February 7, 2012
"Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees?"
Stephen Moore, at the Wall Street Journal, noting that Obama likes to talk about economic fairness, has "A Fairness Quiz for the President."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
53 comments:
Who is surprised Obama's largest donors received "loans"?
Is it a "loan" when you're not really expected to pay it back?
Seems like the Chicago way to me.
Oh, I liked this one:
Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?
Imagine Obama trying to answer that question...
Dear Stephen Moore,
Thanks for the quiz. I've passed it along and a drone that I like to call "My Little Friend" will deliver my response personally to you. Thank goodness I got the NDAA in my pocket. I won't write more because I know you've gotta go and get your affairs in order.
Love and Kisses and Hope and Change,
Barry
The article makes good points, but I found the Is it fair... construction very tedious.
I tell my kids Life isn't fair and I found that phrase leaping to mind while I read the WSJ piece.
I think a better way to write it would have been to show things that are happening now that may or may not have happened in previous administrations and ask the reader if they think this is the right direction for the country to be moving in.
It is called bribe.
Anyone who believes Obama's arguments are about "fairness" is a fool. He hopes at least half of us are fool.
MadisonMan: I think the repetition of the "Is it fair..." question echoes the constant deployment of the "fairness" concept by our president. The author has articulated in a striking way a number of questions that the president and most liberals will duck.
The article makes good points, but I found the Is it fair... construction very tedious.
I remember, quite vividly, when the housing bubble burst, Chris Matthews interviewing someone that was arguing that the vast majority of homeowners shouldn't have to pony up for the ARM delinquents that bought too much house.
Matthews said "life isn't fair". I used to watch Matthews quite a bit as I was home and there was nothing else on that hour. I made sure to remember that claim about life not being fair. I notice that he doesn't apply that same standard to a vast array of social ills he's constantly making hay about.
Curious, isn't it?
Like everything else the Lefties do, fairness is a one way street.
MadisonMan said...
The article makes good points, but I found the Is it fair... construction very tedious.
Kell Sir Prize.
I think the repetition of the "Is it fair..." question echoes the constant deployment of the "fairness" concept by our president.
Perhaps if I paid more attention to what the President says I would have appreciated the construct more.
The question posed by the article -- is it "fair" -- is irrelevant.
A better question would be to ask, whether the practice is corrupt.
The best question, however, would be to ask whether we as a people will continue to tolerate a government bought and paid for by those receiving favors, and if so, how long such a nation can stand.
X said...
Transparent, honest underwriting would require that someone who made a campaign contribution would not qualify.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
Thank you.
I'll be here til Thursday.
PS It wouldn't matter. They'd find a way. God. Where money is available, people are resourceful.
All he needs now is "some people say" and "let me be clear," and he'll have all the verbal tics down.
Let me be clear. Some people say the president asks "is it fair" too much.
Let me be clear. Some people say the president asks "is it fair" too much.
I do think at a certain point you've been fair enough.
Well, it's more fair than the spoils going to a GOP fundraiser.
The game changer has been the shear size of the slush funds and Government Credit being created by our Congress in the name of pure clean green Ideals.
Why the voters still drink that cool aid is the real question. Even Gingrich drinks that cool aid and wants everybody to become simple minded deluded fools "for the environment."
The Environment must be a code word for hypnotized people to vote as told.
People cling to their notions of fairness.
I think a more interesting point to be made is that while the WSJ is publication dedicated to money, investing, and business it seems to be increasingly becoming a newspaper that is doing more traditional journalism. It seems to be the only large circulation paper willing to do the job the mainstream media used to do. It is just my opinion, but I feel like we are losing a "free press" in this nation. Expect the WSJ to become increasingly marginalized in the future by the rest of the news media.
Perhaps if I paid more attention to what the President says I would have appreciated the construct more.
How much non-attention do you have to pay if you haven't heard his calls for people to pay their "fair share"?
"... All he needs now is "some people say" and "let me be clear," and he'll have all the verbal tics down..."
You left out "make no mistake". Then swivel head right to left. Rinse repeat.
"... It is just my opinion, but I feel like we are losing a "free press" in this nation..."
That ship sailed a long time ago. Then again we have a free press, what we don't have is an objective one. Quite some time ago journalism evolved into changing the world rather than reporting facts.
The blogging world did a pretty good job during the Bush years to show how unbiased if not flat out dishonest the media could be.
I found the Is it fair... construction very tedious.
Yeah! What kind of hack would write that way?
---
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, He has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
How much non-attention do you have to pay if you haven't heard his calls for people to pay their "fair share"?
It takes work to ignore, actively, what politicians say, but it's work I'm willing to do.
It helps that I don't watch TV.
It's.........
wait for it..............
The Chicago Way!
sorry.
had to be said.
but I found the Is it fair... construction very tedious.
Of course it's tedious, but the President opened that door. The concept of fairness underwrites his entire philosophy. Moore is just turning it around on the prez.
Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?
The richest 10% of Swedes hold a significantly smaller percentage of their country's income compared to their American counterparts.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the GINI index for the United States is 45.0 and for Sweden is 23.0
Stephen Moore is comparing apples and oranges.
It takes work to ignore, actively, what politicians say, but it's work I'm willing to do.
It helps that I don't watch TV.
What do you do to get your blood pressure up?
The question posed by the article -- is it "fair" -- is irrelevant.
A better question would be to ask, whether the practice is corrupt.
I was going to say just this, but maybe not as well. What is striking though about Obama and the Democrats running their Congressional delegation, is the sheer size of their corruption. In the old days, we were talking hundreds of millions or so, now we are talking shoveling billions and tens and hundreds of billions to campaign contributors, cronies, and the like. It is mind boggling, and, as some above have point out, our so-called guardians in the media are asleep at the switch, or maybe even complicit.
What we have seen over the last three or so years is what happens why you bring Chicago-style pay-to-play corruption and crony capitalism to Washington, D.C., and back it up with the nation's printing presses.
But, no, it isn't fair. We found with Solyndra that those loan guarantees were not free to the U.S. tax payers. Sure, they look free up front. But, if they go bad, they aren't, and we are seeing massive amounts of this failure with both student and housing loans. In both cases, our government is left on the hook for all those defaulted loans.
Part of what is unfair is that these federally guaranteed loans would mostly not have been made, at least on the terms involved, if the federal guarantee had not been in place. Solyndra would have failed, due to its disastrous business plan, long before it eventually did, to the tune of a half billion of our dollars. And, yes, the bulk of the recipients of the green energy loan guarantees appear to closely tied to the powers in the Democratic Party.
But, as I alluded to in my previous post, the loan guarantees are just a small part of the Chicago-style corruption that has become the hallmark of this Administration. None of it is fair, since it inevitably takes resources from the honest and unconnected, and gives them to the dishonest and politically connected.
What do you do to get your blood pressure up?
(laugh) I read stuff my intro students write.
(laugh) I read stuff my intro students write.
Do they put one or two spaces after a period? How about indents? Two spaces or a full tab?
"... The richest 10% of Swedes hold a significantly smaller percentage of their country's income compared to their American counterparts..."
Is it fair that if I become ridiculously wealthy because I developed a innovative operating system, or computer system from my garage or risked ruin because I had a crazy idea of competing with the post office to deliver packages or started a store that grew into a global retail giant or create a computer and operating system to compete with IBM or create a massive social network application?
Well yeah, I can see how liberals would view the wealth I created through hard work and sacrifice as unfair.
And how about those Obamacare waivers.
So, its settled. Liberals think that the questions are tedious and hence should not be answered.
"The article makes good points, but I found the Is it fair... construction very tedious."
This! Welcome to the club...
Like all progressives and their memes, tedium is the common thread.
Our government, like an old desktop computer, is corrupt and loaded with bloatware.
The president, like an incompetent IT person, doesn't have the first clue. Add some pretty screensavers, implement a universal antivirus program, levy bandwidth charges for those that still work.
Is it fair? No. Life is not fair. I accept that.
Eventually, the hard drive is going to go belly-up.
I hope all of you are backing up critical data.
Our government, like an old desktop computer, is corrupt and loaded with bloatware.
Are you figuring in the Barney Frank retirement? That's got to, at least, leave us a bit less bloated.
It's going to be a close race, but I'm seeing how ads bombarding the public with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, extravagant parties, hours of golf played, number of days on lavish vacations, not attending church, could really get somewhere, as compared to Mitt's 'godliness,' and I don't mean that snidely. Say what you will, he comes across as a humble, temperate, practical, generous man.
"... Say what you will, he comes across as a humble, temperate, practical, generous man..."
The horror.....
"Are you figuring in the Barney Frank retirement? That's got to, at least, leave us a bit less bloated."
Yes, that's been factored in. Unfortunately, certain page files remain resident - but the logs are more easily extractable.
but the logs are more easily extractable
When you're dealing with a Barney Frank artifact, the double entendre file folder fills fast. For real.
"...the double entendre file folder fills fast."
Yeah, I'm sure leaving one's friend's behind is difficult.
Liberals think that the questions are tedious and hence should not be answered.
Up your reading comprehension skills.
Question Construct != Question. My comment was one of style. I'm a former editor, but not so former at times.
MadisonMan. I know you were making a style point. I was keying off that to note that this thread has no progressives in the discussion. I find that very revealing.
Is it fair that if I become ridiculously wealthy because I developed a innovative operating system, or computer system from my garage or risked ruin because I had a crazy idea of competing with the post office to deliver packages or started a store that grew into a global retail giant or create a computer and operating system to compete with IBM or create a massive social network application?
This comment doesn't really address income distribution and income inequality. In other words, it completely misses the point.
If you compare income distribution in Sweden and the United States, you find that income distribution in Sweden is much flatter across all income deciles. This means that the middle class in Sweden is relatively larger (as a fraction of all income classes) than the middle class in the United States, and the lower income classes in Sweden constitute a smaller fraction of all income classes than in the United States.
Very few real conservatives believe that a relatively larger middle income class and a Relatively smaller lower income class are bad things.
Stephen Moore's statement is nonsensical because it doesn't distinguish between how both income distribution and tax rates determine the relative tax burden on any particular income class.
If you compare income distribution in Sweden and the United States, you find that income distribution in Sweden is much flatter across all income deciles. This means that the middle class in Sweden is relatively larger (as a fraction of all income classes) than the middle class in the United States,...
Yes, and if you compare the disposable incomes of those middle classes, you'll find that middle-class Americans are far better off.
Margaret Thatcher was right. You illustrate the liberal desire to flatten income distributions, even if it leaves average people less well-off.
If you compare income distribution in Sweden and the United States, you find that income distribution in Sweden is much flatter across all income deciles.
When I see statements like this, I wonder "And how does this person propose that we change a nation's income distribution?"
The answer is always to tax, but it seems rather futile and hopeless: The people who pay the most taxes still have the most income growth because they've got the wealth to leverage, not to mention resources and strategies to lower income. Eventually you're just looking at a punitive expedition to hurt people with high incomes.
How come these guys never propose trying to make the poor more prosperous? (answer: because then they'd vote Republican)
Very few real conservatives believe that a relatively larger middle income class and a Relatively smaller lower income class are bad things
They are very bad when enforced by the state.
If Sweden were a US state, it would resemble Mississippi in terms of economics. If Obama has his way, the entire US will will have an economy like [or worse than] Mississippi.
Mississippi is a nice place, but it's not my ideal economy.
Your use of "fair" is quaint.
One who expects fairness — particularly in politics — is either a or b.
Fill in "a" and "b" to taste.
"He hopes at least half of us are fool."
He won the election in 2008, so I'd say his hopes are at least plausible.
Yes, and if you compare the disposable incomes of those middle classes, you'll find that middle-class Americans are far better off.
And here is a person who confuses income distribution with per capita GDP.
The United States has better Mexican food than Sweden. Were you going to mention that next?
How come these guys never propose trying to make the poor more prosperous?
I absolutely support this idea. That's why I think it's so terrific that Willard and the GOP have an effective plan for accomplishing this!
If Sweden were a US state, it would resemble Mississippi in terms of economics.
It's almost as if this person hasn't followed the conversation. How else can this bit of nonsense be explained?
And here is a person who confuses income distribution with per capita GDP.
I didn't even mention GDP. I said "disposable income."
Post a Comment