Uh...I'll go out on a limb here and say...because he's white?
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Monday, June 04, 2012
Who Would Be Able to Fix Our Finances?
Over at the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt asks whether Obama or Romney would be more likely to fix the nation's budget problems. He spends an entire column without arriving at any conclusion, though he does define success as a budget resembling the Simpson-Bowles plan. That plan involves a combination of increased revenues and entitlement cuts.
In the piece Hiatt basically accuses both Obama and Romney of being morally weak. Then he says:
In a second term, Obama is freed from the pressures of reelection and having to cater to every special interest group in the Democratic Party. Like most moderate and Blue-Dog Democrats, Obama has already accepted the premise of the Simpson-Bowles plan. Which means that even if he can't get the most intransigent Democrats to work with him, with the help of a relatively small number of reasonable, truly patriotic Republicans could get some significant entitlement cuts enacted.
Romney, on the other hand, has already rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan out of hand because it includes tax increases. So, out of the gate, Romney simply cannot be successful by Hiatt's standard. Romney is campaigning with promises of even more tax cuts and increased military spending. These will vastly exceed the savings we could get from even the most draconian entitlement cuts. Romney can't flip-flop on these promises because he would have the cloud of a 2016 reelection run hanging over him. People like Grover Norquist would never allow Romney and the Republicans in Congress to consider anything remotely resembling a tax increase.
But let's say Romney does the unthinkable and proposes something like Simpson-Bowles. The vast majority of his party would revile him. Thus, just like Obama, Romney would have very little Republican support and would have to count on Democrats to provide most of the votes. The problem is, those Democrats would have no incentive to help Romney. For the last three years they've suffered from Republican filibuster, sabotage, obstructionism and intransigence. And because Romney's first actions in office would be to gut many of the programs Democrats favor (health care, etc.), they will be in no mood to compromise with him.
But that's all moot, because there's zero chance Romney would ever propose a plan like Simpson-Bowles in the first place. Which makes me wonder why Hiatt even bothered to ask the question.
In the end a lot will depend on what happens in Senate and House elections, and whether the Senate fixes the filibuster rule. But as long as Grover Norquist and the Tea Partisans control the party, any future under Republican control looks bleak.
In the piece Hiatt basically accuses both Obama and Romney of being morally weak. Then he says:
Both men surely understand what has to be done, and both would have an incentive to do it. You could argue that Obama, believing in a larger role for government, has a larger incentive; none of his “winning the future” agenda will be imaginable except on a foundation of stable long-term finances. But no more would Romney want to govern through four years of recurring debt-ceiling crises and rising interest costs.It's ridiculous to talk about Obama's and Romney's incentives: of course they want to fix the budget. But it's really about what's possible. The practical politics of the situation will decide what will happen, not what the president wants.
In a second term, Obama is freed from the pressures of reelection and having to cater to every special interest group in the Democratic Party. Like most moderate and Blue-Dog Democrats, Obama has already accepted the premise of the Simpson-Bowles plan. Which means that even if he can't get the most intransigent Democrats to work with him, with the help of a relatively small number of reasonable, truly patriotic Republicans could get some significant entitlement cuts enacted.
Romney, on the other hand, has already rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan out of hand because it includes tax increases. So, out of the gate, Romney simply cannot be successful by Hiatt's standard. Romney is campaigning with promises of even more tax cuts and increased military spending. These will vastly exceed the savings we could get from even the most draconian entitlement cuts. Romney can't flip-flop on these promises because he would have the cloud of a 2016 reelection run hanging over him. People like Grover Norquist would never allow Romney and the Republicans in Congress to consider anything remotely resembling a tax increase.
But let's say Romney does the unthinkable and proposes something like Simpson-Bowles. The vast majority of his party would revile him. Thus, just like Obama, Romney would have very little Republican support and would have to count on Democrats to provide most of the votes. The problem is, those Democrats would have no incentive to help Romney. For the last three years they've suffered from Republican filibuster, sabotage, obstructionism and intransigence. And because Romney's first actions in office would be to gut many of the programs Democrats favor (health care, etc.), they will be in no mood to compromise with him.
But that's all moot, because there's zero chance Romney would ever propose a plan like Simpson-Bowles in the first place. Which makes me wonder why Hiatt even bothered to ask the question.
In the end a lot will depend on what happens in Senate and House elections, and whether the Senate fixes the filibuster rule. But as long as Grover Norquist and the Tea Partisans control the party, any future under Republican control looks bleak.
Uh...Huh?
Chamber’s Donohue Grades Obama on Economy: C+
Not an F? Not Armageddon? I don't get it.
Considering the source of this rating, the president should consider this winning the jackpot!
:---)
Capitalism is too important to be left to ... capitalists.
It turns out that capitalism is a marvelous creation for efficiently producing and distributing goods and services. It is the genius that unleashes creativity through human energy and effort. It satisfies the human need to build something, for people to say "this is what I accomplished."Yep.
But there is also a dark side of capitalism. When its excesses have been left unchecked, as they have been at times in our history and were again preceding the Great Recession, government leadership has emerged to save capitalism from itself. It took the analyses of historians to appreciate what Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt accomplished. At the time of their courageous leadership, they were hated by business leaders. It is a classic case of the dogs of capitalism biting the hand that preserved their existence.
Hmm...that sounds familiar:)
Unfortunately, the previously mentioned dark side of capitalism is the outcome of a system without constraints, the necessary regulations that serve to check the negative consequences. The harm to society has been legendary. Examples are child labor, acid rain, rivers catching fire, destruction of our atmosphere's life-protecting ozone, lead poisoning, black lung disease, mountaintop removal, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, toxic waste dumps, selling lethal tainted meat and produce, the destruction of urban rail transit systems, and lung cancer induced by cigarettes. This last example calls to memory the tobacco CEOs arrogantly telling Congress that "no, we don't believe cigarettes are addictive or cancer causing."
Yep.
You see, capitalism is too important to be left to the whims of capitalists. When Barack Obama took the oath of president, his inbox came straight from hell. Over the objections of a GOP that wanted government to imitate the disastrous inaction of Herbert Hoover, Obama and the Federal Reserve unfroze the panicked financial system and averted a collapse into another economic depression. The lessons of the 1930s were not forgotten.
These lessons again teach that the temptation to put a businessman in the White House should be rejected. It would be courting disaster.
No shit. And it's nice to hear that what I have been saying all along comes from a retired engineer and business executive.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Saturday, June 02, 2012
The Alternative?
Yesterday's tough economic news has sent the media into a tizzy. How can the president possibly win re-election now? After all, it's June...five months before the election...and this is when voters make up their minds, right? Hee hee hee....
I've always been amazed by the emotional maturity of the media (see: 13 year old girl) but I guess I'd like to look at this from a practical point of view. Let's assume that our economic woes are all President Obama's fault. His policies have brought us to this sluggish place and we need a change. So...what's the alternative?
First up, we have Mitt Romney. Here is his plan to fix our economic woes. After reading all of his various ideas, the first question that came into my head was...how is this different from President Obama's plans exactly? Oh, right. Less spending and less taxes.
But wait. That doesn't make any sense because we are still under the Bush Tax plan and look at the results. We also are spending less than in the past so where's the growth? Moreover, nowhere do I see a scoring by the CBO or any other neutral entity that gives us an idea as to what Mitt's plan will do for the economy.
The other main alternative we have is Paul Ryan's budget. This offers even less than Mitt's plan in the way of a real plan and reads more like a cross between Ayn Rand and Thomas Sowell. Again, where's the scoring of this plan by the CBO or a similar entity?
Further, neither of these plans cut defense spending-a key contributor to our nation's debt and deficit-so how can anyone take this stuff seriously?
Looking past Romney and Ryan, what do we have? Well, we have the anarcho-capitalist views of the right wing blogsphere. Does anyone really think that a return to the 1890s is a good idea? So, really, we don't have much in the way of a substantive alternative to the Democrat's policies.
To put it simply, no one on the right really knows what the fuck to do. Please correct me if I am wrong or offer a plan (of your own or someone else's) that I may have missed because I don't see it. All I see is the president's jobs bill stalled out in Congress because they are more concerned with beating him than enacting policies that would help the economy.
Meanwhile, Paul Krugman continues to call for increased government spending in the short term as the only real solution. Is he right? If not, why not?
I've always been amazed by the emotional maturity of the media (see: 13 year old girl) but I guess I'd like to look at this from a practical point of view. Let's assume that our economic woes are all President Obama's fault. His policies have brought us to this sluggish place and we need a change. So...what's the alternative?
First up, we have Mitt Romney. Here is his plan to fix our economic woes. After reading all of his various ideas, the first question that came into my head was...how is this different from President Obama's plans exactly? Oh, right. Less spending and less taxes.
But wait. That doesn't make any sense because we are still under the Bush Tax plan and look at the results. We also are spending less than in the past so where's the growth? Moreover, nowhere do I see a scoring by the CBO or any other neutral entity that gives us an idea as to what Mitt's plan will do for the economy.
The other main alternative we have is Paul Ryan's budget. This offers even less than Mitt's plan in the way of a real plan and reads more like a cross between Ayn Rand and Thomas Sowell. Again, where's the scoring of this plan by the CBO or a similar entity?
Further, neither of these plans cut defense spending-a key contributor to our nation's debt and deficit-so how can anyone take this stuff seriously?
Looking past Romney and Ryan, what do we have? Well, we have the anarcho-capitalist views of the right wing blogsphere. Does anyone really think that a return to the 1890s is a good idea? So, really, we don't have much in the way of a substantive alternative to the Democrat's policies.
To put it simply, no one on the right really knows what the fuck to do. Please correct me if I am wrong or offer a plan (of your own or someone else's) that I may have missed because I don't see it. All I see is the president's jobs bill stalled out in Congress because they are more concerned with beating him than enacting policies that would help the economy.
Meanwhile, Paul Krugman continues to call for increased government spending in the short term as the only real solution. Is he right? If not, why not?
Friday, June 01, 2012
Here Comes Their Hero
I'm still amazed when I hear the right whine about the liberal media. To begin with, isn't that playing the victim card?
Yes. Yes it is.
But the real stunner is that they think it even exists in the first place. Take a look at this recent piece about Scott Walker in The New York Times.
On a recent afternoon, Mr. Walker, who is only the third governor in the nation to face a recall election, dashed onto a makeshift stage on a loading dock here as supporters screamed, the song “Only in America” pounded from loudspeakers, a bank of television cameras rolled and Mr. Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, beamed behind him.
With the remnants of a sinus infection and round-the-clock campaign stops lingering in his voice, Mr. Walker urged the crowd not to let up, declaring that union bosses were pouring money into the state to remove him because, he said, “they don’t like the fact that we’ve got a governor here who stood up and took on the powerful special interests.”
That sounds to me more like a description of Bruce Springsteen's latest concert than a political event. I'll leave Walker's line about special interests and pouring money alone...for now:)
Of course, the Times isn't the only paper doing it. My local paper, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, which has been called the Star and Sickle on more than one occasion, has this article in today's paper.
The whole piece is one giant love fest for Governor Walker.
Here's another piece from Politico which essentially makes Scott Walker look like a victim. And here's a list from RCP with the same general themes I have mentioned thus far. Hell, even the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has endorsed Walker!
So, I'm wondering...where's that liberal media again?
Yes. Yes it is.
But the real stunner is that they think it even exists in the first place. Take a look at this recent piece about Scott Walker in The New York Times.
On a recent afternoon, Mr. Walker, who is only the third governor in the nation to face a recall election, dashed onto a makeshift stage on a loading dock here as supporters screamed, the song “Only in America” pounded from loudspeakers, a bank of television cameras rolled and Mr. Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, beamed behind him.
With the remnants of a sinus infection and round-the-clock campaign stops lingering in his voice, Mr. Walker urged the crowd not to let up, declaring that union bosses were pouring money into the state to remove him because, he said, “they don’t like the fact that we’ve got a governor here who stood up and took on the powerful special interests.”
That sounds to me more like a description of Bruce Springsteen's latest concert than a political event. I'll leave Walker's line about special interests and pouring money alone...for now:)
Of course, the Times isn't the only paper doing it. My local paper, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, which has been called the Star and Sickle on more than one occasion, has this article in today's paper.
The right finds its champion: Wisconsin Gov. Walker
"People recognize you've got to have bold and courageous people in politics to take on the status quo and say, 'This isn't working,'" said Kurt Bauer, president of the organization. "If we can't do it in Wisconsin -- if we recall Governor Walker for doing something that was difficult but necessary -- it's a bad omen for the rest of the nation."The whole piece is one giant love fest for Governor Walker.
Here's another piece from Politico which essentially makes Scott Walker look like a victim. And here's a list from RCP with the same general themes I have mentioned thus far. Hell, even the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has endorsed Walker!
So, I'm wondering...where's that liberal media again?
Need or Greed?
A central tenet of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and conservative orthodoxy in general is that taxes on wealthy "job creators" at the very top must be lowered, preferably to zero. It is their contention that given this extra money these "job creators" would immediately turn around and invest this money in extra productive capacity, which would require them to hire additional workers.
The logic is that high taxes discourage these guys from working, and low taxes lure them to work harder to get even richer. Since these folks already have all the money they could possibly need, so their primary motivator must be greed.
Other tenets of the conservative orthodoxy are that even the poorest people should be forced to pay taxes to make them feel "vested," that they don't need the payroll tax cut President Obama instituted, that the minimum wage should be eliminated and that unemployment and welfare benefits are inherently evil. Even Medicare and Social Security should be abolished in the long run.
The logic is that the more money these lazy poor people have, the less inclined they will be to work. That is, their primary motivator must be need.
This is a false dichotomy. People are people, and their motivations are the same no matter what their income level. The real difference is the means that they have at their disposal to act upon their motivations.
Corporate profits have been up in the last few years and many companies are just sitting on tons of cash. Tax rates are down significantly from what they were 15 years ago (halved on capital gains!). That was the last time our economy was doing really well, and people at all income levels were doing better.
The fact is, dozens of large corporations already pay no taxes at all and hundreds pay very little. Lowering their taxes will provide no additional motivation. But corporations are not creating lots of jobs in the United States, even though they could easily afford to. Why?
They don't need to. CEOs are swimming in corporate profits and getting bonuses out the wazoo. It's easier for them to sit on their duffs, make their current employees work more hours, offshore more jobs, and take no risks.
As a motivator, need trumps greed every time. By conservative logic, since greed is failing as a motivator we must enlist need. In other words, the laziness and overweening sense of entitlement that conservatives insist permeates the lower classes has become even more pervasive in the upper crust "job creators," and should be slapped down with equal force.
The obvious answer? Raise taxes on "job creators" unless they actually create jobs. In particular, companies that funnel jobs and profits overseas to escape US taxes should be hammered. That will make them work harder, the same way cutting off welfare and unemployment benefits forces the poor to work harder. To maintain profit margins the CEOs will have to expand their businesses and create more jobs. And if they're like Ayn Rand's ostensible heroes and just take their ball and go home? Corporate shareholders will just replace them, or ambitious newcomers will rise up to do the job they're too lazy to do.
There's plenty of evidence that higher taxes (within reason) don't hurt the economy. The US economy performed much better from the 1950s through the 1990s when taxes were higher (much higher in the 50s) than after the Bush tax cuts. As Paul Krugman points out, high-tax Sweden and Austria are doing better today than the United States and the rest of Europe.
With more people earning more money, there will be more customers for those companies, which will mean more profits.
Thus, satisfying need and greed at the same time.
The logic is that high taxes discourage these guys from working, and low taxes lure them to work harder to get even richer. Since these folks already have all the money they could possibly need, so their primary motivator must be greed.
Other tenets of the conservative orthodoxy are that even the poorest people should be forced to pay taxes to make them feel "vested," that they don't need the payroll tax cut President Obama instituted, that the minimum wage should be eliminated and that unemployment and welfare benefits are inherently evil. Even Medicare and Social Security should be abolished in the long run.
The logic is that the more money these lazy poor people have, the less inclined they will be to work. That is, their primary motivator must be need.
Corporate profits have been up in the last few years and many companies are just sitting on tons of cash. Tax rates are down significantly from what they were 15 years ago (halved on capital gains!). That was the last time our economy was doing really well, and people at all income levels were doing better.
The fact is, dozens of large corporations already pay no taxes at all and hundreds pay very little. Lowering their taxes will provide no additional motivation. But corporations are not creating lots of jobs in the United States, even though they could easily afford to. Why?
They don't need to. CEOs are swimming in corporate profits and getting bonuses out the wazoo. It's easier for them to sit on their duffs, make their current employees work more hours, offshore more jobs, and take no risks.
As a motivator, need trumps greed every time. By conservative logic, since greed is failing as a motivator we must enlist need. In other words, the laziness and overweening sense of entitlement that conservatives insist permeates the lower classes has become even more pervasive in the upper crust "job creators," and should be slapped down with equal force.
The obvious answer? Raise taxes on "job creators" unless they actually create jobs. In particular, companies that funnel jobs and profits overseas to escape US taxes should be hammered. That will make them work harder, the same way cutting off welfare and unemployment benefits forces the poor to work harder. To maintain profit margins the CEOs will have to expand their businesses and create more jobs. And if they're like Ayn Rand's ostensible heroes and just take their ball and go home? Corporate shareholders will just replace them, or ambitious newcomers will rise up to do the job they're too lazy to do.
There's plenty of evidence that higher taxes (within reason) don't hurt the economy. The US economy performed much better from the 1950s through the 1990s when taxes were higher (much higher in the 50s) than after the Bush tax cuts. As Paul Krugman points out, high-tax Sweden and Austria are doing better today than the United States and the rest of Europe.
With more people earning more money, there will be more customers for those companies, which will mean more profits.
Thus, satisfying need and greed at the same time.
What amazes the most about these figures is not the disparity but the willful ignorance of the right and the cries of "class warfare" and "wealth envy." With an economy that is 70 percent consumer spending, it's no wonder ours is stagnant with so much wealth at the top.
In addition, I fear that if this trend continues we may indeed have a socialist revolution and it will be the real ones, not the make believe ones that exist only in the minds of guys like Bill Whittle and Kevin Baker.
And it will all be because we had to manage their fantasies...
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Oh Really?
Senate Republicans Signal Big Shift On ‘Obamacare’
With a Supreme Court decision looming next month, House Republicans are privately weighing a plan to reinstate three popular elements of the law if it’s struck down — guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults up to 26 years old to remain on a parent’s insurance policy, and closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.”Sen. Roy Blunt (MO), vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, offered a ringing defense of the “Obamacare” under-26 provision, and said he wouldn’t oppose ideas he previously supported simply because President Obama adopted them. “I believe that’s one of the things that the Congress would surely reinstate,” Blunt told the St. Louis radio station KTRS in an interview last Thursday, pointing out that he has offered similar legislation in the past. “It’s a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost. … It’s one of the things I think should continue.”
“I’ve been in a couple meetings lately and there’s some general understanding that that’s one of the things … and there are other things like that as well,” the senator added.
Yet they are against a mandate. So how are they going to pay for this again?
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Get the Donald on the Case
Here's a trivia question: which presidential candidate this year has a father who was born in a foreign country, goes by an alias, may have an ominous middle name linked to the devil, and refuses to release his long-form birth certificate?
If you guessed Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney you win the prize!
The foreign-born father? According to Fox News:
The middle name? Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney was named after J. Willard Marriott and George Romney's cousin, Milton (nicknamed "Mitt"), who played for the Chicago Bears.
The link to the devil? John Milton wrote Paradise Lost, considered one of the greatest works in the English language, which is about Satan's fall from grace.
The birth certificate? Romney says his middle name really is Mitt, but he refuses to produce his long-form birth certificate to prove it.
Donald Trump should get on this case and dispatch some private investigators to Michigan to dig up Mitt Romney's purported birth certificate. But instead Trump is still blathering about Obama being born in Kenya. The simple truth is, Obama's mother was an American. Ergo, he's an American. End of discussion.
Now, thousands of people are after Romney to make him prove he's not a unicorn. Of course that's just a joke, just like the whole birther conspiracy. But with all these Republicans around the country demanding that states pass laws that require presidential candidates produce their birth certificates, why haven't we seen Romney's?
It may be that he really does have something to hide...
If you guessed Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney you win the prize!
The foreign-born father? According to Fox News:
Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy.The alias? Romney's real first name is Willard, which is seered into the conscious of a generation as the name of a horror flick from 1971, when Romney was 24. In the movie Willard learns to control rats and uses them to attack this enemies. In the end the rats turn on Willard and eat him alive. Now, any parallels between Willard's rats and Romney's political minions are purely incidental...
The middle name? Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney was named after J. Willard Marriott and George Romney's cousin, Milton (nicknamed "Mitt"), who played for the Chicago Bears.
The link to the devil? John Milton wrote Paradise Lost, considered one of the greatest works in the English language, which is about Satan's fall from grace.
The birth certificate? Romney says his middle name really is Mitt, but he refuses to produce his long-form birth certificate to prove it.
Donald Trump should get on this case and dispatch some private investigators to Michigan to dig up Mitt Romney's purported birth certificate. But instead Trump is still blathering about Obama being born in Kenya. The simple truth is, Obama's mother was an American. Ergo, he's an American. End of discussion.
Now, thousands of people are after Romney to make him prove he's not a unicorn. Of course that's just a joke, just like the whole birther conspiracy. But with all these Republicans around the country demanding that states pass laws that require presidential candidates produce their birth certificates, why haven't we seen Romney's?
It may be that he really does have something to hide...
Mitt Romney, Horse Trader
Remember a while back when some Democratic talking head said Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life, and the Fox News exploded, trying to get stay-at-home moms riled up about it? As if Ann Romney was one of them?
Let's for a moment ignore the fact that the life of a stay-at-home wife of a multimillionaire is nothing like the life of a real stay-at-home mom who stays home and bakes cookies and can't afford maids and gardeners and private schools and a couple of Cadillacs and the peace of mind that near-infinite amounts of money can buy.
It turns out that Ann Romney did have a job, of sorts, as a member of that notoriously dishonest profession of horse trader.
An article in the New York Times describes Ann's involvement in the sport of dressage, the buying and selling of horses, and her relationship with a German dressage trainer, Jan Ebeling.
Ann Romney took up dressage again at age 50, after learning she had multiple sclerosis. This sort of activity helped her deal with the disease. She became quite good at it and her physical condition improved. She took several trips to Europe with Ebeling to buy top-drawer dressage horses for herself and her trainer. These horses cost upwards of $100,000 apiece, and she bought several.
Now, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a high-falutin' sport like dressage or Ann Romney spending her free time doing it, or buying expensive horses, or footing the bill for her trainer's horses, or lending him half a million bucks to buy a horse farm where she can vacation. But it doesn't end there.
According to the article:
In 2003 the Romneys bought a horse named Super Hit in Germany for $100,000. They bought the horse even though X-rays showed he had a bad coffin joint. Horses with this flaw often go lame, cannot be ridden and must be turned out to pasture.
And indeed, Ann learned she couldn't ride the horse for this reason:
The buyer paid $125,000 for the horse but quickly discovered that he was lame, something Ann Romney obviously knew because that was why she sold him. The problem was apparently masked during the evaluation by injecting the horse with four tranquilizers. The buyer sued the Romneys, Ebeling and the vet. The suits were eventually settled out of court.
Now some people will say that this is just a case of caveat emptor. The buyer should have known what a bad coffin joint meant, shouldn't have trusted Romney's vet, and should have demanded to see the tox screen.
So, yeah, the buyer screwed up. She trusted the wife of a guy who'd already been running for president for years at the time. A guy who claims we can trust him. Yet this man who would be president let his wife screw someone out of $125,000.
And then there's this:
In the final analysis Ann Romney bought a horse with a bum leg for way too much money, lied about the true condition of the animal, doped him up for the test, got a vet to lie about the animal's condition, dumped him on someone else for a 25% profit, then refused to fess up when she got caught.
But it's no surprise. Mitt made his money pretty much the same way. Romney was essentially a horse trader, buying up companies with bum bottom lines and selling them again to unsuspecting investors, only to have some of them go lame — err, bankrupt — after Mitt had cashed out. I guess Ann learned from her husband well.
If this is how Romney treats people in his private life, and how he treats people in the business world, why would he treat the American people any differently?
Let's for a moment ignore the fact that the life of a stay-at-home wife of a multimillionaire is nothing like the life of a real stay-at-home mom who stays home and bakes cookies and can't afford maids and gardeners and private schools and a couple of Cadillacs and the peace of mind that near-infinite amounts of money can buy.
It turns out that Ann Romney did have a job, of sorts, as a member of that notoriously dishonest profession of horse trader.
An article in the New York Times describes Ann's involvement in the sport of dressage, the buying and selling of horses, and her relationship with a German dressage trainer, Jan Ebeling.
Ann Romney took up dressage again at age 50, after learning she had multiple sclerosis. This sort of activity helped her deal with the disease. She became quite good at it and her physical condition improved. She took several trips to Europe with Ebeling to buy top-drawer dressage horses for herself and her trainer. These horses cost upwards of $100,000 apiece, and she bought several.
Now, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a high-falutin' sport like dressage or Ann Romney spending her free time doing it, or buying expensive horses, or footing the bill for her trainer's horses, or lending him half a million bucks to buy a horse farm where she can vacation. But it doesn't end there.
According to the article:
On the Romneys’ 2010 tax returns, they reported a loss of $77,000 for their share of the partnership that owns Mr. Ebeling’s top mount, Rafalca. Mrs. Romney owns the horse with Ms. Ebeling and a Romney friend, Beth Meyers. Sponsorship arrangements are not unusual in dressage, where riders who want to climb to the top look to wealthy backers.Yes, the Romneys lowered their tax liability by claiming a loss for the expenses of Ann's very expensive hobby. I bet you wish you could use your hobbies to reduce your taxes.
In 2003 the Romneys bought a horse named Super Hit in Germany for $100,000. They bought the horse even though X-rays showed he had a bad coffin joint. Horses with this flaw often go lame, cannot be ridden and must be turned out to pasture.
And indeed, Ann learned she couldn't ride the horse for this reason:
Though Mrs. Romney loved the horse, calling him “Soupy,” she decided to sell him in late 2007. Riding him, though meant to soothe her multiple sclerosis, had in fact become painful. “I frequently was getting back spasms when I rode Soupy,” she said.The Romneys sold Soupy because he'd gone lame. Knowing this they still found a buyer, Catherine Norris. Ebeling told the buyer that Super Hit was the soundest horse on the farm. The buyer did what she was supposed to do: she had X-rays taken and had a vet look at the horse. She found out about the coffin joint, but the vet told her it was fine, no problem there. But the vet had a conflict of interest--he was Romney's vet. He even sent out emails telling people to vote for Romney on Super Tuesday in 2008.
The buyer paid $125,000 for the horse but quickly discovered that he was lame, something Ann Romney obviously knew because that was why she sold him. The problem was apparently masked during the evaluation by injecting the horse with four tranquilizers. The buyer sued the Romneys, Ebeling and the vet. The suits were eventually settled out of court.
Now some people will say that this is just a case of caveat emptor. The buyer should have known what a bad coffin joint meant, shouldn't have trusted Romney's vet, and should have demanded to see the tox screen.
So, yeah, the buyer screwed up. She trusted the wife of a guy who'd already been running for president for years at the time. A guy who claims we can trust him. Yet this man who would be president let his wife screw someone out of $125,000.
And then there's this:
Asked if she was ever unhappy with Mr. Ebeling’s instruction, Mrs. Romney said in a deposition in the lawsuit, “I think that is not a fair question because we all get upset at certain times with anybody that is — you know, especially a German.”The casual, matter-of-fact racism is so heart-warming. It's good to know what kind of people Mitt Romney shares his most intimate moments with.
In the final analysis Ann Romney bought a horse with a bum leg for way too much money, lied about the true condition of the animal, doped him up for the test, got a vet to lie about the animal's condition, dumped him on someone else for a 25% profit, then refused to fess up when she got caught.
But it's no surprise. Mitt made his money pretty much the same way. Romney was essentially a horse trader, buying up companies with bum bottom lines and selling them again to unsuspecting investors, only to have some of them go lame — err, bankrupt — after Mitt had cashed out. I guess Ann learned from her husband well.
If this is how Romney treats people in his private life, and how he treats people in the business world, why would he treat the American people any differently?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
A Kinder, Gentler Cult
Take a look at this video below.
This is the first volley against Obama by American Crossroads, a Super PAC run by Karl Rove and some other like minded individuals. The ad is running in swing states like Florida and Ohio. It struck me as interesting for several reasons.
First of all, where's all the Barack X stuff? Well, apparently it's gone because it doesn't play very well.
Middle-of-the-road voters who said they thought the country was on the wrong track were unmoved when they heard arguments that the president lacks integrity. And they did not buy assertions that he is a rabid partisan with a radical liberal agenda that is wrecking America.
Well, that's because it's not true and doesn't exist in reality. The fact is that even though many people don't agree with the president's policies and/or feel disappointed, they still like him personally. If he is attacked in a manner that was recently floated by some high level conservatives, you can say buh bye to the independents and swing voters. This would be why Mitt Romney always inserts that line "The president is a nice guy but..." into most of his stock answers to questions. He, like McCain before him, knows about the dark side to American populism.
Another thing that struck me was where was the husband? The ad obviously intimates that this is a single woman as she complains about her life and struggles in the job market. VERY interesting considering this is from a conservative group. Have they seen the writing on the wall and know they can't win without the women's vote? This, along with the leaving behind of the Barack X garbage, is a sign of progress. Even though I realize that there are millions of Americans who need to have Barack X to get out of bed and identify themselves every day, themes like this give me hope. Sorry, fuckos, I guess you can't win by calling the president a Kenyan socialist who constantly apologizes for America, spent more than anyone ever in the history of forever, raised taxes, is destroying free enterprise, and is making us weaker.
Yet neither of these points can hold a candle to the two more subtle messages contained therein....two messages that hilariously expose the metaphorical slip, if you will, of the right's dress. Remember all that talk about how if people are having financial problems, it's THEIR fault and blaming others for their own shortcomings is sacrilege? Well, I guess that's gone now because none of this woman's problems are her fault. The fact that she is low on cash and has adult children living at home is the fault of the government.
Wow.
Truly, one of the most titanic examples of hypocrisy I have seen in awhile. And, uncharacteristically, a complete capitulation.
Diving deeper, we can clearly see the Michael Jordan Generation on full display. The reason she has two adult kids living at home is because she has done a poor job in raising her children. Like many in her generation, she has babied her kids to the point where the can't function outside of her home. And without a two parent home it was likely made worse. But that's all the fault of the liberals and their social agenda, right?
No, it's not. This is how our culture is right now and it's truly awful. It's not because of the government or the education system (whose job it is most certainly not to parent or nanny) or the unions made up of people who make 50K a year or less. It's the fault of all of us because we have allowed our culture to be mostly socialized by the corporate owned media who tell us that the definition of success is a guy like Michael Jordan.
And not the winner of the science fair. Or the mathlete. Or the Model UN winners. Or the...well, I think you get the idea.
This is the first volley against Obama by American Crossroads, a Super PAC run by Karl Rove and some other like minded individuals. The ad is running in swing states like Florida and Ohio. It struck me as interesting for several reasons.
First of all, where's all the Barack X stuff? Well, apparently it's gone because it doesn't play very well.
Middle-of-the-road voters who said they thought the country was on the wrong track were unmoved when they heard arguments that the president lacks integrity. And they did not buy assertions that he is a rabid partisan with a radical liberal agenda that is wrecking America.
Well, that's because it's not true and doesn't exist in reality. The fact is that even though many people don't agree with the president's policies and/or feel disappointed, they still like him personally. If he is attacked in a manner that was recently floated by some high level conservatives, you can say buh bye to the independents and swing voters. This would be why Mitt Romney always inserts that line "The president is a nice guy but..." into most of his stock answers to questions. He, like McCain before him, knows about the dark side to American populism.
Another thing that struck me was where was the husband? The ad obviously intimates that this is a single woman as she complains about her life and struggles in the job market. VERY interesting considering this is from a conservative group. Have they seen the writing on the wall and know they can't win without the women's vote? This, along with the leaving behind of the Barack X garbage, is a sign of progress. Even though I realize that there are millions of Americans who need to have Barack X to get out of bed and identify themselves every day, themes like this give me hope. Sorry, fuckos, I guess you can't win by calling the president a Kenyan socialist who constantly apologizes for America, spent more than anyone ever in the history of forever, raised taxes, is destroying free enterprise, and is making us weaker.
Yet neither of these points can hold a candle to the two more subtle messages contained therein....two messages that hilariously expose the metaphorical slip, if you will, of the right's dress. Remember all that talk about how if people are having financial problems, it's THEIR fault and blaming others for their own shortcomings is sacrilege? Well, I guess that's gone now because none of this woman's problems are her fault. The fact that she is low on cash and has adult children living at home is the fault of the government.
Wow.
Truly, one of the most titanic examples of hypocrisy I have seen in awhile. And, uncharacteristically, a complete capitulation.
Diving deeper, we can clearly see the Michael Jordan Generation on full display. The reason she has two adult kids living at home is because she has done a poor job in raising her children. Like many in her generation, she has babied her kids to the point where the can't function outside of her home. And without a two parent home it was likely made worse. But that's all the fault of the liberals and their social agenda, right?
No, it's not. This is how our culture is right now and it's truly awful. It's not because of the government or the education system (whose job it is most certainly not to parent or nanny) or the unions made up of people who make 50K a year or less. It's the fault of all of us because we have allowed our culture to be mostly socialized by the corporate owned media who tell us that the definition of success is a guy like Michael Jordan.
And not the winner of the science fair. Or the mathlete. Or the Model UN winners. Or the...well, I think you get the idea.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)