Aug 14, 2012
Print This Post
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will deliver a powerful rebuke of President Obama’s campaign this evening. His remarks come after Vice President Joe Biden told supporters “They’re going to put y’all back in chains” — speaking about Republicans.
The Obama campaign later said the president did not have a problem with Biden’s statement.
Following are the excerpts from Romney’s speech:
“For the first time, most Americans believe that our best days are behind us. This is an election in which we should be talking about the path ahead, but you don’t hear any answers coming from President Obama’s re-election campaign. That’s because he’s intellectually exhausted, out of ideas, and out of energy. And so his campaign has resorted to diversions and distractions, to demagoguing and defaming others. This is an old game in politics; what’s different this year is that the president is taking things to a new low.
“It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
“In 2008, Candidate Obama said, “if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.” He said, “if you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” And that, he told us, is how, “You make a big election about small things.”
“That was Candidate Obama describing the strategy that is the now the heart of his campaign.
“His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency. Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower.
“This is what an angry and desperate Presidency looks like.
“President Obama knows better, promised better and America deserves better.
“Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces.
“If an American president wins that way, we all lose.
“But he won’t win that way. America is one Nation under God. American history has been a story of the many becoming one – uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness. Everywhere I go in America there are monuments that list those who have given their lives. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag fighting for a single purpose. They pledged allegiance to the UNITED States of America. So, Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.”
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
Dang!! Take that Obama!
Bravo!
Awesome speech, WoW!!!, im ready for the debates
I thought the speech was week but i agree I cant wait for the debates.
Molly Casas
What's so awesome about a dumbass VP's speech? He has his handlers worried about the fact that he has no discretion about what comes out of his cotton pickin mouth. McKenyan would be wise to replace him before he becomes a bigger liability, but then again this joke of a presidency is something that more than half of the country isn't amused about.
Are you one of those idiots that believe Obama was born in Kenya?
Jay Shepherd
Enough with the that damned overly used question. Your getting too carried away with it, now give it a rest already sweetheart.
Joel Rivera
That would be "you're", not "your".
And I'll take that as a yes.
re: August 18 comment ~ that would be "who", not "that".
And I will assume that don't teach English at Tabb HS!
Denis Peterson
I said it correctly. "That" is the answer I was referring to.
I see YOU didn't PASS English in high school!
Who refers to people. That and which refer to groups or things.
I was wondering how long it would be before Romney took the gloves off. Take that Obama!
"Gloves off"? Who are you kidding? Romney still has his lily-white, money-grubbing hands in those gloves. His speechwriters are well-paid by the Koch brothers.
Ha! Take what? You morons believe anything you read on Fox Republikkkan News don't you. What a joke
Zinger right across the bow. The irony in what Biden said is actually true but about the Democrats.Their goal being to get as many people as possible under the big gov't thumb by removing the welfare work requirement, by keeping people on food stamps. It's not Romney or the Republicans that wants to put everyone in chains, it's big gov't that is actually attempting to put everyone in chains by being forced to rely on gov't and being chained to gov't teat instead of gov't helping people live the American dream.
The Welfare Work Requirement is STILL THERE.
I repeat: IT IS STILL THERE.
Another Conservative mislead by Right-wing lies. Sigh…..
“The Welfare Work Requirement is still there.”
Technically correct but erroneous because of the change in application that the President ordered by Executive fiat when he isn’t Constitutionally (or legally) authorized to do so. The law specifically defined what was to constitute “work” and “looking for work” and forbid any change to those definitions. The President unilaterally, without the required consent of Congress, decided to “allow” states to consider other things, not on the list, as “qualifying” even though they were specifically excluded by the law. If you don’t like the constraints put in place by the law, you get Congress to change the law, not do an end-run around the Constitution by Executive Order. Thus, in pure Orwellian fashion, you get the President, and his sycophant supporters, decreeing that what isn’t “work” will now be considered as “work” for block grant purposes!
I can call arsenic, sugar. But that won’t make is so. The same applies in this case. The President calling what isn’t “work”, “work”, won’t make it so! Only the intellectually lazy and dishonest will continue to assert that what the President did doesn’t constitute a trashing of the applicable statute or the Constitution’s separation of powers principle.
" If you don’t like the constraints put in place by the law, you get Congress to change the law, not do an end-run around the Constitution by Executive Order"
More ideological myopia from you, Daniel. Why don't you get back to me on how many times Bush and his cabal of would-be dictators did an "end-run around"the Constitution AND THE LAW–like that nice "Torture" one?
Personally, Obama's use of them doesn't bother me ONE BIT when you have a Congress that is devoted, sworn, and admitted to obstructing his Presidency and his policies. Blame the Right for whatever you perceive as Obama's "end runs".
“…how many times Bush and his cabal of would-be dictators did an ‘end-run around’ the Constitution and the law…”
The classical definition of “torture” is the infliction of intense pain. Considering the fact that our own military is subjected to the same tactics as what you wish to label as “torture” in order to condition them, your gratuitous usage of the term amounts to dissembling. Further, President Bush asked for, and got, legal opinions on whether any of the interrogation techniques being proposed for usage against verified terrorists, violated the Geneva Conventions. The answer was “No”. I know, you’ll just arbitrarily dismiss this as judge shopping, but you don’t have any evidence to support that. That the techniques were extremely coercive, yes. But any honest opinion concludes that they didn’t qualify as “torture”. [And no, I would not care to be subjected to such techniques, but then again I’m not trying to hide anything or murder a bunch of people either.]
“…you have a Congress that is devoted, sworn, and admitted to obstructing his Presidency and his policies.”
Oh, you poor boy! Besides the fact that you’re ignoring the context of the remarks, just how does that differ from what the Democrats did with Bush? Political parties have a long-standing practice to oppose the policies and direction that the other side wishes to follow. It’s only in this instance that your side seems to imbue it with some nefarious motive to deliberately try and make Obama look bad by hurting the country. Both sides have different ideas on what the country should, and should not, do and to insinuate that Republicans are opposing Obama purely for political gain is a pathetic tactic of the desperate who know that the snake-oil they’ve been successfully selling for decades is finally being shown for the fraud it really is! As someone noted, the problem with the system of government that you’re so enamored with is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Only a fool thinks that we’re not rapidly approaching that point.
As for your assertion that Bush employed Executive Orders to do an end-run around the provisions of the Constitution and/or laws passed by Congress, care to itemize even one case? And be specific.
Daniel–quite simply? BULLSHIP. You're plainly showing your true colors–another Conservative hack, too smart for his own good (but not really), and desperate to paint the Bush experiment as how you WISH it would be remembered than for how it WILL and IS remembered. What is it with your revisionist creeps? GROW UP and accept the responsibility for it, and for your perverted support for it!!
The defense of Torture is amoral, unethical, obscene, depraved. The fact is, for all your crap-semantic dancing, torture is "Torture". And Waterboarding has been condemned as Torture by the majority of the worlds nations. Prior to Bush's END-RUN AROUND THE CONSTITUTION (http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1348) not ONLY in going to war but in authorizing torture (among so many other abuses), people had been PROSECUTED FOR IT RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA! So save your crap rhetoric for one of your ideological lovers.
Not even going to get into Mitch McConnel's declaration of basically "Fook the nation, it's more important to defeat Obama than look out for the good of the country". You spin it all you want to; I already see that that's your wont and ideological cataract.
"…, care to itemize even one case? And be specific." Yeah, sure, OK, Daniel. Go find some other rat in this maze to play with. Given your commentary thus far and your absolute ideological fidelity to revisionism and re-interpretation, I've grown bored of you.
“The defense of Torture is amoral, unethical, obscene, depraved.”
I agree, but I’m not defending torture. I only confine it to being what it’s actually defined as being, not what you only, for political expediency’s sake, wish to smear your opposition with.
Webster’s defines “torture” as, quote: “the infliction of intense pain.” The Geneva Conventions read, in part, “Part I, Article 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession…” And: “It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
You want to enforce a purely political definition of the term and lump any form of coercion in with “torture”. You can get a lot of political mileage out of your stance, but it’s not an honest discussion on the topic. Point blank, the coercive interrogation techniques that you’re going apoplectic about don’t fit the definition of “torture”, by either dictionary standards or by Geneva Convention standards. The actual “revisionist history” that’s going on is being promulgated by you with your attempts to redefine the term to suit a purely political and rigid ideological viewpoint.
As for your reference article (President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture) which you allege contains “proof” that Bush did an end-run around the Constitution and authorized torture, you really ought to learn to read your own reference material because you jump to erroneous conclusions faster than a frog on a hot plate! The article notes (and itemizes) certain interrogation techniques which were, generally, authorized but also notes that those same techniques can’t be used without additional, explicit permission from higher-ups on a case-by-case basis. There’s no evidence that such additional permission was ever given.
Manadel al-Jamadi was killed while in US custody at the prison after being captured by Navy SEALS following the bombing of Red Cross offices in Baghdad, which killed 12 people. The SEALS turned him over to authorities at the prison. While his treatment, subsequently at the prison, does indeed qualify as torture (suspended by his wrists, bound behind his back), you’ll search in vain to find that type of treatment on the list of approved techniques and there’s no evidence that any higher authority approved them. So, you not only don’t have evidence of the White House explicitly approving of using any technique on the list on any prisoner at Abu Ghraib (as was required by the e-mail notes), you can’t even tie how he was treated to the list of approved techniques. The ones who killed him are guilty of, at least, negligent homicide. But only dishonest ideologues try to smear anyone else with what happened.
As for your response to Mitch McConnell’s statement, your deliberate misrepresentation of what was actually stated only serves to highlight your extreme affinity for ideology over truthfulness. If you bothered to read a transcript of the full interview (Top GOP Priority) you’d discover that your out-of-context misrepresentation of the remark isn’t close to the truth. In answer to the question (which immediately followed his making of the remark in question) “Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?”, McConnell answered “If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.” Only to rigid ideologues does that come across as McConnell being more concerned with party politics than with what’s good for the country.
As for your last paragraph, your evasiveness only serves to underscore the point. You have no evidence to support your blind, ideologically driven accusation.
Zizzer Zazzer Zuzz
Hyperlink to Top GOP Priority transcript: http://nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/top-gop-priority-make-obama-a-one-term-president-20101023
You've got enough justifications, excuses, and evasions to fill a Caterpillar 797, Daniel. If Bush didn't authorize torture, who did? And I suppose you'll claim he knew nothing of it. Rrrrright. I hope you're not a lawyer. It's frightening what could happen to the Law under a person of your disposition. But now I see how people like Alberto Gonzales wasn't unique in his slimy reinterpretation of the law and how Conservative thought processes have corrupted the statutes and principles which have undergirded our nation up until the Bush years. You're quite the piece of work, really.
And good GAWD–you're REALLY willing to trust Mitch McConnel?!?! HA HA HA HA HA!!, seriously, I have to sneer at your utter naivete–it's either that, genuine stupidity, or a calculated cynicism that deliberately snubs its nose at (again) what is OBVIOUS to anyone who can put 2+2 together and not look for reasons why it could be anything other than four. Who do you think you're kidding, man?
Look, I really have no more time to waste playing your games of semantics and nitpicking looking-under-every-rock-for-an-excuse games. I've wasted enough time and brain cells on you. C-YA.
Daniel Bartkowski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
"Waterboarding is a form of torture…."
"Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. In an interview for The New Yorker, he argued that "it was indeed torture. 'Some victims were still traumatized years later', he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. 'The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience', he said".[2] Keller also stated in his testimony before the Senate:[31]
Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse."
LEGALITY: "All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. This was affirmed by Saadi v. Italy in which the European Court of Human Rights, on 28 February 2008, upheld the absolute nature of the torture ban by ruling that international law permits no exceptions to it.[184][185] The treaty states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"
"…Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel, on 14 February 2008 testified:
There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law.[207]"
OH, AND UH…..DANIEL?
YOU LOSE.
Well, you could have engaged in an adult discussion about the topic but you chose to indulge yourself and devolve into infantile histrionics instead. By definition, infliction of severe pain is an indelible characteristic of torture. You can’t identify such occurring at any time with any of the authorized methods of interrogation that you’re going apoplectic about, so you substitute a political definition for the term, instead of using the actual one, and then proceed with smear tactics. Words have specific meanings and specific intent when used in context. You don’t get to redefine them to suit your political agenda or prejudices.
Further, for your information, there’s a basic principle of jurisprudence in that laws cannot be made effective retroactively. Legislation outlawing waterboarding didn’t get enacted until January of 2009. Proposed legislation along those lines didn’t get passed by Congress until March of 2008. Therefore, Bradbury’s statement in February of 2008 that waterboarding wasn’t lawful under current law is demonstrably without foundation.
The Geneva Conventions have explicit exceptions when dealing with enemy combatants (terrorists). We’re dealing with murderous thugs who behead people and commandeer commercial airliners to fly them into tall buildings. You choose to ignore the fact, from people who were actually present at such interrogations, that such coercive techniques (not torture) were successful at obtaining actionable intelligence which saved lives. You also fail to address the fact that waterboarding has been extensively used by our military, prior to Bush’s term of office, as part of their conditioning. In a legal sense, your case has been dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
Yeah, well Daniel–it's something about people like you—amoral, disingenuous, responsibility-dodging hucksters who are conceited and vain enough to think that they are smart enough to piss down the back of Reason and call it "rain" that gets my dander up. Oh, the genuine, gold-plated irony of YOU quipping " Words have specific meanings and specific intent when used in context. You don’t get to redefine them to suit your political agenda or prejudices.".
BULLSHIK, Daniel, BULLSHIK.
Don't even try to sell me that crap about Torture not being "torture", Danny Boy. Have YOU been waterboarded? When? Where? Yeah, I'm sure it' NUTHIN! Or are you–as I suspected all along–another Rightwng, pseudo-macho chickenhawk going around reinventing terms and words so that you can feel safe hiding behind your "tortured" twisting of a term that EVERYONE BUT YOU knows is illegal?
In fact, stick that whole paragraph about Torture somehow in your imagination being "legal" as far up your backside as you can manage without breaking your arm, Danny. I don't know how or where you Conservative hacks came up with the idea that with a few like-minded legal perverts and sadists that you could somehow "legalize" Torture? Sorry, but the USA already prosecuted people for it only a decade or two previously; laws don't "wear out over time", buddy, no matter how ardent or fearful those who stand behind them. YOU LOSE AGAIN. And BIG TIME. Do you know that both Bush and Cheney have been declared "Criminals of War" by some countries, and can be arrested and detained for trial on the spot because of their breaking of international law with regard to their conduct during these wars? The "legality" of it exists only in your responsibility-dodging collective Conservative heads!
I had to laugh, honestly, at your ridiculous attempt to try to justify an illegal act by claiming that information was obtained "which saved lives". Again, BULLSHIK. I realize that the RIght has tried in vain to spin and claim that it did–I've even read the Leon Panetta interview, which is vague at best about the efficacy of waterboarding–but the great weight of evidence and personal testimony is that it DECIDEDLY did NOT. And as if that could justify the sheer immorality of it? Plain and simple, Daniel; you're wrong again. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Lastly, it's extremely significant what you said in your last paragraph: " You also fail to address the fact that waterboarding has been extensively used by our military, prior to Bush’s term of office, as part of their conditioning."–EXACTLY, fool. Waterboarding is used to show what the ENEMY might do to an American soldier! AS A FORM OF TORTURE. You are making an untenable and unsustainable correlation between Torture as policy and torture as a despicable war crime. What the hell makes people like you? Oh wait–I forgot–"Fear" makes people like you. You would surrender our honor to your perverted sense of "payback". I vomit at the suggestion.
Let me close with this, Danny Boy–there are two kinds of people in this world. People who use torture, and those who would never let themselves be sundered by becoming what they despise and decry, thus losing any integrity or moral distinction between themselves and that of the enemy. YOU, are obviously NOT of the latter.
The Democrats have tried to put us all in chains. Our necks under the jackboot of an omnipotent state. He is expressing what we God fearing, taxpaying, patriotic Americans are feeling. God bless you Mitt…you have finally grown a pair.
What a load of BS. Where was this attitude when Romney suggested that Obama didn't "understand what it means to be an American," or when Sununu said Obama should "learn to be an American," or Ryan divided the country into "makers" and "takers"? The Republicans have been trying to divide this country for years, but now that it doesn't appear to be working, they're all "Mommy, they're being mean to us!"
I totally agree
I agree with you Jake. Mr. Starnes just wrote an unrelated article the other week about hypocrisy on the left, yet he doesn't criticize Republicans when they compare Obama to Hitler, or state Obama is a secret muslim, or when a conservative congressman (Tom Latham) laughed when a radio talk show host joked that Catholic nuns should be pistol whipped. Can you imagine what Mr. Starnes would have written if Nancy Pelosi laughed at such a thing? Also, not a word of criticism when Congressman Ryan used the term "unshackle" when talking about the economy. Rick Santorum also used the similar words when he was running in the Republican primary. But the best hypocritical act of all was the relentless defending of Chick-Fil-A on how they have a right to state their opinion and how it is wrong to boycott them, and how they need to be strongly supported. Yet, several years ago Fox ripped into the Dixie Chicks for weeks on end when they had the audacity to criticize then President Bush. Fox cheered as people set Dixie Chicks albums on fire and applauded radio stations that banned Dixie Chick music on their airwaves.
I also want to say something nice about Mr. Starnes (yes, you read that correctly). I have been critical of Mr. Starnes on many issues – not all but many – and he has always allowed me to post on his comment discussion board. He has never deleted my posts and has never banned me. I really do appreciate that and give him credit as many of his colleagues on both sides of the political spectrum do not allow that. On a separate but related note: I understand that Mr. Starnes jogs in Central Park frequently and I happen to live right by there and also jog the lower loop several times a week. I am tempted to invite him to join me on a future run as sort of a bipartisan thank you for allowing people to speak their mind on this board. Of course, he will need to jog to my "right" and I to his "left".
I find my posts are still being deleted, though not as frequently. I know others are having theirs deleted as well. And not a single response from Mr. Starnes when challenged on the matter. I'm glad it hasn't happened to you Mary, but don't be deluded into thinking he isn't doing it.
“Also, not a word of criticism when Congressman Ryan used the term "unshackle" when talking about the economy.’
Nice try, but a bogus comparison. The context of Ryan’s Santorum’s remarks was in reference to the mountains of government regulations that hamstring businesses from serving their customers. The context of Biden’s remark was the underlying assertion that Republicans are trying to promote slave labor conditions on the working public. Ryan’s and Santorum’s remarks are true. Biden’s remark was a lie in the classical sense of the word because he knows full well that it isn’t true and he was attempting to pass it off as if it were true in order to deceive.
As for the Chick-fil-A flap and comparison with the Dixie Chicks, again, you make an invalid comparison. If it was strictly a matter of protest and/or promoting a boycott, then the two cases would be comparable. But that’s not what was being pushed in the Chick-fil-A case. They’re trying to use authority (governmental and administrative) to shut them down. That makes their tactics not one of conviction/convincing (boycott), but one of coercion (police state). There’s a fundamental difference. Boycott actions are a fundamental right. Trying to use the government to shut a business down because you don’t like what some employee/owner of that business may believe on an issue, is tyranny.
Jake Widman
I completely agree. Republicans can dish it out, but they can't take it.
What a bunch of wimps.
Jay Shepherd
The Dems have no control of the crap that shoots out of their mouths, and the Republicans are too nice about it, taking a a game play out of McCains book of fighting with honor and dignity. Well, it's obvious that's politics is never nice, always harsh, and we're way beyond that honor and dignity crap that loser McCain expects everyone to abide by.
Joel Rivera
The ugly campaigning has been the Republican's MO for a LONG time.
At least now the Dems are fighting back, and the Repubtards can't take it.
President Sleeze Bag. FUBO you dirtbag.
More drivel from a heartless politician. Republicans (including Romney and especially Ryan) and Democrats (including Obama, not so much Biden who doesn't do much to begin with) are EQUALLY responsible for dividing this country and polarizing society. They are BOTH responsible for the vitriol being spewed in Washington from one side to the other. Teabaggers are still questioning Obama's birth certificate to disqualify him from the Presidency. What about Romney raising funds overseas on his latest trip? Supreme Court ruled those funds illegal, can't we claim Romney should be disqualified as well? It's all political games people, and the sooner we hold all politicians responsible and vote them all out of office, the sooner we can REALLY get on with the business of fixing this country. The first step is up to US, not THEM. We have TweedleDee and TweedleDum as our only two options – it is our fault for not demanding better.
I read this and all I can remember is Romany saying he "not" concerned about poor people. The fact that he is not focused on being a president for all Americans has me laugh at the latter segment of his speech.
If these comments is all that Joe Blooper and McKenyan have to offer, its just a sign that they're desperate given the sh! t-pile of failures in trying to get the country going again. We're worse off than four years ago.
What failures would those be? Oh yeah, NONE. Catching Osama, forcing BP to create a relief fund, ending don't ask don't tell, Guaranteed health care for all his citizens, Ended the war in Iraq, Increased veteran support, Expanded stem cell research…..he is the people's president. I'm proud of what he's done for this country, it's the uneducated LIKE YOU, that are what's embarrassing.
Tommy Wrong – McKenyan is a legend in his own mind, and yours. Keep up with your wishful thinking though if it keeps your sanity intact. Only uneducated bastardized morons put their faith and trust in government, I don't.
McKenya? Are you one of those idiots that think Obama was born in Kenya? Just a Yes or No will do.
The entire Romney-Ryan candidacy insults my intelligence. It sunders the dignity of the American Republic and its proud history of Democracy.
Romney has no principle, no stand, no courage, and no spine. He had to go with the most hardcore ideologue in order to even push the illusion that his campaign had anything approaching "ideas".
Americans won't buy it. Game over.
Replace “Romney-Ryan” with “Obama-Biden” in your screed and you’d have an assessment that would be several orders of magnitude more truthful and accurate than the one you posted!
I believe that you are in error, sir. The majority of Americans are NOT billionaires who will disproportionally benefit to the detriment to the nation's overall health. These are the only ones who are voting for those two socialists who are giving out Corporate and Wealthy Welfare checks.
Anyone else looking at these two incompetent, radical extremists as suitable leaders are being lead around by their prejudiced, ignorant noses. How sad.
“These are the only ones who are voting for those two socialists who are giving out Corporate and Wealthy Welfare checks.”
Let’s see. Romney raising private money to fund venture capital firms constitutes “socialism” but Obama’s takeover of the health care system and canning the CEO of GM doesn’t, in your book? You’ve been drinking Leftist Kool-Aid far too long! What was only fiction to George Orwell has become modus operandi for you! Only in Leftist never-never land can anyone promulgate the lie that things are the antithesis of what they actually are!
Further, your aside that they’re cutting checks (or advocating the cutting of checks) for corporations and/or the wealthy (giving them money) is another Leftist lie mindlessly repeated by those who should know better. NOT taking more of someone else’s money isn’t “giving” them money, contrary to Leftist ideology – and I can prove it and you instinctively know it.
Suppose your income tax bill is $1,000,001. The tax rate schedule gets changed and now your income tax bill is $1 (on the same income). Has the government just “given” you $1,000,000? Obviously not, but your premise is that they have in the case of corporations or those greedy, evil “wealthy” that your side likes to demagogue so freely. What your side refuses to acknowledge is that it’s not the government’s money and while the government does indeed have authority to tax the populace, that authority isn’t unlimited and subject to the whims of politicians who attempt to buy votes with other people’s money. If the political Left viewed envy with as much distain as they do perceived greed, everyone would be better off. As it stands now, they promote envy as a tax policy and, unfortunately for everyone, they’ve been way too successful at it!
What’s really sad is that your last paragraph is much more representative of those on your side of the political aisle than it is to those on the Right side of the aisle.
Daniel Bartkowski Your response saddens me. It contains nothing but a lot of Conservative sophistry that is, unfortunately in vogue these days, as Conservatives spin wildly in order to try to cover the scars on this nation from their failed, proven-wrong policies. Predictably, your comments completely avoid the points, and seek only to obfuscate the truth by positing diversionary, irrelevant hypotheticals. And I see this tactic used all the time–Conservatives seize upon some completely ancillary factoid and then argue it as if it's the locus of the argument. Religious fundamentalists and Biblical literalists can't seem to get through a theological debate without employing it…but I digress.
Let me explain this to you, Daniel; you seem smart enough to grasp it once we break your misguided love affair with feel-good Conservative rhetoric.
First, the premise of the Bush tax cuts were based upon the (now proven false) ideology that "Tax cuts create jobs". Which, of course, they DEMONSTRABLY DID NOT. Strike one against your argument. Job creation under Bush was dismal. Yet we in the Middle Class accepted these cuts as an "investment" for the good of our greater, collective society, even as the deficit rose sharply because of the lack of tax income and two unfunded wars.
Second, the money that was UNTAXED and KEPT was not put into the companies, nor used for the creation of jobs, but in most cases went directly into huge bonuses for corporate CEOs and isolated individuals, transferring the wealth upward at a level that shames this nation–at last count, we had the income disparity of a de facto Third World nation. Strike two against your argument.
Third; Romney and Ryan now propose the EXACT, SAME ideological bullship that got us in this mess in the FIRST place. Their patronage of the Wealthy is so blatantly transparent at this point that only a completely blind, ideological fool would call their campaign anything but what it is–a joke, a travesty, an insult to intelligent people everywhere, and a willful disregarding of the lessons of our own recent history.
Three strikes, Daniel. You know what that means. Seriously, son–wake up, get on the rig; sorry; "correct" side of this argument–because there truly is NO other defense of the Right that holds any integrity whatsoever. Their policies have failed, they can be proven to have failed, they are based on ideology and not facts, and they are unrealistic when facing the reality of human greed and human nature when coupled with unregulated, immoral Capitalism.
“First, the premise of the Bush tax cuts were based upon the (now proven false) ideology that ‘tax cuts create jobs’. Which, of course, they demonstrably did not.”
Perhaps if you correctly and accurately restated the principle, instead of your straw-man misrepresentation, you’d have a clearer grasp of reality and elementary economics. The actual premise for the tax rate cuts is that people earning the money are more qualified than the government to decide what they should do with their own money. The result of the Bush tax rate cuts was that, once they took full effect, the economy gained 8.2M jobs between August of 2003 and January of 2008. The collapse after January of 2008 was due, largely, to the toxic “eggs” laid by the Democrat authored CRA (Carter and Clinton) finally “hatching”.
The amount of revenue collected by the government also increased, not decreased, during the Bush II years because the amount of income subject to the newer, lower rates, increased. Thus, your position that the deficit rose sharply because of a lack of revenue is proven false by the Treasury Department’s own figures. It rose not because of a lack of revenue, but because of a lack of spending discipline on the part of Congress (both parties are guilty of this).
So, your first point is scored as a “wild pitch”, not a “strike”.
For your second point, you’re using isolated anecdotal information to make generalized assertions. Two things about this. One, your position ignores basic economics. Just because one person makes some money and doesn’t spend it in a way that you think appropriate, doesn’t denote that it’s sitting idle. It’s not buried under some rock. Whatever “loans” that are let out using this money, create jobs. The irony of the latest round of increased banking regulation (which conveniently left out the two biggest culprits of the latest economic collapse – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), is that the local bank officials now can’t approve new loans to customers that they’ve known for years but who are going through hard times and need a temporary infusion of cash. The new regulations make it so that corporate approval is required, not just the local bank.
Secondly, your thesis is based upon a feudal economic system, not a capitalistic one. Just because one person gets “rich” (which is a highly subjective term anyway), doesn’t mean that they did it by making someone else “poorer”. Because you embrace envy as an acceptable tax policy, you falsely think that it’s the government’s business to ensure equality of outcome rather than equality under the law. Besides, it’s none of your business knowing how much someone else makes or what they legally do with their money.
[Try this experiment on any college class. Tell everyone that you’re going to give the same grade to everyone in the class. It will be the average between the top and the bottom scores over a series of tests. Just how soon do you think the top students will quit performing because, hey, their hard work isn’t going to be valued? Yet what you know would yield unacceptable results in a college classroom with regards to grades, you somehow think is desirable to do with macro-economics on a country-wide basis?]
So, your second point is scored as a “balk”, not a “strike”.
Your third point isn’t a point at all but merely a screed that reiterates nothing but Leftist propaganda. The facts are that our Constitutional form of government was founded on the principle that the government has only that authority which is explicitly granted to it by the people. Leftist ideology turns this on its ear and thinks that the government is entitled to take whatever it wants, from whomever it wants, to distribute as it sees fit. The ideology you’re so grossly enamored with has been tried numerous times throughout the ages, with Russia and China being only the most recent and obvious examples, and it’s had an unbroken record of failure! Rather than learn from the failure of following your prescribed course of action, as evidence by what’s happening to Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain (along with just about every other European country who’ve already traveled down that path), you blithely advocate pushing down on the accelerator as we’re heading for fiscal Armageddon!
So, final tally, three “balls” and no “strikes” for your arguments.
Further, contrary to your presumption contained in your last sentence, no one is advocating for unregulated Capitalism. They’re arguing for reasonable regulation that doesn’t try to pick winners and losers, favored and disfavored when it comes to running a business. If they succeed at convincing other people to buy their product or service, fine. If not, then that’s the breaks too! The idea that you’re entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor is tyrannical! There’s a big difference in being appreciative of help when you’re down on your luck and thinking that you’re entitled to whatever you want. Conservatism fosters the former. Liberalism fosters the latter.
Fascinating theories you have, Daniel; thank you for an attempt, at least, at a coherent–if ultimately incorrect–argument. Your failure is in being unable to divorce yourself from the bogus ideas that I base my arguments on "jealousy" (rolling eyes here) and in the equally-bogus attempt to frame the discussion in terms of ideological positions regarding taking/keeping wealth. I shall elucidate:
Let me first start by doing away with the baseball analogies–I despise the game and is cabal of whiny, overpaid drug queens. My error (Oh god, I can't believe I said that!).
On your first point: what you posit as the "actual premise" for the tax cuts is, in fact, an ideological position, NOT the way that it was sold to the public–NOR does it have any basis in reality to the continuing attempts to sell this boondoggle to the voters once again. The tax cuts were supposed to create jobs, period. That was the talking point, that's STILL the talking point, however as of late, I DO detect the ideological basis of it coming to the forefront more and more, almost as a tacit admission that THAT fallacy has been proven to be false. As it HAS. Your repetition of John Boner's flawed claim of "8 Mllion jobs" created under Bush is noted; however, Politifact rated that figure as "false". (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-bush-tax-cuts-created-8-million-/)
Next: on revenue. Whereas you maybe correct that income rose, that fact is negated by he fact of the costs of the two wars which ate up any possible chance to balance the budget or impact the deficit in a positive fashion. So, in the end, a failed policy based on a Conservative world view.
ON the second point: "anecdotal evidence". Ah yes, that old term which is really a legal term; one designed only to technically negate a fact which has not yet been empirically proven, but which can be stated and seen to be true, lol.Are you a lawyer, Daniel? Let's just dispense with this time-wasting, diversionary tactic. It's no secret and no mystery as to the USA's wealth disparity–there are MANY studies which prove this to be true. It's also empirically proven that CEO salaries and corporate bonuses, etc, were at ridiculously-high levels while some companies actually were going bankrupt, or screwing their workers–ever hear of Borders Books? Moreover, salaries and bonuses were STILL at record rates during the darkest days of the Recession. Anecdotal? Generalized assertions? My ass. Knock off the sophistry. It's clear that Corporate America has embraced Greed as an economic policy–and the recognition of that is NOT "envy", Daniel. It's the recognition of a self-enriching (lack of) ethic that imperils the entire nation's macro-economy. You simply can't hoard the money and the means by which the economy functions and expect that–like a car starved for gas–it's going to keep plugging along.
I guess I have to address your "envy" citation. (sigh)…I recognize Conservatives have become fond of applying this pejorative to the Left in an attempt to (v) illegitimate the clarion call to restore equity and balance to the economy and the workforce. It is, in fact, a revealing window into the limitations of the Conservative mind and moral basis, to willfully ignore the fact that the accumulation of Wealth and the means and processes of that egregiously-unbalanced acquisition has, in fact, been based on–in many proven instances–unlawful conduct and outright crime. Fraud, insider trading, bond manipulation, rigged bidding, "gambling" on stocks, manipulations of figures, etc—the list is long and iniquitous. There has been widespread fraud and "white collar" crime–and yet no one is going to jail, and the working man is the victim. Is the call for Justice "envy"? Strange morality it would be to call it that, in my book. In cases of the Housing collapse, many homes were foreclosed upon using outright deceptive practices. Look at the disgraces at major brokerage houses? And Wall St has embraced the tactics of the Mafia to destroy small-town America (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620) Am I "envious" to want to see the playing field level? (That was NOT related to baseball, lol).
And third; "Leftist ideology", huh? DO you know something I don't, Daniel? Are you really going to try to tell me that Romney/Ryan are NOT embracing the same policies and programs that Bush and Reagan before him did? Please….just knock off the games.
Lemme tell you what I think is going on, Daniel. Capitalism is failing. At least THIS current incarnation of it is. The Conservatives have always wanted to get rid of social programs because–lets face it–they don't want to support people who they don't like, don't know, ad look down their noses at. Yet it was THEY who encouraged those people to come here in their quest for ever-cheaper labor. And then when they exploited and used up these workers at slave labor rates and without any recognition of their contributions to the growth of their companies and wealth, Conservatives just want to deny that they owe them anything for that contribution. It's inevitable that, at some point, they would just lump in ALL workers–American, immigrant, illegal–as expendable, unimportant, and dispensable. That is the ideology driving this nation from the Right today. Rom-Ryan epitomize that perverse ethic. The selfishness is endemic, and corrupting. They don't want any responsibility to a village, a nation, Humanity in general–unless, of course, THEY deem them "Worthy" of that largesse. And hey, they can always write off their charity anyway, right?
“Your failure is in being unable to divorce yourself from the bogus idea that I base my arguments on ‘jealousy’ (rolling eyes here) and in the equally bogus attempt to frame the discussion in terms of ideological positions regarding taking/keeping wealth.”
You protest that your arguments aren’t based upon promotion of envy as a tax policy and then turn right around and promote envy as a tax policy with your “level the playing field” and “restore equity and balance to the economy and the workforce” remarks! Rather than my point on Leftist promotion of envy being bogus, you validate my very point! “Level the playing field” and egalitarian notions of “restoring equity” euphemistically mean taking things/money from somebody and “distributing” them to someone else – and you know it but vainly choose to pretend it isn’t so. The undeniable underlying principle of what you advocate is envy – someone else has something you want and you’ll have the government take it from them in order to give it to you. The slight variation on this same theme is that you’re more than willing to have the government take from somebody what you decide is “more than they need” in order to give it to those you deem more “worthy”. Your form of “charity” consists of coercion (taxation), not conviction. Thus, what you favor isn’t “charity” at all.
Your philosophy of government and economics has been tried numerous times, in many locales. Name one country where it has been successful. Oh, that’s right. You can’t, because there hasn’t been one. In all of human history, your philosophical approach has resulted in abysmal failure. Instead of equality, it’s produced tyranny. In contradistinction, the United States has practiced a capitalistic system for over 200 years and the result is a radically increased standard of living for everybody. Yes, there have been abuses along the way, but you deal with the abuses as they occur, not by trashing the whole system which, on the whole, has worked to the benefit of just about everybody. [And no, just because someone else is prospering more than you doesn’t give you, or the government, a license to confiscate what’s theirs (or yours) based upon some egalitarian notion of “Gee, that’s not fair!” There are, undoubtedly, a number of people who earn less than you, but that doesn’t give them any right to demand that the government confiscate from you what you have in order to transfer it to them and, likewise, the fact that others earn more than you doesn’t give you a right to demand that the government confiscate what’s theirs in order to transfer it to you or anybody else – actions which are an application of the very essence of your “leveling the playing field” and “restoring equity” thesis.]
“The tax cuts were supposed to create jobs, period.”
First off, you need to distinguish between “tax cuts” (reductions in revenue) and “tax rate cuts” (reductions in the rates of taxation). Tax rate cuts occurred along with making more income subject to the lower rate. Tax cuts, however, didn’t occur as evidenced by the Treasury’s own figures. Further, contrary to Leftist dogma, tax rate cuts (not taking more of someone’s money) don’t “cost” the government anything because it’s not the government’s money until they actually collect it [It can’t cost anything until there’s an actual transfer of money. Since there was no transfer, there’s no “cost”]. Not collecting it doesn’t constitute “giving” anybody money. You’re basing your thesis on the false presumption that the government is entitled to a set figure and that this figure is sacrosanct. Therefore, by your philosophy, if someone is going to be taxed less, then someone else must be taxed more. The truth is that everybody can be taxed less if the government constrained itself to those areas that it actually has a charter to engage in. Defense of this nation is one of the explicit charters of our Constitution.
As for the 8.2M jobs figure, that’s directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CES data, total non-farm, seasonally adjusted). The Democrats are fond of only mentioning the figure from when it bottomed out in February of 2010 and then making an invalid comparison of that with Bush’s full term. It’s a disingenuous tactic because it ignores all factors that influenced the result during that term (the collapse of the dot com bubble, the 9/11 attacks and the housing bubble collapse in January of 2008). If all you’re going to compare is Obama’s result since February of 2010, then the analogous time frame in Bush’s Administration is from August of 2003 to January of 2008. Hence, the 8.2M jobs increase over that time frame. If you’re going to include the entire term of the Bush Administration, then to be honest you’re going have to include the entire term of the Obama Administration. On that score, the number of jobs increased by 1.1M over Bush’s term and has decreased by 473K (as of June of 2012) for Obama’s term.
PolitiFact mixes numbers in an effort to divine what Boehner was talking about and gets the correct end dates, but misses the correct start dates. The 8.2M figure is accurate, but their presumption of Boehner’s timeline is not. The 8.8M job loss between January 2008 and February 2010 is split 4.3M between January 2008 and January of 2009, with the rest being between January 2009 and February 2010. The facts remain as I originally, and accurately, stated. The Bush tax rate cuts resulted in a job increase of 8.2M before the effects of the Democrat authored CRA began to have an effect.
Zizzer Zazzer Zuzz
Part 2
“Whereas you may be correct that income rose, that fact is negated by the fact of the costs of the two wars which ate up any possible chance to balance the budget…”
Nice try, but not supported by the facts. From the White House’s own web site (Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2017 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist03z1.xls ), total Federal spending (on and off budget, which includes the costs of conducting the wars) amounted to $19.16T between 2001 and 2008. Of that, $12.33T was for Human Resources (education, health, Medicare, income security and Social Security), or some 64%. National Defense spending totaled $3.70T, or 19%. The Congressional Research Service report to Congress puts the total cost, of both wars, from 2001-2008 at $761B, or 4%. During the same time frame, the Federal government collected $17.16T, increasing from $1.99T in 2001 to $2.52T in 2008. Only in Leftist fantasyland does a spending item making up 4% of the total constitute being the prima facie cause of not decreasing deficit spending! And then there’s the undeniable fact that Obama’s increased deficit spending by a factor of three and increased the national debt by over $5T – more in 3.5 years than we accumulated in the first 200 years of our country’s existence!
As for your bald assertion that the accumulation of wealth has been principally accomplished via unlawful conduct and outright crime, you’re making things up again. Conservatives don’t ignore illegal conduct and advocate for strict prosecution where it actually occurs, just not where you only think that it occurs. In contradistinction, the current President chooses to ignore illegal conduct when it suits his political agenda. Further, people naturally accumulate wealth over their lifetime (or at least have the opportunity to). Just because some are more successful at it than others isn’t a rationale to have the government step in and confiscate what you deem as “excess”. The quintile groupings that the government uses aren’t monolithic. The people that are in any of those groupings at one point in time aren’t, largely, in the same group later (both at the top and the bottom and everywhere in between). This is proved both by the BLS statistics on the groupings and the IRS statistics on tracking individual taxpayers.
“The Conservatives have always wanted to get rid of social programs…”
That’s the typical myth promulgated by the political Left, but it’s a lie nonetheless. It’s just that Conservatives believe that such programs should only provide a temporary, not permanent, solution for people who’re down on their luck through no fault of their own. What happens, though, is that we get nothing but crass demagoguery from the political Left when any mention is made of attempting to reign in the costs of such public programs. Public programs are not to be a replacement for privately run programs. The problem is compounded by the fact that the political Left exploits (for purely political gain) those who are designated as “poor” but don’t qualify as such under classical definitions. Conservatives have no problem advocating for help being given to the poor. The problem comes with perpetual public aid being given to those who’re “poor” in name only (PINO).
“And then when they exploited and used up these workers at slave labor rates and without any recognition of their contributions to the growth of their companies and wealth, Conservatives just want to deny that they owe them anything for that contribution.”
The fallacy of your position can be illustrated by a simple experiment. Take two individuals who, over their lifetime at the same age and at the same time, earn exactly the same amount. The first one spends it as fast as it comes in. The second one puts some of it aside for a “rainy day”. At the end of their careers, the first is broke and the second has a little nest egg. Your approach is to then have the government come in and take what the second person diligently accumulated over their lifetime in order to “help” out the first person, who’s now destitute. Doing what you’re effectively advocating in this case, is wrong on so many counts – and you instinctively know it.
My position is based upon as much of the factual, relevant information that’s available. Yours is based upon misrepresentation of a selective subset of the facts and that is why your conclusions in this vein are demonstrably false.
Years ago there was a television program which opened with a quotation that, roughly, stated that our form of government was terrible, but that all other forms were so much worse. Your position is to advocate for a form of governance that’s so much worse!
First of all, Daniel, you're in denial. Shame, really, because you seem like a bright kid. You seem to NEED to believe that "envy" underlies the clarion call for a more fair playing field and the application of justice in the employment and livelihood field of opportunity. You like to pretend that the field is level, and self-righteously throw out accusations of envy when someone astutely points out that no, the field of opportunity is most definitely NOT equal to all. Wealth, for the most part, stays in wealthy households anymore. The great "social ladder" has had a few too many rungs removed along the way. The spiraling costs of Education, the deterioration of infrastructure and institutions within the cities where the less-wealthy reside, the escalating costs of just LIVING–ALL impacted and controlled to a great degree by those with money and power–all of that contributes to a more difficult struggle to make something of one's life if you're not born into one already. Your loss, for that willful ideological blindness of believing that all you have to do is pul yourself up by your bootstraps. Yeah, OK, Dad..sigh. You then have become part of the problem. You're as obdurately entrenched in your obfuscating ideology as you would accuse me.
Data, data, data. Yeah, I've seen this tactic before–throw out endless data and figures, and try to deny the reality of what Conservative policies actually MEAN and DO "on the street". Have you ever been out of your ivory tower, Daniel? To be honest, Daniel, I skimmed through your "data arguments" because I know that the easiest way to deny a reality is to be a data wonk and to bury reality under piles of figures and factoids. I've seen your side do this too often. You have your hypotheticals and present them with gusto and regularity (you yourself are fond of this) but you seem to be trapped in the theoretical realities of these positions more than you can recognize the actual translation of these hypotheticals in the real world? In fact, that's really the core of my rebuttal to you–you're doing a lot f "fancy talkin'" that I'm sure a lot of your side would get up and cheer about, but my side is looking at 8 years of disastrous Bush-era economic policy and thinking "What are these guys THINKING?!?" because the proof is in the pudding, Daniel. And now you want to go back and repeat this nonsense? Please….
As far as the criminal aspect of wealth accumulation in the past decade or two, you're seriously deluded if you would deny this. Here's just one expose of an actual trial which took place and resulted in prosecutions: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620. And your assertion that Conservatives prosecute crime is laughable, I mean, genuinely laughable. Who are you kidding? Look at the numerous CEOs and brokerage houses playing games with peoples' lives and money, and there are numerous stories of the fraud behind the Housing foreclosures scandals–how agents fraudulently hid term or lied outright about contract details. Seriously–were you involved in this? Who are you trying to cover for? A facetious question perhaps, but that's what your cavalier attitude about this suggests?
"PINO"?!? You've got to be kidding me. What a nice pejorative appellation to sooth one's conscience. You can argue all day that Conservatives don't want to abolish the social safety net, aren't social Darwinists or worse, or convince yourself of whatever else you need to to be able to sleep at night. You're not going to convince me with your hypotheticals though. The history of this fact has been well-reported and compelling–whether the motive behind it is ideological or not. Read "Death of the Liberal Class" for a good history of it. Quite a remarkable dissertation. in my opinion.
Thanks for an entertaining discussion, Daniel, but I don't see either of us convincing either one of the other's position. Have fun with your data.
“You like to pretend that the field is level, and self-righteously throw out accusations of envy when someone astutely points out that no, the field of opportunity is most definitely NOT equal to all.”
This is where you go off the tracks. Your egalitarian notion of equal opportunity falsely presupposes that everyone should start out (or end up with) with the same assets and that, if they’re not “equal” in your eyes, then it’s the government’s job to “equalize” them for you. This epitomizes the concept of envy because without envy you’d not be concerned about what, or how much, someone else has accumulated – but you’re in denial of that fact.
Does everyone have the same opportunity? Obviously not. Does it make any difference if different people have different opportunity? No. Is it any business of yours, or the government’s, what opportunity becomes available to anyone? Again, no. The only precept that makes any difference is that each person has the freedom to avail themselves (or not) of whatever opportunity comes their way. Different opportunities will of necessity produce different results. Is this unfair? Not in the least. It is each person, doing whatever they’re capable of doing, in whatever occupation they’re in, that makes the whole thing work. This dynamic of actual diversity, rather than the false appearance and pretense of diversity, is what facilitates all of us going through life. Different skill sets will get paid at different levels. Is this inherently unfair? Absolutely not. Whether someone else is overpaid or not, in your eyes, is immaterial. It’s not your money. And if it is (because you’re the employer), then you’re free to try and pay them what you think they’re worth without the government or anybody else dictating it to you. If you want to get paid more, then go find a job that pays more and/or develop a skill set that will pay more or form your own business and try and convince other people to give you money for your product or service. It’s not yours, or the government’s, business to “equalize” the results for anybody. No one is relegated to the job they’re in, so the slave labor analogy you’re implying, is fallacious.
Your economic dynamic would have merit if this were a feudal economic system, but since it’s not, your conclusions based upon that system have no validity. You’re stuck with a medieval economic model in a 21st Century world. Your economic model provably doesn’t work, has never worked and has absolutely no chance of ever working, but you mindlessly parrot the mantra that it has to work if we only give it more time and someone else’s money! You’d think you’d learn after accumulating some $5T in extra debt, but you choose to remain blind to the disastrous economic effects of the very policies that you espouse!
As for your criticism of my use of raw data to refute your assertions and alleging that they’re just hypothetical, the situations portrayed in those examples are real even though the actual “numbers” are fictitious to emphasize the point. The college class with the grade experiment using your “equalization” principle, was real. The result was that all of the class failed. The situation with two individuals earning approximately the same and then being treated completely differently at the end of their careers is also real, with your position being that the accumulated assets of one person should be confiscated, and distributed, by the government in order to “equalize” respective status. Your choosing to ignore the data which refutes your position is symptomatic of the “Don’t confuse you with the facts because your mind is made up” school of thought. Further, your usage of anecdotal data to make sweeping generalizations about the whole is right out of the Rosie O’Donnell school of conspiracy theories (forget the facts, it was an inside job)! You cherry-pick only that data which you can then use to support your already predetermined position. I include all relevant data and will form my conclusions based upon what the full set of date actually indicates, not what fits some ideological paradigm.
“…my side is looking at 8 years of disastrous Bush-era economic policy and thinking ‘What are these guys thinking?’”
That’s only because you’re taking a grossly superficial look at what transpired during that time frame and not doing due diligence to determine the root cause of the collapse. If you’d done so, you’d find that its genesis began in the Carter Administration and was extensively “watered” by the Clinton Administration. The rotten “fruit” planted by the Democrat authored CRA began to “fall” in January of 2008. Bush and Congressional Republicans tried to reign in the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac well before the collapse (as early as April 2001, with some 34 warnings placed) but were met with stonewalling and derision by Barney Frank and company. Maxine Waters (a Democrat, by-the-way) is the only one to admit her culpability at not heeding the warning signs and doing something about it. Barney Frank and company continue, to this day, to deny their failure to act and engage in pure demagoguery (Frank insisted, right up to the collapse, that there was nothing wrong with either GSE and that evil Republicans were just trying to scare people. Franklin Raines, Obama’s chief economic advisor, fraudulently overstated the earnings of Fannie Mae to the tune of some $10.6B over six years while he was CEO of that entity.)
The failures in capitalism that you’re so fond of emphasizing aren’t intrinsic, or endemic as you allege, to the system itself but to abuses promulgated by individuals. You address those abuses as they occur, not by wholesale substitution of another system that’s proven to have even worse results (corruption, poverty and stagnant to decreased standards of living). Your failure is to not make a distinction between a desire to improve your lot in life and avaricious greed. You falsely presume that if you, or someone else, are not as well off as you, or they, want to be it’s because someone else has stolen it from them. This attitude fosters the corollary that since they think it’s been stolen from them, then it’s acceptable to steal it back. This is also why the Occupy Movement is marked with causing destruction, murder, drug use and defecation of their surroundings. They’re the public face of the system of governance that you advocate.
Daniel, I thank you and commend you for the time and effort you put into these responses of yours, much as they leave me unfazed and without any feeling of enlightenment. Methinks that you are a "policy wonk" who can impressively rattle off numbers and trivia but who, in typical fashion of out ilk. misses the real point of what the issue really IS. I can't tell you how many times I've run across this in the Rightwing Intelligentsia. In fact, Paul Ryan seems to be of your cut, and vice versa? Maybe that's why you defend his strategies.
You have a rather…."novel" conception of "envy", and one that suits your situation, I'm sure, but I have no "envy" of the Rich; on the contrary, I travel in those circles, believe it or not, and do quite well for myself–however, never having been a "pack animal", my disgust and appraisal of the "wealthy component" of this macro-problem stem more from a deep and sincere disgust at the ostentatious and self-flattering personal affectations and policies of many of those with whom my business takes me into contact with. They have little heart, no compassion, and desire only to protect their own considerable and voluminous interests. I myself do not comport myself in such a fashion, and never would. Easy come, easy go. A lesson I've learned from both successes and failures. We–you and I–are no better. no more "deserving" or "worthy" or "chosen" than the janitor at our children's school, no matter what you may believe. I only want to know that that person's children would have the same chances to be something bigger than he dreams–but the road to that place is rapidly disappearing these days, and no data or hypothetical pablum that you present can change that well-reported and documented fact. Your arguing against it makes you sound like….well, like Romney or any other out-of-touch Rightwinger.
In the end, what you say may be economically true or not; you're a bright guy, and its been a pleasure to have engaged you here and not just get another "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE!" response. I DO notice that you've conveniently ignored the proven and empirically true crimes that have been revealed in this decade; fine–you have your blind spots, I have mine.
HOWEVER–and this may be the most important thing of all–I have to remind you of the comment and tone which preceded our little exchange here: My opinion of Romney as a paper puppet; a reed in the wind, a stand-up little cardboard cutout for the REAL manipulators and machinators behind the scenes who will UNDOUBTEDLY take this country to economic hell. And in THAT argument, you have no comeback, no ammunition. There is no "choice" in this election. There's only one obvious way to avoid economic Armageddon–and that's to vote for someone with principles. Romney hasn't got them, and Ryan's are completely wrong.
And don't even get me started on the fundamentalist, theocratic leanings of that moron!
“You have a rather ‘novel’ conception of ‘envy’, and one that suits your situation…”
No, I have a concept of envy that matches the definition. Your “I can’t be envious because I have rich friends/acquaintances” premise falls in the same vein as “I can’t be a racist because I have minority friends”. Neither premise has any validity.
“I do notice that you've conveniently ignored the proven and empirically true crimes that have been revealed in this decade.”
And just what proven and empirical crimes have I ignored? I have acknowledged committed crimes where they have provably occurred. You just try to include accusations of crimes as “proven” when you have no evidence to support the accusations. Franklin Raines’ proven, fraudulent inflating of the assets of Fannie Mae while he was CEO is a case in point. And while the Rolling Stone article you referenced is hardly a bastion of unbiased reportage, the exposure of the Ponzi scheme is also acknowledged. What you miss is that such exposure isn’t an indictment of capitalism itself. It’s an indictment of individuals abusing the privilege capitalism may afford.
“There's only one obvious way to avoid economic Armageddon–and that's to vote for someone with principles.”
Well, that would leave out Obama. Or do you really consider his provably lying about his vote on the Illinois Infants Born Alive Act as being representative of a man with laudable principles? Or his repeated lying about the effects of Ryan’s plan on Medicare? Or his creative accounting on ObamaCare where he siphoned off $760B from Medicare Advantage to offset the cost of ObamaCare and then also counted it as a Medicare “savings”? Or where he disguised the true cost of ObamaCare by counting 10 years of tax collections but only included 6 years of payments? Yeah, he’s a man of principles all right, but not the kind of principles that any honest person would embrace!
“And don't even get me started on the fundamentalist, theocratic leanings of that moron!”
Well, that indicates a lot. Your entire argument devolves to nothing more than infantile name calling! I vehemently disagree with Romney’s theology and have issues with Ryan’s Catholicism, but I’ll address those specific issues on their own without resorting to the name-calling you’re indulging yourself in. But this election isn’t about theology. It’s about whether we continue on Obama’s current path to economic destruction, following the pattern shown by European experience to be an unmitigated disaster, or change course and (just maybe) avoid (or at least postpone) ruin.
Daniel, you're as ideologically blind and fanatical as Mitch McConnel. "Economic destruction" is, without question or debate, the path that Romney and Ryan have laid out. The "austerity" canard is wreaking havoc in England, Scotland and Wales–I know; I just got back from dealing with business partners over there. Apparently, Conservatism failure in policy matters is not ONLY confined to these shores?
What crimes? The ones you just admitted in the Rolling Stone article. ANd here's a whole PDF about fraud in the Home Equity Lending Market. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/09/docketop-1253commentfedreservehomeeqlendimagev.pdf Have fun, Daniel.
Here's what's going on, Daniel. Conservatives like you just absolutely will not, can not admit that they're wrong. You show it yourself. Enamored of your facts and figures and data, and too smart by half, you will argue a point past any hope of integrity because you just CAN'T ADMIT that you're wrong. Your pride undoes you. And this is basically the problem with Conservatism today. The Great Conservative Experiment under Bush has been shown to be an abject FAILURE. Not only economically, but socially and culturally as well. And yet, you Cons just can't admit it.
The country DECISIVELY REJECTED your brand of Conservatism in 2008, and what do you do? Insouciantly pledge that–the vote be damned–you're going to stifle the ability for this president to do ANYTHING–even if it means the destruction of the economy and the nation. We got our credit rating diminished because of your immature party's obstructionism. You just can't accept it, can you? AMERICA DOESN'T LOVE YOU! DOESN'T WANT YOUR BRAND OF CONSERVATISM!
Look at the pathetic field of candidates you put up in 2012–Newt, Perry, Bachm..(snicker) Michelle Bachman…And…Sant..(chortle!) Santor…(pffff) SANTORUM!!!! (HA HA HA HAAHAHAHAH!!) ALL of 'em–Conservatives who didn't have a freaking chance in HELL of election! SO who'd you pick? The most "Liberal" of a guy who's so UN-principled and without a spine that you could count on him to let the VP guy run the country–it's Bush/Cheney redux–cuz that's what's going on here with Romney.Ryan, you DO get that, don't you, Daniel? You guys picked Romny because he's so desperate to be validated as a politician that he'll say anything, do anything, to get that "President" title in front of his name–even if it's in name ONLY.
And what does this all add up to? An inability to take responsibility for the failed policies and experiment which is Conservatism in the 21st century. AN abject failure. A cancer on the nation. A collection of antiquated ideas, rusty bigotries, an archaic, frightened ideology which refuses to just lay down and know when its time has come. Let's face it–the Romney/Ryan candidacy is Justus Conservatism's Freudian admission that it NEEDS to prove to its collective self and History that "You really DO LIKE ME! You really DO LIKE ME!"
Good luck with that, Danny Boy.
Let’s see. The European nations, which are now in severe economic turmoil, spent their way into oblivion by following exactly the same path that Obama is now taking. Then conservative principles, being applied in an attempt to correct the carnage, are themselves the cause of the carnage, in your view!
Wow! Methinks you flunked elementary economics! You can’t spend your way out of a mountain of accumulated debt if you run a business, but you mindlessly think that you can with a country!
[And the election of 2008 appears to be more of a good snake-oil sales job on the part of the Democrats rather than the repudiation of conservatism that you wish to make it out to be. The election of 2010, where more people saw what Obama and company had wrought and rejected that “vision”, would seem to put a severe dent in your thesis.]
Todd Stearns-you are the lowest filth on this planet. Fox Republican News pays you to write from their right winged point of view, but this is getting out of hand. You are no journalist, you're a hired right winged demagogue, spewing this right winged garbage to a pool of the uneducated that simply lap it up. You know these readers are uneducated, that they only watch Fox, which means they aren't getting 1/10 of the news, and you reinforce this ideology.you are unethical, you are the lowest of all journalists, and I'm ashamed that I took even a moment to read your filth.
Joel: you have your opinion, i hsve mine
Yawn. Good for you.
My dad fought for this country in WWII for all of us to be free, And free speech!!