Why I am now SO voting for Romney
Well, this could be it.
Today, the 225th anniversary of the Constitution may go down as the day Romney lost the election. Mother Jones comes forth now with a surrepticiously recorded video in which Mitt Romney tells the truth that no president—indeed, no politician at all, it seems—is willing to tell: That there is a constituency in this Nation that is so dependent on government that it is lost to those who would dare stand on the principles of self-determination and individualism. From the governor:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax…And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
The most damning part of this quote? It’s true. We can all parse whether or not this was felicitously delivered, but the bottom line is that it’s absolutely accurate.
Want proof? Fewer people are working than when the president took office. More people are claiming disability than are finding new jobs. The entire workforce itself has shrunk to a degree that would otherwise yield an 11+% unemployment rate. There is no way in Hell an incumbent should have even a snowball’s chance of re-election. Yet here we sit with the polls basically tied (and likely, thanks to this recording, to head south for Romney). Just check out the president’s approval rating and his standing in any of the recent polls.
The only explanation can be that Mitt Romney is correct. But just as has been the case recently, I fear, this will be yet another example of the governor coming out timidly in the shadow of having spoken the truth that nobody is willing to hear, let alone speak.
God, I pray I’m wrong. Imagine what it would say about a Nation to elect a man who sees so clearly the cultural problems that are plaguing our Nation and taking their toll on our economy.
I had been saying all along that re-electing Obama would speak volumes about our Nation: That it would mean we’ve become Greece-like in our rapture over state-sourced validity. That the man who so incredibly symbolizes—nay, personifies—the Leviathan State actually won election after the scales had fallen from the eyes of his HopeAndChange worshipers and they actually knew what he was all about…
But I never really saw his election as having the same gravity in a supposed contrapositive as I do now: If Mitt Romney, despite the inevitable upcoming onslaught of character assassination for having been bold enough to tell the truth, can be elected in the Nation he correctly described, then there truly is hope for this great Idea of America.
I have supported Romney all the way through the primaries because I have believed that he was the man who had the turn-around mentality and the clear vision based on his business experience to help this Nation at this time. Inasmuch, my support was mostly mechanical.
But I will vote for Mitt Romney now with a renewed hope and faith in America. His comments, as clumsily as they were delivered, ring so incredibly true. If American voters can see that, then there really is hope. And the real kind this time.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)
103 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think you meant to say *Obama would lose the election at the top of your article?? Look again!
Comment by Typo — September 17, 2012 @ 9:57 pm - September 17, 2012
I find myself wondering more about what will happen if Obama is re-elected, if the headlong push toward national bankruptcy (Forward!) is not averted, if the metastisizing Federal Leviathan (Forward!) is not restrained, if the expanding entitlement monster (Forward!) is not caged, reformed, and brought down to size.
Left progressives are in deep, deep denial, refusing to acknowledge the monster-state they’ve built can be sustained. That which cannot be sustained will not last; so I wonder, what happens when it falls?
Comment by V the K — September 17, 2012 @ 10:11 pm - September 17, 2012
V the K, they will starve.
Comment by Lobogris — September 17, 2012 @ 10:46 pm - September 17, 2012
Lobogris, first they’ll riot and blame Bush, then they’ll starve.
Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — September 17, 2012 @ 10:51 pm - September 17, 2012
I am voting for Romney. I hope people wake up.
Comment by EBL — September 17, 2012 @ 10:52 pm - September 17, 2012
Yeah they guy may not be the horse I;d have picked but he sure as hell gets it. He has my vote.
Comment by Jenn of the Jungle — September 17, 2012 @ 11:13 pm - September 17, 2012
I will have to agree with what Mark Steyn said in his radio interview with Hannity. His thesis is that if Obama is re-elected that the United States by 2016 will no longer exist as most of us knew it. It will be on it’s way to a South American or Greece like country, only bigger. Sadly, the ever optimistic Hannity had to agree with him.We all agreed that we have this one shot to possibly turn thing around.
With respect to the 47% and the millions of Americans on some type of government dole. I am convinced that many of the 47% get it, and will not vote for Obama. Many of them do believe in the great “American Dream.” Further I know many people that get a check from the government monthly.They are called social security recipients. Everyone I know hate what Obama has done, and will vote for Romney. Same for people getting unemployment checks. Many WANT to go back to work, they get it, and will be voting for Romney also.
So, correct as Romney was in his comments, I expect many of that 47% to vote against Obama. giving us a real shot at getting rid of this “Great American Nightmare.”
Comment by mixitup — September 17, 2012 @ 11:20 pm - September 17, 2012
The left doesn’t love itself — their hatred for the right is far, far more powerful and very motivating. It doesn’t matter what happens to our economy, our nation due to their policies; it doesn’t matter that we’re left with a smoking ruin: they sleep at night knowing that at least they didn’t vote for that other guy. Y’know, the guy that says things that a leader of a nice country wouldn’t say.
Comment by Ignatius — September 17, 2012 @ 11:30 pm - September 17, 2012
[...] anyone who says Romney made a mistake by talking about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax, YOU ARE A F*CKING [...]
Pingback by Boo F*cking Hoo « Canadian Rattlesnake — September 17, 2012 @ 11:40 pm - September 17, 2012
How is that not greed?
Comment by TGC — September 17, 2012 @ 11:50 pm - September 17, 2012
i wont believe this country gets it until the day after the votes are all counted in. there are some very very messed up people in this country. and these people control the majority of the media outlets. I know alot of good thinking & meaning people who always get the reality of a given political situation wrong for the last 20 years all due to the media outlets bias. there is so much hate from the left against anyone who stands in there way. Obama is worse then the emperors of ancient Rome. He and the media go after anyone who disagrees with him and he, his staff and the corrupt media do so with impunity. They are a mob and you cant pick one segment because they are ALL doing something wrong ALL of the time. Obama & the left wing media are symbolic of old King George & the corrupt parliament of the 18th century. They see the masses & they see conservatives as sheep to be led to the slaughter of their altar of liberalism & socialism. To ignore the suppression of voting by the new black panthers in the 2008 election, to ignore the murders due to fast & furious, to ignore the muslim officer who massacred his fellow soldiers, to ignore the sept 11, 2012 fiasco & murders, to ignore over $4 a gallon gas, to ignore the crimes of napolitano, sebelius and holder, to ignore the selling out of israel & poland, to ignore the deal-making with medved, to ignore the increase in lost jobs, to ignore the crony capitalism with companies like solyndra & other companies who contributed to his campaigns, to ignore the oil & natural gas & other resources in the USA & CANADA and instead buy from communist south american govts & china & russia, to ignore the trampling on the freedoms of religion, speech and the right to bear arms that Obama does so often, to force people to go against their consciences, to ignore Obama’s fight against state rights, to ignore the sexism & bigotry practiced against women, men, and gays who are conservative, a sexism & bigotry by the Democrat party & their supporters such as Maher, and to ignore the crimes of the Occupiers, to ignore that Obama & the democrat party are constantly active in supporting abortion on demand no matter what the reason and no matter what term of the pregnancy, is as criminal, unjust, tyrannical as anything the british government did to the colonies in the 18th century & aligns the left wing media & Obama & his staff as well as the democrat party with the radical governments & the mobs of 1789-92 and 1917. It seems as if the reality is red, they say its blue, if its black & white they say its gray. May the Good Lord make them see the error of their hatred and isms and their ways and may he do so before He decides to strike them down with their own folly as He has done with governments throughout history. Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Comment by dark rabbitt — September 18, 2012 @ 12:50 am - September 18, 2012
A presidential campaign reveals itself…
Comment by EBL — September 18, 2012 @ 1:34 am - September 18, 2012
That’s it…go ahead and drink a little more of the kool-aid…
Comment by Kevin — September 18, 2012 @ 3:02 am - September 18, 2012
If those welfare recipients were smart, they would vote for Romney and hope he fixes the economy. After all, someone has to work if they are going to stay on the gravy train
Comment by V the K — September 18, 2012 @ 5:57 am - September 18, 2012
This is a pretty central delusion in conservative fantasy land, and it’s no surprise that Mitt Romney has been going around saying it to his other rich buddies. Conservatives like walking through their lives thinking they don’t owe anybody anything (We Built It!) and believing their political adversaries are motivated purely by wanting freebies from the government. And this is the big problem with the country, says the rich guy who is trying to buy himself the presidency…
Rich people broke this economy, not poor people. Does anyone know the story of how Romney saved Bain by forcing the government to forgive $10 million of company debt? I wonder if Romney considers himself a part of that 47% that are dependent on government, given that this happened early in his career and he went on to build a massive amount of wealth after his own mini-bailout. A lot of the supposedly lazy welfare queens in this 47% would probably benefit from some kind of similar debt forgiveness, but that’s only a perk for rich people who built that, I guess.
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 6:19 am - September 18, 2012
Levi:
You say ‘bailout’ as if you believe it’s a bad thing.
Okay then, a few questions:
Which candidate is running against bailouts?
Which candidate is running by touting a ‘bailout’ (actually his role in it was to circumvent law–shocker–and deny due process to those with investments in the company in question, but little things like ‘facts’ aren’t as important as a ‘narrative’) that is still costing US taxpayers tens of billions of dollars?
Which candidate says he no longer wants the government to pick winners and losers?
Which candidate advocates bailing out “not just [] the auto industry, but [] every industry”?
Mitt Romney appreciates your vote.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — September 18, 2012 @ 7:07 am - September 18, 2012
47% don’t have skin in the game by way of paying federal income tax. 47% live off the transfer of wealth from those who do pay income tax. The poor in the United States are in the top 1% of the income scale of the population of the world.
There is a whole lot to defend for yourself if you are comfortable in your “poverty” and making it on wealth redistribution. If you are living on other people’s money and you want a better standard of living, it is perfectly clear to you that you need mo’ wealth transfer, mo’ wealth transfer, mo’ wealth transfer.
Going out into the economy doesn’t work for you because you would have to take a wealth transfer cut and also take personal responsibility for your life. You would have to be self dependent and independent.
Naw! Better to demand mo’ wealth transfer, mo’ wealth transfer, mo’ wealth transfer.
Obama has the stash. Obama money. Obama phones. Obama this, Obama that.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 7:50 am - September 18, 2012
What exactly is the objection to what Romney is saying? Do they object to its accuracy?
Comment by alanstorm — September 18, 2012 @ 8:19 am - September 18, 2012
It’s not that I think bailouts are the best thing ever, but I’ll take a bailout over a global depression. They’ve completely dropped the ball by not using the bailout as an opportunity to reform the finance industry, but I’ll still take a no-conditions bailout to perform triage on a flailing economy over a global depression. And no one takes seriously the claim that the auto industry bailout wasn’t totally worth the small taxpayer investment that’s already been largely paid back.
Obviously, bailouts aren’t good things, but they’re a treatment, not the disease. A bailout is an emergency tool for the government to use if something catastrophic happens, and when you weigh the cost of using the bailout against that catastrophe, sometimes it makes more sense to use the bailout. We want to avoid using them altogether, I would agree, but that means fixing the economy that is creating these situations where certain industries get so powerful and influential that they can hold the economy hostage in the first place, not just saying we’re never going to bailout again. No one would take that seriously. If the government can avoid a $10 trillion problem by giving the hostage-takers $800 billion, they’re going to do it every time. We have to figure out how to stop those $10 trillion problems from starting in the first place.
Which brings me back to my point, that Romney is one of these powerful and influential characters that had no reservations about leveraging his position to force the government to give him a bailout. He made his money by doing exactly that which you purport to oppose, and here are you showering him with praise and going on and on about how excited you are to vote for him. Well, good luck with that, I guess.
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 8:22 am - September 18, 2012
If someone can’t get a job that pays them enough that they are assessed income tax, that’s not necessarily a reflection of their work ethic or how personally responsible they are. Most of the 47% of people who don’t pay income taxes still have jobs, they’re just crappy jobs that don’t pay living wages. That’s not a problem with them or their attitudes, it’s a problem with our economy. How many people have been forced into this 47% over the past few years by a recession that they weren’t responsible for? It’s probably really nice to come from money like Mitt Romney does so you can ride this stuff out and lecture people about personal responsibility. If these factory workers didn’t want to lose their jobs, they should have gone to Harvard and become lawyers, I guess?
I suppose that in this 47%, there are only liberals, right? No conservatives in that total at all, despite the general trend of red states receiving more federal tax dollars than they contribute, I’m sure. Even in those red states, it’s all the liberals that are getting the free ride. No conservative ever needed a hand from anybody, even presidential candidates born into wealth and privilege.
I wonder if you deliberately meant to slip into your old white man’s version of urban slang when you started to speak in the voice of someone who is overjoyed to be receiving welfare, or if it was unconscious. Because only urban people receive welfare, of course, and there are enough bla – …er, I mean – urban people in this country to account for the vast majority of that 47%, right?
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 8:47 am - September 18, 2012
[...] true. If American voters can see that, then there really is hope. And the real kind this time. http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/09/17…ng-for-romney/ Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than [...]
Pingback by Romney/Ryan 2012 — September 18, 2012 @ 9:16 am - September 18, 2012
And no one takes seriously the claim that the auto industry bailout wasn’t totally worth the small taxpayer investment that’s already been largely paid back.
_____________________
LOL. You just exposed a whole lot of ignorance in that one sentence. Fifty billion dollars (for just two companies, GM and Chrysler) is hardly a “small” bailout. And GM has not even come close to paying taxpayers back the tens of billions of dollars it still owes us. In fact, GM had to stop running those t.v. commercials it made, boasting how much it had already “paid back,” after it was revealed that GM had used millions of dollars in TARP funds to “pay back” taxpayers — IOW, GM used OUR money to “pay us back”! Furthermore, taxpayers still own a huge stake in GM, which the government can’t sell because GM’s stock price is so low that if taxpayers sold now they’d lose billions of dollars. Then there is the matter of the tens of billions of dollars in special tax breaks that GM was “gifted” by Obama (courtesy of the taxpayers, again). Those billions of dollars of losses are not even factored in to most analysts’ costs of the bailout, but most auto-industry analysts predict that taxpayers will end up losing at least $20 billion on the bailout, and likely far more than that.
Comment by Observer — September 18, 2012 @ 9:36 am - September 18, 2012
All I know is that my VOTE will cancel out Levi’s. My hubby’s vote will cancel out another Lib, my mother’s vote will cancel out a “Julia” and my father’s vote will cancel out another Lib. Seniors are not feeling the One’s love anymore.
My sister’s family will bring to the R total, 6 new votes. My two relatives and their children and grand children in Iowa will bring another 10 votes to cancel out liberals vote. I haven’t spoken to their grandkids in KY, but just a guess, they will be R as well, and they have lots of family in the hills that like their horses, guns, winery business and their freedoms.
My cousin in FLA, military man, will not agree to kissing terrorist ass. His wife won’t vote for someone that will handcuff him and send in off to fight a PC war.
My other cousin in VA, he’s gonna vote his wallet and his wife will vote for him to keep his fat wallet. That will have to rely on keeping a strong military and defense dept. Cuts there will mean he makes less money, guess thats another 2 R.
Then there are my other relatives from up north. normally a solid block of D votes, now going in the R column, total of 14. Out East, another another 3 new R voters, Down southwest, another 7 votes, and in Oregon, 3.
Those are probably all votes that were in Obamsters total in 2008…those are all votes of people who have been D leaning or solid D for decades.
My neighbors in both directions and down the street add at least another 25 R votes. If all those folks vote the way the say they are, Obummer is in trouble.
Polls are Political Science 101, how to manipulate the outcome by controlling the test group. All they have to do is avoid certain area codes and they will get the answers they WANT to be able to spin.
Oh, and my most faithful liberal and politics junkie friend is not voting for O this time around. I dropped a few incidents that happened and were never REPORTED on, and he went to the library and LOOKED them up. He’s not liking NPR or any of the MSM right now, they went out of their way to spin, hide and manipulate.
Yesterday I got a poll call. Gallop, and I told them I was voting for R. My state DFL office called to poll me, and I told them I waas voting D. Not 15 minutes later I got a call to make sure I had a ride to the polls from one of the groups that sits in the D corner. They will arrange to have someone pick me up, take me 5 blocks to vote…and it won’t be for a D.
Comment by 5 * Mom — September 18, 2012 @ 9:39 am - September 18, 2012
The idea is that in the long term, the jobs and economic growth provided by this stabilized industry will balance that out. Again – not ideal. I’m a big critic of the American auto industry, I think it’s a great poster child of what’s wrong with our economy, but there were millions of good jobs at stake and I think that’s worth the cost. Considering we were dealing with the financial crisis, we couldn’t afford to have an entire industry buckle. Maybe in a different year, that bailout wouldn’t have been the best idea, but it was fairly necessary given the scope and scale of the fallout from the financial crisis.
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 10:14 am - September 18, 2012
How.will Romney get us out of debt again? Cut medicare? no. Cut Healthcare? No. Cut Military? No. Less Wars? No.
He only plans to cut taxes for the rich…so I am not sure how you think he is going to bring this country back to solvency. At least Obama says he will raise taxes on the rich to pay down the debt.
Comment by mike — September 18, 2012 @ 10:16 am - September 18, 2012
Well, yeah. But there are some more damning parts.
1) Romney said it like it might be different from his public message – like he might be two-faced, or/and ashamed of the truth.
)
2) Romney sounds like he is giving up on dependent Americans. His conclusion should have stated the opposite: “[part of] my job is… to worry about those people. I’ll… [try to] convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” (Let it be MY job to say, don’t worry about them
I’m glad to know that Romney worries about government dependency and sees it as the giant problem it is. I’m sad that I had to find it out this way, i.e., that Romney hasn’t been shouting it from the rooftops all along – and making noises about solving it.
Either a return to capitalism; or an intensification of what we now have (basically fascism); or a move into communism. Take your pick. Levi wants one or both of the latter two; not admitting it on some days, coming very close to admitting it on other days.
That’s it. Some of the 47% may be salvageable; some may well understand that they shouldn’t be dependent on government.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 10:34 am - September 18, 2012
Here is the Levi argument:
Bail outs or global depression: which do you choose?
“no one takes seriously the claim that the auto industry bailout wasn’t totally worth the small taxpayer investment that’s already been largely paid back”: (so you can not object, because no one does.)
“certain industries get so powerful and influential that they can hold the economy hostage in the first place”:”If the government can avoid a $10 trillion problem by giving the hostage-takers $800 billion, they’re going to do it every time.” (Cut rug out from under the Fortune Five Hundred? Or just a select enemy as identified by the Politburo? Or Levi? Or Hussein al Krugman? or the UN? or Al Gore? or Harry Reid? or George Soros? or The Tides Foundation? Or who, why, where, what, when, how …. ?)
Somehow, I find this rant lacking in any sort of substance.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 10:38 am - September 18, 2012
By the way, it was the Bush tax cuts which made the number that high. Before the Bush tax cuts, it was several points lower.
In other words, left-liberals should be thrilled about the Bush tax cuts. That they aren’t, is just a further sign of there perversity (be that stupidity, or malice).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 10:38 am - September 18, 2012
Yeah… GOVERNMENT.
Yeah… because the hostage-taker IS GOVERNMENT.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 10:42 am - September 18, 2012
FIFY, mike.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 10:47 am - September 18, 2012
I agree. But someone is a long stretch away from 47%.
Can’t you get it in your head that a functioning society should have minimal welfare and maximum employment and self sufficiency? Mexicans come here for employment. Why is that? WHY IS THAT? Are they pouring out of their colleges and taking all the good jobs at Apple?
Ask your local police about the trouble they have in the mobile home villages of hispanics who are building a life here as opposed to the mobile home villages and section 8 and federal projects where the social misfits and moral reprobates prowl and are in control.
Levi, you are no spokesman for hard work and pulling yourself up. Need money? Bag groceries, drive a cab, wait tables, unload trucks and spend less time looking for work and more time working. I pay a guy $45 to keep my yard neat. It takes him less than an hour and he does about 10 houses a day. He knows how to balance his money for the winter season and bad weather days and equipment costs. Do the math.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 10:52 am - September 18, 2012
What is there to be thrilled about? Do you think liberals are eager to see the percentage of people not paying income tax go up? Do you think that’s why we get out of bed in the morning?
Bush gave everyone a tiny little tax cut to cover for the massive giveaways he was giving to rich people. Even if you’re not paying income taxes, chances are you’re still paying taxes at a higher percentage of your income than some of these rich guys.
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 11:04 am - September 18, 2012
By the way: There was a time when the U.S. government didn’t take hostages and pay them-and-itself $800 billion at a shot. A time when the U.S. government usually, more or less, let bad banks fail. That time was 1789-1933, and it saw the greatest explosion of progress in human history, including the rise of the American middle class.
But since then, we have stopped stopped letting bad banks fail. And since the 1980s, we have started ordering banks to make ‘socially responsible’, ‘anti-racist’ subprime loans which will be bailed out when they go bad, and so forth. And the American middle class has been gasping for breath. Coincidence? Hell, no.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 11:06 am - September 18, 2012
Notice: “get us out of debt.” No one is capable of tackling that one. Romney will stop the Obama hemorrhaging of the debt and stop the crazy upward Obama death spiral.
Save medicare for those in the program and those in the near waiting room. Yes. Rebuild it to be there and functioning for the future generations. Yes. Will it be open and transparent and unlike the sleazy Obamacare process and payoffs? Yes.
Romney will work with the private sector and state and local governments to lessen the cost and improve the availability of quality healthcare. Yes.
The military is essential to national security and is also a major employer in and of itself and in procurement and local private sector jobs near military centers. Waste can be cut and its influence on the local economies can be enhanced. Yes
Right now, it looks like Obama may have stumbled us into WWIII
He intends to lower corporate taxes to encourage industrial growth, lower capital gains taxes so Warren Buffet will invest in more industries and keep the Bush tax cuts so the entire middle class will have more money to spend in making private market decisions from pot to potato chips
YOU SAID IT: “pay DOWN the deficit which is skyrocketing out of control under the Obama plan.
What a loser. You demand to know how Romney will “get us out of debt and then praise the Obama who added $5 Trillion to it for having a wimpy, go nowhere plan to make a tiny effort to “pay down the debt that he is loading on us faster than we can count.
Sorry, mike, your blind, no-legged, deaf, unable to smell, dead dog won’t hunt.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 11:21 am - September 18, 2012
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 10:14 am – September 18, 2012
___________________
What do you think would have happened to the auto industry if GM and Chrysler had gone through a managed bankruptcy, instead of a mis-managed bailout? Do you think the auto industry would have just collapsed? Do you think all the jobs at GM and Chrysler would have suddenly disappeared?
Here is what would have happened: GM and Chrysler would have remained in business, under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge. The people working at GM and Chrysler (and related industries) would have kept working at their jobs. The union contracts would have been re-negotiated, and many of the union workers would be making less money and receiving fewer benefits than they are now. IOW, the salaries/benefits of workers at GM and Chrysler would now be more in line with those of auto workers at other, non-union auto plants in the U.S. Stockholders at GM and Chrysler would have lost their investments (as they did anyway), and bondholders would have lost much of their investments (but not as much as they lost under Obama’s bailout, in which he ignored bankruptcy laws concerning the priorities of creditor classes). The UAW would not have been “gifted” a huge ownership stake in GM (another Obama “freebie” to his union supporters — courtesy of taxpayers).
Yes, some people would have lost their jobs in a managed bankruptcy, and some of those jobs would be gone forever — but the same thing happened as a result of Obama’s bailout. After a bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have emerged in a leaner, more competitive condition — which would have made GM’s long-terms prospects much better than they are now. [After Obama's bailout, Chrysler was sold off to the Italians, and U.S. taxpayers still own a large part of GM (an "investment" that is rapidly declining in value)]. And as I said in my earlier comment, GM still owes taxpayers $20 billion that we will probably never recover, and many industry analysts predict that the final tally of the auto bailout losses ultimately will be much higher than that.
The bailout was unnecessary, foolish, and a huge waste of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. There is simply no way to spin it to make it look good.
Comment by Observer — September 18, 2012 @ 11:23 am - September 18, 2012
bull twinkies that we needed the auto bailout.
What would have happend if we had no bailout? nothing.
Just like when US auto companies were failing in the 70s as well as the higher gas prices, auto plants started to close. The laid off auto workers were then “re-hired” by the other more successful foreign companies who built new plants throughout the USA such as in Kentucky. Then once US manufacturers started bldg more fule-efficient auto models, the US companies started rehiring.
GM and the rest of the current sucky companies that dont know how to make a profit would have had to file for bankruptcy. That doesnt even mean you close the doors. It means you ‘restructure’. Sure there might be lay offs but other companies, LIKE FORD WHO KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A PROFIT, would pick up those employees or other more successful auto manufacturers. What is so bloody difficult about that?
And the same dang thing should have been done with the banks. You dont succeed then you file for bankruptcy and restructure.
dang this makes me so upset that people feel we need bailouts for eveything. Its pathetic. do people think we have an endless & infinite supply of money in this country?
you can take all of the personal income from every person in this country and we will still be in debt for a century.
when is this devouring of money, getting public funds for doing nothing but failing, going to end?
Comment by dark rabbitt — September 18, 2012 @ 11:25 am - September 18, 2012
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what… who are dependent upon government… These are people who pay no income tax.”
“The most damning part of this quote? It’s true. We can all parse whether or not this was felicitously delivered, but the bottom line is that it’s absolutely accurate.”
“”In 2008, Obama lost Georgia by 5 percentage points but he won 70% of voters who earned less than $30,000 — which is precisely the demo most likely to owe no federal income tax. Obama lost Mississippi by 14 percentage points, but picked up 66% of voters who earned less than $30,000. As a general rule, Republicans win among richer voters — both in the red states and the blue.”
Comment by Passing By — September 18, 2012 @ 11:36 am - September 18, 2012
In the real world, the so-called @MittRomney “gaffes” are truth. The #MSM is worthless garbage since they refuse to cover Obama gaffes.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — September 18, 2012 @ 11:49 am - September 18, 2012
Levi, your pathological hatred of the rich is eating your brain. Take a long look at this:
Strip the rich of their yachts and mansions and who will buy them? Will the realtors get commissions, will the lawn keepers keep busy, will the restaurants at the piers and the boat mechanics and the builders keep sailing along? Will the markets suffer from the loss of investment from the formerly wealthy? Will Wal-Mart be upscale and the Thrift Store be the place to shop?
How do you Marxists plan to fund and run your utopian commune?
I have a 10 year old car and an 8 year old car. Each is in fine working order and I will keep them until they collapse. But, I just bought a new car (for only two people) because I am totally cynical about your people and your idea of how wealth is created.
I took the longest financing I could get from the manufacturer (66 months) and I am paying .06% interest on the loan. I am betting you clowns will drive inflation to the sky and my “last” car will be almost a gift because I will be paying 2012 currency at minimal interest costs while the new cars down the road will either be stripped to the frames or priced in highly inflated dollars.
Think about it: I am dropping out of your inflated economy as fast as I can. My dollars are gold and sliver. My house is long since paid for. I even have policies (if you don’t bankrupt the insurers) to cover senility care for two.
Sorry pal, but your faith and dependence on the government is going to rot the bottom out of your tin cup.
The possibility of a world financial collapse is not remote. Are you really prepared to look true poverty in the face? Do you have your food supply and personal protection in place? Can you purify your own drinking water?
Now you are going to call me a radical survivalist and rightwing nut case of undetermined race and color, with a belief in spooky religion and a “me-firster.” Well, if I never have to shoot or purify my water or generate electricity on my own or eat survival food, what have I lost? A small amount of preparation and investment. And where are you if Utopia does not break out and massage your ego daily? Moaning about the rich.
Happy trails, partner, hope you can build a campfire in the rain and you have some beans for the pot and those coyotes, human or otherwise don’t eat your lunch without so much as a thank you.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 11:58 am - September 18, 2012
Mitt Romney up to bat, liberal media pitches “Switch Up”
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-up-to-bat-liberal-media.html
The liberal media is predictable, trying to distract from the disastrous (leading from behind) foreign policy in the middle east.
Obama already wrote off white blue collar voters why isn’t that in the news cycle?
Comment by keyboard jockey — September 18, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - September 18, 2012
…for those who support Obama’s socialistic central state, you do realize it has failed in Europe TWICE:
1) first it failed behind the Iron Curtain in 1989, the fruit of the bloody Russian Revolution…
2) …and now it is failing/hemorrhaging in the Velvet Curtain of 20th century european socialism, the fruit of the bloody French Revolution.
Why would anyone want to promote a failed economic/social system such as european socialism/communism?
why if it is doomed to failure & has been proven to fail throughout history?
why when it is funded on a finite commodity such as money from taxes?
Comment by dark rabbitt — September 18, 2012 @ 12:07 pm - September 18, 2012
People are bagging groceries, driving cabs, and waiting tables – it’s not enough money. If you do get tired of doing those jobs, getting an education is prohibitively expensive and no longer makes much of a difference in helping you getting a better job. You know as well as I do that there are people in that 47% who are working harder and longer than you or I ever will, and they’re never going to get anywhere for it. The reason that this is happening is because a greater and greater share of the wealth is going to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. The rich guys set up the system to favor the rich guys, that’s why Romney is paying a smaller percentage of his income as taxes than everyone else, including those that pay no income tax at all. That’s the real problem with the economy, and it has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work.
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - September 18, 2012
Levi, you do all the jobs. You put part time jobs together. You are always looking for another. He keep your contacts a Lowe’s so you can edge in there. You wash windows in your “free time.” You keep working at working. You take risks. Cut out the “fun” and stretch the rice and beans and discover the egg.
You pay yourself first and you establish your path. The management will usually recognize who will be there on time with a good attitude and willing to do more. Every manager worth his salt wants a whole shop of go-getters. They manager worth his salt works as hard at the job as his go-getters. Every great manager is looking for workforce leaders who aspire to build the team and go the extra mile. If you are not available for more time because of your taxi gig, in all probability the manager will increase your hours if you are an asset. Figure it out for yourself. You don’t get there by bitching on a computer to the great unknown.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - September 18, 2012
levi, how are you & the communist democrat party any different from the communists that came before you?
the soviet union & other eastern european communists bled the rich dry, crushed their mansions & churches and the iron curtain still fell down due to no more money. The same with socilist/commie france, greece, italy, & spain.
the well is bled dry. what more can you do?
you can keep pumping gas in your godless welfare nanny state gaz-guzzler but your mileage is not going to ever get any better.
Comment by dark rabbitt — September 18, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - September 18, 2012
That’s the answer, huh? Tired of your crappy, low-paying job? Get three crappy, low-paying jobs! Oh, and don’t complain about it!
Oh wow, thanks so much for the advice. You know, for the past few years I’ve just been sitting in my parent’s basement smoking crack and committing voter fraud so I could get more food stamps, but you’re right maybe I will get a job that thought hadn’t occurred to me…
Comment by Levi — September 18, 2012 @ 1:02 pm - September 18, 2012
At first, and even now, I have never been excited about Romney. He’s just not a person to get excited about. However, I like it when a person succeeds. I like to see success and I support it. Romney has done just that. As the campaign has progressed Romney has said a few things that has really upset me. I even took the time to send the Romney campaign an email letting the know that I would not be contributing financially. And now comes these latest comments. I applaud Romney for what he has said. He is the only politician that has spoken the truth. And now the crying media wants to pull on everyone’s emotions. Let’s face facts, Romney is correct. If you believe otherwise, please post and tell us where Romney’s wrong. At this point, Romney still will not receive and financial donations from me but he will receive something more important…my vote. Thank you Mr. Romney for doing what other politicians have failed to do over my lifetime…and that is to tell the truth!
Comment by A. Friend — September 18, 2012 @ 2:17 pm - September 18, 2012
Nope. that’s not the answer. Add incomes and keep your expenses low until you can acquire more income and realize more “free” time. You are in control of your own treadmill. If you can’t take life with gratitude, I guess you will just have to have a Steve Jobs type epiphany.
It is becoming clearer as you expose yourself that you do not value hard work and determination. So, maybe you are good faerie material. Bake some cookies and hang out a welcome sign. Maybe a millionaire will drop by and throw a pound of gold on your door step.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - September 18, 2012
*claps at heliotrope’s evisceration of the racist.*
One other ‘tell’ in Levi’s rants. He doesn’t believe that the guy who starts work at the company answering phones can work his way through to quality and project management. He doesn’t believe the woman processing claims at the entry level can better her way to managing the site. (both examples from my workplace).
Levi believes once you find an entry level job, it’s all you’ll ever do, so big government better take from the person who applied himself because you’re stupid and will never advance.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 18, 2012 @ 3:39 pm - September 18, 2012
Yup, it IS the answer.
I worked no less than three jobs in college — lunch shift every weekday at Pizza Hut, Friday and Saturday nights busing tables at the country club until 10 PM, and then going directly from that to clean the floors and furniture at another restaurant until 2 AM.
All while playing football to keep that scholarship, keeping my grades above the 3.5 required to keep my academic scholarship, and interning with a veterinarian (for nothing) to get the required hours of experience for veterinary school.
Why? Because I wanted a college education, and I understood from my parents the value of hard work.
And then when I first moved to Dallas in the bottom of the 2000 recession, I strung together three jobs — waiting tables every shift I could get, working for a temp agency, and DJ’ing at night — until I was finally able to get a regular full-time job in 2002.
Why? Because I wanted to live where I did and be independent. And now, because I worked those long hours, I have an excellent education, I’m debt-free, and I can afford to do pretty much whatever I want to do.
Your problem is simple, Levi: you’re lazy. Lazy, lazy, LAZY.
You and your fellow Obama supporters don’t want to work and don’t want to acknowledge that you’re too lazy to work, so you invent all sort of rationalizations NOT to work — and reasons why you should be rewarded for not working.
Example:
No, I DON’T know that — because it is exactly opposite to my own experience, that of my siblings, and that of my cousins.
Probably because we all learned from our parents these simple rules:
1) If you want nice, you have to work for it
2) If you want nice, you have to save for it
“The rich” are not the problem, Levi. “The rich” are more than happy to pay for superior work, superior product, and superior value. You just won’t get up off your ass and put in the necessary hours to do it, so instead you whine and cry about how “the rich” are stealing from you and use that as an excuse for not even trying. Worse, you then use that fantasy, that LIE that “the rich” are stealing from you to demand reparations.
No one owes you a damn dime, Levi. You are a liar, a cheat, a thief, and a fraud. Your attempt, along with that of your disgusting Barack Obama to scream and mooch under the guise of “you didn’t build that” is nothing but a complete and total fraud.
You want nice? Get your ass up and work for it. You want nice? Save for that instead of blowing every penny on drinks or music downloads.
What Romney did and said was very simple. You and your fellow Obama mooches are NEVER going to choose work over welfare. You are NEVER going to earn your own living rather than sucking off the effort-free government teat. You are NEVER going to start paying your own bills instead of demanding that other people save you the effort and pay them for you. And you are NEVER going to stand on your own two feet when you can just lay in the government-provided hammock, eat the government-provided food, and demand the government-provided labor of others.
And yes you DO want more people on welfare and not paying taxes. If someone is on welfare, they are the politician’s slave. They cannot revolt because the politician will cut off their food and funding. The one thing Obama loathes more than anything else is a self-made independent person — because those people cannot be threatened or starved into submission.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - September 18, 2012
Of course, Livewire.
That’s because it is Levi’s own experience. He isn’t CEO of the company by now, despite his own self-proclaimed superiority, so he thinks the entire game is rigged.
One has to realize that leftists’ belief in “The Man” is fueled by an absolute belief in their own superiority. In Levi’s mind, he is the smartest, most educated, and most hardworking person that his company ever hired; therefore, his failure to advance is proof that a) he’s being discriminated against and b) “the rich” are rigging the game against him.
This is again what Mitt Romney was talking about. You are never going to convince Levi that his customer service skills suck. You are never going to convince Levi that he needs to stop blaming his coworkers for his mistakes. Levi’s entire worldview revolves around his own perfection, and he is stuck on dancing to Barack Obama’s rants that “the rich” are keeping him down and that they need to be punished.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - September 18, 2012
I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I should think that if taxing the rich were the answer, it would be beneficial to encourage people to become rich rather than declaring war on them.
Bloomberg has a story about how graduates from a mining school are making better money than Harvard grads. Folks are moving to the Dakotas and northern New England and making good money in mining and oil drilling. One can work on a rig and make $25-30/hr. and don’t need much of an education. Not to mention, a lot of folks are doing well in jobs serving the miners and rig workers.
There’s a political party in America that wants to shut all that down. Guess which one.
Now you have provided ample evidence of that. Too bad you don’t provide evidence of anything else you post.
Comment by TGC — September 18, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - September 18, 2012
Levi is an insular progressive provincial who has no patience with any diversity that does not mesh with his opinions and complement his world view. He belongs dead in the center of New York City which ground zero for his type of bigotry.
Anyone who has ever started up a small business knows that two weeks into the project and Levi would be looking for a way to get out. He would be stamping around demanding all his time and investment be returned to him and he would be stiffing everyone who extended him credit.
He has only moral relativism and situation ethics as his guide and he has a lazy, victim’s view of reality, so he is pre-programmed to fail.
I’m tired of running Levi down, but he just keeps throwing all the Obama BS around and he is so annoying in his naiveté. When we builders get this country back, Levi is going to have to develop a character in order to earn his way. Anybody who freeloads and whines is not a particularly good candidate for much more than a Nobel Prize or a discount on a NYT subscription.
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - September 18, 2012
from david brooks:
The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view – from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.
read the whole thing it pretty much sums up why the repub party is becomibg a fringevoice.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.xml
Comment by mike — September 18, 2012 @ 5:33 pm - September 18, 2012
I find the rants of brainless partisan hacks rarely, if ever, have substance.
David Brooks? Seriously? The guy who voted for Obama based on the crease in his pants? I mean, arguing to authority is a fallacy to begin with. Arguing to sheer elitist idiocy is another animal entirely.
Comment by V the K — September 18, 2012 @ 5:56 pm - September 18, 2012
Next, he’ll be citing Andrew “Milky Loads” Sullivan as a source. (Sarah Palin’s magic uterus, anyone?)
Comment by V the K — September 18, 2012 @ 5:59 pm - September 18, 2012
I gotta defend Levi just slightly here:
Yeah… they’re called DEMOCRATS. Ever heard of the Kennedys? Jon Corzine? Yes, they set up the system to favor themselves. Democrat Jon Corzine openly looted his customers’ accounts, breaking any number of securities laws including fraud… and he isn’t in jail. That’s a rigged system.
Also the public employee unions, with their outrageous salaries and benefits… the teachers’ unions. Or the general debauching of the currency to benefit the Big Government + Big Banking nexus (+ Big Labor as lesser partner), as I most recently discussed here: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/09/15/guest-post-fed-says-beatings-to-continue-until-morale-improves/
Levi is indeed a malicious fool. The greatest fool is the one who has NO IDEA what an fool he is. It’s difficult, with Levi, to separate out how much of his views are malice, vs. pure foolery. It’s clear that Levi froths with envious hatred of those who have advanced themselves by honest initiative and, dare I say it, self-discipline. But it takes a special brand of plain stupidity to then construct a narrative of the world in which the solution to the system’s rigging is to support the very politics that rigged it – namely, left-wing politics, the preferred politics of the Big Government / Big Banking / Big Labor nexus. Levi seems to be in the grip of a form of Stockholm Syndrome, a perverse fantasy that the very people who are destroying the middle class are somehow good guys, who somehow, one day, will use their malevolent Big Government measures to help Levi.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 6:17 pm - September 18, 2012
#53: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And who better than the original GOP fringevoice David Brooks to scold Romney from the pages of the New York Times about how he’s not being sufficiently Reagan-esque for Brooks and his Manhattan colleagues.
NO ONE, not even you mike, give a flying fu*k what David Brooks has to say. He has absolutely no influence whatsoever on the GOP or any of its candidates, and his job is solely & exclusively writing vapid columns for liberal tools like you to post as purported evidence of the terrifying ‘extremism’ of the Republican Party. That, and acting as a general punchline for conservatives when they need a synonym for “failed journalism career.”
It’s actually quite sad that you thought you could pull that TIRED move on this blog. What’s next on the agenda? Maybe you can scurry off to the Daily Beast/Newsweek and then REALLY sock it to us with a super-pessimistic, disapproving David Frum column. Yeah, go work on that! Because we always get to have a huge laugh over a Brooks column, but with a Frum column, we get to laugh AND point at the same time! It’s just more fun. So, hop to it, lazy.
Comment by Sean A — September 18, 2012 @ 6:19 pm - September 18, 2012
(continued) They won’t. Levi, the amount pie that YOU are getting will never be any bigger than it is right. If your left-wing politics wins: You will not be among the first to receive the benefits; you’re too small. By the time any benefits get to you, the pie will have been destroyed… by the left-wing measures that were taken.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - September 18, 2012
I love the cognitive dissonance of lefties like David Brooks and mike who scream that Mitt Romney “desn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own” while they berate him for making such large charitable donations.
Meanwhile, mike, David Brooks, and the rest of the Obama Party are busy providing safety nets in the form of liquor-stocked private airliners, lavish Hollywood parties, and rent-subsidized apartmentsfor deprived Obama Party multimillionaires who would otherwise have to spend their own money.
If a church leader took up a collection for the poor and spent it on lavish parties, subsidized housing, and private jets for themselves, you and David Brooks would have an aneurysm. You would scream that they were lying, that they were cheating, and that they should never be allowed to hold any sort of position of authority.
Hold your Obama Party to the same standard — or demonstrate that both you and David Brooks are hypocritical lying bigots.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2012 @ 6:36 pm - September 18, 2012
Yeah… the ones called LEFTISTS. You know, the ones who had the bank regulators tell the banks to make subprime loans – and who then securitized the subprime loans at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Bawney Fwank’s husband, anyone), all funded by the easy money from the central bank that left-wingers can never get enough of. ‘Good’ job, Levi!
FIFY, Levi.
It’s called “bankruptcy”, Levi. Look into it. You already have it available to you.
… which is a defense of the bailouts. Translation: Levi supports the bailouts, just like most leftists.
NO. Bailouts ARE the disease; that is, the Big Government Bail-Me-Out-Now mentality IS the disease. You just think the bailouts should have gone to you, Levi. But they never will.
Not if they’re 12. But if they’re 52? Yes actually, it is.
I could go on, but most everything Levi has to say is just so… stupid. It would waste my time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - September 18, 2012
A couple stories about work ethic.
I know a guy whose middle-class family gave him $0 in financial assets, who worked his whole life to be smarter and better at whatever he was doing. He spent years educating himself. He spent decades busting his butt at work. He also saved his money (he didn’t choose to just go out and blow it, like so many do), and maintained his health. All of that speaks to his initiative and self-discipline. Last year, he said “Time for some early retirement” and quit his job. He did NOT depend on the government: he carefully provided for himself. After quitting, the company begged him to come back – for an hourly wage that he would not want me to quote.
I know another guy, much younger, whose middle-class family gave him $0 in financial assets. He’s not briliant; he was lucky to finish high school. But he did. He is sensible and hard-working. Supposedly, no one in his area could get jobs. He got one. They love him. It’s only $10/hour but he is bursting with pride that the money he earns lets him take his girlfriend out.
I know another guy, again young, who got into drugs and alcohol in a bad way and committed felony vandalism. Faced with jail, he straightened himself up by joining the Marines. They gave him a path, they gave him a lot of encouragement – but HE cleaned himself up. Guess what? He is also the type of young man that always has a job in his pocket.
Moral of the story: even in a terrible economy, employable people are employable people, and find jobs. Because of their discipline, their honesty, their initiative… in short, their work ethic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 18, 2012 @ 6:59 pm - September 18, 2012
Bailouts don’t prevent Global Depression, they only temporarily delay them.
It should hurt to be as stupid as Levi.
Comment by V the K — September 18, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - September 18, 2012
Also, we all know very well that Levi is defending bailouts only because they are the economic policy of his Marxist Messiah, and he is a partisan shill.
Comment by V the K — September 18, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - September 18, 2012
Written by a moron in waiting. A “basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own” is nowhere close to an accurate description of our entitlement programs.
When scads upon scads of people can “afford” to drop out of the employment search, it is in no small part due to the fact that they prefer the comfort of wealth transfer through the welfare system.
When it is no longer inconvenient to be poor, what price do we have to pay for initiative? And what do we get for it, if we pay it?
Comment by heliotrope — September 18, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - September 18, 2012
That’s easy, heliotrope: you get this, this, and this.
Obama voters are leeches. That’s all there is to it. They lie, lie, LIE about the poor; all they want to do is to sit back, claim “disability”, and have other saps pay the bills for them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2012 @ 10:04 pm - September 18, 2012
And heliotrope, I totally forgot about this:
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2012 @ 10:35 pm - September 18, 2012
And how’s that War on Poverty going, jackass? Do we have an exit strategy yet?
Comment by TGC — September 18, 2012 @ 10:59 pm - September 18, 2012
So does my nephew count as the 47% when he is earning combat pay while stationed in Afganistan with the air force? I believe that all Americans put a little into his pocket with, as far as he notices, no noticeable benefit to our economy.
What about the Dept of Homeland Security? Wasn’t that a huge chunk of new spending the government took on to provide a measure of safety? Isn’t that adding to the tax base but being paid by the government?
What about my grandparents and maybe yours who worked all their lives for one company, fought in WW2 and paid taxes through their paychecks till they were forced into retirement with not enough personally saved? Are we as their children and grandchildren not responsible for their wellbeing? Should we do less than a meager contribution each payday to a collective program (SS and medicare) that will keep them and their friends in relative comfort that they deserve?
Has anyone here actually tried to get welfare or disability lately? I am not sure how much harder they need to make it to reduce fraud. I have been through it and it’s almost impossible without a stack of doctor reports and a whole bunch of hassles for little to no money. It’s easier to find a job than get welfare.
With our technology do we really need everyone over the age of 18 working 40 hours / week? I thought that all our advancements was supposed to save us time and make us a richer, safer society.
Comment by DannyBoy — September 19, 2012 @ 9:38 am - September 19, 2012
DannyBoy, sob stories don’t change the hard cold reality that the welfare state is fiscally unsustainable.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2012 @ 10:34 am - September 19, 2012
Thanks DannyBoy; you illustrate beautifully the mental and moral rot that is required to be a member of the leech class.
First, per your whine about the Air Force, right now your nephew is being deprived of what he needs so that insider-trading multimillionaire Nancy Pelosi and her cronies can have free liquor-stocked airliners to fly them around for fundraisers.
So if you really cared about your nephew, DannyBoy, you’d be demanding the money be spent on him rather than Pelosi. So clearly, you don’t.
And I suppose you’d like government-subsidized housing for your grandparents, too. But they can’t have it because multimillionaire tax-dodging Obama Party leaders are using it instead.
So if you really cared about your grandparents, you’d be demanding the money be spent on them instead of Rangel. So clearly you don’t.
And we won’t even get into the hundreds of billions of dollars that you and your Obama Party took from Medicare to ensure that you don’t have to pay for your abortions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 11:11 am - September 19, 2012
These some of the responses I expected although I hoped for a couple of answers.
@V the K – Sure our current spending is unsustainable. We are no where near the level of a “welfare state” when compared to other western countries who offer a higher amount of government services with a GDP to debt ratio that is much lower. I ask questions the goal is to learn something not to be stated back the obvious.
@North Dallas Thirty – Pelosi? Really? So her stupid government sanctioned expenditures which amount to a few million are the reason for the last 40 years of growing National Debt in the trillions? All of congress have perks they use to the max no matter what party they are in.
My nephew is very well taken care of by the air force that is not an issue at all. He doesn’t pay income tax when all his deductions are factored in over a year. He just doesn’t understand what benefit he is providing to the US economically by guarding planes in a landlocked country on the other side of the world that has no political or resource value. The value he sees by being there is that the USA is taking on a moral and social commitment to the welfare of people who live in that part of the world who are not being properly taken care of by their own government. Isn’t that what governments are supposed to do all over the world? That’s why we get involved in other nations isn’t it to improve the social environment in return for first dibs on the resources? Why do we change the issue to an economic one once it hits our soil?
Everyone has government subsidized housing to a certain extent… even if they have a mortgage on their home. Or do you not claim your interest payments or utilize any government provided subsidies or incentives? My grandparents own their place right out so they don’t even get that anymore.
Clearly, you have no idea how I care about my grandparents or what I demand of my representative in congress to fight for on my behalf.
Abortions? What? Who do you know gets medicare and is able to even get pregnant, let alone have an abortion? The majority of people on medicare are either too young or too old. If your private insurance covers it that’s your option and you pay for it either directly or through your premiums. If you are talking about funding to Planned Parenthood, obviously you have never visited one. It’s a pay for service program except in dire need when payment comes out charitable organizations.
Comment by DannyBoy — September 19, 2012 @ 11:57 am - September 19, 2012
If you don’t want to: then don’t.
What you really mean, of course, is: With our technology, why isn’t everything being handed to me on a silver platter, like all the sci-fi shows and cartoons said?
But they do. A person on welfare in the U.S. today lives better than royalty did, 200 years ago.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 19, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - September 19, 2012
Yes, I do.
You DON’T want to care for your grandparents or pay for them out of your own pocket, which is why you are whining and crying and demanding that the rest of us pay their bills for them while you raid their Medicare so you can get free abortions.
And this was classic:
Dodge, deny, and spin.
If it’s such a small amount, then why won’t you state that she’s an idiot for spending it and demand that she stop?
And if you won’t even confront her over her wasting millions of government dollars, what on earth should make us think that you would confront her over trillions?
You have zero concept of money. None. Every dollar she wastes is another dollar that is taken out of other peoples’ pockets and away from NECESSARY government programs. And you won’t do a damn thing about it other than bleat and cry that it’s OK because everyone does it.
And this was even better:
You are saying that anyone who claims mortgage interest or uses government subsidies or incentives is the same as Rangel, a tax cheat who committed welfare fraud.
This is depraved. This is sick. This shows how you are nothing more than a leech who will justify outright WELFARE and TAX FRAUD by your Obama Party.
You won’t confront your Obama Party leaders. Indeed, you sit there and spin excuses for them wasting money and committing welfare fraud and tax fraud.
How dare you come here and try this, you sick depraved sociopath? You go on and on and on about your grandparents and your nephew when you support, endorse, and make excuses for the Obama Party leaders who are openly wasting their tax dollars and spitting in the face of those who follow the law?
You don’t CARE about your nephew or grandparents. You are only using them to justify your Obama Party’s desperate fraud and your leeching. You would leave your grandparents to starve — and in fact, that’s exactly what you’re threatening unless we give you welfare checks and allow your Pelosi, Rangel, and the rest of the gang to steal the Treasury blind.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 12:27 pm - September 19, 2012
Our national debt explosion is rooted in the Great Society entitlement explosion of the 1960s and 70s. The trillions spent on poverty since then are why we have a parasite class in this country with $200 sneakers, $500 iPhones who whine and screech over a.$20 copay to visit a doctors office or $9 a month for birth control.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - September 19, 2012
Oh, and DannyBoy, here’s the reality of what you and your Obama Party actually do and say.
And that’s all your whining and screaming is about. You are using your grandparents and your nephew to demand a free check.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - September 19, 2012
So now Big Business is a purely Democratic constituency, I guess?
Of course the system is rigged, and its becoming more so every day. The Republican and Democratic Parties remain the only viable political parties, despite their failures and unpopularity, and still no one can imagine them ever going away or being seriously challenged. Which group is in charge of the government at any given moment is increasingly irrelevant, since they’re both representing the same narrow, constituency, the one that pays them.
I suppose I should be grateful that you at the very least acknowledge that Big Banking is a villain in this scheme, though how you don’t recognize it as the central one continues to befuddle. It’s abundantly clear that the vast majority of our elected politicians are hand-picked by corporations and wealthy donors, who expect a return on their investment should their preferred candidate win. It seems to me that this is the source of the corruption in our political system, and I haven’t seen you present a plausible alternative. Ideally, the electorate is supposed to be voting for-sale politicians out of office, but that’s been taken care by the corporatization of journalism. A few consolidated media empires remain, now motivated by page views and Facebook likes, caring not at all about accuracy and mostly interested in preserving the illusion of a horse race to boost ratings.
Giant companies decide who runs in these races, giant companies decide what we know about the appointed candidates, giant companies have on-demand access to their newly-elected representatives, and giant companies are waiting in the wings with millions of dollars and job offers for retiring politicians that have pleased them. But government is the source of all this corruption? That doesn’t make any sense.
Government has its disadvantages, but so do capitalist economic systems. If we’re going to entrust these institutions with any kind of power, we ought to have checks and balances on them. The government has its checks, in that we could theoretically elect 535 new Senators and Representatives in 2 months if we wanted to. But if you’re content to let the profit motive be the only check on big business, then expect to continue seeing the exact same kind of corruption for the rest of your life. Buying a politician is cheap and easy and rewarding, making it considerably less risky than most other investments.
Comment by Levi — September 19, 2012 @ 2:14 pm - September 19, 2012
And in all of Levi’s excuse-making blather, here we come to the crux of the matter.
Fine, then.
Levi, from this point forward, since you insist profit is evil, profit is awful, profit is corrupting, and that any profit made is stolen from others, you will immediately turn back over to the government any amount that you earn from your own labor that exceeds what government dictates you should be spending on basic housing, food, and clothing.
Do you understand? You oppose anyone having any excess income or disposable income whatsoever because that represents profit. You oppose anyone being rewarded for working harder or more efficiently and thus making a profit on their labor. Therefore, you will IMMEDIATELY cease buying anything other than basics, anything other than simple subsistence, anything more than the bare minimum of space which you need to live, and return any and all excess amount that you earn to the government for redistribution to others.
And you will continue to work the same amount and at the same intensity.
Screaming brat, this is what you demand of others. Practice it yourself. You scream and whine and cry that no one should make a profit off their labors; from this point forward, that’s going to include you.
Either answer or by your silence acknowledge that you’re a pathetic, sick, bigoted little sociopath who demands of others what you will not practice or live by yourself.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - September 19, 2012
#76: “It’s abundantly clear that the vast majority of our elected politicians are hand-picked by corporations and wealthy donors, who expect a return on their investment should their preferred candidate win. It seems to me that this is the source of the corruption in our political system, and I haven’t seen you present a plausible alternative.”
Bullsh*t, Levi. Conservatives have proposed a plausible alternative. Smaller government, lower taxes, less government restrictions on the private sector, and an end to multi-trillion dollar annual deficit spending. You see, if politicians have less power, less taxpayer money to funnel to their Solyndra-esque cronies, and fewer oppressive regulations to selectively enforce against companies that haven’t sent them fat checks (Gibson Guitar), then the incentive for corporations to purchase influence in DC would evaporate.
But naturally, since you’re total fu*king imbecile with an irrational hatred of business and a delusional belief in the benevolence of government, your solution is to give the leftist politicians holding your strings MORE POWER, MORE TAXPAYER FUNDS TO FUNNEL TO THEIR CRONIES, AND MORE OPPRESSIVE REGULATIONS TO PUNISH THEIR CRONIES’ COMPETITORS.
Levi, if you really had a problem with elections being bought and political power being for sale, you’d get behind conservative policies to close down the candy store. Instead, you blindly (aggressively, ignorantly, irrationally, hopelessly,…) crusade for the party that wants to expand it into f-ing Disney World. You are a LIAR and a LOSER.
Comment by Sean A — September 19, 2012 @ 3:00 pm - September 19, 2012
So, Levi believes that only corporations can corrupt politics. The billions spent by Big Labor are, or course, benign.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - September 19, 2012
This is where I think we lean towards Levi being a malicious fool.
The problem is that Levi doesn’t actually see anything wrong with what he rants about. He doesn’t care about corruption, etc.; what he cares about is benefitting from and being in power for the corruption.
We can see this by the malicious fool’s slobbering over Obama. Levi bragged that he and his fellow Obama supporters had lied to people to get Obama into power. It strains credibility to believe that Levi suddenly had an epiphany after Obama got into power to figure out just what Obama was and is. Add to that the fact that, despite all his attempts to sigh and pretend how “concerned” he is about Obama’s abuses of power, he continues to lie and repeat Obama’s lies to ensure that Obama STAYS in power.
This is where people with common sense utterly destroy con men like Levi. That’s what Levi is, an amoral con who will say and do anything without remorse or concern to get what he wants. Watching him, observing him, and quoting him back at himself makes that totally and completely obvious.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 3:32 pm - September 19, 2012
What about the conservative platform is supposed to make buying politicians any more difficult? Are lower taxes supposed to do that? Are fewer regulations supposed to do that? How are these policies supposed to translate into industries and corporations not buying politicians?
I can’t believe you guys are actually trying to pass off this idea that Democrats are the party of the big, corrupt businesses, and that the Republicans are crusading for the little guy. I’ll freely admit that the Democrats and Republicans are just as for sale, but let’s not pretend that the Republicans didn’t invent this game.
Comment by Levi — September 19, 2012 @ 4:38 pm - September 19, 2012
Labor’s influence has been waning for decades, corporations are bigger and more powerful than they ever have been. That’s not a coincidence, by the way.
Comment by Levi — September 19, 2012 @ 4:43 pm - September 19, 2012
I love coming to this site because of the excellent comments and responses to idiotic fools like Levi.
There are some really good comments about economics among thost responses
Australia has had similar problems and like a fool the current ALP government in Australia gave General Motors and Ford bailout money. All of it was wasted giving union workers higher pay.
Upon reflection, I think that bailouts are bad because they do not attack the problem. Bailouts are bad because they are like band-aids or more like the medicine you take for a chronic disease where you will continue with the chronic disease and the medicine only masks the symptoms.
The problem itself is the structure of the mentality that allows government to interfere in corporate life. I am not talking about necessary regulation. I am talking about what took place with these bailouts. They have achieved nothing because no restructuring took place.
In European countries, where there have been bailouts, people have been screaming about the austerity measures put in place. Spain and Ireland have been the most consistent with their austerity measures. The Greek population has been screaming blue murder. The bailout to Greece was wasted money because there is no desire for real change in the practices that have brought about their ruin. It is the same in those other countries. It is necessary to deal with the waste of money. If that means shutting down those windfarms… then it has to be done!!
Comment by StraightAussie — September 19, 2012 @ 5:17 pm - September 19, 2012
@ILoveCapitalism
No, I don’t mean that at all. I have a business and put in 60+ hours a week. I pay all my taxes and take deductions wherever it’s legal. I work because I enjoy what I do and I happen to be good at it so I make good money doing it.
What I am getting at is that I hire people because they have credentials to do the job but I soon find that they hate doing the work and produce crap because of it wasting my time and money. I would rather see them do something they love doing and contribute to society in a more meaningful way. How many great thinkers and inventors of the past are having an effect on our society today who were by the wealthy, royalty or their local governments to do just that?
People living on welfare are doing better than royalty 200 years ago is something that I can not make a direct comparison with. It doesn’t make sense to me when we factor in the literacy, technological and medical advancements that is the norm today.
@ Dallas North Thirty
You really love your Pelosi and Rangel… Doth protest too much, I believe. You never answer any questions that are being posed by anyone in this discussion while making assumptions about posters that are probably based on some reality that I never experienced even in my years at Texas A&M. I only became a citizen in 2009 so I have yet to decide who I will support in this election but it will probably be whoever you are not.
@V of K
The 60s and 70s were definitely an explosion of all sorts of things as we broke out of the strict conservatism of the 40s and 50s. We tend to go to the extremes on both sides before coming back to a manageable middle. I agree that we definitely have some mismanaged priorities in terms of our spending habits. Those who decry about paying a little bit out of pocket for their own health needs while paying for overpriced crap from china that we don’t really need is sad. I went to the Catastrophic Insurance route and pay cash for medical needs which works out to be a great way to go. Using health insurance for our everyday needs is definitely the wrong way to go for basic and preventative services.
Comment by DannyBoy — September 19, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - September 19, 2012
Under Obamacare, you don’t have the option of buying only catastrophic coverage; a Federal bureaucracy mandates what insurance must cover and it just cover preventive and routine care.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2012 @ 5:38 pm - September 19, 2012
@V the K
I have talked to a number of insurance brokers who say otherwise. The HSA is still available and accepting contributions and there are no plans to transfer that money into other tax savings accounts within the year. It is limiting my risk of going bankrupt because of a health issue which is one of the primary reasons for having the insurance mandate.
Comment by DannyBoy — September 19, 2012 @ 5:55 pm - September 19, 2012
Fine. Pay for them to do so yourself, just like the wealthy and royalty did previously.
Furthermore, as I already pointed out, you’re taking the taxes we already pay to buy private airliners for insider-trading multimillionaires, rent-subsidized apartments for tax cheats, and lavish Hollywood parties for the 1%-ers that complain and whine that we’re not paying them even as they have every single expense covered as they jet off to Spain with a few hundred of their closest friends.
None of that has anything to do with “great thinking” or “inventing”, yet you’re shoveling money down those particular rat holes and screaming that we give you more of it. Furthermore, you blather about “misplaced” spending priorities, yet when confronted with prime examples of them, insist that the person who points them out is avoiding answering.
In short, you’re an arrogant, pissy mooch. You demand that other people do your work, other people pay your bills, and other people give you things. You don’t care about your grandparents, your nephews, art, or inventions; those are just convenient excuses to keep sucking off the government teat while doing as little work as possible.
And no, you’re NOT going to support the candidate I do. As Romney perfectly phrased it, you’re convinced that you are a victim and that you are entitled to mooch off other peoples’ labor in perpetuity. That puts you squarely in the Obama camp along with your fellow moochers who openly admit that they don’t want to work and just want a free check.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 6:03 pm - September 19, 2012
Wrong.
But no one expects you to think or research for yourself. Obama has offered you free stuff, and like a good mooch who thinks he’s entitled to live off others, you haven’t really done any actual research.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - September 19, 2012
Why do corporations buy politicians, Levi?
So they can get favorable tax and regulatory treatment.
So if you want a level playing field, why not reduce taxes and regulations for everyone, instead of just those who can purchase politicians to do it for them?
This is what you don’t get. You keep tying yourself into knots because, little imbecilic fascist that you are, you cannot even comprehend that loosening the chokehold you want government to have on business would actually INCREASE fairness and competitiveness and DECREASE the capability of deep-pocketed companies to buy politicians and regulate their competition out of existence.
Capitalism is way smarter than a stupid fascist like you, Levi. The reason we have corruption in government is because leftists like yourself have made it necessary and profitable to purchase politicians. Instead of building a better mousetrap, you have created a perverse incentive to buy a worse politician.
You will never solve this because you are a fascist who worships government and believes that the more nationalized and under your thumb society is, the better it will be. You have bragged that “progressives” like yourself need to rule dictatorially and drag the rest of society “kicking and screaming” where you want it to go.
Take a lesson from the economies of Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, and the Soviet bloc, all of whom tried or are still trying your system of socialism, Levi. It is NOT pretty.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2012 @ 6:25 pm - September 19, 2012
#81: “What about the conservative platform is supposed to make buying politicians any more difficult? Are lower taxes supposed to do that? Are fewer regulations supposed to do that? How are these policies supposed to translate into industries and corporations not buying politicians?”
Brick wall. I just explained it to you (as did ND30), Levi, but you’re clearly just too far gone on the insidious leftist poison you’ve been fed since kindergarten. It’s taken away your ability to reason and process new information and ideas, and now all you can do is recite the same stale leftist talking points over and over again.
If you want to stop corporations from buying elections, take away the bureaucrats’ power to sell it to them. It’s that simple, you poor slob.
Comment by Sean A — September 19, 2012 @ 8:58 pm - September 19, 2012
It has never occurred to Levi that the ability to buy politicians would be irrelevant if Government weren’t so large and powerful.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2012 @ 10:06 pm - September 19, 2012
So, the punishment (reward) for the corporations and donors who are buying politicians will be to effectively eliminate the politicians, is that it? The government will be so weak and useless that there isn’t anything that a politician could provide a corporation that it couldn’t provide for itself? I wonder what that kind of country looks like in the modern world. How do we maintain the world’s largest military in such a scheme, since politicians wouldn’t be able to hand out defense contracts or build military bases? If your argument is that corporations are tempted to bribe politicians because of the favors they can do, don’t you have to completely remove the ability of politicians to do anything? Even if you limited the power of government to regulate only the thickness of toilet paper, there would crop up a massive lobbying sub-industry dedicated to electing loyal toilet paper thickness regulators…
And I suppose the bad behavior of those who were willing to buy politicians to get an edge on their competition will completely evaporate and in its place will exist nothing but pure, good-natured, free market competitiveness, right? Because government is the only motivation for corporations taking shortcuts and cooking books and cheating and lying – they will automatically stop doing all of these things if they don’t have the government to tempt them. Corporations that actively lobby the government to lower pollution restrictions will be happy and contented when government can’t boss them around anymore, and they will thank the American people by implementing their own, profit-motivated pollution standards that will surely be nothing but beneficial for everyone – is that really what you think would happen?
It sounds to me like you want to solve the problem of bank robbery by getting rid of police departments. I have a better idea – why don’t we elect some politicians that will enforce the laws so we can freeze some accounts, seize some assets, and throw some people in jail? If you want to send the message that bribing politicians is not the right way to run a business, than we should be punishing people who bribe politicians. But then you have a case like Citizens United and the conservatives get all excited, because now corporations can leverage even more of their wealth in determining the outcomes of elections, which everyone should be able to recognize now only perpetuates and exacerbates the problems.
Comment by Levi — September 20, 2012 @ 9:23 am - September 20, 2012
Huh? 1.) a corporation is tempted to bribe a politician or politicians. 2.) The bribe is offered in exchange for “favors” that benefit the corporation. 3.) The politician accepts the bribe and works for the benefit of the corporation.
If you stop the Congressmen from taking bribes, by replacing them with politicians who will not take bribes, Levi posits that you will “completely remove the ability of politicians to do anything.”
Then, the genius offers this:
Of course, as usual Levi’s brain leaps from the fire into the frying pan. He knows that politicians deliver “favors” and that is fine with him. In fact, he as much as says that delivering “favors” is important business as usual in an effective government.
Typically, Levi does not deal with this concept as he has posed it. Suddenly, he is focused on the evil corporations corrupting politicians by “bribing” them to do a favor.
General Motors was a retirement plan with a money hemmoraghing car company trying to support it. Obama threw huge money at General Motors by seizing the assets of GM bond holders, preferred stock owners, shutting down privately held GM dealerships, etc. and GM escaped immediate bankruptcy and the resultant reorganization. The retirement plan group was offered the company by the Obama administration and refused to take it.
So, where is GM today? No Hummer, no Pontiac division, and a Volt fiasco that would have to increase the price by $47,000 per car to sell the car at a break even price. General Motors can’t hire design and business leaders to help them break out their doldrums, because of government imposed wage caps and a loss of confidence in the company by buyers of its products and the company stock. The (hated by Levi) Wall Street smart money says that GM will be back at bankruptcy within 12 months.
GM made an effort to buy the government holdings from the government so that it can be free to reorganize their business and get back on track. Obama refused to sell the government stock.
Why? Because in bankruptcy reorganization any fool can see that the retirement plan is the problem and for GM to survive in any form, it has to get out from underneath it.
So, Levi, how does all that favor giving and freezing and seizing assets and throwing people in jail work in the real world?
Comment by heliotrope — September 20, 2012 @ 11:56 am - September 20, 2012
The auto industry doesn’t have the same stranglehold that the finance, defense, and energy industries have on our government and economy. It’s a great example of a number of things that are wrong with our business culture in this country, but they’re not blowing trillion dollar holes in the economy and getting away without so much as a slap on the wrist. In other words, we have much bigger fish to fry.
It shouldn’t be difficult to imagine how a handful of laws and a few empowered accountants and regulators could have prevented or at least contained the financial crisis, and I’m pretty sure that most of the troublemakers would have straightened right up if they saw a few of their counterparts lose everything and get stiff prison sentences. But this idea that we are supposed to have sympathy with the troublemakers, and that we’re supposed to put our trust in them, and that we should be expected to believe that with fewer rules they will stop behaving badly, just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
Comment by Levi — September 20, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - September 20, 2012
Shorter Levi, “I can’t refute your example, so I’ll ignore it and screw my tinfoil hat on tighter.”
Comment by The_Livewire — September 20, 2012 @ 3:06 pm - September 20, 2012
Which is, of course, why Levi and his fellow “progressives” did the exact opposite.
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. Raines: No, sir.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .
Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:
Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don’t overreact.
I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let’s not do nothing, and at the same time, let’s not overreact. . .
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “Let’s dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,” when that is not what’s called for as a result of what’s happened here. . .
Isn’t that amazing? Levi and his ilk shriek that more regulation is better, that people can’t be trusted, and on and on — and then do the exact opposite.
And what’s that about punishing the lawbreaking? Not when they’re your primary bundler and Wall Street go-to guy.
Again, Levi, no one here is deceived by your lies. You are a desperate little fascist who wants to expand government power and take over private industry and peoples’ lives so you can commandeer other peoples’ property and work for your own benefit. And you will say and do anything, ANYTHING, to get it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 20, 2012 @ 4:04 pm - September 20, 2012
You’re absolutely right, Levi.
In the absence of government control and regulations, companies led by atheists and liberals like yourself will take shortcuts, cook books, cheat, lie, and poison the environment to make a profit.
It’s absolutely logical. There is nothing other than government that will restrain you. The only thing that would prevent you from taking shortcuts, cooking books, cheating, lying, and poisoning the environment is the potential of being punished by the government.
When you phrase it that way, Levi, it makes perfect sense. You have no sense of right and wrong, no moral code other than to make a dollar by any means necessary. The only, repeat ONLY, thing that would force you to behave and carry out your business honestly and fairly is if the government regulated it. Otherwise, you would take shortcuts, cook the books, cheat, lie, and poison the environment to make a profit.
Just say that, Levi. State that you are completely amoral and that, unless it is made illegal to do so and the government regulates it, that you as a businessperson will take shortcuts, cook the books, cheat, lie, and poison the environment to make a profit.
I repeat: Say for the record, say for everyone here, that the only thing, the ONLY thing, that would ever restrain you from taking shortcuts, cooking the books, cheating, lying, and poisoning the environment is the threat of fines, being arrested, and jail time.
That is the way liberals think. Liberals are amoral people who will take shortcuts, cook the books, cheat, lie, and poison the environment unless the government specifically restrains and punishes them. Indeed, to use Levi’s example, if there were no police, he would rob the bank vault. He and his fellow liberals have absolutely no sense of right and wrong, no understanding of good and evil, no moral system other than that produced and enforced for them by government.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 20, 2012 @ 4:16 pm - September 20, 2012
Gee, NDT, do you suppose that the noble red man on his reservation is taking shortcuts, cooking the books, cheating, lying, and poisoning the environment since the noble red man is free of government regulation? Is that why they are so stinkin’ rich? I hate driving by a reservation with all the foul water, industrial smoke and crap floating out over the lands where the government rules.
Comment by heliotrope — September 20, 2012 @ 5:34 pm - September 20, 2012
Levi really believes that the Financial, Energy, and Defense Sectors were completely wild and unregulated until Obama took over.
How ignorant can one be?
Comment by V the K — September 20, 2012 @ 7:46 pm - September 20, 2012
Well, there is Baghdad Bob reassuring everyone that the tanks pulling down the statues of Saddam are a mirage.
Comment by heliotrope — September 20, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - September 20, 2012
And there it is, in a nutshell: Levi is all about Looting Teh Moneez.
Which we already knew
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 21, 2012 @ 7:42 pm - September 21, 2012
Why I am now SO voting for Obama:
Because I want nothing to do with Romney and the rest of the
Greedy Old Pricks.
Comment by Richard R — September 21, 2012 @ 7:44 pm - September 21, 2012
Actually, that’s a lie, Richard Rush; you’re all about supporting greedy old pricks.
But we can’t expect better from you. After all, as the FRC shooter showed, you and your fellow liberal gays are really nothing more than mentally-ill unhinged murderers who are so desperate that they will endorse and support killing people to get what they want.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2012 @ 1:28 am - September 22, 2012