I feel compelled to (very partially) come to his defense.
I have known successful people who were, IMO, excessively arrogant as to the extent to which they had “earned” their success, with the implicit statement that anybody who hadn’t been as successful equally deserved their lack of success.
Inborn talents and abilities have a great deal to do with success, as does one’s upbringing. None of this is in and of itself something a person is personally responsible for. The extent to which they take advantage of their opportunities, but seldom the opportunities themselves.
There is also a massive amount of luck involved in the degree of success. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would have in 1800 or 1900 in all likelihood been modestly successful. World-bestriding accomplishments had much to do with their particular abilities being those that fit the times. In earlier centuries, not so much.
We have also all known those who have gained “success” by lying, cheating and backstabbing. That’s not really something to be proud of.
I’m sure I don’t mean by this what Obama and his ilk do, but I still think those who are successful should try to retain some element of humility, not succumbing to what the Greeks called hubris. And at the same time not despising those who have not achieved the same degree of success. There may be very good reasons, and in their shoes the successful guy might not have done any better.
I know very few business people who would dare to say that they had no help; however, that help came from family and friends or private entities such as banks. Dear Reader’s argument is that success is permitted by the state and that all you have is the result of the state allowing you to obtain it.
Yes, but every sane person knows that. Americans are rich because we live in America. We know that if we were living in a third-world pesthole, the chances of it happening would be slim or none.
Nevertheless, it's beside the point. If you have a system where a scoundrel like Obama can take your money because you didn't create all the conditions that allowed you to make a lot of money, then there's no such thing as private property. Agreeing with Obama's "logic" means he can take as much of your money as he wants.
The problem with your argument is extrapolating it over the vast segment of the business community. Sure, we’ve all met arrogant business people. But does that mean they represent the majority? And, how often do we mistake arrogance for confidence? After all, it’s all in our perception.
No, Obama had no, absolutely no, basis on which to say this beyond his own perception of reality. He’s never built anything worthwhile. His whole existence is based on his being supported by others. If it wasn’t for the George Soros’ or Democratic Parties of this world, where would he be? (I’m sure there are others but I’ll let that go for now...)
So, we’re supposed to be critical of business professionals, when we have a know-nothing, do-nothing, socialist president who believes nothing is ever proper if it doesn’t have government approval? The Hell with that.