Pres. Obama Swinging The Government Hammer
A must read (I’m not kidding, go read the whole thing, even if you have to register for free to read it. You’ll thank me) from John Kass, Chicago Tribune columnist and the son of an immigrant, who describes how his father worked his fingers to the bone every day of his life to run his small business. And how the government, not only didn’t help, it was like a hammer over his head. Today the government is like a sledge hammer, and this man resents our President’s belief that his father “didn’t get there” on his own.
Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. They sacrificed, paid their bills, counted pennies to pay rent and purchase health care and food and not much else. And for their troubles they were muscled by the politicos, by the city inspectors and the chiselers and the weasels, all those smiling extortionists who held the government hammer over all of our heads.
I thought about this after I heard what Obama told a campaign crowd the other day, speaking about business owners and why they were successful.
“You didn’t get there on your own,” Obama said. “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.
“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.”
If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that? Somebody else made that happen?
Somebody else, Mr. President? Who, exactly? Government?
One of my earliest memories as a boy at the store was that of the government men coming from City Hall. One was tall and beefy. The other was wiry. They wanted steaks.
We didn’t eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn’t sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.
“Thanks, Greek,” they’d say.
Like so many of our grandparents and parents, no one gave them subsidies, they didn’t take food stamps, they didn’t take welfare. They didn’t spend their money on frivolous things. They just worked and worked and worked. Every day of the summers I was a child my Mom would drop me and my brothers off at my Grandma’s so she could work for no pay at my Dad’s start up law firm. This was after he worked days at a railroad so he could go to law school at night. And that was after he went into the army, so he could go to college, where he took any job he could get. Both of them worked so hard, and never complained. This is the legacy of the entrepreneurial spirit.
Government is not the benevolent grandfather people like Obama would like to believe. If you are beholden to it, if you live off of it, you pay a heavy price. People like Obama hold the hammer and say, “Thanks Greek,” because they have never known what it’s like to get up every day, work hard to make a business successful, never take time off, never golf, never go on vacation, much less the Hamptons. Obama doesn’t know. Most people in the government don’t know.
They just hold that hammer high.
Mr. Kass ends with this:
Obama’s changed. Gone is that young knight drawing the sword from the stone, selling Hopium to the adoring media, preaching an end to the broken politics of the past. These days, he wears a new presidential persona: the multimillionaire with the Chicago clout, playing the class warrior, fighting for that second term.
And he offers an American dream much different from my father’s. Open your eyes and you can see it too. He stands there at the front of the mob, in his shirt sleeves, swinging that government hammer, exhorting the crowd to use its votes and take what it wants.
Be sure and check out the video at the link of Mr. Kass speaking about this. It is excellent.
Share This
Nice and touching story of a family who got there on their own without the government’s help and in spite of the government being “like a hammer over his head.”
I would venture to say, however that there may be one or two people in our great country who made it because the government helped them a little bit in times of need. Perhaps with the G.I. bill (like yours truly), perhaps with some low interest loans, perhaps with, yes, some food stamps,etc.
And I wonder if this particular family has ever benefited for Medicare, Social Security and some of these other government handout programs — that government sledge hammer(Yes, I contributed to Social Security, too)
should be “benefited from”
No one is saying “no government.” We are just saying “limited government.” No one saying “no safety net.” We are just saying ,”Safety net for only those truly in need.” Government has it’s place. In it’s original intent, it is no “sledge hammer.” But it has become one, and it would do us all well if we realized it.
Thank you for (finally) addressing a comment, Ms. McKinley.
I vehemently disagree with virtually every one of your positions, but respect you for standing up for them
”Safety net for only those truly in need.”
And who determines “those truly in need”?
The GOP? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck?
And who determines “those truly in need”?
“Off topic again.”
Wow! I apologize to our self-appointed “off-topic” determiner.
Actually, very much on-topic, as I was responding to the author’s comment of “”Safety net for only those truly in need.”
I would appreciate it you would leave the “off-topic” determination to the TMV editors. I am sure they will determine so — as they have in the past — when this is the case.
Thank you
For every example of political shakedowns, there is just as many examples of brassiness’ giving local politician free stuff or food to gain favor. Cops don’t pay for food…
And who determines “those truly in need”?
“Off topic again.”
Added:
Perhaps the author to whom the question was addressed should be given the opportunity to address it?
Or at least to be the arbiter of whether it is “on topic” or not?
Just saying…
ONLY TALK ABOUT WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, DDW. I thought we’d been over this before, silly.
In any case, when I read “only for those truly in need”, I thought exactly the same thought as you did. It reminded me very much of the conversation I am/was having with others on Ms McKinley’s previous thread, in which I’ve been called an extremist and highly exaggerating the fact that a majority of Republicans think most poor people are poor because of their own actions, laziness, and lower intelligence. The implication of the statement here is that many or most of the people being caught by the safety net are NOT “truly in need”. We’ve seen OUTRAGE that most people under the poverty line have a refrigerator, and many have a cell phone, as though this is proof positive that they are not really in need. Never mind that anyone who collects rent on a residence anywhere is required by law to provide a working fridge. Never mind that a cell phone is pretty much fundamental in this day and age, and is often cheaper than having a home line. But those crazy cadillac poor who have the audacity to want to keep things in their home like yogurt (OMG the LUXURY) aren’t “really in need”, as determined by individuals. These same individuals will cry about how they’re paying too much in taxes on the 6-figure income. But a quart of milk that can last until tomorrow is far too much leverage to give the ungrateful poor.
And eminent domain is never used by local officials to benefit a local business at the expense of a land owner.
Amen, Roro, but you are a little bit off-topic by mentioning those “individuals [who] will cry about how they’re paying too much in taxes on the 6-figure income.”
This is only supposed to be about those “ungrateful poor.”
Many apologies, DDW!
I’d like to put out there a further thought on the subject of the ungrateful/not-really-poor poor: we all know that, among those who collect assistence of one form or another, there are going to be some who are gaming the system, and some who are “truly in need”. Statistics put up by Jim Satterfield on the previous thread showed that, in general, most Democrats think that most who are poor are truly in need, and most Republicans think that most are not, or could be out of need if they really wanted to be. However, I think there’s another aspect to this, although I don’t have data to back it up: I would say that most Democrats think it’s much more important to make assistance accessible to those who need it than to root out and stop those who don’t from collecting it, whereas it seems that Republicans have exactly the opposite set of priorities. It’s so important for them that those who might be gaming the system be caught and thrown out, that they are much more willing to make the very needy jump through ridiculous, time-consuming, or humiliating hoops, often being denied the aid they need.
It kind of reminds me of the GOP stance on Voter ID. It’s so important that NOBODY who is not a citizen vote, that they’re willing to disenfranchise a very large number of people to keep the few that may or may not be correctly registered from getting anywhere near the polls.
The problem in both these cases is that studies show that the vast majority of people who collect assistance really are in need, and there are a vanishingly small number of people who try to vote fraudulently.
In the Quality world, we call these alpha errors (good stuff rejected), and beta errors (bad stuff accepted). It’s important to remember that there are no situations under which any plan will fully eliminate either, and focusing on completely eliminating one (again — this is not possible under any circumstances) will always lead to either growth in the other and/or rapidly rising costs.
I’ve been involved in several small business start ups and own my own now. I would say that regulations are a pain, but the ones that are most annoying are not federal but local and state in nature. Yet even with those, I don’t see this ever present hammer wielding govt spectre that I am always told is whats in my way. I think its a bit of a boogieman.
And while that is a nice story about how an entrepreneur worked railroads by day and studied law by night, I find it somewhat funny that both of those industries have their roots in govt. Railroads built across this nation back in the 19th century were very connected to govt land grants to encourage expansion across the US. In several instances railroads being key to industry in general have had an ongoing history of strong ties with govt. And law, well, without govt we have no law. This example might be a little worn, but try imagine a country with a weak central govt, Somalia for instance, providing the environment where either of these industries works well enough to provide opportunity to the people at large.
“try imagine a country with a weak central govt, Somalia for instance, providing the environment where either of these industries works well enough to provide opportunity to the people at large”
Very good point, slamfu.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but “Amen,” again, Roro — and Slamfu,too.
As to:
“It kind of reminds me of the GOP stance on Voter ID. It’s so important that NOBODY who is not a citizen vote, that they’re willing to disenfranchise a very large number of people to keep the few that may or may not be correctly registered from getting anywhere near the polls,” if I may be as outrageous as to suggest that at least the present GOP obsession to institute various “Voter ID” measures before the November elections may be intended to keep out of the voting booths more than just some non-citizens…
But that is just conjecture on my part.:)
DDW I just don’t see the GI Bill as a good example of the government “helping”. Vets took the risk of being killed or maimed, and in return received benefits. For the ones that got killed of course it was an awful deal. For the ones that came back I still think they gave at least equal value to the government in exchange for whatever the government gave them.
Like you I also got educational benefits form my military service. I don’t see that as the government helping me, I see it as my holding up my end of the bargain and the government holding up theirs.
That is a very noble thought and fair enough, DG.
I personally am very grateful to this nation for my education and all my benefits, both as a veteran and now as a senior citizen.
slamfu said: “This example might be a little worn, but try imagine a country with a weak central govt, Somalia for instance, providing the environment where either of these industries works well enough to provide opportunity to the people at large.”
Does it not seem at all important to anyone that we were designed to have a weak central government? That the more we centralize our FedGov, the further away we are from the foundational principles of the country?
Decentralized government in the United States is meant to be a feature, not a bug.
I’m not sure about intentions for a weak central government, but one certainly throttled with appropriate checks and balances, and a healthy respect and deference to state rights, when they don’t infringe upon American rights we agree should be protected, beyond state boundaries.
I read not long ago that the US department of defense is the largest employer of any entity in history, from any country within any category on the earth. And it’s in the distinctly agreeable (Dems and Repubs) category of a necessary and legitimate function of a central government. Thus if weak might mean “not big” or “not costly” then there’s a start for discussion.
This is a changed world, with radically changed economic realities from the founding father era, where states don’t provide the need for nationally shared and utilized infrastructure, or health care, or improving standards and access for education, or environmental protections, or any number of issues we might evolve into believing are wholesome for Americans, and within our ability to deliver if we come to some consensus of how wealth should be owned and distributed. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of nations.
I don’t believe that there is a founding principle of massive wealth inequality built in to the model of the US government, but we’re headed that way. It seems to me to have made a democratic republic possibility a little less likely with each passing year.
So it’s not particularly important to me to conclude that we maintain a weak central government or strive for one (as a principle of what the founding fathers may have envisioned,) when I have little evidence that state and local governments provide those liberties and freedoms (and yes, regulations) that are the topics of today’s politics.
JeffP — a thoughtful response, thank you.
It’s not really fair to say, though, that states don’t provide health care. Several had indeed introduced it, and within the constitutional guidelines were developing various approaches within their states.
And outside of the interstate system — a national undertaking because of so many state lines — localities do have the authority to handle their infrastructures.
If people really think the constitution is no longer applicable or valid or useful, then the correct approach would be to see whether there is energy and will to re-write it. Until that happens, though, it is simply being ignored.
Dude I said three words and then proceeded to talk about the topic instead of going off on something else “because”. Commentors who are so concerned with me doing so have called people names, thrown accusations, launched personal attacks, but I get bashed for saying “off topic again”. Maybe you should leave it since in this case it’s not your thread to trash.
As o the “you didn’t make it alone” bit that is getting pushed. They, for the most part, who have achieved success in creating new businesses and becoming successful also didn’t get anymore help that anyone else and, in many cases, had to overcome unnecessary barriers that the govt currently places in their path. I also find it a bit absurd that when the govt takes a slightly smaller share of the profits a company makes they are reported to support, invest in, and my favorite, subsidize that business.
Just because others “have called people names, thrown accusations, launched personal attacks,” or whatever else don’t start “dudeing” me around, dude, because I can dude you around just as well as the next one — if that is what you wish.
And, about “thrashing” this thread, once more, “dude”:
[Actually, very much on-topic, as I was responding to the author’s comment of “”Safety net for only those truly in need.”
I would appreciate it you would leave the “off-topic” determination to the TMV editors. I am sure they will determine so — as they have in the past — when this is the case.]
Again, the problem isn’t about the size or power of central govt, it’s about the quality of that govt – in particular it’s ability to control corruption, cronyism, and perhaps the obstruction and disfunction caused by hyperpartisanship as well so that it can fulfill it’s intended role. Checks and balances don’t work when the system has been perverted by the power of money as the final arbitor of just about anything. Old fashioned values used to matter. Now they are relegated to lip service. Until this changes we will continue to see the usual abuses of power and the usual amateurish interpretations of what is wrong and what to do about it.
There’s certainly some truth to what you say, zephyr. The quality of the government, regardless of size, is a major concern.
However, the impact of that poor quality is exponentially bigger when the government is as enormous as ours.
Yes it is, but the population it serves is enormous too – twice the size it was when I was a youngster. If the honor system worked and we all treated each other as brothers and sisters I suppose we wouldn’t need any govt at all.
Ha! If wishes were fishes! (Wouldn’t that be lovely?)
But really, the sheer size of everything is part of why I feel so strongly that as much as possible should be regulated / controlled / administered (pick your favorite) at the most local level possible. The more national-level administration, the less flexibility; the fewer individual freedoms; the more dissatisfaction with the overall direction.
Are you ‘new’?
I totally understand what Obama is pointing to….
Each and every day we are all dependent and interdependent on each other… Have you ever considered how many people it takes to put a pen or a calculator or a tablet in a business…?
How many people are involved in bringing a loaf of bread to a table these days?
How many people are involved for any business to make it, would be an impossible calculation… all the way from the ones that cut the trees to the contractors that nail the boards for the physical structure of the building…
Nobody does it alone…
To assert rugged individualism is deluded sentimentalism at best….
Yes because that was what “off topic again” means not like it’s part of the commenting rules or anything, oh wait;
it is part of the rules.
Dude is now an insult? Dude me around? Look I’m not trying to hijack the tread and make it about us but if you were so confident the editors would step in you could of allowed them to do so in regards to my comments which you made oh so much a bigger deal than I ever did. I realize now that you are a bit, touchy?, about the subject and will treat the subject as such.
So the question seems to be whats a fair share. If I pay more than you as a percentage of my income and more in absolute terms then why wouldn’t I, or anyone, be considered to have paid their far share? How much extra do you owe for being willing, or determined, or even just lucky enough to be more successful than others. We are not talking lottery winnings here but money people have earned. Sure the city built the street but I pay for more of it also. So whats the number?
All these comments and only one person peripherally mentioned the leap in logic taken here? This businessman is complaining about “shakedowns” by the local government, and it’s Obama’s fault?
Let me toss this out there: in the past, how have cases of local “government goonery” been solved in the past? One of three ways:
– self-resolving through local elections/solutions
– state law enforcement, potentially with state takeover of the local government until it gets straightened out
– federal law enforcement, corruption charges, etc.
We all seem to want a weak federal government. Are we willing to have greater state & local goonery as a result? We’ll go back to the bad old days where cities, counties & states could routinely violate the civil rights of their citizens.
That’s what the 50s and earlier were all about, folks.
We’ll go back to the bad old days where cities, counties & states could routinely violate the civil rights of their citizens.
That’s what the 50s and earlier were all about, folks.
Barky, I hear what you’re saying. The 50′s were no utopia. But I don’t hear anyone suggesting we roll everything back, either. There are doubtless places and people who really wish the Civil Rights legislation could be undone. But we amended the Constitution, for goodness’ sake! Even the ugliest, most racist hearts in the country will have to content themselves with mutterings and threats. And when they step across the line and act against someone else (and some of them will), the overwhelming condemnation of the public and hand of the law will smack them down viciously… as they deserve.
But yes… I would like to see greater state and local control. Of course there will be goonery; there is right now, anyway. And it’s a whole lot easier to see / more blatantly exposed — and thus corrected — when the scale is smaller.
Oh crumb. Must not have closed the italics correctly. Site editor…?
ordinarysparrow — I’m assuming the “are you new” question was addressed to me?
Nope, not at all. Just been away for awhile.
But if that *was* directed at me, then you lost me with the rugged individualism segue.
Look… I also understand what Obama was saying. I get what you are saying as well. It’s certainly true that many hands went into the manufacture of… say… a paperclip. And that’s a good thing — nay, a GREAT thing. Because producing that one little paperclip means many jobs (albeit not necessarily American jobs these days).
But has that commerce cycle not always been the case? Nobody wonders whether a baker in the colonies produced his own bread, yet he bought the flour from the miller… who bought the grain from the farmer. (…and the green grass grows all around and around…)
So along the lines of EEllis’ question… what *is* a fair share? Is there a way to calculate the relative value of that paperclip?
Aside from having opened himself up to the broadsides he is taking, Obama’s statement – even in context – is either so overtly obvious as to be inane, or has inherent policy implications.
So let me ask a question of you: what should the policy implications of the commercial cycle be?
More: If the angst and resentment is at people who are reaping the benefits of other people’s labors (I think the term was “exploited” in another thread) – how do you view those whose minds dream up cool inventions, and then reap the rewards via licensing and patents? Some people really do quite well without ever breaking a sweat that way. Shouldn’t they be paying more than they do?
Or musicians? Do they really create the beauty we enjoy? Or are they beholden to the manufacturer of the instrument? And how much does that manufacturer really owe to the inventor?
Where do you draw the line?
Hey dude, once more — and for the last time — when the author makes a statement like ”Safety net for only those truly in need.”
The question “And who determines ‘those truly in need’”? could not be more on topic, because Democrats and Republicans have totally different views as to who are “truly in need.”
Therefore, who gets to make that determination is a one hundred percent appropriate, pertinent, valid and, yes, on-topic question.
Furthermore, dude, just because you say it is “off-topic” doesn’t make it so.
Finally this will be my last on-topic comment on this as whining about comments being on-topic or not is the last thing we — I emphasize “we” — ought to be doing faced with a national tragedy as just took place in Colorado.
Peace, dude.
Jesus you really have trouble letting go.