Entrepreneurship

Government Did Not Build Your Business

Obama is wrong-entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats, created "this unbelievable American system."

|

“If you’ve got a businessâ€"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.

In the Virginia speech, the president also observed, “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.” As parts of “this unbelievable American system” that “allowed” businesses to “thrive,” the president cited “a great teacher” and that “somebody invested in roads and bridges.” With regard to building a business, the nebulous “somebody” who “made that happen” is, of course, government.

So what are the real background conditions for enabling economic growth and the production of increasing wealth? Intuitively most people think of wealth as chiefly consisting of material items, e.g., factories, farms, forests, mines, houses, ports, telecommunications networks, and yes, roads and bridges. However, research at the World Bank has found that once all of a country’s natural and produced capital is added up, they together generally constitute less than 20 percent of its actual wealth; the remaining 80 percent is intangible. What is intangible wealth? The World Bank study, The Changing Wealth of Nations, defines it as “human capital, social, and institutional capital, which includes factors such as the rule of law and governance that contribute to an efficient economy.”

Human capital is the set of skills and knowledge people living in a country have acquired. This is roughly measured by the average years of schooling per capita and a country’s average healthy life expectancy. So yes, great teachers certainly do contribute to the development of human capital. But it’s worth noting that the U.S. spends the most per pupil in the world, rising in constant dollars from $4,500 per student in 1970 to $10,500 in 2008. In the meantime that 17-year-old students in 1973 scored 285 points on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests. In 2008, they scored one point higherâ€"286 points. The math scores were 304 and 306 respectively. Our public school teachers may be great and better paid, but the data don’t show they’ve gotten better results.

Nevertheless, with regard to human capital, the United States is doing pretty well compared to other developed countries. The U.S. has the highest percentage of high school graduates of any country and only Canada, Japan, and Israel edge out the U.S. on percent of population with college degrees.

Social and institutional capital is measured by the World Bank’s rule of law index. This index takes into account the extent to which citizens have confidence in and abide by the rules of society. In particular, it measures the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.

Adding up all of the natural and produced capital and dividing it by our population, the World Bank calculated in 2005 that our natural capital amounted to about $14,000 per person, and produced capital was about $100,000 per capita. Intangible capital was a whopping $627,000 per person. In other words, about 85 percent of American wealth consists of institutional and social capital, such as strong property rights, the rule of law, an honest bureaucracy, and an educated populace, that enable the process of entrepreneurial innovation and job creation in free markets.

Good governance underpins these things, but not all governance is good. Just as government can enable the voluntary creation of wealth, it can also impede and even destroy it. Consider the case of Venezuela where Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution has so impeded that country’s economic growth that increased total per capita wealth has fallen from $80,000 to $70,000 per person between 1995 and 2005. Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe has even much worse record; total per capital wealth has dropped from $6,500 to $5,000 per person.

The United States is not Venezuela or Zimbabwe, but recent research suggests that the social and institutional background conditions that encourage and enable voluntary cooperation in markets to produce wealth and new jobs are being eroded. A bellwether for this erosion is the falling rate of new business startups.

The Kauffman Foundation, which has been tracking the rate of business startups since 1980, reports they have hit an all time low. Its new study, "Where Have All the Young Firms Gone?" finds that “Building on a long-term trend, the nation's business startup rate fell below 8 percent for the first time in 2010, marking the lowest point on record for new firm births.” The study adds, “New firms as a percentage of all firms continued a steady downward trend in 2010â€"going from a high of 13 percent (as a percentage of all firms) in the 1980s to just under 11 percent in 2006 before making a steep decline to the 8 percent in 2010.”

This decline is critical to job creation. A July 2010 study, "The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction," by Kauffman senior fellow Tim Kane found that since the 1980s, new startups “create an average of 3 million new jobs annually. All other ages of firms, including companies in their first full years of existence up to firms established two centuries ago, are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year.” Kane came to the astonishing conclusion, “Startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They are the only thing.”

The 2012 study found that while new business startups created 2.3 million jobs between March 2009 and March 2010, the net job creation from all U.S. private sector firms was minus 1.8 million jobs. The U.S. unemployment rate was then 9.7 percent. The number of business startups has dropped from 554,109 in 1987 to 394,632 in 2010. The 2012 Kaufmann report notes that the share of job creation from young firms has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1980s to 30 percent now. While acknowledging that the severity of the Great Recession no doubt contributes to this decline in entrepreneurial activity, it is important to note that startups were a major factor in lifting the U.S. economy out of previous economic downturns. Why is new firm creation lagging now? Perhaps it has something to do with the Obama administration’s idea of governance.

First, numerous studies find that higher tax and regulatory burdens impede entrepreneurial activity which in turn slow economic growth and job creation. For example, a 2010 study, "The Economic Effects of the Regulatory Burden," done for the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis (of all places), found that while some rules are necessary for entrepreneurs and markets to function “that countries with a light regulatory burden show more rapid economic growth in GDP per capita.” A 2008 study, "Government Size, Composition, Volatility, and Economic Growth," done for the European Central Bank examined the effect of government size and fiscal volatility on economic growth for developed countries between 1970 and 2004. The study finds that the bigger government and the slower the growth rate. Every percentage point increase in the share of total revenue going to government decreases overall economic output by more than a tenth of a percent. The report further noted, “Public capital formation may indeed turn out to be less productive if devoted to inefficient projects, or if it crowds out private investment.” Other words, despite the impression that Obama gives, not every government expenditure on infrastructure or a business subsidy is an “investment.”

Focusing more directly on the effects of regulation on economic growth, a study done for the Canadian government in 2006, "Regulatory Expenditures and Compliance Costs," confirmed, “Between 1977 and 2000, each dollar in US federal government regulatory expenditure was found to contribute about $21 in compliance cost burdens for business and state and local governments.” That study shows that regulatory compliance costs fell during the Reagan administration from $650 billion annually to $550 billion, but rose $700 billion by the end of the Clinton administration. A March 2012 study, "Red Tape Rising," by the conservative Heritage Foundation claimed the Obama administration in its first three years had imposed 106 new major regulations (those costing more $100 million in compliance) that boosted regulatory costs by more than $46 billion annually, which is five times greater than the costs imposed by the Bush Administration during its first three years. Another crude measure of the size of regulatory burden is the number of pages published each year in the Federal Register. In 1980, under President Jimmy Carter, that number reached more than 87,000 pages, dropping to around 47,500 pages in 1986 in the Reagan administration. Last year the Federal Register published nearly 82,500 pages.

A new study for the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis reports that in constant dollars federal regulatory agency spending has increased from $15 billion in 1980 to $50 billion today. If every dollar of federal regulatory spending multiplies by $21 in compliance costs, that implies more than $1 trillion annually in regulatory costs to businesses and individuals. The IRS expects to collect $1.4 trillion in income taxes this year. Regulations can act as substantial barriers to entry for the startups that have historically been the source of job creation in the U.S. economy.

In his speech last week in Virginia, the president declared, “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” But all of his examples of the things we "do together" were government projects, e.g., building roads, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover dam, fighting fires, public schools, and inventing the Internet. We can argue over whether or not these are services that can only be provided only by government. The crucial point that the president misses is that “this unbelievable American system” thrives chiefly on private enterprise, and that a lot of the government intervention that he favors is hindering rather than helping businesses and entrepreneurs create new jobs and more wealth.

Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey is the author of Liberation Biology (Prometheus).

Advertisement

NEXT: The Times on Guns: Still Tendentious, but Improving

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “you didn’t build that” = “we own you”

    1. Exactly. And by “this unbelievable American system that allowed businesses to thrive”, he means that government “allows” us to thrive.

      In Seattle this week, he said, “We’re going to reward risk and entrepreneurship.” Further proof he’s absolutely clueless… “we’re”! Ha!

      1. When Issac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants did that make him a socialist?

        1. Government is when the giant stands on your shoulders.

        2. Enough with that reference already.

          It really shows you’re stretching.

          Obama is something else. We all know he’s the most liberal of leaders we’ve seen and his speech was crystal clear in what he was driving at. There’s nothing to misinterpret or take out of context.

          Yet, there they are using that lame ass excuse. If it was, then the speech writer is awful and Obama is not the communicator and powerful orator his supporters think he is.

          He and the Democrats are really something else I tell ya:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..0yK5NakN2o

        3. When you claim to be a fan of Barry Goldwater, does that make HIM a socialist?

    2. Anthony Gregory also had an excellent article on this subject.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..87374.html

      Today’s America has a mixture of honest wealth and political privilege. Obama’s agenda favors the latter by expanding government power.

      The liberals and big business created the corporate state together. Business couldn’t do it alone. “Somebody else made that happen,” to quote the president.

      Obama’s detractors should demand a separation of business and state.

      1. Shit, that’s what I’ve been saying. Hell, that’s a message we can sell to the left (although, as with religion, they might still have trouble with the idea that the wall goes both ways).

  2. “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.

    Leaving out the referent of “that” (roads and bridges, etc.) is essentially to lie about what the potus said. Not that this hasn’t been explained countless times.

    1. Ron Bailey is a liar? That what you’re saying?

      1. I’m saying there’s no there here. Obama said nothing that Mitt Romney didn’t say, or that any 3rd grade teacher hasn’t said in a civics lesson, or that Ron Bailey isn’t saying in this very article.

        1. Can you give me the full quote that show’s he’s lying?

          1. There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — 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. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

            If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. 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. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

            The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

            1. “That” is singular, so it can only refer to “a business”, not “roads and bridges”. He uses “that” twice.

              Also this:

              Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

              Even assuming “government research created the Internet”, the “so that” phrasing makes it sound like these guys in the 1960s were working with the goal of Internet commerce in mind, which is total BS.

              1. The same could be said for the highway system. Capitalism is good at exploiting its environment for material gain. Nobody ever said it wasn’t. A large part of that environment is institutions government creates.

                1. Yeah, LOCAL government. The Obamessiah is arguing for more taxes to fund the Federal Government, which is largely irrelevant for the sort of infrastructure he used as an excuse. My schools are funded out of county property taxes. Most of my roads are funded out of state taxes. We could cut the Federal budget in half, and our chainsaw wouldn’t get anywhere near the infrastructure and education dollars.

                2. The same could be said for the highway system.

                  So you are, in fact, in favor of the military-industrial complex? The highway system was built to quickly move men and material from city to city after Eisenhower saw how efficient the Autobahn made the Allies’ push into Germany.

                3. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 5:04PM|#
                  “The same could be said for the highway system. Capitalism is good at exploiting its environment for material gain. Nobody ever said it wasn’t. A large part of that environment is institutions government creates.”

                  Uh, yes, shithead. Did you have a point?

              2. “Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet excluding casinos of course

                FTFYPOTUS

                1. Government research didn’t create the internet.

                  A bunch of nerds who liked to play with computers created the internet. Government just funded their grad studies.

                  Saying the government created the internet is like saying Andreas von Bechtolsheim invented Google.

                  1. The relevant question being would private capital have made the same investments?

                    It’s all about directed resources. Are you suggesting that even politicians are mere human beings too?

                    Government funding has always been a large part of basic science and technological research. If the market can do it better, doesn’t that imply it would have done it first?

                  2. Saying the government created the internet is like saying Andreas von Bechtolsheim invented Google.

                    Or for an example that more than two or three people will understand, like saying the Pope created the frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

            2. Yes, somebody invested in roads and bridges. Primarily, it’s wealthy business owners. So no, they didn’t “build that”. They PAID FOR IT. So really, government owes it’s successes to BUSINESSES, not the other way around.

              1. darius404,

                the buck stops with the government. You are not allowed to pull back and look at how the government got the resources to build that road or fund that science.

                That is the slight of hand magic trick that pro-government people like Tony play.

                Praise business and you aren’t looking at the big picture. But don’t look at too big a picture or you will have to consider the opportunity cost of all those resources the government confiscated to do what it deems as good.

            3. We can argue semantics all we want, but at first blush, he seems to be saying that an individual is not responsible for his success. Obama seems to be saying, “Farmers don’t grow corn, the ground grows it.” Maybe this isn’t what he meant to say, but if you have to argue about pronoun antecedents to determine an alternate meaning, he’s failed miserably as a communicator. If he wants to convince people that he misspoke, he should come out and say,

              “If you are successful it is likely because you were smart and hard working. If you are a failure it is likely because you were stupid and lazy.”

              That would clear things up, but I doubt his supporters would applaud him.

              1. sure we’re f’n you in the ass right now, but your bowel movements will be so much easier later.

          2. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. 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. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

            It’s not obtuseness that causes one not to understand what is being said here–one can only mischaracterize it deliberately. That’s what Mitt Romney’s campaign is doing, but they do that every day.

            This elementary civics lesson is only necessary because Republicans (using libertarian rhetoric) have in recent years gone into quasi-anarchic lala land. They are not defending good governance, they are saying, without specifying, that we have too many regulations, and fewer would be better. And their budget proposals eliminate large parts of government spending on the institutions, infrastructure, and research that constitute the framework on which capitalism exists and which help it work more productively.

            1. Romney? Who the fuck said anything about Romney?

              It’s party before principle every single time with these partisan shills.

              1. No, no, no! Don’t you see? In Tony-world, if Obama had said this two years ago, you wouldn’t care! Obama would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those meddling Republicans!

                1. This apparatchik desperately tries in vain to treat this as some sort of a pro-Team Red comment board. It’s the easiest way for him to form a fallacious argument to marginalize those whom do not share his ideology.

            2. Tony,

              The president is a socialist. His solution to everything is more government control.

              Just give up and go home.

              1. The president is barely left-of-center, and arguably right-of-center if we talk about his policy outcomes.

                Again, the only reason this elementary civics lesson is necessary is because the other side has gone absolutely crazy.

                1. Shorter Tony:

                  “Go Team Blue! Go Team Blue! Boo Team Red! Boo Team Red!”

                2. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 5:29PM|#
                  “The president is barely left-of-center, and arguably right-of-center if we talk about his policy outcomes.”

                  Lies, shithead.

                  1. Many people agree with you, Sevo. Thom Hartmann is adept at comparing the policies of the President to previous ones to reach that conclusion.

                  2. Many people agree with you, Sevo. Thom Hartmann is adept at comparing the policies of the President to previous ones to reach that conclusion.

                3. The president is barely left-of-center, and arguably right-of-center if we talk about his policy outcomes.

                  Shorter Tony w/spaces: Only outcomes I like are of the left. Everything else is of the right. The means don’t matter, only the ends.

                4. “The president is barely left-of-center”.

                  I guess it does depend upon where you place the center. He’s definitely right of Lenin. He’s probably a bit left of Nixon and probably of Carter as well, at least, in his policies. I think it’s fair to call him a European style socialist. Obamacare is obviously a backdoor move to socialize a large portion of the economy and he clearly believes that further government involvement is the solution to the current economic problems. If one judges him by his influences, I would guess his actual beliefs are far to left of what he’s shown so far, but that’s purely supposition.

            3. They are not defending good governance, they are saying, without specifying, that we have too many regulations, and fewer would be better. And their budget proposals eliminate large parts of government spending on the institutions, infrastructure, and research that constitute the framework on which capitalism exists and which help it work more productively.

              Do Social Security And Medicare help capitalism function more effectively? How about farm subsidies? How about welfare? Insurance subsidies under the PPACA. And so on.

              The fact is that government vastly bloated beyond those things that can unambiguously be claimed to help capitalism function more productively.

              Complex, industry specific regulations do not help businesses grow fast. Neither do tax credits or deductions for special interest groups. Neither do “green energy” subsidies.

              The substance of the libertarian position is that the economy is better and fairer with uniform, simple, equally enforced rules. Which is the opposite of what Democrats want. They want to constantly tweak every aspect of the economy to favor identity groups that vote for them.

              1. Do Social Security And Medicare help capitalism function more effectively?

                Absolutely. They remove a huge cost burden from younger workers and potential entrepreneurs; they are more free.

                Yes, they help pay for the systems, but such collectivized risk makes those costs predictable, meaning a future Bill Gates won’t be hindered by the bad luck of having a mother with cancer. The same logic can be extended to more universalized healthcare. What if the next ubercapitalist was a homeless guy with a preventable disease? Insurance availability helps capitalism even according to your superman-focused conception of it.

                Welfare keeps people out of poverty and keeps them as consumers.

                Good regulations force capitalism to operate in a way that accounts for public safety and other interests. That does nothing to hinder capitalism, unless you want to make a business that harms people. We can all agree bad regulations are bad.

                1. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 7:27PM|#
                  Do Social Security And Medicare help capitalism function more effectively?

                  “Absolutely. They remove a huge cost burden from younger workers and potential entrepreneurs; they are more free.”

                  Lies, shithead. Both load huge burdens on smaller companies, shithead.

                2. Absolutely. They remove a huge cost burden from younger workers and potential entrepreneurs; they are more free.

                  Yes, they help pay for the systems, but such collectivized risk makes those costs predictable

                  Please put this in the context of the fact that the supposed trust-fund is a sham, the government hasn’t saved a penny of the Baby Boomers retirement money, and medicare is already driving us into bankruptcy.

                  That should put our “collectivized risk” into perspective.

                  The government is not actually any better at saving for the long term than those young individuals.

                  They don’t remove risks from anyone. They actually amplify risk by making people think they don’t have to save.

            4. You and I agree, T o n y: you could only mischaracterize his statements deliberately. I’m glad we can agree you’re a liar.

            5. So Tony if it costs the private sector $1 million dollars to build a mile of road (and believe it or not the private sector builds lots of roads).

              And it costs $3 million dollars for the wasteful, borrowing government to build that same mile of road.

              Are we not allowed to consider the opportunity cost of that extra $2 million dollars confiscated from tax paying people and businesses?

              No. Instead we are suppose to thank the government for doing us such a great service.

              1. Yes you’re allowed to think about anything you like. But in the world I live in there is a national road network in serious need of improvement, and I don’t see corporations volunteering to do it or replace it with something more efficient. If one found such an endeavor profitable for them in the way corporations define profitability, I would be quite surprised.

                1. Yes you’re allowed to think about anything you like. But in the world I live in there is a national road network in serious need of improvement, and I don’t see corporations volunteering to do it or replace it with something more efficient.

                  Because Uncle Sam and his 536 idiot stepchildren wouldn’t dream of giving up one iota power, and certainly not the power over ROADZ and all of the commerce that travels over them.

                  1. EXACTLY, AC. It’s bureaucrats who stand in the way.

                    Tony, what do you do for a living? Curious.

                    1. Capitalism is an unstoppable force of positive change, if not for those pesky bureaucrats, who are incompetent at everything they do–except stopping the universe’s most powerful creative force in its tracks.

                2. But in the world I live in there is a national road network in serious need of improvement

                  The only reason the roads are so desperately in need of improvement is because Ike and the government cut corners when designing the highways due to the expansive area they needed to cover. In Germany, the autobahn is something like 23 inches thick and here the roads are closer to 11 or 12.

                  If people didn’t keep falling back on the “ROADZ!” argument, we would already have flying cars by now.

            6. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 4:53PM|#
              “…one can only mischaracterize it deliberately.”

              You’re certainly trying, shithead.

            7. No. This is not a ‘basic civics lesson.’

        2. That’s the point Tony. It’s FUCKING MOOT. Why did he bring it up? To make an awkward point “we’re in it together?” It was terrible intellectualism.

          Even if you add the ‘road and bridges’ gibberish it only makes his assertion more laughable.

          Well, to us rational, sane folks.

          To idiot liberals it’s another matter.

    2. He said what he meant, and meant what he said, and we understood him perfectly. As others pointed out, Ayn Rand would have understood what he was saying too:

      “He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”

      “Who?”

      “Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”

      She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”

      – From Atlas Shrugged

      1. The snarling strawman so amply represented in Rand is characterized by the comment “Nobody ever invents anything,” which no sane person would ever claim.

        Sure, Reardon stood on the shoulders of others and did something new. Good for him. He’ll be well rewarded. But he can take his entitled ass to some unclaimed plot of land and set up his own society if he’s gonna bitch and moan about having to pay something forward so that others have the opportunity to invent things.

        Bill Gates would say Reardon succeeded in large part because he was lucky enough to be born in the right time and environment in which his actions proved valuable. (Bill Gates being a real person.)

        1. And yes I know that’s exactly what Rand’s heroes did–moved to a society of their own creation. The flawed assumption is that the rest of the world would miss them all that terribly.

          1. The rest of society would not be able to get by without fleecing these innovators of their income. Shiftless layabouts who troll libertarian comment boards incessantly would be forced to seek gainful employment instead of subsisting on the gubmint dole.

            1. So what do you call people who use and benefit from taxpayer-funded services and systems every day and don’t want to help pay for them?

              1. I typically refer to them as “progressives”.

              2. Democrats?

                1. ^ In response to:
                  “So what do you call people who use and benefit from taxpayer-funded services and systems every day and don’t want to help pay for them?”

              3. Tony-world: Top 10% earners sponge off taxpayer funded services without paying for them.

                Real world: Top 10% earners pay 70% of federal income taxes.

                1. So what’s the top 10%’s share of income? In 2007 it was about 50%. Since the income tax is meant to be a progressive tax, and since there are many other nonprogressive taxes out there, it’s not clear that our tax system is even all that progressive.

                  In libertarian-world the problem is that merely being wealthy confers upon one huge benefits that have nothing to do with being productive or innovative. Mitt Romney doesn’t do anything but receives a substantial income, and taxed at a lower rate than people actually working are!

                  1. Mitt Romney was a successful businessman for decades before he went into politics.

                    God you’re a miserable piece of envious shit.

                  2. Share of income? Is that how income is generated, by some kind of equal share?

                    Sure, wealthy people do not innovate or produce, it is government leaches who do so. Do you even read your own stupidity?

                  3. “In 2007 it was about 50%.

                    So if they earned 50% of the income and paid 70% of the taxes, then shouldn’t their tax rate be reduced?

                    1. In the name of fairness?

                    2. No because income tax isn’t the only tax out there. It’s just the only progressive one.

                  4. A flat tax with no loopholes would be the fairest of all. If you made ten times as much you pay ten times as much. You could even have a poverty level below which you paid no taxes like we do now.

                    Those at the top would still pay most of the taxes and benefit little from it (except for the obvious things that everyone in theory benefits from such as roads, schools, etc) and those at the bottom would pay no taxes and reap many of the additional benefits.

                    There is nothing magical about the words progressive and regressive. It’s all in your head.

                    But this system is never good enough for folks like Tony (or a good friend of mine who sadly is a proud progressive). They always want to punish those at the top or maybe they just don’t feel comfortable with the idea that the rich are paying the “same”. Maybe they don’t understand what a percentage is? /sarc

                    In reality, the complexity of the tax code diverts resources, wastes people’s time and many, many, many of the exemptions, subsidies, etc. in the tax code are a form of cronyism that make the rich and connected even richer.

                    But then the proglodytes turn around and blame the non-existent laisse-faire and libertarians for their own policy results. That is really sad, but here we are. About to do it again. Romney and Obama barely differ in any substantial way in their policy prescriptions and we know from experience that what they do if elected will be nearly identical.

                  5. “In libertarian-world the problem is that merely being wealthy confers upon one huge benefits that have nothing to do with being productive or innovative.”

                    Exactly, how many wealthy people are “merely” wealthy? Aside from the Obamas, of course?

                  6. So what’s the top 10%’s share of income? In 2007 it was about 50%. Since the income tax is meant to be a progressive tax, and since there are many other nonprogressive taxes out there, it’s not clear that our tax system is even all that progressive.

                    So if the rich aren’t sufficiently fleeced then the tax system isn’t sufficiently progressive? Do you actually think before you type, or do you just bash your head against the keyboard and let spellcheck edit the nonsense into something that resembles English?

                    In libertarian-world the problem is that merely being wealthy confers upon one huge benefits that have nothing to do with being productive or innovative.

                    Tony w/spaces, don’t be upset because Mitt Romney’s better at finance than you are. Your argument resembles a child who says “chess is stupid!” because they don’t know how to play.

                    Mitt Romney doesn’t do anything but receives a substantial income, and taxed at a lower rate than people actually working are!

                    2.3% is less than 15%, shitbird.

            2. Taxation shouldn’t be “progressive”. It should be as flat as possible and introduce no arbitrariness beyond the percentage rate selected.

              1. Wrong standard of fairness. A certain percentage taken from a poor person can greatly hinder her ability to live. The same percentage taken from a wealthy person doesn’t alter his lifestyle at all. The fairness goal should be to minimize the actual burden.

                1. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 7:30PM|#
                  “Wrong standard of fairness.”

                  Define “fair”, shithead.

                  1. I just did.

                    1. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 7:47PM|#
                      “I just did.”

                      You did nothing of the sort, shithead. You made some specious claims.
                      Define “fair” in objective terms, shithead.

                2. Tony, if you actually gave a shit about poor people, you would spend less time advocating for gubmint fleecing the wealthy and more time volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters. But your solution is to rob OTHER people of the fruits of their labor to support YOUR ideology. You’re not an altruist; you’re a sanctimonious thug.

                  “There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as “caring” and “sensitive” because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money — if a gun is held to his head.” – PJ O’Rourke

                  1. Redistributionist policy would be far more effective in reducing poverty than me volunteering alone.

                    I don’t see all the wealth in the hands of every wealthy person to be there for legitimate reasons. They’ve been given a lot of favors over the years. I don’t think being wealthy by itself should be considered the productive activity that deserves a tax break.

                    1. Redistributionist policy would be far more effective in reducing poverty than me volunteering alone.

                      Tits?

                      I don’t see all the wealth in the hands of every wealthy person to be there for legitimate reasons. They’ve been given a lot of favors over the years.

                      So then you’re in favor of eliminating regulations that lead to regulatory capture and rent-seeking? Glad to hear it.

                      I don’t think being wealthy by itself should be considered the productive activity that deserves a tax break.

                      Yes, because unlike us common folk, the “lazy” rich sit at home and shit money. Oh wait, that’s the Federal Reserve that shits money. My mistake entirely.

                    2. Tony, I don’t know you so don’t take this personally, but I loathe your thinking. I loathe liberals more than I ever have. I used to vote liberal but they’ve become a collective useless batch of bitches clinging on to outdated, stale idealist visions of nothingness.

                      The liberal message is sick. They don’t articulate or make sense anymore.

                      Redistribution is evil. Pure evil.

                    3. Redistribution is what pays for cops and soldiers. Redistribution is how every society on the earth in the entire history of the planet works. The key is to make sure its done in a fair and efficient way.

                      If this is evil then your standards are too high.

                    4. No, cops and soldiers are performing a task for which they are compensated at a rate that is set by the market. Redistribution is when, after money has been distributed as the market determines value, government applies a different standard of fairness and seeks to redistribute money to that standard. Fairness is, of course, subjective. The market can be very cruel, but then again, so can government.

                    5. Bingo.

                      Government deliberately screws one side of the equation.

                      And speaking of cops, I’ve grown tired of watching them in my tiny town drive around looking to pinch everyone for the littlest of infractions that do less to protect public safety and more to meet their darn quotas.

                      I don’t respect that part of the police force.

                    6. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, eh Tony?

                3. Wrong standard of fairness.

                  If all men are equal before the law, why shouldn’t their tax burden be equal (taxes typically being a matter of LAW)?

                  A certain percentage taken from a poor person can greatly hinder her ability to live.

                  The same can be said of anyone.

                  The same percentage taken from a wealthy person doesn’t alter his lifestyle at all.

                  Justice be damned, the state will determine what you need to get by. Tony w/spaces, could you be any more of a serf? Your soul practically aches for chains.

                  The fairness goal should be to minimize the actual burden.

                  0% would minimize the burdern “fairly” well.

                  1. “why shouldn’t their tax burden be equal”

                    I just said it should be. Key word is “burden.” 35% taken from a poor person makes that person incapable of meeting basic needs. 35% taken from a billionaire leaves… a billionaire.

        2. The snarling strawman so amply represented in Rand is characterized by the comment “Nobody ever invents anything

          Except that isn’t what was said. If you’re going to claim something is a strawman, at least get the actual statements right. It just makes you look like a fool to address a strawman that wasn’t brought up.

        3. Ignore the fact that her books are condemned as cartoonish but her dialog here is mostly spot on and even the sentence you criticize as being a strawman is fairly close to what Obama was saying: you didn’t build that. No one does it on their own. No one really invents anything on their own. Pretty close if you are objective about it. So her books/characters can be cartoonish but apparently so can real politicians …….

        4. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”

          That sentence is Obama’s strawman. There’s few people who believe that. But, that being said, there are not many successful people who’s brains and hard work and ambition is not the prime cause of their success. Furthermore most of the help obtained from other people are through voluntary associations with people attempting to advance their own interests. The idea that the involuntary collective actions are a prime mover of individual success is just a rationalization for the power hungry to exert more control.

          1. To be fair Obama does give the individual some credit,

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

            But, I’m not sure how he can say this and say that we aren’t responsible for our success (We didn’t build it). Maybe he went off teleprompter and completely screwed up what he was saying and meant to point out the obvious fact that a single individual did not build the roads getting people to his business and not indicate that an individual is not responsible for his success.

    3. Even in context, the quote is quite revealing. Because I did build it. I paid for it. The government is my agent, not the other way around.

      1. This is exactly correct. All of those roads that the government built were paid for with money that productive people earned and then relinquished to the government at gunpoint.

    4. Why would you assume that the referent of that was “roads and bridges”? Normal rules of grammer suggest that the most immediate antecedant would be the referent. Also, if the referent was “roads and bidges” the grammatically correct pronoun would be those, not that. To assume that the referent was “roads and bridges”, you have to assume Mr. Obama has less than full command of basic English grammer. Why do you do that, Tony? It isn’t becuase he’s black, is it? Why do you think that about black people, Tony? Why are you such a racist?

      1. If he had said “those” then there would be no “misunderstanding.” If he had said “it” then he would be making the absurd claim you guys are disingenuously attributing to him. As it stands, it’s awkwardly phrased (Elizabeth Warren put it much better), but non-lying nonpartisans would give him the benefit of the doubt.

        1. So, you’re saying the black man can’t form a proper sentance.

          Why do you hate black people, Tony?

          1. Obama struggles with making pristinely ordered sentences when he’s speaking extemporaneously–like every other human being.

            1. But, you’re saying he’s unable to do that. I’ve never heard you make that claim about stupid comments from a white politician. So, again, why do you hate black people?

              1. Then you’ve never heard me talk about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, or about 100 other white politicians.

                1. Because you think that GWB, Palin, Bachmann etc ” struggles with making pristinely ordered sentences when he’s speaking extemporaneously–like every other human being.”??

                  Is that what you are claiming? Others are stupid idiots but Obama is simply like everyone else?

                  You are on a stupid roll today, dude.

                2. But, you never attributed their comments to misspeaking, but rather to malice and/or ignorance. For Obama, we’re to assume that it was just a simple inability to articulate. Again, why do you think so little of black people?

                  1. Well, they’re ignorant, and Obama’s not. As politicians go he’s extraordinarily careful.

                    Maybe dishonest hacks criticizing him over this line ought to suggest he use teleprompters more often so as not to inflict more confusion on you.

                    1. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 7:32PM|#
                      “Well, they’re ignorant, and Obama’s not.”

                      Ignorance can be cured, shithead. Stupidity is forever.

                    2. I think Tony is actually Obama.

                    3. Obama is always good because his intentions are always good. DUH!

                3. 100 other white politicians.

                  Why do they have to be white, Tony w/spaces? Does whiteness impose some special quality on politicians? Why do you hate black people, huh, Tony w/spaces? Why?! I’ll bet you’re going to go fap to Birth of a Nation later.

                4. What about Obama’s white half?

        2. Here’s the problem: he didn’t say “those.” He said “that.”

          Let me give you an example: “Somebody built roads and bridges. If you’ve got a tunnel — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

          It would be nonsensical to claim, in the above statement, anything other than “I didn’t build the tunnel I have.” It’s perfectly clear and well understood. But when you replace the word “tunnel” with the word “business”, all of a sudden that means I didn’t build the roads and bridges?

          1. You’re missing the forest here–why would the president say what you’re claiming he said?

            It could be a nefarious strategy to get Mitt Romney to continue to drone on about how rich people like himself deserve not just lower taxes but everlasting worship. If so, he did succeed at that. (A political strategy that makes no sense to me. Most voters are not business creators, but employees, most of whom don’t like their bosses.)

            But I think common sense requires us to assume the president didn’t say something absurd.

            1. why would the president say what you’re claiming he said?

              Because he honestly believes that people who start their own businesses don’t deserve credit for creating them, and their profits should be confiscated because they owe them to society.

              1. Then why did he say “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative…”

                1. The Derider|7.25.12 @ 5:57PM|#
                  “Then why did he say “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative…””

                  Because he’s confused.

                2. The part that came after the ellipsis meshes perfectly with the “you didn’t build that” part of the speech. In fact, it clarifies it.

                3. Then why did he say “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative…”

                  But … why did he feel the need to add the “but” ?

              2. Agreed. Poor Obama must be so confused by this whole brouhaha. His anti-capitalist jive probably worked splendidly when he was a community agitator.

              3. Because he’s a politician pandering to voters?? This isn’t some new strategy the democrats just came up with, it’s their standard MO. The republitards have their own MO but we’re discussing Obama here.

                1. So theoretically, he could be to the right of Ron Paul on the economy, and just be pandering to socialists?

                  1. The Derider|7.25.12 @ 6:36PM|#
                    “So theoretically, he could be to the right of Ron Paul on the economy, and just be pandering to socialists?”

                    So, theoretically, you might be brighter than a random rock?

            2. I agree. Whenever a liberal says something unpopular we should apply a common sense filter to what they said in order to get to what they really meant to say. If that fails, claim they were joking. Everyone likes jokes.

        3. “(Elizabeth Warren put it much better”

          *spins revolver, puts gun to head…*

        4. Stretching. Your stretching Tony.

          I have a very high IQ. I have a university degree and own a business.

          Your stretching. Your splitting hairs.

          The president isn’t that smart and his speech was what it was intended to be.

          Stop all the bull shit.

          Stop it.

          1. With all due respect, it’s “you’re stretching”, you’re is a contraction of ‘you are’. Your is possesive – your business, your wealth. Give your university degree back.

      2. This is a point I’ve made time and time again, and I don’t understand why people don’t seem to get it. Grammatically, you are taking a huge leap to say Obama meant “roads and bridges.”

        Maybe, just maybe, I’d give you that Obama meant “the Great American System,” and I can accept that no one person or entity built the entire American system. But it’s completely disingenuous to discount the individual’s contribution to that system, which is exactly what Obama does in the next line. The American System exists because of hundreds of millions of microscopic contributions from every individual in the form of being a hard worker, a caring parent, and a giving neighbor. Not because some uber-entity called “the Government” redistribute our money.

        1. Obama’s entire statement is shit, from start to finish. I appreciate his providing a focal point to highlight it, though. Very nice of him.

          1. No, Steve Jobs did not create the iPhone all by his little lonesome. He had help. FROM APPLE EMPLOYEES! Last I checked near Obama or Elizabeth were anywhere near Cupertino when it was built. If you’re going to credit the Omniscient Wisdom of Gub’ment for building it, at least you could credit it to the Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and California governments, instead of acting like it will all go away if we don’t start shoveling more dollars into the Federal Coal Furnace.

    5. Why would you assume that the referent of that was “roads and bridges”? Normal rules of grammer suggest that the most immediate antecedant would be the referent. Also, if the referent was “roads and bidges” the grammatically correct pronoun would be those, not that. To assume that the referent was “roads and bridges”, you have to assume Mr. Obama has less than full command of basic English grammer. Why do you do that, Tony? It isn’t becuase he’s black, is it? Why do you think that about black people, Tony? Why are you such a racist?

    6. if he meant roads and bridges, he’d have said “those”.

      I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.

      smart enough to get singular and plural correctseses?

    7. Leaving out the referent of “that” (roads and bridges, etc.) is essentially to lie about what the potus said. Not that this hasn’t been explained countless times.

      The immediately preceding referent is “business”. “That” is singular, as is “business”, while “roads and bridges” are plural, so if he meant roads and bridges, he would have said “those”, not “that”.

      Not that this hasn’t been explained countless times.

      1. Of course, Obama’s comment doesn’t makes sense even IF you assume “you didn’t build that” refers to roads and bridges. Who funded the roads and bridges? The people, but mainly wealthy business owners. So businesses DID help build roads and bridges, using their money.

    8. You’re right. And when he says things like:

      “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. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

      he’s not denigrating all forms of personal achievement, he’s just trying to remind us about the importance of public goods like education.

      Pull the other one, asshole. The mask has slipped in public. Can’t be undone.

      1. Yeah I agree. The difference is there are hardworking dolts and hardworking geniuses.Just like there are lazy smart people and ambitious ones. That’s life people.

        His entire speech was a piece of circular sophistry and a non-sequitur.

        I’m always struck at how impossibly obtuse people who think this way can be.

  3. Worst. President. Ever.

    Congratulations, Jimmy Carter. You lived to see the day.

    1. He’s not even the worst president of the last 5 years. If this economic crisis defines who is the “worst president,” then Dubya has to take the gold for initiating it, while Obama just gets the silver for not fixing it.

      1. I would agree that their in the top two. After the first two years of this term I would have agreed Bush was worse. Now it’s a tie.

        1. Every president serves only to improve the reputation of his predecessor.

          That means we are really fucked next term regardless who wins!

          PS: Fuck off slaver!

        2. I don’t, Carter was pretty bad and Bush, well at least he kept taxes relatively low. Madison, for all his good qualities, was a pretty awful president too. Obama hasn’t gotten the White House captured, at least…not yet. Obama is likely the worst, if only because he refuses to see his failure. Buchanan’s got be on the list and Grant. Andy Jackson’s Indian policy was pretty egregious. It really is easier to find a bad president than it is to find a good one. It seems like every president has done something that is at least a little unsettling.

    2. Jimmy Carter was a relatively good president.

  4. What a lazy, cobbled-together, slapdash article.

    Pages in the Federal Register?

    Multiply regulatory spending by $21 to get “compliance costs?”

    Illiterate, innumerate, ignorant and careless.

    This is just garbage. I’m only glad it was written by and for the Fusionist dittoheads. It’d be a demoralizing embarrassment to see this kind of anti-logical claptrap from my side.

    1. Couldn’t be more ridiculous, troll. Well player Reg!

    2. Of course, you decline to say WHY it is “garbage”, saving your arguments from being refuted. Well played, troll. Well played. And by “well played” I mean, “you’re an idiot”.

    3. To the contrary, this at least tries to get at why Obama is wrong.

      You could either write a much longer article with just a few detailed examples and then you Reg-at-last (Mary?) would say it was only a few examples or say it’s anecdotal. Or you could write a 200 page thesis which you would just ignore.

      This is a legitimate attempt to explain simply what millions of progressives don’t seem to understand: why don’t free market folks agree that it’s a good thing any time the gov’t passes a law or attempts to regulate or “stimulate” the economy.

      This simple faith that gov’t is good and can help everything and manage it is on an example of extremely primitive thinking but somehow most of you folks have a superior, moralistic attitude. Makes no sense, but then again, neither do most of your policy prescriptions.

    4. RAL: So that I can hope to avoid writing future “lazy, cobbled-together, slapdash articles” would you do please educate me on just what it is that you object to in the current one?

      I am curious about your reading of the academic literature on the regulatory compliance cost multiplier devised by economist Murray Weidenbaum. I did link to a study which explained why the researchers used it.

      I note that a 2005 study [PDF] for the Small Business Administration found total regulatory compliance costs of $1.1 trillion annually. Of course, the Obama administration offers a different analysis.

      If possible to do it without fulminating, please educate me on my illiteracy, innumeracy, ignorance, and carelessness.

      1. He/she/it didn’t like what you were saying so it must have been dumb.

      2. Remember when Obama was going to root out all the unnecessary regulations? Then none could be found. And we haven’t heard about that since. Fun times.

        1. “Then none could be found.”

          Nonsense. I seem to remember him saying he found one, and congratulated himself for finding one.

          Somehow, ironically, removing one regulation somehow shows more contempt for business owners than removing none.

    5. Registration At Last!|7.25.12 @ 5:11PM|#
      “What a lazy, cobbled-together, slapdash article.”

      Poor, poor RAL. Can’t dispute the facts, says he doesn’t like it.

    6. Re: Registration At Least,

      Pages in the Federal Register?

      You seem to be daunted by the idea of “pages.”

      Multiply regulatory spending by $21 to get “compliance costs?”

      Yes. Next question?

      Illiterate, innumerate, ignorant and careless.

      Don’t beat yourself so hard, it demoralizes you. Better use: “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dog-darn it, people like me!”

      It’d be a demoralizing embarrassment to see this kind of anti-logical claptrap from my side.

      There are plenty of embarrassments in your side as it is. I know where you’re coming from.

    7. It was a well plotted piece of non-claptrap that never made me want to wretch.

  5. I still say that, if you turn this around, the government can’t do *anything* unless successful businesses can supply tax “revenue”. So HE didn’t build it applies more to HIM.

    1. Chicken/egg. The only point is the value of collective effort in addition to individual effort. In what way would our society, including its entrepreneurship, benefit if we zeroed out government funding of basic scientific research? All that would happen is the innovations would all take place in countries without such quasi-anarchic preoccupations.

      1. Reptile/egg/chicken.

      2. Arguably if government zeroed out funding of basic research, private enterprise would pick up some of the slack.

        maybe Bill Gates would donate his money towards funding research instead of buying laptops for children in Africa.

        1. Also, you might be surprised how much basic research can be done on a shoestring budget.

          1. Government doesn’t do anything on a shoestring budget.

            1. Higgs Boson!

        2. Arguable but not persuasively. Why does it not occur to you that not everything good and necessary in the world is also profitable on a market timescale?

          1. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 7:34PM|#
            “Arguable but not persuasively.”

            Persuading idiots with facts is tough, shithead.

          2. Why does it not occur to you that not everything good and necessary in the world is also profitable on a market timescale?

            Because that’s utter and complete bullshit. If something is truly “necessary”, then there is a price point at which it can and will be offered profitably on a market timescale. In fact, the price mechanism guides resource allocation such that the most necessary necessities will be the ones brought to market profitably. The same could be said for the utterly subjective classification of “good”. The price mechanism also ensures that the goodest good things will be brought to market profitably. What’s truly amazing is that it never occurs to you, a hardline utilitarian, that private resource allocation creates the most good for the greatest number by democratizing the process of allocation to each individual and his spending power, contrasted with central planning which divorces the beneficiary from the allocation process.

          3. Why does it not occur to you that not everything good and necessary in the world is also profitable on a market timescale?

            Why do you assume that everyone in the private sector is motivated by profit?

      3. “Zeroed out” is a reductio ad absurdum. Few are suggesting a “quasi-anarchic” solution, and to imply that *any* reduction is equivalent is dishonest, to say the least.

        1. In Tony land, anything slightly more free market than Trotskyism is anarchy.

      4. Have you heard of the American Heart Association, the Arthritis Foundation, or any of thousands of other private foundations that fund grants for basic and applied research? Also, the amounts of money spent by industry on RD still dwarf the amounts spent by the govt.

        Sadly, the funding of too much of the wrong type of research and/or of professors as graduate student training “machines” had led to a glut of PhD’s in a number of areas. It is very common now (as opposed to 30 years ago) for people to have to do 2-3 postdocs before they find a permanent position and for science PhD’s to be underemployed or to be long-term visiting professors moving from school to school across the country every few years.

        We are getting “bubbles” in unemployed college grads with useless degrees and also in PhD’s just like our recent real estate bubble.

        1. In 2006, Private industry RD in US was 167 billion which was 65% of total US RD.

      5. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 5:19PM|#
        “Chicken/egg. The only point is the value of collective effort in addition to individual effort”

        I’ll bet you thought that meant something in English, shithead.

        1. Oh, it did. It was quite telling that Tony is unable to distinguish what came first: the individual or his government.

  6. If the President wants to talk about Society and institutions, let him. More important than roads or bridges is a cultural and legal framework which provides for the enforcement of contracts and allows for reasonable expectations of equal treatment before the law.

    The Storyteller-in-Chief threw that out the window during the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. I’d hammer him on that every goddam day from now until the election.

    “That banana republic economic system- you didn’t make that, I did.”

    1. +1

    2. An excellent point. If Romney wasn’t such a bland corporatist shitstain himself, he could bring it up in debates.

  7. Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”.

    Mr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam ? if you can keep it.”

  8. “Good governance” comes in the form of contract enforcement, property rights, and the equal protection of the law.

    It does not come in the form of subsidies or tax favoritism to politically connected groups, handouts, or pork projects.

    If you want a stark example of what Obama means when he says government helped build your business, he’s talking about Solyndra. Government subsidies to politically connected people in favored industries.

    1. Same thing with Romney’s examples.

      1. So, because Romney’s guy benefitted from tax favors, subsidies, and government contracts, that means it’s perfectly hunky dory for the government to do those things, and not only that, but we should all bow before the government and priase them for their benevolent handing out of special favors.

        1. If this is going to be a “difference” election, we’re going to have to find something other than ‘industrial policy’ as a difference between the candidates because on that, they are not ‘different.’

          1. No duh.

          2. The difference is that Obama does not deserve a second term. Romney doesn’t deserve a term, but Obama doesn’t deserve it more.

            1. That isn’t a difference. That is a conclusory statement based on the supposition that they are ‘different.’ How they are different — why, or by what criteria, one is less ‘deserving’ than the other — goes unsaid.

            2. All: Would some of the rabid Romney-acs that RAL evidently believes populate this blog comment section, please show themselves?

          3. If this is going to be a “difference” election, we’re going to have to find something other than ‘industrial policy’ as a difference between the candidates because on that, they are not ‘different.’

            So I take it that Gary Johnson can count on your vote?

            1. Anonymous Coward|7.25.12 @ 10:21PM|#
              “So I take it that Gary Johnson can count on your vote?”

              Ha and ha! RAL is pissed he can’t vote for someone who would simply take over the economy. RAL is an idiot.

              1. RAL is pissed he can’t vote for someone who would simply take over the economy.

                Too true.
                RAL’s problem is that the government doesn’t hand out ENOUGH subsidies, special favors and perks for whatever identity groups he/she feels him/her-self a part of.

                Where is the cut for redheaded female engineers, damn it? I want a special tax exemption for wearing glasses and owning a lot of science fiction novels.

  9. So is that guy Tony who trolls here blissfully ignorant or desperate to push buttons.

    I’m assuming both 🙂

    1. Every message board gets what it deserves.

      If the One-True-Faithers around here wanted to elevate the discussion, they could. They don’t.

      “Trolling” – whatever that means anymore – is what they merit. ‘Griefing’ is what many of them do (and without objections or moderation from the other posters or from the editors).

      A pox upon them.

      1. RAL: See my comment above to your first post. I am eager to see you “elevate the discussion” here at HR.

        1. In all seriousness, Ron, that is a nice idea, and I would like to rise to the challenge your are putting forward.

          Tell you what: I will take you up on that, just as soon as you have a talk with whoever it is on the staff that moderates comments, and you guys decide what, if anything, you want to do about the commenters who leave messages with no content except — and here I quote directly from this very page and even this very thread — “idiot,” “stupid cunt,” and “shithead.” The technical term for this is “griefing,” and I am not aware of any other website with user-registration and moderated comments that tolerates it. Reason has distinguished itself as unusual, if not unique, in this regard.

          If you are going to let commenters repeatedly post messages that say nothing except that another commenter is an “idiot,” “stupid cunt” or “shithead,” then I think you will have to reasonably acknowledge that there is not much I or anyone else can do to “elevate the discourse” in the context given. It would be like trying to wash the dishes in an open sewer.

          If, on reflection, you guys decide that your Libertarian bona fides require you to leave “uncensored” comments that simply call others “idiot,” “stupid cunt,” and “shithead,” that is your prerogative. It is your website after all. But don’t be naive about the consequences.

          1. Registration At Last!|7.26.12 @ 3:52PM|#
            “If, on reflection, you guys decide that your Libertarian bona fides require you to leave “uncensored” comments that simply call others “idiot,” “stupid cunt,” and “shithead,” that is your prerogative. It is your website after all. But don’t be naive about the consequences.”

            Aw, are you going to *LEAVE*, bozo?

          2. Whatever your definition of “griefer” and “griefing”, it seems to be non-standard. Inasmuch as the term can be accurately applied to a threaded discussion instead of a MMORPG where it originated, calling you names after you post stupid, inane, troll-baiting, inflammatory shit doesn’t really qualify. We probably stand guilty of “feeding the trolls”, the unfortunate consequence of which is that you keep coming back to get a rise out of us, but let’s not pretend there’s anything more complicated than that going here.

          3. RAL: with due respect “one-true-faithers” may be less crude, but it does not seem exactly “elevated” either.

            1. Well, Ron, cowards can rationalize anything. It’s the only way they can live with themselves.

              Your comment board is littered with unsubstantive misogynist profanity, and you justify it by drawing a false equivalance to one instance of a sardonic appellation in a substantive comment.

              You can set the bar as low or as high as you like, but don’t delude yourself about the kind of audience you are catering to.

              So, no, Ron, I won’t be elevating anything in this sewer that you and your fellow contributors have created.

              And if you continue to believe, for instance, that pagination in the Federal Register is a good proxy for so-called “compliance costs,” — when a multi-billion-dollar anti-pollution mandate could be written in a few dozen pages while a pennies-per-lot mandate on consumer warning labels could take up hundreds of pages — I see no effective way to disabuse you in this format.

              [N.B. What counts as a “compliance cost?” How about the “cost” of pastuerizing milk? How much “profit” does the government “steal” from dairy farmers by obliging them to ensure that blood and fecal manner in “raw milk” do not sicken thousands of citizens, including small children who, perforce, have no indepedent consumer choice? Is that part of what we are to call “compliance costs”?]

      2. Registration At Last!|7.25.12 @ 6:11PM|#
        “Every message board gets what it deserves.”

        Yep, both the intelligent and the idiots like RAL.

    2. Both. I think Reggy here is only desperate, though.

      1. …Exhibit A for the jury.

        1. …Says the troll.

          1. …to the griefer.

            1. It’s a lot easier to just call you a stupid cunt, since the meaning is a lot more clear and universally understood. You’re a stupid cunt. Okay?

              1. PM|7.25.12 @ 9:59PM|#
                “You’re a stupid cunt. Okay?”

                You’re too kind.

            2. So you’re just talking to yourself, Reggie? Good luck with that one.

  10. The very stupidest thing that Obama and his dogwashers can do is keep drawing attention to “You didn’t build that” by complaining about it, trying to explain it, etc.

    So, I say, keep on complaining about it, trying to explain it, etc.

    1. Yep. He’s explaining, and he’s losing.

    2. WEAR IT UNTIL NOVEMBER 6TH YOU POOR MORON!

    3. I especially like how he prefaces complaints about how people are criticizing him by talking about how tough and thick-skinned you have to be to have his job.

    4. If his entire administration wasn’t a monument to this statist belch of nonsense, it could be overlooked as just clumsy phrasing. But it is, so it can’t.

  11. Without government subsidizing infrastructure, private investors would have constructed adequate and far more efficient infrastructure.

    1. That has all the empirical substance as saying without government subsidizing infrastructure I would have 8-pack abs.

      1. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 7:40PM|#
        “That has all the empirical substance as saying without government subsidizing infrastructure I would have 8-pack abs.”

        Except, shithead, that private money built infrastructure before the government stepped in to co-opt the effort.
        History; it’s worth a read.

        1. Dirt roads, you mean? Easy to build and basically self-maintaining… also basically useless for the way we live today.

          1. Tulpa the White|7.25.12 @ 8:51PM|#
            “Dirt roads, you mean? Easy to build and basically self-maintaining… also basically useless for the way we live today.”

            Trying for bozo of the day, are you?
            Yes, when the tech was dirt, that was what was built, twit.

    2. Is this a mystery of ancap faith? Cause I’m not buying it.

      And if your answer involves “wheelbarrow paths”, don’t answer.

      1. Tulpa the White|7.25.12 @ 8:49PM|#
        “Is this a mystery of ancap faith? Cause I’m not buying it.”

        Yeah, not surprising. Idiots ignore facts.

  12. Ron I think the point re: mentions of Romney is that as the criticism of Obama on this out-of-context line only reasonably exists as a Romney campaign gotcha item. Nobody thought anything about it until they brought it up a few days after the fact. Any posts about how Obama said individuals don’t create businesses, which is clearly not what he said, cannot possibly be anything but Romney cheering, however unwitting.

    1. T o n y|7.25.12 @ 7:39PM|#
      “Ron I think the point re: mentions of Romney is that as the criticism of Obama on this out-of-context line only reasonably exists as a Romney campaign gotcha item.”

      Yes, shithead, we know you’d love to believe that Obama’s stupidity is only a campaign issue.
      It’s not, shithead; he’s stupid.

      1. When a person has to swear to make a point, that person has no point.

    2. The driving thought behind Obama’s speech is still painfully silly. The statement about teachers is trite, the statement about the origins of the internet is a hilariously false exaggeration of a tiny kernal of truth. It downplays the role of individual effort, skill and cunning into a meaningless afterthought.

      There may be some things like transportation that government does relatively well. But most of what governmnet does is wasteful and ineeficient as it does not make decisions on the basis of what works, but what is politically expeedient.

      1. And once again, I really wish some people would give some credit for creating the internet to the actual individuals who did the engineering and programming involved.

        Fuck. Jesus.
        Here’s a few links:
        http://digg.com/news/story/He_…..ot_credit.

        Ray Tomlinson

        Ethernet was created by Robert Metcalfe and David Boggs in 1973.

        Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn – described a protocol called TCP that incorporated both connection-oriented and datagram services. This protocol later became known as TCP/IP.

        http://compnetworking.about.co…..create.htm

        it’s not that hard to find out!

        1. Don’t tell Algore…

        2. Gordon Crovitz in the WSJ just had a column about it as well:

          http://online.wsj.com/article/…..06518.html

      2. Call me crazy, but Bush was never this dumb.

        Cue ‘blame Bush’ in 3-2-1…

      3. Call me crazy, but Bush was never this dumb.

        Cue ‘blame Bush’ in 3-2-1…

    3. The full context of the speech makes it clear that the “you didn’t build that” is exactly what Bailey says it is and not your mealy-mouthed attempt at papering it over, Tony.

      1. Really?

        “And what this reminded me of was that, at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you won’t go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while — nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love. Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. That your kids can get a great education, and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back.”

        I see what you mean! He really hates success and hard work!

  13. One question keeps nagging me. What exactly is it that Mr. Obama thinks gives value to the roads, the teaching, the fire protection that he’s so eager to celebrate? I mean without a stream of productive commerce, a road is just a strip of asphalt decorating the landscape. Without productive industry, an education amounts to little more, economically, than an exercise in trivia. Fire protection of acres of empty prairie is an exercise in nothing. The third world is littered with unused roads slowly sliding back into wilderness. The Soviet Union produced an army of computer scientists who had never sat down and done any programming. These exercises in “government largesse” only derive their value when there are productive individuals willing and able to make use of them.

    1. What exactly is it that Mr. Obama thinks gives value to the roads, the teaching, the fire protection that he’s so eager to celebrate?

      All three are heavily unionized and donors to Obama? Notice that though the students turned out to vote for Barry in ’08, he hasn’t liberated them from student loan debt. Why? They aren’t sufficient donors to his cause. As in, with MONEY.

    2. +1, Bill. It’s just a shell. In Obama’s mind, because the road was built (and let’s concede the state built the road for his own hubris)by the state that’s its part in the whole economic equation?

      Man, just put trolls on the bridges with signs “we built these bridges on rock and roll, bitches!” if you think that way.

      It’s amazing how liberals have suddenly changed the narrative on what constitutes success.

      I honestly want to believe this is where they jump the shark and people wake up and smell the coffee and start to laugh at people like Warren and her ilk.

  14. In his speech last week in Virginia, the president declared, “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

    You can criticize the POTUS for conflating collective efforts and government programs, but there’s an even more immediate and disturbing issue with the president’s argument, and that is the presumption that individual initiative and collective efforts are totally contrary things, as if people that work together are not doing it out of their own individual initiative.

    What the president does, as many politicians do, is give the impression that their largess and thievery is all part of a greater plan on which everybody contributes, but this is nothing more than demagoguery. It’s like the wolf telling the sheep that they should consider their sacrifice to be noble as it will feed future generations of wolves.

    1. Indeed, it is possible to “work together” in ways that don’t involve massive federal programs backed by guns.

  15. After this year’s World Series, I hope President Obama is consistent and calls to congratulate the winning team’s…groundskeepers.

    After all, without them, those parasitic players would have no mound to pitch from, no foul lines to play within and no bases to touch. Clearly the groundskeepers are the ones who make the game happen.

    1. Brutus|7.25.12 @ 10:19PM|#
      “After this year’s World Series, I hope President Obama is consistent and calls to congratulate the winning team’s…groundskeepers.”
      Exactly.
      Obozo confuses janitorial functions with what a business does.
      The government is due the attention and pay of the stocker in the grocery store; keep the damn shelves stocked and shut up. Both should be easily replaced, but hags like Pelosi have found an audience.

  16. If the government was an employee they’d earn minmum wage.

  17. So private enterprise can’t exist without the government? The truth is the opposite. Government can only exist by stealing from people who make an honest living. That’s inherently what separates government from business.

    Only an idiot or a thug would say it goes the other way around. Obama is both.

  18. , factories, farms, forests, mines, http://www.ceinturesfr.com/cei…..-c-12.html houses, ports, telecommunications networks, and yes, roads and bridges. However, research at the World Bank has found that once all of a country’s natur

  19. Its the over reaction by the media, the president just trying to say that government policies help to stand their business, but the over reacting media make it a big controversy.

    1. No, Jason. No.

      Small business is so under represented it’s largely us drawing a line in the sand. Enough with the anti-business rhetoric.

      When all else fail, let’s blame media over reaction! While I’m no fan of the media these days, I don’t see how it’s the case here. Obama CLEARLY set his thoughts out in a speech.

      Again, if he was “trying” to say something else, then he’s a bad speaker.

      Not buying it.

      And explain which media anyway? The liberals are silent on this and mostly because they agree with what he said.

      On this front, the line of divide is set.

  20. could you increase the amount of your posts, i would like to read them more often. thanks.
    cheap polarized sunglasses
    oakley sunglasses

  21. could you increase the amount of your posts, i would like to read them more often. thanks.
    cheap polarized sunglasses
    oakley sunglasses

  22. the language you use in your posts are not so popular nor too difficult.
    wholesale oakley aviator sunglasses
    cheap oakley sunglasses

  23. Actually the government did not invent the internet. It’s roots can easily be traced back to Xerox’s development of the network and commnication protocals for it’s network. The World Wide Web developed out of that once the government got out of the way.

  24. If one sentence ever cost a POTUS re-election then “If you’ve got a business?you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”, would be the one!

    It revealed Obama’s communist mind-set to all those that didn’t already know it.

    http://www.ourchangingglobe.co…..he-people/

    Who Will You Trust In November?

    The Government Or The People?

    Almost everybody on food-stamps and all those getting entitlements will vote for Obama, so if you want him out then be sure to vote and make sure that everyone you know that isn’t fooled by Obama, votes too!

    1. …For Mitt Romney?

      1. Fuck Romney. No one should vote for him OR Obama.

        Oh, and what Barry said? That was a Freudian slip. He told America what he really thinks of the private sector.

        Keep covering for him, though. It’s amusing.

  25. Look around you. Pick up any newspaper and read the headlines. Isn’t it coming ? Isn’t it here ? Every single thing I told you ? Isn’t Europe swallowed already and we’re stumbling on to follow ? Everything I said is contained in a single word ? collectivism. And isn’t that the god of our century. To act together. To think ? together. To feel ? together. To unite, to agree, to obey. To obey, to serve, to sacrifice. Divide and conquer ? first. But then, unite and rule. We’ve discovered that one last.

    Remember the Roman Emperor who said he wished humanity had a single neck so he could cut it ? People have laughed at him for centuries. But we’ll have the last laugh. We’ve accomplished what he couldn’t accomplish. We’ve taught men to unite. This makes one neck ready for one leash. We found the magic word. Collectivism.

  26. Sadly everything Obama claims about Romney’s past including his time at Bain Capital is a fairy tale designed to propagandize the public into thinking he’s something he’s not.

    Obama has no record to run on in 2012, so once again he relies on racism, polarizing tactics and lies to keep the focus off of his record. Smart voters will not fall for his lies.

    Dear Mr President. Please run on all the wonderful things you have done for our economy. Run on Obamacare.
    Run on the fact you are taking 500 billion dollars from medicare to fund Obamacare, Run on 15% unemployment. Run on the failed 800 billion dollar stimulus, Run on 47 million people on food stamps, Run on bankrupt government funded green companies, Run on a 5 trillion dollar debt. Run on the failure to close the borders. Run on Fast and Furious, Run on the National Security leaks coming from your administration.

  27. Dear Mr. Bailey. Please have some journalistic standards and not stoop to echoing Fox news talking points.If you cannot get the basic quote correct, I find reading the rest of the article which is utter baloney, a complete waste of time.

    1. I’d demand my money back if I were you, Techiegal. Better yet– cancel your internet subscription.

      See here! Techiegal will no longer waste her completely wasted time on utterers of utter baloney.

      1. Hey, Techiegal… Daily Kos is but a click away.

  28. Please be patient with me because I have no business experience. I have two questions. First, does congress have the power to override regulatory agency decisions? This would limit the number of regs. Secondly, what effect has the refusal of banks to lend entrepreneurs money had on the dearth of startups? My email is bunnyduet@hotmail.com

  29. Has anyone posted this yet? I’m not on here as much as I usedta be…

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io…..-that.html

    1. No. But I read it elsewhere.

      Alas, all this is taken “out of context” and is a “talking point.”

      I mean, only the left know who to read interpret…well, life.

      Funny, some commenters at Huff argued ‘fast and furious’ was a right-wing talking point.

      Really? I’m from Canada and that shit seems pretty serious to me up here.

      1. Right? WTF is it with the left and “talking points” all of a sudden? Several days ago I commented on a blog, and a different leftie referred to my “talking points”. What the hell are “talking points”? I don’t like the sound of them– I bet that those bullshitty euphemisms that the left is fond of are also “talking points” (– “social justice”, “economic justice”,”gender equality”, etc.)

        1. Talking points are those memos people get from the RNC and DNC.

          They’re basically bludgeons to be used in vocal combat.

  30. I would like opinions on this even though the life of this thread is weakening. I may post it elsewhere as well.

    http://thenonsequitur.com/

    1. From the link:
      “Jon Stewart pretty much said all there is to say about what’s going on: it’s a case of straw manning by depriving of context.”

      My opinion is that Stewart is trying to do exactly what he’s accusing others of doing, and attempting to defuse a stupid Obama statement.
      Nice try, sycophant.
      (that’s Stewart, not RJF)

      1. Who is the sycophant? Me, Stewart or the blogger?

  31. President Obama, when I fail, should I blame the good teachers for not being good enough, or the bad teachers for being bad? Just as my success was not my doing, neither is my failure. Who should I blame, besides me?

  32. Obama’s comments are not being misinterpreted. He was stating a basic belief of so many on the left.

    As a former leftist (and wannabe artist) myself, his point is strikingly clear. I remember many, including myself, who resented the success of a few of our peers. It was a relatively common belief amongst wannabe musicians (and actors) that the success of those few was not really deserved (for example, I remember thinking, why do some much less talented pop musicians/actors make so much money, whereas myself, a hardworking jazz musician/actor, makes nothing? I remember thinking that they didn’t really deserve that success, that they were merely in the right place at the right time). In a word, we were often jealous of more successful artists.

    But jealousy is not a good thing, so I remember that I and many artists believed that it was only fair that a wage be provided by the government so we could pursue our art. After all, we were just as talented, smart and hardworking as those successful artists. Jealousy is a nasty emotion, whereas redistribution is all about fairness and helping the poor, right?

  33. What was Obama saying? He summarized as follows: “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” This statement would seem hardly to need defending. I work for a software company that is doing well, thanks in the first instance to all the hard work and thought on the part of its employees. But our company wouldn’t exist if the Defense Department had not created something called the Arpanet, which a government-funded research project conceived and sponsored by Al Gore retooled into something that we now know as the Internet. The people at my company would not have paychecks if we hadn’t worked hard; nor would we have them if public initiatives had not provided something for us to build on. It’s hard to conceive of a business today that does not depend, to some degree or other, on services, infrastructure, or technology provided by the public sector. Obama was right, and those who would distort his meaning into a denigration of individual initiative are demagogues.

    1. You’re a fucking retard if you think that your company wouldn’t exist absent the government.

      Nevermind the fact that our parents, and their parents, and ourselves have paid a shit ton of taxes over the last 80 years which helped to facilitate all of the “government investment”. So no, you don’t get to say that Obama was right if he meant that business people didn’t help to build this “American system”

      1. Jesse was right on target. Bailey showed his true colors in this debate by truncating the quote to make it look like Obama said something he did not. Every person the right wing media has trotted out to debate this point has admitted that they have received help in building their business, including the kids with the lemonade stand posed by FOX news.

        And the proof is this: each year business spends millions on lobby fees in Congress. Why? Because government helps them.

        Give it up.

        1. No dude, it’s because graft keeps their competition shackled. The solution is to curb politicians power, not give them more of it.

          Look, either Obama meant what he said, or he misspoke and was referring to roads and bridges/the American system. No matter how you slice it, it’s still bald ass wrong since businesses and rich people pay the majority of taxes. Hence they actually DO pay for the roads, bridges, education, cops, firefighters, military, and courts.

          And as John said above, if you’re going to lay claim to my successes (because…collectivism), then you get to own my failures too. Maybe those teachers should have tried harder instead of just babysitting my classroom. Maybe the cops should stop enforcing bullshit laws and go back to being “peace officers”. Maybe you should go tell the President that we don’t need to be involved in any more conflicts and to stop waving his dick at Iran (I know, I know, it’s okay cause Obama is in office and he’s SOOOO anti-war).

          But you won’t do any of that cause your entire belief system is predicated on the government being completely blameless for anything wrong in this country. Nope it’s just the fault of those evil Mr. Burns type businessmen.

        2. FOX News devoted 2.5 hours to one sentence, leaving out the rest of the speech where Obama praised hard work as a virtue. Of course, right-wing media has been pointing out ever since that hard work is NOT virtuous, PRODUCTIVITY is. Whatever. Tell the farmers working hard to get food out of failing crop fields that they’re of less value than Mitt Romney. Go on, tell them. It’s already a thankless, difficult job; let them know how little value food production is, and how much valuable it is to make retail businesses more efficient. Perhaps we can eat Sports Authority stock by February.

          1. Yeah, commentators like Bailey are phoney libertarians, and in reality Republican apologists. When they purposely edit quotes to make a point you know their point is worthless.
            Amazing to me he gets space here as if he was a libertarian.
            Its laughable that he thinks corporate welfare does not exist.

  34. If only he had said this instead:

    “But no matter where they worked, no matter how times were tough, they always had faith that there was something different about this country; that in this country, you have some God-given rights: a life in liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a belief that all of us are equal — and that we’re not guaranteed success, but we’re guaranteed the right to work hard for success.”

    My apologies. That is, in fact, from the same speech.

    Well, then, perhaps if he’d said this:

    “Our goal isn’t just to put people back to work — although that’s priority number one — it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. That’s what this campaign’s about, Roanoke. And that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States of America.”

    Again, my apologies. This also seems to be from the same “you didn’t build that” speech.

    At least he didn’t say this:

    “You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!”

    That honor goes to Mitt.

  35. Ronald Bailey is perpetrating a fraud on the readers of Reason.

    Reason writer Sheldon Richman provided the context to show that Obama did not say government built your business, but the roads and bridges your business needs.

    Watching the video clip makes it even clearer.

    Ronald Bailey appears to me to be a shameless hack bent on degrading the American political discourse for profit, and therefore an enemy of the people of these United States.

    F*ck off and die, Ronald Bailey.

    1. I couldn’t agree more, JoshSN. Though the last sentence may be a bit extreme :-).

      When did Reason become a part of the Republican partisan hack-ocracy? This is disgusting! Can’t a libertarian get an honest representative in the media of what we believe?

      This piece reads like it’s something from those partisan hack-factories, Fox News, and MSNBC.

      Both of Repubs and Dems are crony-captialist, expansionist, interventionist, and anti-individualists. There is so much information out there that shows this why does Reason have to run an article that basically perverts what POTUS said to make a point? This is Michael Moore level BS. Lies and mistruths are lies and mistruths even if I agree with your overall idea behind them.

      Shame on you Reason! You’re better than this. The corruption, anti-capitalist, and anti-individualism is blatant. It might take a little more effort than riding the tailcoats of cable news channels, but it’s out there and if you know how to use the internet, not hard to find.

      I read this magazine because I’m tired of reading the partisan BS. I have mouth full of it, and have no room for any more.

  36. Wadhwani Foundation was founded in 2000 by Dr. Romesh Wadhwani with the primary mission of accelerating economic development in emerging economies through large-scale job creation. The Foundation is present in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East Africa and Latin America operating in association with governments, corporates, mentors, investors and educational institutes. Its four Initiatives are driving job creation through entrepreneurship, skills development and innovation. https://www.wfnen.org/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.