Since the day following the 2012 general election, this political observer told friends and Republican elected officials the following:
Say to the President (hopefully while on live TV), “Mr. President you are positioning the United States to go in the wrong direction. You are taking us directly into a disastrous financial mess which will devastate the American people. Your plan will create a slow or no-growth America which will not add employees to private payrolls. But, you won this election and have the right to promote your course of action. We Republicans will not vote yes, but we will not vote no and stand in your way. When you do take America into this foreseeable upcoming financial disaster, do not point an accusing finger at Republicans. You will have earned all the credit for yourself.”
Unless Republicans thought the President’s plan was a formula for success, they should have let the Democrats have their ‘victory’ then sat back and waited for the predictable results.
It was obvious on November 7th to this political observer that arguing, stalling, and negotiating with this President and his allies in the Senate was going to make Republicans look weak and give the President and the Democrats a bigger victory when Republicans finally cave-in to political reality.
Here we are at the end of the year, Republicans decided to play the President’s game and the results were predictable. Republicans look weak. When economic disaster does arrive, the Democrats and their allies in the press will say, the President tried to save the situation but the Republicans would not let him.
There is nothing unusual here for a Republican team that has repeatedly learned how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Mr ReverePaul, you dine out for a nice dinner at a local Applebee's Restaurant and the tab is, let's say, $30. You pay your bill, head out the door and are promptly confronted by a gentlemen who claims to be a representative for DineEquity, Inc. He tells you that you owe him $30. You say who is DineEquity, Inc. and why would you owe him $30. He says DineEquity Inc. owns Applebee's Rerstaurants and they need more money from you. What would you tell him? I am anxious to know your true response. Every time I debate a liberal, when they are confronted with issues they can't defend, they either, 1. Try to change the meaning of the debated issue. 2. Try to change the subject entirely. 3. Start name calling. 4. All the above.
As for the argument for the rise of taxes on the rich (which was original issue), here are a couple of reasons. First of all the notion that raising taxes (particularly on the rich) is going to crush the economy is ridiculous. Even during the massive tax increases after World War II did barley any damage to the U.S. economic growth. Another reasons is that these rich people that will be getting taxed can afford it because they have done ridiculously well over the last 30 years. In 1979, their income was 10% of total income. In 2008, it doubled to 21%. In contrast, the income for the middle class has pretty much stayed the same. And finally if the Bush era tax cuts are so great for the economy, well, how do you explain the economy we are in now with those same tax cuts? Wait I already know the answer which is the same one every conservative responds with. Blame Obama and the Dems.
ReverePaul, nice try, but you, I, and everyone else reading this column know that the "question" you posed to me was really a rhetorical question. You answered your own question within it by making the absurd point that D.C. "Steals your money and then hides it in the White House while Obama laughs?" It was obvious that it was meant as an absurd, sarcastic joke. It was not meant to be taken as a serious point of debate to be answered. I could ask anyone, "What, are you out of your mind?", and I don't expect an answer. If you want answers from people then ask legitimate questions that stick to the issues. Next, You stated "nobody eats at Applebee's". If that's the case how is it that DineEquity Inc. stock (DIN) New York Stock Exchange is trading at over $69 per share today? Someone must be eating there, and it must be profitable?
3. Start name calling. Actually I should have used the broader description of "Character Assasination". This includes sarcastic tones, verbs, and nouns that are designed to discredit the other person, thereby hopefully misdirecting the focus away from issues and making the focus of a more personal nature. I find you use this disingenuous tactic almost immediately when confronted with facts. Then you state, "First of all the notion that raising taxes (particularly on the rich) is going to crush the economy is ridiculous." Again using the word "ridiculous" when someone is trying to engage in intelligent debate is yet another discrediting ploy. Your knee-jerk reaction to any view that is not in line with yours is to instantly call it all "nonsense" which makes you appear to take the higher ground and somehow exempts you from engaging in true debate. Then incredibly, in the very next sentence you admit that massive tax increases did indeed damage U.S. economic growth. In two consecutive sentences you made contradictory points. Who is discredited here by their own words?
Now to this notion of disdain you have for the so-called "rich". In this country we do not have a Monarchy or Class system of society that places people into varying levels of existence, prominence, affluence, or social order depending on their birth. Our Constitution officially denounces titles of nobility and states that all men are created equal. These so-called "rich" that you talk about have roots in the same ideals that you and I have. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first two are guranteed by the constitution. Happiness is NOT guranteed. The PURSUIT of it is though. Sadly, many people are ignoring these proclomations.
What saddens me the most is I see an increasingly infantile attitude in full-grown people. It's like we live in a country of millions of 3 year old adults. Every 3 year old only knows they want what they want, and they want it NOW, period. They are totally self-centered. They always want the other kids toys. They throw fits when they don't get them.
While I'm sure you think your a genius for pointing out errors in my grammar ( I didn't know this board was test) you responded to none of the facts I posted and again changed the meaning of the debate. Also, you were so quick to point my sarcastic point of Obama hiding your money yet were unable to pick up my other sarcastic point of saying nobody eats at Applebee's and decided to use it as an opportunity to tell others about how smart you think you are. Guess what, nobody cares. Finally, while I'm flattered that you think I deserve the time to write me a short novel as a response, but I sadly won't do the same because your not worth it.
"It's your money, and we want it now!"
The Bush Admin completely ignored the fraud in mortgage origination including a warning from the FBI in 2004 that it was rampant throughout the industry- in banks and mortgage companies alike. One bank CEO said he knew 85% of the mortgages originated with his company would go bust. He didn't care. Just took the origination fee and sold off the loan Banks packaged and repackaged the notes (same note up to 10x in some cases) and sold this toxic debt AAA rated paper. This rampant fraud happened on Bush's watch. He was warned and did nothing. It nearly took the system down. Were you not paying attention while this was happening. 2007? 2008? Lehman? AIG?
I don't care to ask you any questions at all.
From the guy who wants to give taxpayer money to the biggest corporate welfare queen of the all -WalMart- so he doesn't have to drive so far from his duplex community to buy cheap Chinese junk, Yeah, STOP THE SPENDING!!! STOP PRETENDING YOU CARE ABOUT WHERE TAXPAYER MONEY GOES!!! (Unless it's going into the pockets of large corporations, right mike?)
"The economy is in the sewer and the unemployment rate is in the toilet, Bush's fault? I don't think so..............." I think so. Bush had been at the helm for eight years when this blew up. To refresh your memory regarding the dates- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/ Episode One- The Obama administration arrived in Washington in early 2009 facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression — and an American public outraged by bailouts for the financial institutions that had gotten them there... "Inside Job"- Producer/director Charles Ferguson (No End in Sight) speaks at length with journalists, politicians, and financial insiders in order to offer a clearer picture of the economic meltdown that hit America starting in 2008... "Margin Call"- Set in the high-stakes world of the financial industry, Margin Call is an entangling thriller involving the key players at an investment firm during one perilous 24-hour period in the early stages of the 2008 financial crisis. When an entry-level analyst unlocks information that could prove to be the downfall of the firm, a roller-coaster ride ensues as decisions both financial and moral catapult the lives of all involved to the brink of disaster...
As for your completely off topic point about abortion and how it is wrong to kill a baby (which it is) how is not wrong to do something about lax guns regulations in our country when thousands of people die from guns every year. What's the different between liberals screaming for abortion and conservatives screaming for guns? Both do the same thing
Please explain to me why you used the term "family money"? Is that a bad thing? Also I am glad you agree with me when you say, "The American Dream is not a sure thing ". When I said we have the right to pursue happiness, but happiness is not guranteed, that is exactly what we are talking about. No one is guaranteed happiness and prosperity, only the pursuit. And your illustrious president cannot guarantee you prosperity either, only a marginal existance at best. I give to charities because I want to.
As for guns, thousands of people die because other people kill them. Guns have to be used by a person. They don't kill on their own. Oh.......and by the way, as a side news bulletin, 64,000,000 legal gun owners killed no one yesterday.
Termpaperman. Pointlesstangentman.
And also for the term "family money", I was showing you that not all rich people need to work hard for their money, all they need to do is be in the family. I know quite a few of those people. Also, 31,940 people died from guns last year, so basically we're willing to sacrifice deaths every year so gun owners can look at their guns in a box or go out to hunt? Why don't you go tell the people of Sandy Hook that number and see how they react. Are you going to tell every single person affected by gun deaths every year that others don't use guns to kill so it's fine to have a ridiculous amount of guns in our society? When people shoot a gun, their intention is to kill or to hurt something? How is that good in society? And can you also explain the need for assault rifles in our country?