Saturday, July 28, 2012
“You Didn’t Build That” – in Context
The latest Orwellian excuse cliché’ being offered as a defense against Obama’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe, is that these four words were “taken out of context”. This is to suggest that somehow, a clever opponent of Obama grabbed those four words out of a 46 minute speech, in such a way as to give the words a different meaning that they would have had, if we were to listen to the whole speech.
The problem is that the more of the speech you listen to, the more accurate those four words appear to summarize the speech.
Let’s look at a simple example of taking something “out of context”:
Let’s say I told you that I was talking to a man earlier today and he told me that all women were evil.
Now, if you were to then go around telling everyone that I said that all women were evil, you would be technically correct, but without the context that I was describing the words of another person, to have now ascribed an opinion upon me that I did not express and would make dinner conversations at my home rather more uncomfortable. You would have done something dishonest. You would have committed a lie of omission.
Now if I had then added the statement, “And so I laughed and told the man that he was right”, then your statement while technically true, would still not be completely accurate, but would accurately transmit my intended meaning and accurately portray my stated opinion. But it would still be out of context in a sense, but accurate nonetheless. For the record I do not believe that women are evil, nor do I think in those terms.
I believe the liberals and Obama himself are trotting out the first case, where they say that he didn’t mean that businesses didn’t work hard. But he DID say that, because he said a lot of people work hard. What you are doing is not special. Obama supposedly didn’t mean that business owners weren’t smart because a lot of people are smart. He absolutely argued that what business owners are doing is not exceptional and that they owe a debt to society because of the infrastructure of our society allowed them to exist and start their business.
There is nothing out of context in that synopsis. He absolutely is making that argument because it is the foundation of his pitch right afterwards to tell these same people that they should pay more taxes. This is not out of context, it is a completely accurate portrayal of Obama’s statement and his beliefs.
American business owners are livid because if starting and running a business wasn’t harder and take more guts, sweat, determination, and smarts than the average person, then everyone would be doing it and everyone would be successful. The truth is that it takes more guts, sacrifice, time, dedication, stress, smarts true grit to start and run a business than doing almost anything else in our society. Why do you think people would do such a thing? There must be some reward for this? Yes. The reward is freedom, a sense of accomplishment, of controlling your own destiny, and yes…MONEY. People that work harder make more money. That is fair and just and the way it ought to be.
In Obama’s speech he uses this portion to tell all those greedy rich folks making more than $250,000.00 per year that they need to chip in more in taxes. He is talking about small business owners because he knows the vast majority of people making over $250,000.00 per year are business owners with sub-Chapter S-Corporations, where the company profits go to their personal income tax statements, and doctors.
Since Obama has never created a job in his life, or struggled to make a payroll, or managed a company of any kind in his entire life, I can understand why he doesn’t know what he is talking about here. But I am going to say something here that may come as a surprise to him and many of you out there:
A person with a small business that is an S-Corp, where their personal income tax shows them making $250,000.00 or more in cash, is probably bringing home less money that someone with a $50,000.00 per year salary.
Let’s say I have an S-Corp that earns $200,000.00 in profit in a year. And I pay myself a salary of $50,000.00 out of the company’s costs before profits are calculated. So, to the IRS, I have earned the $50,000.00, plus the entire $200,000.00 company profit goes to my personal income taxes. So on paper, I make $250,000.00. To keep it simple, let’s say the tax rate is then is 30%, so now my taxes that I owe, are $75,000.00. Except, I only take home $50,000.00. The company has profits it needs to retain and unexpected costs that crop up, warranty issues, legal fees, rainy day funds, etc. The remaining cash needs to stay in the company. I’ll need cash on hand to purchase raw materials or to pay for labor and materials before I can collect on my receivables that may be 60 or 90 days away.
In that light, I hope you can see that someone making $250,000.00 per year is not “rich”. Most people that make that kind of money in raw salary have ways of hiding their money in shelters and investments and can make their taxes look a lot lower that what they are. Obama’s focus on this $250,000.00 number is a direct assault upon the middle class, the working man, the working poor, and the engine of the American economy and the foundation of the American Dream.
Who do you think hires more people in this country? Is it small businesses with less than 50 employees? Or is it big corporations? It’s the small businesses folks. And Obama and the Democrats are at war with them.
No one took your words out of context Mr. President. We understood you loud and clear. You think that the government made it possible for all those greedy business owners to make their profits and now it’s time to pay up. That IS the context. That IS what you said. That IS what you meant. That was the whole point of your argument. In a dizzying array of rhetorical skill, your argument to convince all these greedy business owners that they should pay up, you insulted them by telling them that their smarts and hard work weren’t special in any way. That their dedication and stress and sacrifice wasn’t so great and that really it was the government that made it happen for them. So, morally, it really isn’t their money anyway. They have a debt to “the People” to pay, and “the People” want it now.
Obama is making the age-old Marxist argument that the individual has no claim upon his own labor, or rather that the State has a greater claim and a moral authority and justification to seize it. Even after decades of Marxist economic indoctrination in our public schools, the American people for the most part reject this notion and that is why Obama is getting blow back. As a cover, he and his handlers, sycophants and apologists are falling over themselves to say that his remarks were taken out of context, or in other words, calling everyone dishonest for insisting that his words and intentions actually mean what they mean.
Obama was caught in a rare, candid moment, where he expressed his honest opinion about the American system, and the Democrats are scrambling to cover it up and make it go away.
Do you believe that God granted us certain unalienable rights? Or do you believe that the government does have or should have the power to dole out and restrict those rights? Did God create us with inherent rights as human beings, made in His image? Or are our rights merely an illusion, meted out by our societal betters, based upon which “class” or “group” we are in? Which country do you want to live in? One where your rights are sewn into your DNA and no government has the right to deny them? Or one in which men in powerful places get to decide which of your rights you get to keep and which ones they will take away for their purposes?
This is the great question before us in November and the decision could not be more clear. A vote for Obama or any Democrat is a vote for a philosophy that can only end in tyranny if allowed to run its course.
Judge for yourself. Here is a Youtube of the full speech:
The “out-of-context” portion receiving criticism starts around 34:00 and following.