Monday Reads: Malefactors of Great Wealth Edition

Good Morning!

One of the things that really peeves me about a certain kind of ‘businessman’ is how they spin the tale of their success and forget that they were born having already passed go several thousand times while in utero with the help of their father’s success. There are two men that come to mind right now that act like they made it on their own like some kind of Mary Tyler Moore figure.  One of them is Donald Trump.  He likes to dance around lower Manhattan tossing his badly done hair up in the air.  He didn’t have to make it after all.  He had it made from the moment he gasped his first breath.

You probably need about one guess to figure who else I’m speaking about. The Donald inherited a lot of money and managed to screw things up badly. Government largess bailed out Donald Trump’s mismanagement of his vast inheritance. He’s about as self made as an iPad. Dubya Bush has a similar story. The Trump story is just one of many documented in a new book called “The Self-Made Myth: The Truth About How Government Helps Individuals and Businesses Succeed”.

Despite what Trump may espouse, his success would have been in no way possible without his father, the general public, and the US government. Unfortunately, Trump decided to forget or selectively ignore these truths while forming his political philosophy, a sentiment made particularly clear during his brief bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs. In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

In 1974 Donald Trump became president of his father’s organization. During the 15 years following his ascension, he expanded and innovated the corporation, buying and branding buildings, golf courses, hotels, casinos, and other recreational facilities. In 1980 he established The Trump Organization to oversee all of his real estate operations.

Trump eventually found himself in serious financial trouble. In 1990, due to excessive leveraging, The Trump Organization revealed that it was $5 billion in debt ($8.8 billion by some estimates), with $1 billion personally guaranteed by Trump himself. The survival of the company was made possible only by a bailout pact agreed upon in August of that same year by some 70 banks, allowing Trump to defer on nearly $1 billion in debt, as well as to take out second and third mortgages on almost all of his properties. If it were not for the collective effort of all banks and parties involved in that 1990 deal, Trump’s business would have gone bankrupt and failed.

This is just one more example of an extremely wealthy person that basically caught all the breaks in the world–including being spit out of the right VAGINA–that wants every one to believe he did it all on his own and that he owes nothing to any on else.  It’s as much of a lie as the current twisting of the “you didn’t do that” speech by Obama.  Just like ecosystems, a country’s economy is a grand experiment in obligate mutualismRomney’s vast wealth is as much of an interplay between his job and our warped tax system  and his father’s millions than just about anything else.  He had access to tax shelters and tax rates that not even his father–as the CEO of a major car company–would’ve  received. Yet, he insists he did it all on his own. Legacy be damned, I’m a self-made man!

Steve Rattner–an Obama surrogate and Private Equity Lord of the Universe himself–was on GPS on Sunday talking about the kind of tax dodges available to this business that are unavailable to every one else.  Tax Dodging isn’t exactly one of those pull-yourself-up-by-your bootstraps kind of effort. Our two species in this country are definitely the uberrich and every one else. The uberrich financier is a subspecies all to himself. Hang with me on my mutualism metaphor because I’m about to introduce the idea of the parasite into our economic system.

“If you say to your tax people, as he seems to have done, ‘I want every trick in the book. I want to push this to the edge,'” Rattner said during an appearance on “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN. “I will tell you that as a private equity guy, I’m familiar with many of the things that he did. And I know many people who have done many of the things that he did. I do not know anyone who did everything that he did.”

“Some of what he did, like the IRA, I have asked fellow private equity guys,” Rattner said, referencing the account in which Romney has stored up to $100 million tax-free. “None of us had even known this was a possible trick, if you will. He has pushed the envelope all the way to the edge, to his benefit, and I think that Americans would find that pretty distasteful.”

Romney has declined to release multiple years’ worth of tax returns, disclosing only those from 2010 and estimates from 2011. Rattner called Romney overly secretive Sunday, speculating that he was attempting to hide more instances of using innovative and questionable accounting tricks.

Indeed, all you have to do is look at the incredible amounts of money hidden from the taxing bodies of governments in the offshore banking centers of the world to realize the amount of lost possibilities and futures.  No amount of books bought for the BYU library can offset the lost multiplying impact of buying power spinning through a domestic economy that hides, instead,  in a bank in some offshore haven.  It is the modern version of the plague in every economy of the world.  It’s destructive.

A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together – according to research commissioned by the campaign group Tax Justice Network.

James Henry, former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has compiled the most detailed estimates yet of the size of the offshore economy in a new report, The Price of Offshore Revisited, released exclusively to the Observer.

He shows that at least £13tn – perhaps up to £20tn – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks, which vie to attract the assets of so-called high net-worth individuals. Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, “protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy“. According to Henry’s research, the top 10 private banks, which include UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, as well as the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, managed more than £4tn in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.

The detailed analysis in the report, compiled using data from a range of sources, including the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund, suggests that for many developing countries the cumulative value of the capital that has flowed out of their economies since the 1970s would be more than enough to pay off their debts to the rest of the world.

Oil-rich states with an internationally mobile elite have been especially prone to watching their wealth disappear into offshore bank accounts instead of being invested at home, the research suggests. Once the returns on investing the hidden assets is included, almost £500bn has left Russia since the early 1990s when its economy was opened up. Saudi Arabia has seen £197bn flood out since the mid-1970s, and Nigeria £196bn.

“The problem here is that the assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments,” the report says.

The sheer size of the cash pile sitting out of reach of tax authorities is so great that it suggests standard measures of inequality radically underestimate the true gap between rich and poor. According to Henry’s calculations, £6.3tn of assets is owned by only 92,000 people, or 0.001% of the world’s population – a tiny class of the mega-rich who have more in common with each other than those at the bottom of the income scale in their own societies.

“These estimates reveal a staggering failure: inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people,” said John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. “People on the street have no illusions about how unfair the situation has become.”

The fathers of Mitt Romney and Donald Trump did not have the ability to drain funds from the government while simultaneously hiding their personal fortunes on foreign shores all the while using obscene tax loopholes to dodge the responsibilities that each of us has to fund basic public goods in this country.   Basic goods that every one uses. Looting vast amounts of economic welfare leads to concentration of wealth towards those who can game the system. Meanwhile, more and more of the country’s people no longer experience the benefit of the multiplying effect of having that wealth and money circulate through the domestic economy and, of course, provide tax revenues to fix roads, pay for defense and public safety, and provide for basic things like public education and public health services.  It’s a major drain on an economy.  It leaves every one worse off.

The ranks of America’s poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.

Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the weeks ahead of the November elections.

The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest since 1965.Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.

What all of this should do is cause us to question the last 30 years of governance.  What is it that causes the government we have now to continue to provide vast amounts of benefits and subsidies to people that really don’t need it?  Every study shows the same impact.  Entire economies are worse off. Yet,  these people feel entitled and sneer at any mention of actually making money based on something other than preferential tax treatment and inheritance.  Legacy admittance to good schools and jobs is just the first step in our country’s funding of men that inherit money and go on to drain more of it from the public coffers.

I don’t know if you managed to read this bit from Krugman last week but it’s worth a posting even if you did.

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” So wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald — and he didn’t just mean that they have more money. What he meant instead, at least in part, was that many of the very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment they consider their birthright; their wealth “makes them soft where we are hard.”

And because money talks, this softness — call it the pathos of the plutocrats — has become a major factor in America’s political life.

It’s no secret that, at this point, many of America’s richest men — including some former Obama supporters — hate, just hate, President Obama. Why? Well, according to them, it’s because he “demonizes” business — or as Mitt Romney put it earlier this week, he “attacks success.” Listening to them, you’d think that the president was the second coming of Huey Long, preaching class hatred and the need to soak the rich.

Needless to say, this is crazy. In fact, Mr. Obama always bends over backward to declare his support for free enterprise and his belief that getting rich is perfectly fine. All that he has done is to suggest that sometimes businesses behave badly, and that this is one reason we need things like financial regulation. No matter: even this hint that sometimes the rich aren’t completely praiseworthy has been enough to drive plutocrats wild. For two years or more, Wall Street in particular has been crying: “Ma! He’s looking at me funny!”

Wait, there’s more. Not only do many of the superrich feel deeply aggrieved at the notion that anyone in their class might face criticism, they also insist that their perception that Mr. Obama doesn’t like them is at the root of our economic problems. Businesses aren’t investing, they say, because business leaders don’t feel valued. Mr. Romney repeated this line, too, arguing that because the president attacks success “we have less success.”

This, too, is crazy (and it’s disturbing that Mr. Romney appears to share this delusional view about what ails our economy).

What is really disturbing to me is the number of people that should really recognize all of this for what it is; complex privateering.  There are a variety of species in an ecosystem with unique roles to fill.  In economic systems, there also exists many institutions and people with unique roles.  The one thing they both share besides that is their interdependence.  Our economic system is a symbiotic system.  Remember, there are three types of symbiotic relationships within both systems.

Mutualism-Both organisms benefit
Commensalism-One organism benefits, and the other is not affected in any manner.
Parasitism-One organism benefits, and the other is harmed.

Learn to recognize the parasites.  Every time complex financiers rise to the top of the heap, the real economy suffers.  They are not job creators.

In closing, here are a few thoughts from Teddy Roosevelt to give you a few hints. The last quote was written after the Panic of 1907. We’ve learned this lesson quite a few times in US history.  Both times we had a Roosevelt who yanked us from the abyss.  Funny that.

” Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not inthe world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type, and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are  curses to the country. (Forum, February 1895.)

“It may well be that the determination of the government (in which, gentlemen,it will not waver) to punish certain malefactors of great wealth, has been responsible for something of the trouble; at least to the extent of having caused these men to combine to bring about as much financial stress as possible, in order to discredit the policy of the government and thereby secure a reversal of that policy, so that they may enjoy unmolested the fruits of their own evil-doing. . . . I regard this contest as one to determine who shall rule this free country—the people through their governmental agents, or a few ruthless and domineering men whose wealth makes them peculiarly formidable because they hide behind the breastworks of corporate  organization.” (At Pilgrim Memorial Monument, Provincetown, Mass., August 20, 1907.)

Well, I ran a little long today and I didn’t even get to start in on Jamie Diamon and JPM. Oh, well what’s on your reading and blogging list?

42 Comments on “Monday Reads: Malefactors of Great Wealth Edition”

  1. Pat Johnson says:

    The question asked but never answered is how much signifies “enough” for these people.

    How many homes, boats, cars, jewels, etc.,are ever enough? Even when they seem to “have it all” they still want more and will go to any lengths to get it.

    “Grab and greed” seems to be the motto for those who are able to rewrite laws that enable them to hoard their treasures while ignoring the basic morality of sucking up everything just because they can.

    • RalphB says:

      The question isn’t how much is enough because they can never have enough until they can have it all. I wonder when their greed will make them turn on each other?

    • RalphB says:

      Can we sharpen the guillotines yet?

      • Pat Johnson says:

        These “greedy guts” remind me of Willie Wonka’s nemesis Verucka Salt: “I want it all and I want it now!”

        Willie was able to send Verucka to her just rewards but we are stuck with these infantile creatures until the bitter end.

      • NW Luna says:

        Yes. But don’t forget we’re being spied on 24/7.

    • Beata says:

      Powerful post, Dak. Excellent work.

      Sometimes I need to listen again to a memorable Senate speech by Ted Kennedy. Today is one of those days. The central question he posed then is even more pertinent today:

      “When does the greed stop?”

      • Pat Johnson says:

        A millionaire who stood with the working class. A rarity.

      • dakinikat says:

        What drives me nuts is that people like Romney are so shallow that they think people envy them. It can’t possibly be their behavior or greed or lack of morality. I don’t envy the extremely rich at all. Been there. Seen that. Don’t want it. Don’t want to be that shallow or self-involved or unable to relate to anybody or hung up with perpetual wanting stuff that doesn’t last … some rich people get this. Others seemed doom to cluelessness.

  2. RalphB says:

    Magnificent post!!!!! Thanks so much for putting it all in perspective. We are so fcked!

  3. mablue2 says:

    Nice going Michele Bachman, you pathetic excuse of a human being
    Weiner’s wife under police protection after receiving threat

    Huma Abedin, the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), has been placed under police protection after receiving a threat, according to a report in the New York Post.

    The report, which cites unnamed law enforcement sources, says Abedin was threatened by a man after Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) last week claimed the State Department official had family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and called for a probe

    I’m waiting for a bunch of people to scream “but the man who threatened her is a muslim…”

    Why aren’t all these Rightwing freaks calling James Holmes a terrorist? Is it because he isn’t a Muslim?

    • RalphB says:

      Is it because he isn’t a Muslim?

      Only partly, he’s also no other minority they want to slam.

    • Pat Johnson says:

      I also wonder if the GOP would be screaming bloody murder in the wake of the Citizens United passage if it was discovered that some Arab sheik was providing millions of dollars to the Dems like Sheldon Adelson to the GOP. It could happen. Then what?

      With no transparency as to who and what is making these outlandish contributions, no wonder Michele feels free to say anything that pops into her otherwise empty head since there is no way to determine where her “facts” are coming from.

      As for referring to Holmes as a “domestic terrorist” that would require bringing the influence of the NRA into view and most in congress are not interested in tipping that applecart.

      Better to ban smoking in a public gathering than to work to ban weapons of mass destruction used agains the populace by some lunatic with a grudge.

      If we worked against the tobacco industry why are we not doing the same against the NRA and its lobbyists?

  4. Pat Johnson says:

    You gotta love Michele: she never stops!

    A woman who knows who is and who is not “American”, she is on a tireless mission to “take our nation back” while protecting our “freedoms” even if it means smearing and maligning innocents along the way.

    Which must mean that she is “correct” in her assertions since she is claimed to be one of the biggest recipients of donations in congress further underscoring that there are many more like her out there then previously thought.

    Welcome to another day in the life of the Lunatic Fringe.

    • dakinikat says:

      She’s a walking case study in mental illness but because its manifestation involves christianity we can’t do anything about it. Some one needs to put her in a nice padded room, make her take meds, and find out what is wrong with her.

      • northwestrain says:

        Michelles of the world have what I call religious insanity. They think they are perfectly normal and everyone else is crazy. Their answer to everything is “just believe” (to believe in the pie in the sky — rewards come in the after life — until then give us all your money.)

        The Puritans tried to eradicate the Indians — and the war on the Indians continues — using passages from the Bible as the justification for the massive genocide.

        In reality America has a very violent and intolerant history — Michelle and her mob continue the dark side of the American legacy.


        Great graphic of the parasites on the Caterpillar. Also I didn’t remember Trump’s background — I remember that he was bailed out. And yet homeowners who need help or the homeowners who have been robbed by the banks get now help — many of the states are stealing what little money was supposed to go to wronged homeowners.

        • dakinikat says:

          I actually think extreme religiousity is a display of mental illness. We’re not talking normal spirtuality, asking big questions, finding relief in prayer or meditation or reading spiritual books here … we’re talking addiction to the highs of whatever practice and people and rigidity it can take in the extreme.

      • northwestrain says:

        Thanks for making the distinction.

  5. bostonboomer says:

    Excellent post!!

  6. dakinikat says:

    For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

    We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

    They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

    • Beata says:

      Not every Roosevelt loved the common people. I have a personal story that Sky Dancers might find amusing.

      When my mother was in college during WWII, she had a romance with a member of the Roosevelt family. They planned to marry. The young man’s mother was FDR’s cousin. After the war, my mother went to meet her fiance’s family in New York. His mother did not approve of “that girl from the West”, even though my beautiful mother was from a well-educated, upper-middle class background. Only a girl whose family was listed in the New York social registry would do for her son. So the wedding was cancelled.

      Years later, after my mother was married to my father, she wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt inquiring about her former fiance. She was curious how his life had turned out. I have the letter she recieved from Eleanor Roosevelt in my hand right now. It is printed on her stationery from Val-Kill Cottage in Hyde Park. In it, Eleanor writes that the former fiance’s mother “was my husband’s cousin and a dreadful snob, I fear.” Lol.

    • NW Luna says:

      Fantastic post!

      More from FDR:

      …the record of votes on the passage of the Social Security Act. In addition to an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both Houses, seventy-seven Republican Representatives voted for it and only eighteen against it and fifteen Republican Senators voted for it and only five against it.

      Every so often I read something FDR wrote and am amazed at what he said and what got done in that era.

      What could happen now with determination and boldness? If a leader called the MOGW what they are — and fought monopolies, profiteering and speculation?

      Look at the response to Obama’s hits on Romney for his Bain involvement in layoffs and profiteering. There’s a deep anger at the rich getting richer while the rest worry about to keep or get a job, how to pay the bills, how to get needed healthcare, and if they can survive in retirement. A President with real backbone to speak out and use the bully pulpit to proclaim the rights of the average American would receive a huge groundswell of loud support.

      Except 1) he’d have to have a spine, and 2) folks trying to pay the mortgage can’t donate megabucks.

      • northwestrain says:

        Flip Flop 0bama isn’t a JFK.

        Flip Flop 0bama wasn’t “tested” like either FDR or JFK. By testing I mean the personal tests that life sent their way — like war, polio, survival at sea, leadership on many levels.

  7. dakinikat says:

    JFK during the 1962 steel crisis:

    “My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now.”,_Bush_and_Oil

    • bostonboomer says:

      Another extremely rich person who saw poverty and had compassion for people who weren’t like him.

      • dakinikat says:

        My father was a wonderful businessman. He employed about 50-75 people at his dealership. He was active in the community. We were taught to treat the people working for my father like family and with respect. Most of them worked for him all the thirty-odd years he ran his business. He had really loyal customers too. My father had help from an extremely rich Oklahoma oil man. That man had been helped into to business by one of the most notorious nasty Oil Men in Oklahoma too. My father said that his mentor used to tell him that guys like him that had little education had to start businesses to give guys with degrees like my dad a job. My dad had a law degree and university degree via the GI bill. He was literally the first in his family to have any thing more than one semester of college. On the other hand, my mother’s family was rich, rich rich … I saw the contrast clearly. I kept to the values of my father’s family once I got past the early teen years and the complete fascination with all the junk money can buy. There’s a big difference between REALLY being self made and recognizing that means you most likely had some help to move forward and being born with a huge headstart. My dad taught us the value of people and a dollar.

  8. bostonboomer says:

    I linked to a Mother Jones interactive map of U.S. mass murders a couple of days ago.

    They’ve increased the total to 36 in 30 years. To me it doesn’t make sense to start in the 1980s. The first of these dramatic shootings took place in 1966 at the U. of TX. Charles Whitman killed 16 people and wounded 32 form the UT bell tower. But there are also earlier mass shootings going back to the early 20th century.

    Yesterday I decided to make my own list, and so far I have 62. I think I’m still missing some. I wrote to the guys who did the map at MJ and one of them did respond to me. He said they are going into a new phase with the project. But I have found many shootings that meet their criteria of at least four deaths in a short period of time. Many are workplace shootings. I plan to keep working on the list.

    • northwestrain says:

      Oh yes I do remember the U of Texas mass murders and also wondered why the chart didn’t include that.

      “Going postal” is now part of our culture — because there were several mass murders in Post offices. Federal buildings are built like forts — very unfriendly due to the crazies who have targeted anything Government related.

      • bostonboomer says:

        They only looked at the past 30 years, but I’ve found a lot of shootings that they missed. I’ve just found a few more. It’s really an epidemic.

    • RalphB says:

      Even though it was over 30 years ago, I remember Whitman’s killing spree very well. He didn’t just shoot people from the tower, he killed his wife and her mother before making his way to the tower.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Yes, I know. I remember it very clearly too. I was in college then. Whitman had a tumor on his amygdala which may have contributed to his out of control rage and other problems. He tried to get help, but none was forthcoming, unfortunately.

      • Fannie says:

        I remember Juan Corona – Yuba City, Ca………..I was there, working in the cannery that summer.

      • RalphB says:

        Yep. I think he stands out as being one of few where a potential physical problem was found which could have influenced his actions. Though if you read his recent family history before the shootings, he had what looks like a boat load of emotional hits. But some of them were caused by prior out of whack behavior on his part.

    • ecocatwoman says:

      I’m sure you’ve probably included it, but just checking – Richard Speck who raped, tortured & murdered 8 student nurses in Chicago in 1966. That is one of the first mass murderers I remember. Then there is the murder spree of the men profiled in Capote’s In Cold Blood. They killed the husband, wife & 2 of their children in 1959. I’m curious about the gender & ethnicity of the murderers. It seems to me that it has been mostly white men – at least for those I remember.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Yes, I included it, but it might not fit the profile. He didn’t shoot his victims and he didn’t really go on a “rampage.” He kept them hostage for hours. In addition they were sexual homicides. That happened in 1966 also.

        Another one that really should be included is the Kent State shootings by the National Guard. But the perpetrator isn’t known.

  9. dakinikat says:

    Romney continues to prove his a pathological liar:

    Star of Romney ‘My Hands Didn’t Build This’ Ad Received Millions in Government Loans and Contracts

    • dakinikat says:

      The Romney campaign has been making much out of an out-of-context President Obama quote.

      Speaking in Roanoke, Virginia on July 13 about the necessity of government for services such as infrastructure, the president said “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help…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.”

      Listen to it for yourself: the remarks in question were roughly 33 minutes and 40 seconds into the speech:

      The Romney campaign, has suggested that the president was telling business owners that they didn’t create their own business, taking the “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that” remark out of context.

      In a campaign ad, the Romney campaign spliced out the “roads and bridges” the president seemed to be referring to as “that” when he said “you didn’t build that.”

      In a new TV ad, Romney features an offended New Hampshire businessman, saying, “My father’s hands didn’t build this company? My hands didn’t build this company? My son’s hands aren’t building this company?”

      The New Hampshire Union Leader’s John DiStato today reports that in 1999 the business in question, Gilchrist Metal, “received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority ‘to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment’…” In addition, in 2011, Gilchrist Metal “received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008…”

      Who the f would vote for these lying a$$holes?