the leftist bullshitters can't alter what Barack said. Context only makes it worse.

This used to be the land of opportunity, Obama proudly works to ensure those days are gone forever.

 

[BlindBoo]

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

You are the one who is asserting that the president said something he simply didn't say. "that biz leaders contribute nothing special to the venture" was never said or implied.

But be that as it may, the Romney camp isn't going that deep. They're sticking with the original misrepresentation("He said you didn't build that")\lie as part of their strategy.

"If you have a business, it's only because we took our boot off of your throat."

This isn't going away. All the leftist bullshitters can't alter what Barack said. Context only makes it worse.

This used to be the land of opportunity, Obama proudly works to ensure those days are gone forever.

You just can't help yourself, and here you are altering what the President said, because you got nothing else.

Context certainly makes it worst for Romney's "You didn't built it" campaign!

 

[Uncensored2008]

You just can't help yourself, and here you are altering what the President said, because you got nothing else.

Yeah, satire is only good when your side does it...

Context certainly makes it worst for Romney's "You didn't built it" campaign!

Quite the opposite, particularly when the video of Obama is shown. His "Tsk Tsk school marm act is particularly repulsive." Once the video is seen, there is no question that Obama was chastising business owners for daring to believe they had earned what they have.

It's all part of the Obama class war.