Crist's editorialidentifies him as "Charlie Crist is the former Republican governor of Florida" — and "former Republican" is unwittingly apt.
Speaking of apt, here's Meade, contributing to The Forum at our local Madison alternative paper Isthmus (quoting Crist's statement first):
"I applaud and share [Obama's] vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history."
Yeah, Romney's vision is of a weak and frightened middle class in an economy without opportunity for prosperity.
Of course, that vision, unfortunately, comes from looking at the last four years of the Obama administration.
Posts
100 comments:
Meade truly is the anti-Crist
Economic opportunity, economic growth and and freedom in America creaated the middle class. Evidence that this is true is the millions of of immigrants who will do almost anything to get to America.
Crist & Obama have it exactly backwards. I am not shocked at that.
Of course, that vision, unfortunately, comes from looking at the last four years of the Obama administration.
For which, the Congressional Republicans blocking his legislation for the last two years bear NO responsibility whatsoever!!!
Is it possible to come up with at least one opinion on this blog that doesn't ignore reality?
"...his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class..."
I'm not aware of such a vision. Perhaps he meant Obama's vision of rewarding Crist greatly for his support?
The cynic in me suggests Crist is hoping for an Obama win so Crist can get a job in the Obama administration. But thats just me--ymmv
Ritmo makes a good point. Imagine just how bad things would look if Nancy Pelosi's Democrats had continued to hold sway these past two years.
Let's give thanks to what 40 years of Republican domination in politics has done for the middle class.
Ignoring a record like that takes a combination ignorance and arrogance of astounding proportions.
And then there is the issue of the Democratic controlled senate which has done less than nothing.
The Dems had total control of the goverment for two years--they did pass the ACA for better or for worse. The Republican tsunami in the house and now we are gridlocked in the legislative branch. Not a bad thing in IMO--the less the legislature can do the better off we are.
Meade makes a point, but it's a redirected talking point designed to basically twist the reality of the situation that Republicans created, and saw it in their interests to continue and exacerbate.
Crist simply thinks Obama is hotter than Romney. However, he has to be intriqued by Ryan.
NTTAWWT
Meade, if you know of any lawyers, ask them if it would have been in the Republican political interest to have cooperated with a successful Democratic president. How do you think would this have affected the reputation of their brand, given what happened to it in 2006 and 2008?
"Meade makes a point, but it's a redirected talking point designed to basically twist the reality of the situa...."
Do you ever just... laugh?
I was unaware that the R's dominated politics for the last 40 years--Who knew? I would suggest the "dominating politics" at least the federal level means that a single party controls the executive, and both houses of congress. That hasnt happened very often, although the last time was the first two years of the Democrat party.
Meade mused: Imagine just how bad things would look if Nancy Pelosi's Democrats had continued to hold sway these past two years.
Nothing could stay such pendular sway.
Charlie is the man without a country and hopes, if there is a Choom second term, he can be gauleiter somewhere.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Of course, that vision, unfortunately, comes from looking at the last four years of the Obama administration.
For which, the Congressional Republicans blocking his legislation for the last two years bear NO responsibility whatsoever!!!
It's the Democrat Senate that has been blocking most of the legislation, including both of Choomie's budgets, which went down with zero "for" votes.
Do you ever just... laugh?
Sure.
I smile. I laugh. I enjoy life.
I just don't think that intentionally working to keep a ruined economy down is a funny thing.
There are people way less fortunate than me, people who have been hurt by all this. And if I looked the other way while asking them to ignore my mistakes while I worked to make it worse (so that I could blame the guy in charge of fixing it), I wouldn't be very happy with myself.
Would you?
It's one thing to laugh at one's own misfortunes. Another to laugh at someone else's.
And when you've created cover for those who create misfortune?
What's so funny about that?
Hmmm, Crist, Crist, the name sounds vaguely familiar...oh, yeah the orange dude who lost to Rubio.
Think he's still a bit butt-hurt?
Err, pendulous.
Pendular is redundant.
Re cooperation--the Simpson-Bowles commission offered some reasonable solutions to the fiscal state of the government that included both cuts and tax increases--Precisely how did the President respond to those?
So the first day of the last two Republican conventions have been cancelled by hurricanes. And these are the people that want to run the country?
Roger, the whole point is that whatever Obama agreed to, Republicans would have disagreed. He could have attempted to implemented the entire platform of the GOP 2012 convention. They'd have denied it.
They knew that cooperating with a successful Democratic president - regardless of the agenda - would have sealed their reputation (or so they reasoned). They made a calculated political effort over the course of the last three years to deny him any successes. They figured any success on his part would have decreased theirs.
Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong.
But to hold an economy and a country hostage over it is unforgiveable.
Obama knew he had nothing to lose. The Republicans made sure that the country would lose either way.
I think edutcher raises the appropriate point re the Dem controlled senate which has failed to pass a budget in well over 1000 days. My understanding, perhaps wrong, is the the presidents legislative priorities are tied to the budget that is submitted to the congress. Mr Obama's budgets have been a laughing stock that even his fellow party members fail to support.
So the first day of the last two Republican conventions have been cancelled by hurricanes. And these are the people that want to run the country?
8/26/12 10:39 AM
Unfortunately, unlike King Putt, the GOP does not appear to have the power to keep the oceans from rising.
Ritmo--I respectfully disagree with your analysis--The Simpson-Bowles commission did a reputable job goring oxen on both sides of the aisle. It was Mr Obama who disregarded it. Your are surmising that the Rs would vote it down--and you might be well right; but clearly the Dems in the senate have held almost every initiative in limbo for the last 2 years. Plenty of blame to go around, but to lay it all at the feet of the republicans, seems to me to be a bit overstated.
Ritmo typed. "just don't think that intentionally working to keep a ruined economy down is a funny thing"
Ritmo. Republicans want to make money. We do not give a shit if we make money with a Democrat or a Reoublican in charge as long as we can make money. Your statement reflects your parties love of power and its willingness to do anything to get and keep it. To think we would keep the economy down for any reason displays your ignorance of your opposition and of economic reality.
The opposition you have witnessed in Congress is the opposition to stupid ideas.
Ritmo reasoned: Roger, the whole point is that whatever Obama agreed to, Republicans would have disagreed.
Easily reserved in polarity: whatever Republicans agreed to, Democrats disagree.
The real difference is how to create middle class prosperity.
I always ask myself when I see these kinds of endorsements: Is there any reason at all that I should care what x thinks about the Presidential Race?
Crist lists a lot of reasons to support Obama, mostly tied to past performance. Are future results tied to past performance? And is the interpretation of the past performance accurate? Is the mindset that guided past decision-making the same one needed now? Those are the key questions. I don't believe Crist gives an accurate assessment because he is seeking consensus in his article.
Now that Tampa is out of harm's way, mostly from Isaac, I'm alarmed to see what might happen in New Orleans. Head's up, all you central Gulf Coasters!
Ritmo typed. "just don't think that intentionally working to keep a ruined economy down is a funny thing"
Ritmo. Republicans want to make money. We do not give a shit if we make money with a Democrat or a Reoublican in charge as long as we can make money. Your statement reflects your parties love of power and its willingness to do anything to get and keep it. To think we would keep the economy down for any reason displays your ignorance of your opposition and of economic reality.
The opposition you have witnessed in Congress is the opposition to stupid ideas.
Roger,
The fact that Obama offered plenty of Republican tax cuts in nearly every economic initiative implemented, the fact that their candidates refused to endorse 1 part spending to TEN parts tax cuts, shows who's to blame.
Compromise is not a one-way street. When it's made to be a one-way street, during a situation in which the repercussions for not cooperating are dire, you know where the blame rests.
MadisonMan said...
Now that Tampa is out of harm's way, mostly from Isaac, I'm alarmed to see what might happen in New Orleans. Head's up, all you central Gulf Coasters!
Frontpageable!
Michael, your problem is that you only care if YOU make money.
There's a whole 'nother economy out there that needs to make money too, though. Looking out for just your own and pretending that your situation is the same as everyone else's is just the sort of ignorant arrogance that I'll continue to call out, and that it looks increasingly likely that you'll continue to LOSE on. (Assuming you keep pushing the fight this way, and with the lack of successes to show for it).
It is worthwhile reminding ourselves of SecTreas Geithner's point made in hearings: (and I paraphrase) We dont have a plan, but we know we dont like yours.
Last I heard Geithner represents the administration. Yes, indeed, its all the republican's fault.
What I do know as fact is that unemployment has been over 8 Percent for over 42 months; the average net worth of Americans continues to decline. All of this under Mr Obama's stewardship of the economy (see Geithner's comment above).
Mr Obama owns this fiasco, as do his feckless Dems the Senate.
I have to run along now for another busy day spent oppressing minorities, taking away Sandra Fluke's birth control, starving poor people, ruining the economy, and wheeling grannies off the cliff, all the while laughing at their misfortune.
We conservatives have quite a hectic schedule.
But to hold an economy and a country hostage over it is unforgiveable
If al Qaeda pulled off what Republicans pulled off in Congress we'd call it terrorism.
Obama succeeded in crippling the US economy just like Osama planned.
Is that terrorism, garage?
Charlie Crist went to work for Morgan & Morgan after he left office. They're the biggest ambulance chasing law firm in Central Florida, and hugely profitable. Crist appears on billboards for them. ("Morgan & Morgan, for the People") Needless to say, John Morgan, the founder of the firm, is a big time Democratic party donor. He's hosted Obama in his house at least a few times over the last few year, including just a few weeks ago IIRC.
So what Crist is doing is what Crist has always done, namely whatever his pay masters tell him to do.
With Geithner, there is plenty of blame to throw around, Roger. And there's where you'll have allies on the left - assuming you care for them.
You can make it about him, make him about to a good scapegoat for the administration. But you'll find nothing on the left to unify its political self-interest as mutually exclusive with the economy as you'll find coming out of the mouths of Republican leaders like McConnell.
What about Turzai's comment that voter I.D. was intended to elect Romney, rather than to protect voting integrity?
This stuff is ruining the republic.
Do you think that it can last, in an era of unlimited information?
Criminey, to actually believe that if only Obama had made even greater stupid state spending than the trillions already pissed away, that the economy would now be roaring ahead, is just astonishingly stupid and by that I mean Democrat.
"Do you ever just... laugh?"
If Meade ever says something funny ?!? sure.
Does laughing at the futility of Meade "trying" to be funny count.
Alrighty then lol.
btw, watching any of the Rep circle jerk this week should make you smile as cons try to dodge Ryan's true political philosophy er hurricane Isaac.
I yield back the balance of my time to wannabe comedian Meade. :-P
Pogo is so superior to stupid that I bet he can't find a single modern-day economist who agrees with him.
But he is funny! Ha ha. Cartoons and banging drums and caricatures of political opposition as a technicolor ENEMY are sooo gosh-darned hilarious! Mebbe we can forgit about the crashed and restrained economy that way! Haw haw.
Who?
"Who?"
Ask Althouse, it's her post. :)
Troll elsewhere, Ritmo; you have always and forever argued in bad faith and then like here,when flailing, resort to boring insults. A Kos bot writes better stuff.
Ritmo--my point was not to pillory Geither; rather the first clause of his testimony: "we dont have a plan."
I rather like Erskine Bowles, a staunch democrat, who provided considerable source material for the breakdown of Simpson-Bowles. And in fact, were Mr Romney to win, he might want to consider Mr Bowles for Sec Treasury.
with respect to our basic disagreement on the issue, neither you nor I will change our positions. You and I, it seems to me are a vignette of the larger issue.
I propose to walk away from our disagreements, go out and have a beer, chase wild women, and pursue other more interesting avocations.
Best
The little animal drools all over himself as he is reduced to crying about the commenters.
The Romster will get another bounce out of the convention while it remains to be seen if Choom has similar luck.
Most of his bounces the last 2 years have been of the dead cat type.
Graphs and academic studies are the stuff of bad faith, so sayeth the Pogo.
Obama's vision of the future is a boot stomping on a human face -forever.
He thought Orwell was giving advice.
Oh, I was on my way to doing that and will be continuing on my way soon, my friend. Rest assured that I don't take any disagreement with you personally, Roger.
May your avocations be equally interesting. You have my best as well.
Oh, that first 11:13 AM comment is some goooood FAITH, all rightey! It's so good-faithey as to rival the power of that old time religion!
But a better informed grown-up might refer to it as an incredibly immature and asinine caricature. Don't tell that to Pogo, though. He's got some tired tropes to trot out. They help test his faith.
"Good" faith. Not the bad kind.
Charlie Crist is a whore.
"commenters"
My point was only concerning Meade aside, Althouse must find it disarming that her #1 sycophant, an almost 64 year old shut-in, is totally fixated on my every post.
Indeed, as Althouse must surely cringe every time edutcher makes a childish ad hominen attack on me or a inane post in general.
But hey, it's true love lol as edutcher is totally jealous of Meade. As he lives vicariously to Althouse er ((( the blonde's ))) every move.
♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
>
Bottom line, give it a rest ... or not.
If Charlie Crist knew what he was doing we'd be referring to him as Senator Crist.
64 year old shut-in,
He just went to Wyoming!
They have visions and want people to vote for them. What about facts and specific plans that can be mulled and tested? Visions = Nothings. Vote for our cloud castles, they're prettier than your lives. Under all those visions of sugar plums dancing in your heads we are stealing everything you own. Thanks, burp. Keep your focus of those beguiling visions. We have more coming for you. You'll love them. You WILL love them.
The confident middle class are the former rich, confident because they have bank accounts back from when they could earn money and so will be okay.
The new poor are the former middle class, who will not be okay.
That's Obama's vision.
The little animal is reduced to babbling mindlessly in the face of continued good news for the Republican cause.
My rebuttals of his canned, flatulent rimshots apparently hit home often enough he has to project his own fantasies about the woman he cannot have.
And, yes, I'm still waiting for all those rebuttals he's going to deliver.
The prosecution rests!
Charlie is the man without a country and hopes, if there is a Choom second term, he can be gauleiter somewhere.
Maybe Obama will let him drive the van.
The prosecution usually offers a rebuttal.
Or even a case.
Crist comes out
not much of a surprise
for Obama
even less of a surprise
Ritmo. You deflect by which you concede. As to your new assertion you are correct. I do not care if you make money. Not in the least. I would like for you to become rich but that is up to you. I grew up without a pot to piss in. Now I have a rather large one.
"What I do know as fact is that unemployment has been over 8 Percent for over 42 months; the average net worth of Americans continues to decline. All of this under Mr Obama's stewardship of the economy (see Geithner's comment above)."
I'm not an Obama fan, but beginning with our and Europe's manipulations, world-wide economic instability has ensued. We will remain on top of the pyramid, but most everyone is going to shift downward. What could Obama have done differently for us to have a lower unemployment rate at this point in time?
Goodness gracious but Ritmo has really worked hard to earn a few extra chances in the "Have dinner with Joe Biden" OFA contest.
Despite the reality of the epic failure of Obama's fundamental transformation of America into Soc Dem Europe.
I mean, why teach a man to fish when you can just seize it from the filthy, dirty rich guy next door? It's not like he really built a fishing pole & boat himself.
Well, there's certainly a prima facie case.
Deborah. Mainly the president could have LED. By extolling and encouraging businesses instead of demonizing them. By encouranging groups to have meetings in Las Vegas instead of ruining the meetings business in that city and others. He could have encouraged, demanded, bureaucrats to cut instead of create red tape. He could have opened lthe door to and encouraged a rational energy policy by inviting nuclear plant building. He could have agreed to extend the tax breaks for all until GDP had reached an agreed level of six percent growth or higher. He could have used his pulpid to encourage bank lending instead of demonizing banks with the outcome that they are terrified of lending lest they fall outside to be determined capital ratios. He could have cheered instead of scolded, encouraged instead of hectored.
What could Obama have done differently for us to have a lower unemployment rate at this point in time?
Oh my, where would you like me to start? How about ending corporate welfare (including pumping endless tax dollars into faux "green" energy like Solyndra) and halving corporate tax rates. Making current income tax rates permanent. Curbing the EPA.
Moving to make Fed government SMALLER and hugely less intrusive. Aiming to eliminate Dept of Education & HUD.
Businesses large and small in this country are refusing to directly hire new employees because they have no clue (and had none for such a long time) because of the hostility towards them that comes from the White House. There is no way they can predict how much they can expose their necks in the short term let alone the long term. This kind of hunkering down is evident in consumer spending, too. Yes, there are occasional up-ticks, but only because people have to go out and replace stuff they've already deferred from purchasing earlier.
The fact remains, there are less total people in the labor force today than when Obama took office. The 8+% unemployment rate is deceptive. It is truly much higher if one takes into account the underemployed and those that have just given up totally.
"If al Qaeda pulled off what Republicans pulled off in Congress we'd call it terrorism."
Kudos. That is the funniest thing I read all day, including the Sunday comics.
Would that be with the Democrats holding the presidency, a veto-proof majority in the Senate and the House, or just after the Democrats proved their incompetency?
Where's the budget? Obama couldn't get a single vote for his. That too is doubtless due to some nefarious mind control by the Republicans.
Charlie Crist, the galvanized corpse, and Todd Akin, the flea-bitten egomaniac, ought to take each other to the prom.
Neither one cares about conservative principles, and Akin in particular seems determined to "rule or ruin." Well, that egregious horse's rump isn't going to rule, but he can sure do a lot of damage going down.
Charlie Crist, the galvanized corpse, and Todd Akin, the flea-bitten egomaniac, ought to take each other to the prom.
Neither one cares about conservative principles, and Akin in particular seems determined to "rule or ruin." Well, that egregious horse's rump isn't going to rule, but he can sure do a lot of damage going down.
I want all of you EBT totin' Holder's peeps to get off yo ass an' GO TO WORK!!!
We are supposed to believe a vindictive loser against our lying eyes and real life experience?
Well I considered calling Crist a delulsional twit.
Then I read that Crist thought Obama had built a strong middle class.
And I KNEW Crist was a delusional twit.
It hardly needs repeating anymore that when a "progressive" or Democrat accuses you of doing something wrong, it's something they're already doing.
But I won't let that stop me.
For which, the Congressional Republicans blocking his legislation for the last two years bear NO responsibility whatsoever!!!
1) Sen. Reid and the Democratic Senate blocked far more Republican legislation than the Republicans blocked Democratic legislation the last two years.
2) the first two years, President Obama and the democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and could pass anything they wanted to.
3) The American people deliberately elected a republican House in 2010 precisely so they could block Democratic legislation.
"Well, there's certainly a prima facie case."
And definitely no need for a top flight lawyer lol, pro bono will suffice ...
Probably talkin' an out of court settlement, w/edutcher on probation as long as he religiously attends his psychiatric sessions!
Gahrie: Well said, especially:
3) The American people deliberately elected a republican House in 2010 precisely so they could block Democratic legislation.
Obama and his supporters played a bait-and-switch on voters. Instead of the pragmatic, centrist unifier we were constantly told Obama was, we got a hard-left, ideological polarizer.
I've never seen Americans mobilize so quickly and successfully against a popular president.
Christ invalidated himself in his effort to defeat Rubio. He couldn't be elected dogcatcher in FL. No one is asking "What does Charlie think about this?"
Deborah. Mainly the president could have LED. By extolling and encouraging businesses instead of demonizing them.
Lol. More accurate Michael:
By using the invisible hand to jerk you off and create the impression of wealth rather than the real thing.
By refusing to distinguish between bubbles/artificial growth and real growth.
By refusing to distinguish between the gain on a ledger sheet and the loss caused by outsourcing.
By refusing to distinguish between different sectors of the economy, such as housing, finance and manufacturing, and the different effects that each of them have on the nation.
By blindly believing (or propagandizing) that unused/hoarded capital creates growth and jobs.
By being held hostage to the dictates of the privileged and ignoring whether prosperity is widespread.
Yep, you can tell that Michael grew up without much (as he puts it, without "a pot to piss in"), by two observations:
1. How difficult it is for him to tell the difference between authentic wealth and phony substitutes.
2. How little his parents either cared for or provided for him. If they'd done a better job of that, he'd realize that there is a difference between earned privilege and unearned privilege, and that some things are just plainly inherited.
Perhaps his family was poor by no fault of their own. But you wouldn't know that by Michael's retelling of the situation.
I, OTOH, can perceive that drive isn't everything.
See, that's one big difference between me and him. I'm really curious to know what he thinks of the upbringing with which he was provided, whether his view of it is as condescending as it sounds.
He could have opened lthe door to and encouraged a rational energy policy by inviting nuclear plant building.
Lol. Yeah. Cause that works really well for France. Remind me again of their unemployment rate?
It's like the Republicans are simply incapable of advocating ANYTHING that hasn't been thoroughly debunked by real-life examples.
How well is austerity working for Old Europe?
What could Obama have done differently for us to have a lower unemployment rate at this point in time?
1) stop the EPA from increasing the cost of electricity by imposing unnecessary and arbitrary standards (including mercury levels orders of magnitude smaller than if you break one CFC bulb in your house)
2) Allow the Keystone pipeline
3) not pass the horrible PPACA that increases costs on small business owners
4) stop threatening to raise taxes on those who earn more than $250k/year, which includes mostly small business owners
5) stop demonizing and punishing success
6) not increase entitlements ("free" birth control!), not weaken welfare work requirements, not increase unemployment...stop rewarding the people who make bad choices and stop punishing the people who make good choices.
7) not channel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to campaign donors and cronies.
If Obama had followed the plan Bush used in 2001-2002, which has been proven to work, the economy would have recovered and we'd already be in the midst of another economic boom. That plan is: cut taxes, reduce unnecessary regulation, provide assurances to small businesses they can keep what they earn, tweak govt policy to help energy prices be cheaper.
Yes, Nathan! That's it! The nation's economy will be magically restored to health and full employment by allowing insurance carriers to deny the provision of contraception! That's it, by Jove!
How about a serious proposal, for a change?
Care to share you found your stat on small business owners' incomes, Nathan? I'm coming up with cites of $30,000 to $110,000.
76% make less than $200,000 annually.
Yes we need to raise taxes to marginally lower the deficit by a weeks worth of revenue to keep subsidizing more parasites. Ritmo must be scared that his days of mooching must be coming to a close.
How much have I mooched and where did it go, ignorant refugee? Last I checked I paid my federal taxes the same as everyone else.
Here is a breakdown of all the non-business owners that cubanbob feels somehow need continued relief in order for the economy to recover (despite the fact that their existing relief isn't doing the economy much good):
Entertainers and athletes,
Corporate CEOs,
Investment Brokers and Speculators
Inherited wealthy (i.e. the Paris Hiltons of the world).
Also, a small percentage of lawyers, physicians and marketing/sales professionals make more than $250k annually, but since they are in the distinct minority of a profession averaging $150k/year (physicians) or less (attorneys, etc.), we can safely say that they don't figure in here, not that they contribute all that much to job growth anyway.
So as usual, the usual spouter of empty RW pabulum is full of doo-doo.
Bob, go find some useful outlets for your adopted patriotism. We're all so glad you don't live with Uncle Fidel anymore, but living your life to air your grievances with him by ignorantly bankrupting the U.S. doesn't reflect much better on you. Learn about that of which you speak, Sir. Hatred of another country's ex-leader is not a substitute for actual policy in a functional republic.
BHO shuld have made this his October surprise. The Crist's followers, which I think are all the Repubs and Independents would have joied the Dems to make it a 100% voted for Obama. Then BHO would truly be like the Dear Leader.
Ritmo: Liked your link. Tip for you and the writer: a millionaire does not necessarily make one million or more dollars a year. Many small business owners are millionaires many times over because they saved and invested well. Further, the increase in tax rates particularly hits savings in the rise in capital gains taxes. Interesting article, however, to see the lazy way the lefty mind works.
Ritmo: Liked your link. Tip for you and the writer: a millionaire does not necessarily make one million or more dollars a year. Many small business owners are millionaires many times over because they saved and invested well. Further, the increase in tax rates particularly hits savings in the rise in capital gains taxes. Interesting article, however, to see the lazy way the lefty mind works.
For which, the Congressional Republicans blocking his legislation for the last two years bear NO responsibility whatsoever!!!
Only house not passing legislation is the Senate.
It's not the Republicans fault there.
Roger, the whole point is that whatever Obama agreed to, Republicans would have disagreed
Wouldn't it have been smart, then, to ACTUALLY PRESENT ideas?
The only ones who did were Republicans.
All the WH knew was that they didn't like what the Republicans offered.
/the fact that Obama offered plenty of Republican tax cuts in nearly every economic initiative implemented, the fact that their candidates refused to endorse 1 part spending to TEN parts tax cuts, shows who's to blame.
1) That never happened.
2) Democrats have repeatedly reneged on deals to raise taxes now and cut spending later. Republicans would be absolute morons to agree to a tax hike BEFORE spending is cut.
He could have attempted to implemented the entire platform of the GOP 2012 convention. They'd have denied it.
Did he try it?
No?
Then let's deal with reality and not hypotheticals, kay?
Ritmo,
You're right! Sarcasm is the answer to everything!
You don't have to have an answer to anything, you can just be ridiculously stupid in cutting down other ideas! That will get Obama re-elected!
You can ignore many good proposals, then cherry pick and distort one minor part, and pretend it was the entire proposal, and then sound like a completely stupid dunce and ask for "serious" proposals, despite having absolutely none of your own!
Of course, it helps to be completely ignorant about cause and effect, just like all good liberal/progressive/democrats!
The statements of Mitch McConnell are, actually, a reality.
The statement of Mike Turzai is, also, a reality.
The only reality that needs to be reckoned with is your stubborn refusal to take Republican statements, on the record, on videotape, in which they openly proclaim their willingness to short-change voter interests for personal political gain, at face value.
You can ignore many good proposals, then cherry pick and distort one minor part, and pretend it was the entire proposal, and then sound like a completely stupid dunce and ask for "serious" proposals, despite having absolutely none of your own!
So you now disagree with this tried-and-true Republican strategy?
Glad to see, Michael, that you, too, agree that annual income of a million bucks is way too generous an assumption on the part of America's small business owners!
But the proposal was only to extend the cuts up to $250k of annual income. You didn't want the resumption of higher rates to extend to those making even less, did you?
I hope not. I wouldn't propose that either.
Hope that oversight of yours wasn't intentional. You are speaking for the policy interests of an entire class of Government Caretakers, remember!
Ritmo. You do know the proposal to raise the rate on capital gains and its implications? Because that bit essentially means investments will have to do way better to stay even with current returns should the proposed rates take effect.
Oh, and there was no "oversight" on my part. You cannot school me in economics, dude. Stick to sanctimony which is your strong suit.
Too bad writing and thinking clearly isn't yours.
No one is proposing increasing rates on total financial assets. Enough with the bs charade and amphiboly. If the article mistakenly said "millionaires" when referring to individuals making "millions of dollars of income", then your point was made - but the article's point was not debunked. Repeating someone else's mistake is a great example of the type of stupid herd behavior that I would expect an investor as talented as you want us to believe you are to avoid.
As for carried interest, there could be a way to write into the tax code a greater rate for manipulators like you, who make the majority of their income from speculating, so that they would pay a higher capital gains rate than the average joes. Don't start giving me ideas. Along with being a more astute reader than you, and more moral when it comes to competently dealing with the misfortunes of other people, I'm way more creative.
Ritmo." No one is proposing increasing rates on total financial assets"
I didnt say or imply that. I said that our president is proposing a massive tax increase on capital gains which are currently taxed at 15 percent. Before you accuse others of a lack of reasoning or writing skills you should hone your own, weak, ones.
The higher tax rates aren't just aimed at short-term "speculators." if they were, the administration would only be advocating a hike of short term gains rates. Those are the same as income tax rates and are increasing modestly at the higher marginal brackets. Obama's tax increases are a dagger pointed at the heart of the investment world: long term gains and their twin sister, dividend income.
Obama hates people living on a fixed income!!!!
Jason: Ritmo believes that all investment bankers, of which I am one, rely on speculation to make their living. He is poorly educated and clueless about the world of finance and investment.
Your point is exactly right. The impact, of course, will not be to raise revenue but rather to freeze transactions. If Obama is reelected I will sell any capital gains prior to year end and remain in cash until the rates are lowered.
Ritmo believes that all investment bankers, of which I am one, rely on speculation to make their living.
I never said that.
The point is that you deflect continuously from the fact that YOUR OWN industry's fuck-ups are what caused this mess, and they haven't been fixed.
You yammer on about nuclear power, inspirational business speaking and every manner of irrelevant presidential activity as if THAT will somehow, magically fix the opacity and manipulation that too many in your industry remain addicted to.
Theirs are the actions of economy killers, and yet you act as if differentiating yourself morally, politically and legally from these actors and their ubiquitous actions is harder than carrying a twenty-pound weight anchored to your testicles. If you feel you've been branded with the mark of Cain, it's because you can't seem to identify it on your look-alikes.
You are pathetic. The lengths you will go in order to shirk blame for your colleagues - if not for yourself personally - is why Wall Street's reputation as an American institution has taken a nosedive of an angle steep enough to parallel that taken by the Teahadist Congress. (10% approval and falling).
You cannot speak for yourself as morally superior to them if you continue refusing to identify and propose credible solutions for that REAL problem.
Asshole.
I didnt say or imply that.
You bought into the idea that a proposal on "millionaires" (i.e. taxes on account of someone's assets) was being advanced.
Opacity, Michael. Manipulation. Keep trying to convince me that you're above that game.
Post a Comment