Obama’s Responsibility to His Shareholders
[Guest post by DRJ]
Barack Obama told Barbara Walters yesterday that business leaders like the CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler make too much money and should do more to help people:
“That if you’re placed in a position of power, then you’ve got responsibilities to your workers. You’ve got a responsibility to your community. Your share holders. That if — there’s got to be a point where you say, ‘You know what, I have enough, and now I’m in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I’m doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.’ And that’s true, by the way, for members of Congress, that’s true for the president, that’s true for Cabinet members, that’s true for parents. I want all of us to start thinking a little bit more, not just about what’s good for me, but let’s start thinking about what’s good for our children, what’s good for our country. The more we do that, the better off we’re going to be.”
Obama told Walters the auto company CEOs are captains of failing companies and thus they should not take payments like bonuses. I sympathize with this view. It’s tempting to want to punish corporate leaders for being greedy – and I’m sure some of them are – instead of promoting corporate transparency and market solutions.
Obama’s response is consistent with his campaign call for people to “spread the wealth” and, as we should all know by now, he isn’t willing to trust transparency or market solutions. So be it.
Financial reports suggest the Obamas have a net worth in excess of $7M. That’s a lot more than most of us have so I think Barack Obama should give up his salary as President and recognize his responsibility to us, his citizen shareholders.
After all, times are tough and it’s for the good of the country.
— DRJ
No no no, DRJ, you’ve got it all wrong.
Those ideas don’t apply to The Righteous Ones.
They only apply to The Greedy Ones.
Guess which group Obama is in. Guess which group we’re in.
JayC (827414) — 11/26/2008 @ 10:42 amWhat JayC said +1,000. So if we don’t reward leaders for failed efforts, why did he pick Geithart or whatever his name is, to be Treasury Secretary? Didn’t he just fail, BIGTIME in his last position overseeing Wall Street???
Accountability: Always applies to the other guys, never to the Dems.
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 11/26/2008 @ 10:46 amThis is what happens when you get clueless dingleberries who have never worked in positions of responsibility in for profit organizations suddenly wielding power in Washington. They have absolutely no conception of how the real world functions, only their idealized visions of how it should finction.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 10:46 amWhat about a pay cut for Congress? Say 50% until their approval ratings go up. They get it all back when it hits 100%. A bonus payment if it goes over.(Tongue in Cheek)
LYNNDH (975d26) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:11 amHey, What about demanding that Democrats give back all campaign donations from Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Citibank, AIG, the welfare moms who donated from credit cards from the Gaza Strip…
Give it back Democrats! Give it back!
PCD (7fe637) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:17 amDRJ, 7 million is not Wealth. That’s also including home assets.
You could lose 7 million with a crack habit and a bad weekend in vegas.
That’s not what Obama is talking about here DRJ.
And no he’s not talking about “Spreading the wealth” either. He is suggesting, which is no different than what your chosen one Ronald Reagan expected of his followers in the eighties. Remember the trickle down theory?
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:22 amI don’t think we are going to be overwhelmed with Dollar-a-Year Men in DC.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:40 am$7 million is not Wealth??? Wow, I can see I’m going to have to reevaluate what I’m spending on Christmas presents this year. Evidently I haven’t kept pace with inflation AT ALL.
Seriously, Oiram, do you really not understand what “trickle down” was all about? It had nothing to do with donations, with sharing, or with taking-less-so-someone-else-could-have-more. It was about investments in one part of the economy making their way to all the other parts. Nobody who *earns* money gets to keep it. They all have to invest it somewhere – whether by shopping or by saving. And wherever people produce and prosper they create more production and more prosperity.
Personally, I would LOVE to see a comparison of Ronald Reagan’s charitable giving with Barack Obama’s. In fact, I’d be very curious to see what those evil CEOs give away every year compared to the One – even as a percentage of income.
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:40 amComment by Oiram — 11/26/2008 @ 11:22 am
As has been mentioned by many before,
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:41 amyour ignorance is truly painful!
A couple of comments about the post, DRJ:
1) Wouldn’t it be great to hear Dear Leader-elect also give this message to Hollywood? After all, why do we ignore the fact that actors, directors, producers, etc. pull down as much as $20 million per film (not even including residuals!), while the poor working American has to pay, what, $8-$15 to see a movie depending on where you live? How about we ask Tom Cruise to get by on a measly $8 million per film, and theater prices can be lowered by a buck?
2) That said, I sort of agree with Dear Leader. Not the whole implied bit that the Government has a duty to confiscate a bigger chunk of your income if you make long coin, only that those who do well in life ought to be challenged to do more in terms of direct charitable giving. I wish that GWB had made that more of an emphasis during his Administration, and I wish that Gov. Arnie would spread that message out here.
JVW (bff0a4) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:45 am“That if you’re placed in a position of power, then you’ve got responsibilities to your workers.” Obama
Wow, sorry I misinterpreted “Trickle Down Theory”.
Sorry, I thought it was about creating more jobs by way of prosperity. I stand incorrected.
Whatever the interpretation, as long as you guys notate that Obama is not forcing car companies to be responsible in what he said in the above statements.
“Re-Distributing” the wealth is a stretch here.
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:48 am#9 As has been mentioned by many before,
your ignorance is truly painful!
And yet you still sit there and read, anotherdrew.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:49 amDRJ, 7 million is not Wealth. That’s also including home assets.
Because everybody knows that home assets and real estate don’t count! John and Cindy McCain and your 11 houses go screw! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!11!1!eleventy!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:50 amDRJ – this, coming from the Mr. Potter of step brothers?
Too rich.
Ed (281252) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:10 pmIts gonna be this sort of stupid for the next 4-8 years aint it?
imdw (f636ac) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:15 pmObama told Walters the auto company CEOs are captains of failing companies and thus they should not take payments like bonuses.
m (136934) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:32 pmDid he say “should not”? That’s getting pretty close to a commandment–the, what, Eleventh Commandment, or the First Commandment of the New Order. I notice that, in the excerpted quotation, he avoids that sort of wording.
Yup.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:34 pm#13 Daley
Obama is talking about people in positions of power within a multi global business.
He’s not referring to homes that car companies own or even their managers.
Again read what he is saying.
Comparing Obama’s 7 million to the wealth car companies have accumulated is like comparing the moon to the sun.
duh, duh, daily strikes again.
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:35 pmAmerica has its own ways of enforcing shame and charitable giving. For example, when the justice department was going after Microsoft on antitrust, it just happened to come out that Bill Gates gave essentially nothing to charity. It looked bad, there was an outcry, and suddenly the Justice Dept. was all on fire and prosecuting heavily.
Persuaded by this, Bill Gates started up the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and started giving to charity substantially more.. and the rather deadly pressure on Microsoft seemed to ease. At least in that there was no longer a source of infinite bad press.
Now, is Bill Gates required to give to charity? No. He earned every penny. And whether or not he gives to charity or doesn’t should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not Microsoft engaged in illegal monopoly tactics and what the remedy should be if they did.
But it does have bearing, because these cases are judged in America, by humans. And that is part of the tax of doing business at that level – just like someone at Obama’s political level is required for purposes of appearance to donate to charity (unless the media covers for him.)
(The happy ending to this story is that it turns out by all accounts that Bill Gates not only was able to turn all his CEO skills to a charitable organization with impressive and quantifyable results; but that he is reported to really enjoy running it, too.)
luagha (65d259) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:39 pmDude, they have business dealings on more than one PLANET??? Ok, these SOBs have been holding out on us…
Yes, comparing Obama’s money to Car Company money makes him look poor…
But compare MY money to Obama’s money. Same level of comparison, I suspect.
Obama has Millions. He does not NEED millions. Thus, he should have to give away much of mis millions.
You ate paint chips as a child, didn’t you…
I’m sorry, I’ll call them something you’ll recognize…
Wall candy.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:42 pm“Comparing Obama’s 7 million to the wealth car companies have accumulated is like comparing the moon to the sun.”
Oiram – If that was what I was doing it would be silly. Since it wasn’t, you just look stupid again. Not even a nice try this time.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:45 pm“Obama is talking about people in positions of power within a multi global business.”
Oiram – Define the universe, give two examples.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:47 pmMulti Global……. sorry too much of the ganja I guess.
International would of been a better word.
Hey Daley, what else am I supposed to think when you say:
#
DRJ, 7 million is not Wealth. That’s also including home assets.
Because everybody knows that home assets and real estate don’t count! John and Cindy McCain and your 11 houses go screw! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!11!1!eleventy!
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/26/2008 @ 11:50 am
Sounds like you comparing the moon to the sun to me.
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:51 pmWhen CEOs and shareholders (through their representatives) come to an agreement on pay it’s really none of Barack Obama’s business. Or that of anyone else who isn’t a shareholder.
Why do people feel compelled to tell others how to spend their money? Isn’t it enough to have income tax?
Eric (605286) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:54 pmMariO, Obama is a hypocrite! If CEO and other executives are to suffer and sacrifice because they are rich, so should Obama and his fellow Hypocrite Democrats. GIVE IT BACK, DEMOCRATS! GIVE IT ALL BACK!!!
PCD (7fe637) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:57 pm“Remember the trickle down theory?”
– – –
Yeah. It was a term coined by Democrats, not Republicans, describing a strawman economic theory that never existed so that they could then lie to the American citizenry about how the Republicans’ economic plan would only help the rich.
What about it?
bobby b (361921) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:57 pmUnlike the auto execs, Obama has had a winning year.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:59 pmUnlike the auto execs, Obama has had a winning year.
Unlike Obama, the auto execs have always acknowledged that their goal is to make money, not re-order the world.
JVW (bff0a4) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:05 pmOiram,
I’m curious where the cut-off for wealth is. Wasn’t it Obama who said it was $250K a year? Or was that $150K a year?
But I’m not trying to punish Obama. After all, he’ll still have a free house, utilities, transportation, and food.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:07 pmthe auto execs have always acknowledged that their goal is to make money
And the price of their failure to make money?
$20 million a year plus a private jet?
Capitalism is brutal!
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:15 pmWhatever the interpretation? As in, whether it is the correct interpretation or the incorrect one makes no difference?
Your chin-strap is on too tight today, Oiram.
Icy Truth (b7d162) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:18 pmOMG, I’m now a Texan!!!
[That’s great news, Icy. We don’t have the scenery of your beautiful Arizona but I hope you feel at home in no time. — DRJ]
Icy Truth (b7d162) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:19 pmAnd the price of their failure to make money?
$20 million a year plus a private jet?
Don’t forget a nice big, fat bailout, courtesy of the new Administration and Congress.
Capitalism is brutal!
If only it were, we might be able to avoid some of this nonsense. As it is, as long as the capitalists have the expectation that government will bail them out in times of trouble, there will never be any real urgency to get their house in order.
JVW (bff0a4) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:24 pmYeah,
Plus DRJ seems more upset about spreading the wealth than she does about spreading the losses.
Which is odd.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:30 pmIt’s interesting how DRJ’s comments turn into MarioBashFest2008. Like Oscar Wilde wrote, some people would rather be infamous than not famous at all. Mario just wants to defend what he likes, and attack what he doesn’t like.
Feelings are more important than facts, after all.
I’ll bet he still thinks Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her house, and that GW Bush used the word “strategery.” Both are from skits on SNL….but admitting that would suggest that maybe the “Republican politicians are stupid” meme might be a tad overwrought (and usually delivered by people who have never run anything other than their mouths).
DRJ makes a great point: why don’t politicians (of both parties) with money donate their salaries to charity? Where I used to teach, we had a huge budget crisis one year. The President of the college needed to eliminate raises, freezing salaries. Then we found out that his own salary was decidedly not frozen.
I told him that he ought to make an announcement that all faculty (full professors and senior administrators, all of whom made more than 100K per year) should voluntarily permit a one year 10% cut in their salaries…and that he would lead the way by example (and he made far more than 100K per year, incidentally).
It looked like he had bitten into a lemon, and then he told me that what one person did, did not matter.
Right.
Once again, the “few” want to tell the “many” what they should do…but not to submit themselves to that judgment.
New boss, meet old boss.
DRJ, if President-elect Obama did as you suggest, he would enjoy truly widespread popularity. But I’m not holding my breath.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:40 pmOh, an a root vegetable—or is it leafy greens?—holds forth.
TdJ!
Eric Blair (57b266) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:40 pmSo, investment bankers, who have completely and utterly failed, should lay off workers AND take their 2 million dollar quarterly bonus, eh? That’s the “real world”?
Jesus, I went into the wrong profession. From what I can tell investment banking doesn’t require competence or even figuring out what a market will do. All it apparently takes is the ability to persuade other bigger dolts to give up some fake money, so you can turn your faker money into massive bonuses. Bonus on that? You can get some Americans to tell you that you deserve the bonus, because you’ve worked really hard running the economy into the ground!
Also, you don’t have to be any more well-informed or intelligent than the average conservative commenter on a wingnut blog.
Okay, that’s unfair, Icy Truth and daleyrocks are clearly far more intelligent than most investment bankers. Hell, either of them might win a 3rd grade spelling bee at the local public elementary school!
I'm Just Sayin' (a83d56) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:41 pmI tend to agree that the auto execs make too much money, considering the shape the business is in. I think their compensation should be based on performance. Lots of internet billionaires got rich from stock options when the company went public. That’s a little hard to do with a 100-year-old company but I do think performance bonuses should be the basis of their income beyond a moderate base.
I think the same should be true for teachers and university professors, too. What do you say oiram ? Maybe we should track graduation rates and SAT scores and pay accordingly.
Mike K (394db3) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:41 pmI would remind the usual suspects that GM and Ford have very profitable operations outside the USA that essentially subsidize the North American operations of the two corporations.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:42 pmWhat is the difference between their NoAmer ops, and overseas:
No Congressional meddling, and
No UAW!
Right AD,
In the Capitalist paradises of Europe and China.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:46 pm“That if you’re placed in a position of power, then you’ve got responsibilities to your workers. You’ve got a responsibility to your community. Your share holders. That if — You know what, I have enough, and now I’m in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I’m doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.’
And who gets to determine what enough is? And why should anyone who is earning the money, not earn what he can? Does greed come into play? Absolutely. But again, who’s to say at what point its a matter of greed vs. well earned money?
Eric Blair mentions lead by example. Yep. If there is the slightest tilt toward Obama seeking a nationalization of sorts with big business, well, let’s see him lead the way by example, with Congress et al, following suit.
Dana (79a78b) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:52 pmComment by Mike K — 11/26/2008 @ 1:41 pm
As officers of a publicly-traded corporation, the compensation packages of the CEO’s of GM and Ford are public record and are probably available from the SEC. If you own a share of stock, you are entitled to receive the annual report, which will also detail executive compensation levels. Bonuses and stock options are part of the negotiated contract between the executive, and the compensation cmte of the BoD. These awards are made according to the terms of that employment compensation agreement. If the Board is agreeing to awards that are due while the company is losing money, the company needs a new Board; but, the Board represents the share-holders, and has a fiduciary responsibility to them. Law firms such as Milberg-Weiss and Lerach et al (Lerach and Weiss [or is it Milberg] IIRC are both in prison at this time for being a bit overzealous in their representation of their clients, among other charges), have made a fortune bleeding corporations on the behalf of disgruntled share-holders, and will continue to do so when Boards fail to represent the best interests of the share-holders at large.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:55 pmComment by parsnip — 11/26/2008 @ 1:46 pm
And: Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, and others.
Moron!
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 1:57 pmNo, AD.
Just a vegetable. Indeed a root vegetable, Pastinaca sativa.
But here are some choice quotes from Wikipedia about parsnips:
Harsh, but I see the point. Maybe going to the opera more will help with culture?
I suppose.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:08 pm#29 DRJ, please show us where Obama referred to $150,000 – $250,000 as wealth.
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:08 pm#35 Sorry to disappoint Eric, but I know full well that SNL does parody and exaggerates most of the time.
I wonder what Eric thinks of Clinton impersonations?
“Spot On” I’ll bet…….. especially when you probably think SNL was funny… back in the 90’s when they spoofed Clinton weekly.
Get over yourself Eric.
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:12 pm#38 “I think the same should be true for teachers and university professors, too. What do you say oiram ? Maybe we should track graduation rates and SAT scores and pay accordingly.”
Perhaps Mike, I’ll have to think about it.
Oiram (983921) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:14 pmOh, puh-leeze, Mario.
Projection is unbecoming.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:17 pmOiram, #45, this practice of yours of pretending to have never heard any of Obama/Biden’s campaign rhetoric got old a very long time ago. Everyone has long since recognized it as nothing more than your attempt to derail and hijack threads.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:19 pmYes AD,
The socialized medicine provided by countries like Canada and Brazil remove huge labor burdens from profit-seeking enterprises.
A novel discovery you made there.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:27 pmOiram:
Obama said he will only raise taxes on the rich, which he defined as couples making over $250K a year or individuals making over $200K. In late October, Joe Biden indicated the cutoff between rich and middle class might actually be $150K a year.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:32 pmWhat, 51 comments and nobody wonders what Barbara Walters makes or how much she gives to charity?
dchamil (ebd12c) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:48 pmComment by parsnip — 11/26/2008 @ 2:27 pm
The point is not that these other countries enjoy socialized medicine schemes and that the US does not, it is the regulations imposed by Congress that prevent them from moving production to lower cost areas that costs them dearly, plus the 500K retirees that they are supporting in retirement pay and benefits, and the 120K+ surviving spouses who also receive those benefits.
It is also the $70+/hr costs of wages and benefits to Big Three workers v the $42/hr costs of w&b to workers at Toyota/Honda/Nissan/BMW/MB/etc.
You mention Canada and Brazil, but you fail to mention Mexico, or South Africa, or South Korea.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:52 pmAny particular reason?
and another thing…
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 2:57 pmIIRC, during the run-up to the ’80 Presidential Election, Teddy was forced for the first time to release portions of his tax returns, and it was revealed that he gave less than 1% of his considerable trust-fund + Senate income to charity, and that at the same time, RR was giving over 4% of his considerably lower income to charity.
AD, that is the difference, again, between the Right and the Left. Both actually do want folks in need to be cared for…it is just the Left wants to take money away from people to make that happen, and the Right wants people to donate that money willingly.
The statistics you cite tell a very interesting story, and the Left doesn’t like it very much.
I can’t remember the exact language, but I seem to remember a quote about the Left: things that were once optional become obligatory; things that were once obligatory become unfashionable.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:16 pmThe ugly truth about private charity that the Left wishes to disappear are the many studies that show that people in “red” counties donate a higher proportion of income to charity than those in “blue” counties; and, IIRC, that figure is not just percentage, but in raw dollars/person also.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:23 pmOur car makers are in trouble because they made cars few Americans wanted to buy, AD.
It’s just that simple.
Do we now give them a socialistic handout or do we let them go under?
Thats call is above my paygrade.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:24 pmOiram/Mario and parsnip/sniffles/alphie are in rare form today. Why is it the Left is always so concerned with what someone else earns?
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:26 pmThe number of things above parsnip/sniffles/alphie’s paygrade is practically endless.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:30 pmComment by parsnip — 11/26/2008 @ 3:24 pm
If you wish to round out some fuller thoughts on your statement, “Our car makers are in trouble because they made cars few Americans wanted to buy”, the very well studied commenter, Mike K posted today an insightful look at the U.S. auto industry that is worth reading…note the role of the U.A.W.
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=611
Dana (79a78b) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:32 pmWell, it is not above mine.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:34 pmI called from the beginning for them to get their ass down to the BK Court to shed all of the ruinous contracts they are stuck with.
Not just their labor contracts, but they need the BK Court to override the various State Franchise Laws that stick Detroit with thousands of dealers they do not want, or need.
If they could replace that $2K/car of benefit costs with actual car value (and this number represents the difference between what it costs GM, and what it costs “Toyota”), they would be building cars that people actually want, and could afford. And, in fact, many of the models built by the Big-3 are good cars, and are in demand by the buying public; they just are not able to build them in the numbers that they would like do to the CAFE rules. If their fleet averages go over the CAFE standard, it can cost them hundreds of millions of Dollars in penalties to the EPA.
Because of this, they build multitudes of cars that buyers don’t want, and not enough of the ones that buyers are waiting for.
Thank you, Congress!
“…would like
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:36 pmdodue to the CAFE rules…”AD – That is obviously Chimpy McHitlerburton’s fault.
New cars are way overpriced. We have never owned a brand new car. I would rather let someone else endure the bulk of the depreciation.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:40 pmparsnip,
I think we should not bail the auto companies out and (as AD said) they should experience the benefits and detriments of bankruptcy. I also think we should pass laws that increase transparency in aspects of corporate decision-making. Finally, I would let the directors decide how much to pay the CEOs and let the shareholders decide whether to invest their money with companies that make decisions like the ones these companies made/make.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:43 pmJD,
I see you are quickly regaining your pre-surgery form.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:46 pmMarket solutions?
You ask for market solutions?
Gee. Haven’t you seen enough already resolved down to grit and sand there?
How ’bout maybe levying a few million bucks against W for effing the market out of existence.
But then, of course, everything bad about the economy is Obama’s fault. He caused it. He willed it. He hates America.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 11/26/2008 @ 3:47 pmDRJ – This is a momentary burst of energy, soon to be followed by much sleep. But I am feeling better, just amazingly sore.
You can always count on Mary Reilly to bring teh stoopid.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:02 pmLarry Reilly,
President Bush’s big government approach has been a disappointment but, in general, I still believe in less government and free markets.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:05 pmDRJ,
I think you have to recognize that the Obama family has already sacrificed personal wealth in running and accepting a position in service to the American people – the income of the higher salary-earner in the family, Michelle. Of course it appears most of their annual income derives from sales of Barack’s books, which obviously benefits from his higher profile, but you can’t deny they have given up the income of one breadwinner. Also in terms of “spreading the wealth”, the Obamas’ are not exempt from any marginal tax rate increases he is proposing.
As for asking for all people in positions of power to think of and act in ways greater than just themselves – is there anyone (other than Gordon Gekko) who disagrees with this? It seems to me that Obama has at least tried to walk the walk (even if you don’t necessarily agree with his aims).
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:08 pmJD,
I’m not surprised you’re sore given how the surgeons have poked and prodded you the past few days. What’s really a shame is that now that you have permission and time to sleep, you probably can’t.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:08 pmComment by Bob Loblaw — 11/26/2008 @ 4:08 pm
It is hard to reconcile sacrifice with the fact that she only attained her superior income position due to hubby’s elevation to the US Senate, and his ability to earmark funds to her employer – which, on the face of it, would seem to be a violation of basic ethics rules whereas you directly benefit from an official act.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:20 pmCorrelation does not imply causation AD.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:30 pmDRJ – Every 4 hours, on the hour, a nurse would wake me, take blood, check temp and blood pressure. Add general anxiety, and the hospital is not a good place to get any rest, except when the anasthesiologist comes knocking.
I think that people that have written 2 autobiographies without ever having accomplished one damn thing should be called on to sacrifice.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:39 pmNever mind what you think of what you call Bush’s “big government,” which you may not like so much.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:39 pmHe took the de-regulation riff started by Reagan and made it exponential, government-wide. Out-did Reagan. And more.
If you mean free markets in the sense of completely unregulated markets then you, at least, deserve everything we suffer. There is a middle ground that apparently no one chooses to seek, including you.
So we get socialism. Enjoy it. Nothing else has a chance of saving your grits.
DRJ – How many different names has parsnip/sniffles/alphie/actus/monkeyboy posted under?
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:42 pmWho knew becoming President of the United States of America at the age of 47 was “nothing.”
What have you achieved with your life that’s so special, btw, JD?
Opium in the hospital must have caused you to ponder this question.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:43 pmMary is bringing the industrial grade stoopid tonite.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:45 pmHe had not been elected President when he authored his first 2 autobiographies. How many times have you been banned?
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:48 pmAd,
Whether she obtained it by hook or by crook, she still had to give it up.
I will note she already held an executive position at the hospital prior to her husband’s election, and had held executive positions elsewhere prior to Barack ever running for any government office.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:53 pmFalse accusations are also sins, JD.
I forgive you though, of couse.
Still waiting to here what you think you’ve accomplished with your life that makes you think Obama’s done “nothing.”
Come on, thrill us with your life story, JD.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:54 pmA troll can only threadjack with your consent …
Adriane (b8ecd8) — 11/26/2008 @ 4:58 pm“The socialized medicine provided by countries like Canada and Brazil remove huge labor burdens from profit-seeking enterprises.”
AD – The above stroke of genius from parsnip illustrates why we need to avoid nationalized healthcare in this country. Parsnip believes the foreign auto operations of the Big 3 are profitable because they don’t have high healthcare costs due to socialized medicine.
Yes folks, medical care is absolutely free in those countries. Absolutely nobody pays for it. Payment for the salaries of doctors and helthcare workers, drugs and medical supplies materialize out of thin air. Nobody knows where it comes from, but it sure doesn’t cost society anything. Right!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:12 pmSeriousy. Barack should call upon all the Hollywhacks and Limo-Libs to cough up 3/4 of their disposable cash to help with the economic crisis. Bingo!
ButterCrumb (63e721) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:26 pmBob Loblaw,
It wasn’t America that made Michelle give up her career. It was Barack.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:38 pmComment by Larry Reilly — 11/26/2008 @ 4:39 pm
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:40 pmIf deregulation was a goal of the GWB Administration, you should be able to demonstrate that by the deletion of pages from the Federal Register, not the addition that has happened.
The Government at the end of the GWB years is much larger (not counting DoD) than it was at his inauguration.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 11/26/2008 @ 4:53 pm
She might have had an “executive position” prior to hubby’s elevation to the US Senate, but her salary virtually doubled after he got the hospital that earmark.
Comment by parsnip — 11/26/2008 @ 4:30 pm
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:43 pmPattern and Practice!
Dirty is as dirty does.
It wasn’t America that made Michelle give up her career. It was Barack.
Michelle Obama had a choice to make. She doesn’t strike me as a woman who will simply do what she’s told. This morning I caught a clip of Barbara Walter’s in-depth interview of the Obamas and this question was addressed. Mrs. Obama said she freely gave up her career for the time being and that it was necessary as she herself truly believes in the presidency of Barack. It seemed she wished to delineate a wife’s obligation (for lack of a better word) to campaign w/her hub, etc., and that this was primarily a decision as an individual who has chosen to work alongside a man whose vision she believes in and toward a united goal.
Dana (79a78b) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:47 pmPlus, she knew that they would have fresh fruit on the table, plus aragula in the crisper; not counting the $60K tuition for the girls at Sidwell Friends.
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:50 pmHappy Thanksgiving to everyone. May your turkey be moist, your mashed potatoes with plenty of butter, your prime rib rare, and plenty of pie. May you be in tge company of friends and family, and appreciate the blessings of our great nation.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING RACISTS !!!!
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:03 pmDoes your doctor know what’s on your menu, JD?
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:06 pmDRJ @5:38pm,
No one is saying it wasn’t voluntary – I would suggest that is part of the very definition of sacrifice. Q.E.D. freeing Michelle up for the unpaid position of FLOTUS is a financial sacrifice the Obama’s have already made. There may or may not be more to come – I guess we’ll see? Either way, I don’t see his postions as actually requiring him to take a vow of poverty.
Oh, and I think Barack already recognizes that he has a responsibility to his “shareholders,” – is there anyone who has held the office who you feel didn’t recognize it?
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:23 pmBob,
I assume the GM or Chrysler CEO feels an obligation to his shareholders, too, and I’m sure he and his family have made sacrifices as well. Who’s to say which family made the greater sacrifice?
The point is that Obama says people who make a certain amount of money ought to be willing to give up income for the greater good. I think his family has reached that point according to Obama’s standards. Why am I wrong?
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:32 pmBob,
By the way, Michelle Obama can be First Spouse however she chooses, including making it secondary to her job as a parent. A lot of American women and men would love that job description.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:38 pmBob Loblaw:
I think Reagan is the only President in my lifetime who believed the government works for the people instead of the other way around.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:40 pmSuch an action would be above his pay grade.
irongrampa (8332bb) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:41 pmLet’s see. “Another Drew” says deregulation should equal fewer pages in the Federal Register.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:46 pmHow about deregulation by other means? Such as this:
The European Union got antsy in 2002 or so about all the financial legerdemain by U.S. investment banks etc. after Enron. So they said they’d regulate such things, excepting those foreign entities that had equivalent regulation at home.
So Goldman Sachs and their like got the SEC to pretend to regulate them in 2004.
The SEC declared them Consolidated Supervised Entities and basically permitted them to regulate themselves.
Guess what?
Their debt to capital ratios more than doubled, beyond what already was a pretty long leash. And they did it with…….ta-da…..credit default swap type stuff.
But, hey, who’s gonna make massive profits without risk? (Uh, risk to whom? The taxpayers, it turns out).
Gosh. Guess what else?
Goldman Sachs no longer is what it used to be. Different critter by definition. Same for Merrill Lynch. Lehman? Morgan Stanley? Bear Stearns? Fuggedaboudit.
Uh, you know the drill.
Keep readin’ that Federal Register thing, ya know, says Pailin.
Yup.
Those folks sure built some wealth, didn’t they? Did you get any of it?
Oiram:
I take it you don’t agree with this Houston Chronicle article that “most people in finance use the $5 million mark” to define rich.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:47 pmAlso, Oiram, according to the link I provided above, Obama’s home is worth approximately $1.5M and he has a mortgage loan in that amount. Thus his net worth (i.e., not including his home and mortgage) is around $7M, and probably more since the link didn’t include 2008 book sales — and I bet Obama is still selling books. Finally, based on his tax returns, he’s putting most of his money into tax free bonds.
Not very patriotic, is he?
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:50 pmJD, I think you have identified the identity of a certain root vegetable. Sounds likely…even though this TdJ seems to have a better grasp of grammar and spelling than the earlier incarnations.
One thing that amuses me no end is a poster (who has been pretty polite thus far; no flaming intended) who stated that the Obamas have given up a great deal of money for a life in public service.
Hmmm. You might check out the Clinton’s books on that subject.
Some ex-Presidents make SERIOUS freaking coin from that job, as well as the history books.
Eric Blair (cc9718) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:55 pmDRJ, the rules only apply to the many, not the few. It’s ironic to hear the Left assail the Right for being bloated plutocrats always looking for ways to avoid taxes, saying that they aren’t paying “their fair share”…but when Leftists avoid taxes, it is just being smart.
Nuance, as Ace writes.
Eric Blair (cc9718) — 11/26/2008 @ 6:57 pmWise words, Eric.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/26/2008 @ 7:25 pmIt is blatantly racist to criticize Teh One. Just so you know …
DRJ – I asked my surgeon if I could eat the traditional Thanksgiving meal. He said “Sure, diarrhea and pain are fun”. I am still on liquids.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 7:34 pmOh, pleae, Bob Loblaw, they are making a sacrifice?! All former presidents get rich. Billy Jeff walked in little more than a hillbilly and is now worth over $75 million. And his wife may repeat the whole deal!
I also do not believe for one second Michelle O is going to be only a Mom in chief. She will be working on solidifying the base, quietly, in the background. They are building a machine here. In the meantime, I don’t think they will be allowed to pick up any of the dinner checks.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/26/2008 @ 7:44 pmPatricis – Isn’t it fun to watch the Leftists write Teh Narrative in realtime? Teh One, Teh Messiah and his familial sacrifice in pursuit of all that is good and holy.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 8:05 pmMaybe if the Rightists hadn’t tried to foist such a lame Obama narritive on America (Ayres, Obama’s a Muslim, he wasn’t born in America, etc.) they could have gotten a story credit, JD.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 8:19 pmThat was the Dems, genius… We didn’t start that one, bubba.
You know, it’s funny… McCain had to produce HIS birth cert., why can’t Obama?
Just asking why what is good for one isn’t good for the other.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/26/2008 @ 8:27 pmYou know, if Mary O’Reilly actually could read, and even found the WSJ somehow, she might know that the Credit Default Swap portion of the Financial System is about the only part that hasn’t failed. Currently, it is about the only way to assess risk in the market, since all of the normal mechanisms have become petrified.
But, keep working on that narritive, Mary;
you’ll get it right one of these days.
And with that,
Another Drew (67f3cf) — 11/26/2008 @ 8:59 pmHappy Thanksgiving to all, and to all a Good Night!
The Baracky is a Muslim thing is something the Left drags out but can never actually show someone on the Right saying so. It is the equivalent of the imaginary people questioning Kerry’s patriotism.
Scott – you know that the rules only apply to one side.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/26/2008 @ 9:04 pmJD – Larry’s most recent argument, failure to derugulate the investment banks is what led to trouble for them, yeah, that a consistent and smart argument. I would stick with that if I were Larry, but then again he is fond of losing arguments.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 9:28 pmI wonder what interesting nicknames will be created for “parsnip”? I mean, the TdJ could be polite and civil (not the same thing, now that I think about it). There are left of center posters here whom no one toasts over a high flame.
But we have some…well, incisively witty people here. It’ll be interesting.
Personally, I think that JD, Icy Truth, Dmac, and AD will drink the root vegetable’s milkshake.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 9:31 pmOh, and seeing daleyrock’s post reminds me that their are other skilled internet pugilists here, besides the ones I just mentioned. Mad props to all.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 9:32 pmThanks Eric!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 10:02 pmThe Baracky is a Muslim thing is something the Left drags out but can never actually show someone on the Right saying so.
Right here on this very site, JD:
Charlie Gibson: “Senator Obama, you have referred in the past to ‘my Muslim faith.’ How strong is your Muslim faith?”
Barack Obama: “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”
Charlie Gibson: “Exact words.”
https://patterico.com/2008/09/12/exact-words/
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 10:50 pmNow see, either the Root Vegetable has a sense of humor, or zero reading skills.
The link is an “imagined” exchange, because of the way that Charlie Gibson went after Sarah Palin over silly or trivial matters. And Patterico makes it clear that such an argument about Obama is silly, as it is.
Unless we are counting anonymous posters as being indicative of how a political faction thinks. I sure hope so, because some of the trolls here have written truly horrible things about Republicans.
My guess is that this is another example of a basic truth: the first casualty of partisanship is a sense of humor.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:01 pmThe link is an “imagined” exchange, because of the way that Charlie Gibson went after Sarah Palin over silly or trivial matters
A propaganda tactic borrowed directly from Joseph Goebbels.
And if you’re caught in your lie, why claim you were only joking.
It’s Rush Limbaugh’s bread and butter.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:07 pmAh, a Nazi reference. So accurate. So civil. So very mature.
You really are a nasty little troll. But then, you knew that to begin with, under several other names.
But you know what? It’s Thanksgiving, and I’m thankful that we are all—even you—in relatively good health and solvency.
I recommend that the regular posters here all find an excuse to cook up some parsnips this holiday, in honor of this particular TdJ.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:14 pmDRJ, I’ll accept Obama’s salary after you give up your salary first, after your favorite presidential candidate, John McCain, gives up his salary, gives up his use of social security checks and gives up 38 million dollars of his net worth (so that he and the Obamas have equal net worth, just to be fair), and Cindy gives up her 100 million dollar net worth.
We’ve heard your crying before. All you care about is that those who have been privileged enough to benefit from the massive payouts from the “redistributionist in chief”, soon to be former President Bush, continue to keep and take more of the hard earned money of the US taxpayers. It is time that we had a more progressive approach to politics so that we won’t have to bailout big companies who have highly paid executives who do very little to earn that high pay. Everybody and their mothers (except for greedy “conservatives”, and the conservative term is looser than former NY attorney general Spitzer’s prostitute) know that no one should be rewarded for making big mistakes and being negligent while working on the job. This includes executives who control their salaries and bonuses. It’s time that we the people set the rules, so that these fools won’t come back to us begging for handouts. There is no “free market”, only the freedom for fools to be fools. That culture of ignorance and greed needs to END NOW.
Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:19 pmLet’s try this then, Eric:
The claim Obama attended a radical Muslim school first appeared on Fox News back in January. When they were called on it, they apologized, but the “story” was launched:
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/22/fox_and_friends_corrects_obama_madrassa_claim.php
Is
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:21 pmAs for #117…hmmmm. It’s late and right before a holiday. Maybe that is part of it. I always get saddened by people carrying on about “rich” Republicans who seem pretty unconcerned about the antics of “rich” Democrats.
The point is simple. Wouldn’t it be great if the people who claim that taxation is great (such as certain folks touting 4 dollar a gallon gasoline, or stating that people making more than 200K are “rich”, etc) paid more taxes than they should? I mean, since they see it as a such a good thing?
But those folks go scurrying for tax breaks just as avidly as eeevvviiiilll Republicans. Except Republicans are sneered at for doing so, and Democrats are, again, called smart for doing so.
Partisanship, again. I would respect the heck out of Barack Obama if he announced that he was taking a 50% pay cut as President, just to show his devotion to service, and example to others. I’m sure he has given a lot to charity (other than that creepy church of his).
But I am not saying that we ought to insist that he take home less money. That, to me, is the difference.
Even without shouting in all capital letters.
Anyway I found a great quote tonight, taking a break from grading papers. It’s the Dodds Corollary to Godwin’s Law:
Enough said.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:28 pmI’ve always wondered… Why is it with so many on the left, the change you want has to start with other people? I mean, I don’t see Gore reducing his carbon footprint, or Obama spreading HIS wealth, so why do you demand that WE do what you obviously are NOT willing to do?
And a tip: calling out DRJ does NOT win your frineds here. Matter of fact, I’d challenge you to pistols at dawn for your ignorance, but you’re hardly worth the cost of the bullet.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:35 pmOn the other hand, Snippy, your own post had this great quotation:
Oh, I agree that journalists ought to correct themselves when they are wrong. Maybe the New York Times could show the way:
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-york-times-lies-about-mccain.html
Given how the MSM–and the NYT in particular– acted during the campaign, you REALLY don’t want to go there.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:35 pmYeah, cause Gibson is a total right-wing wacko… How DARE he use Obama’s words! Expecting the man to know what religion he’s talking about! The NERVE!
I’ll ask you, dolt… When did we first hearthe idiotic claim that Obama was Muslim?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:36 pmI’ll ask you, dolt… When did we first hearthe idiotic claim that Obama was Muslim?
January 17, 2007 on Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769152/posts
Oh noes, the conservative mother ship started the lie.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:39 pmGood call, Scott. DRJ has been nothing but civil and polite to all posters. I have never seen an exception to that rule here.
I’ll volunteer to be your second at the duel.
Why does the Left do what you ask? You and I both know the answer: for all the natterings about Nazism, the Left wants to compel people to do “the right thing.” And the Left is uncomfortable that many of its heroes don’t live up to the standards that they promote. So they must attack the other side.
Remember, Scott: they know what is better for you than you do.
Jonah Goldberg’s book hit that nail on the head.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:39 pmAgain, Root Vegetable, if you want to start quoting Freeper posters as authorities, we can always stroll over to DU or DK or FDL to find equally poorly spelled and paranoid entries.
Why, it is almost as bad as playing the Nazi card on political opponents, isn’t it?
I liked your attack on Fox News better, but it does bring up that inconvenient NYT issue. And given how the MSM is viewed by the public, and rightly so, you might not want to go there.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:43 pmAnd given how the MSM is viewed by the public
Yeah, Scott, the “public” meaning the rapidly dwindling number of Americans visiting Right Wing blogs these days?
You don’t suppose all the people abandoning Right Wing blogs have gone back to the dreaded MSM for their news, do you?
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:50 pmHow is life under that bridge, incidentally?
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:54 pmFirst off, dipshit, that was Eric, not me.
Second, I wasn’t sure, but I thought that when MSM was mentioned, it was TV and print, both of which have seen drooping numbers for viewership, at least on the left. FoxNews still does very well, winning most time-slots, and did I miss the day that the NYT and LAT were in the black again, and NOT losing readers?
Stop. Deflecting. From your own. Statements. You dumbass.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:56 pmScott, you don’t have to wonder any longer. I was only asking DRJ to do exactly what you want people on the left to do. You want change to begin with the person who asks for the change, hence DRJ has asked for the change of Obama’s salary. Therefore, since DRJ asked for the change, I only asked him to begin the change. DRJ, give up your salary first!
Threatening me with violence is not exactly civil or polite, but since you’ve gone there… I think that your attitude to my criticism of DRJ’s post proves why Republicans who call themselves conservatives can’t lead effectively. There is too much emphasis on loyalty and very emphasis on critique and challenge. That’s why Obama is president and was able to secure the majority of votes from traditionally republican voting states. It is because Obama has assured American voters that he will attempt to bring about a more Licolnesque approach to leading rather than a kiss my a$$ approach to leading. You should take notes.
There is nothing uncivilized and impolite about criticizing a person’s comments. Criticizing a person’s political remarks is actually one of the ways that one might be democratic. Praising someone’s political remarks when you don’t agree is a typical action of those participating in a dictatorship.
Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:58 pmYou don’t think the fact that most Right Wing blogs have lost about 50% of their visitors lately is a story, Scott?
Now what statement do you think I’m “deflecyting” from?
We traced the “Obama is a Muslim” lie back to a Conservative website.
What more do you want?
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:00 amWhich takes us back to Godwin’s Law of Trolldom, again.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:01 amHere we go again….
Scott, don’t bother to continue with these characters. It’s the usual progression:
1. Troll says that “A” is true.
2. Other posters disagree, and provide evidence.
3. Troll claims that the evidence is propaganda.
4. Other posters show multiple sources.
5. Troll moves on to another annoying bit of trolling.
Oh well.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:03 amwent right over your head, didn’t it?
The left is the one pushing for redistribution… So they should, as those wanting it done, go first. Lead by example.
You think I’m a Republican… That’s so cute.
Painfully itiotic, but cute.
If you think Obama will even be REMOTELY “lincolnesque” you are going to be…
No, you know what? I suspect that not only do you not know what you mean when you say that, I think you ALSO want exactly what the Dems WANT to do, and thus when it happens will be elated.
But you’re right. I do value loyalty… It’s one of the reasons I dislike the left so much. That you’re going to ask me to cite examples is both sad and predictable.
I’m going to bed. I have a long day ahead of me in the morning. Good night, dipshit.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:04 amThe refference to the Main Stream Media, you thundering moron!!!! Never have Right-Wing blogs been considered part of the MSM, any more than DKos of FiredogLake are!
Sweet jesus, I don’t think this is an act… I think you might ACTUALLY be this stupid.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:07 amTake a deep breath and use your words, Scott.
I proved the “Obama is a Muslim” lie started on a Republican website.
I also noted in passing that the number of visitors to right wing blogs are dropping off faster than house prices these days.
I never said “Right-Wing blogs been considered part of the MSM.”
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:26 amScott, I recommend you think of all this the way that the Charlie Brown and his pals perceived their parents speaking.
Otherwise, you simply play their game.
And make no mistake, it is a game to them.
I enjoy your post over at the “Jury” site, and I wish you a great Thanksgiving.
Of course, I denounce myself, JD style, for what we will do to the turkey in our home. More human-centric behavior.
Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:35 amScott & Eric – You would have a better chance of success in trying to teach quantum physics to a brick wall than to get Da Bombz or parsnip/sniffles/alphie/actus to debate in an honest manner.
AnnTM (e0ab0e) — 11/27/2008 @ 7:28 amAmazing Obamam takes a $300K bribe from Tony Rezko, commits US income tax fraud by never declaring this income and then furhter defrauds the City of Chicago of property taxes by illegally underdeclaring the value of this house.
A good thing for Obama that we live in a nation where atleast 52% of the populaton do not believe that the rule of law applies to our leaders.
productive worker (17d620) — 11/27/2008 @ 7:29 amOops … just trying to lure out MKDP and David Petranos Esp
JD (e0ab0e) — 11/27/2008 @ 7:29 am“I proved the “Obama is a Muslim” lie started on a Republican website.”
parsnip – Merely an assertion, not proof.
“Obama has noted in his two books, “Dreams From My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope,” that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.”
ZOMG – That couldn’t have started anything could it?
Freaking Doorknob.
“CNN debunks false report about Obama
POSTED: 2:01 a.m. EST, January 23, 2007
JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) — Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a “madrassa” are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.
Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.”
Farking idiot.
I proved it didn’t originate on a conservative blog.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/27/2008 @ 7:38 amdaleyrocks – See #136. They are not interested in the truth.
JD (e0ab0e) — 11/27/2008 @ 7:56 am“Facts to a Liberal are as Kryptonite to Superman.”
Another Drew (4deae6) — 11/27/2008 @ 8:21 amGood to see you out and about and denouncing, JD!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/27/2008 @ 8:46 am“daleyrocks – See #136. They are not interested in the truth.”
JD – That may be true, but sometimes public shaming is worth the effort.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/27/2008 @ 9:07 am#98 DRJ, You just don’t get it do you?
“…and I bet Obama is still selling books. Finally, based on his tax returns, he’s putting most of his money into tax free bonds.
Not very patriotic, is he?”
Why shouldn’t Obama take advantage of the current laws we have on the books? Why shouldn’t any rich or wealthy Democrat?
We have to play the current hand we were dealt along with the rest of the table. It’s the only way we can compete.
Now, level the playing field for all, and then you have fair competition that benefits everyone.
This notion that a Democrat needs to give up his tax loopholes is like saying a Republican needs to stay married for life or else he’s hypocrit.
I don’t like it when people in my party do that, and certainly doesn’t bode well for you DRJ………… makes you look…… unpatriotic 🙁
Oiram (2d20d0) — 11/27/2008 @ 12:40 pmWhy shouldn’t Obama take advantage of the current laws we have on the books? Why shouldn’t any rich or wealthy Democrat?
Please remind me which party it was that rammed the Alternative Minimum Tax through the Congress because a couple dozen millionaires were avoiding any income tax through the use of Tax-Free Muni’s and other devices, and has refused to reform it (or even just index it to inflation) every time the proposal comes up?
Another Drew (4deae6) — 11/27/2008 @ 1:12 pmObama didn’t start giving much to charity till the last two years.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
His church was a major recipient, and I don’t recall who else.
Alana (0720e6) — 11/27/2008 @ 7:38 pmAnnTM, if only you knew, my research is centered on quantum mechanics. In order to teach quantum physics, you must know something about it. In fact, it is because of quantum physics that we know that there is a probability, albeit so small that it will never be physically manifested on our timescales, that you could walk through that brick wall. I always debate honestly. I’m not a liar. But, you seem to not have anything useful to say, because you could’ve rebutted me. But, I’m sure it’s to difficult for you to debate me because you might have to do some research and think. And, I know how taxing that could be for you.
Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5) — 11/27/2008 @ 8:38 pmThis, I highly doubt.
Bring it on, physics-boy…
I say that, mainly because I doubt you are a) what you claim you are and b) schooling liars is fun, and I’m kinda bored.
Now, it is possible you are telling the truth, but it is also possible that I’ll wake up next to a super model in the morning. I suspect these two discrete events have equal likelyhood of occuring, however.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/27/2008 @ 9:00 pm“I’m not a liar.”
Bomber – You’re just crazy. Crazy people never believe they are lying. There is a difference.
Do you still believe that Sarah Palin is not Trig Palin’s mother?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/27/2008 @ 9:08 pmI think that might violate the Anti-deficiency Act. He could always donate his entire salary to Acorn, though.
Max Firmin (563c73) — 11/27/2008 @ 11:20 pmI’ll ask you, dolt… When did we first hear the idiotic claim that Obama was Muslim?
…. um, the first time I heard his name i thought so. So did many many many normal people. Again, another series of arguments between both sides which ignores the obvious.
To now say, Hilary or the Right wing tried to smear him is idiotic. All they did was vocalize what maybe 95% of people thought when they first heard his name.
This argument is akin to saying that he was smeared by alleging he was BLACK! OMG! well, he is but he is also White and moreso African than African American *Black).
But HEY NOW!!!!!! Lets fight.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/28/2008 @ 7:32 amDa Bombz Diggity,
Wow, so how much of a hand-out do you want from the new POTUS?
Your diatribe about fairness and “we the people” had Marxist bellz ringing in my head.
I heard a great anecdote on this blog about two Russian Peasant Friends who had nothing except one had a goat. The goat-less friend ran into a genie bottle, rubbed it and the genie granted him one wish ….. He asked his friend’s goat die.
Da Bombz Diggity = Goat Killing Russian Friend
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/28/2008 @ 7:37 amOiram, its been the Democrats who call people who arrange their affairs to pay less tax “unpatriotic”. Once again, you pretend not to follow the discussion.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/28/2008 @ 8:30 amComment by SPQR — 11/28/2008 @ 8:30 am
Well, Morons are as Morons do (as my Momma used to say).
Another Drew (5a0f73) — 11/28/2008 @ 9:33 amWell, Another Drew, Oiram’s practice of interjecting comments as though he had no idea what was being discussed got very old a long time ago.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/28/2008 @ 9:36 amIt is obviously the fault of the MSM, whatever that is?
Another Drew (5a0f73) — 11/28/2008 @ 10:01 amThe question was, “When did we first hear the idiotic claim that Obama was Muslim?”
Although not a declarative admission of his faith, the first indication I’m aware of that Obama was receiving instruction in the Islamic religion comes from Obama himself. In his book, Obama mentioned his mother was angry with him for pulling funny faces during Koran instruction in school in Indonesia.
Obama’s mother was then married to her second Muslim husband and she and young Barry were living in Indonesia. Barry had been adopted, given his father’s surname, and sent to a school where Islam was part of the curriculum.
It isn’t at all unusual for young children to receive religious instruction in the faith of a parent, in fact, it’s the norm, deviation from which would be remarkable. Nor is it unusual for some young people so instructed to drift away from the bonds and beliefs of their parents. As individuals grow and develop they are often exposed to other belief systems, especially from marriage partners.
Some adults come to reject their childhood beliefs and become converts to a different religious tradition. For example, recall that Obama gives credit for bringing him to the Christian Church to Reverend Wright. Perhaps Black Liberation Theology was the religious affiliation of his new wife.
Now, I’m not going to argue the issue is clear cut, one way or the other, but to dismiss speculation that a guy with an Islamic name who attended an Islamic school may well have been an adherent to Islam at one time in his life as “idiotic,” simply flies in the face of common sense, logic, and the available evidence.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 11/28/2008 @ 10:57 amLMAO! Have some of you lost your minds?
Don’t doubt it, PROVE IT!
“Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!”
Firstly, I don’t believe in handouts. That’s why I am not cool with the way that 2 trillion dollars in taxpayer money has been wantonly distributed by republicans and democrats to the troubled financial institutions who were sunk by greedy executives. Those whining executives need to sacrifice their own multi-million dollar salaries, bonuses, pensions, jets, massages, and whatever other perks they get before their companies should be bailed out. What I do believe in though, is that our government was structured so that all citizens could, as for example the Constitution of the United States of America was designed to implement which you seem to think is Marxist, still manage their lives even when subjected to deleterious events that disturb stability.
For you to describe the preamble to the Constitution as sounding Marxist is a bit disconcerting to me. All Americans should cherish the Constitution because it represents our democratic ideals and is the law of our land.
Also, fairness is one of our democratic ideals. Thomas Jefferson referred to it in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Fairness is why we are the United States of America and are not still part of Great Britain. Great Britain believed in the “Divine Right of Kings”, which did not promote fairness and did not reward hard work. Jefferson, one of the most intellectual individuals of his time, despised divine rights and cherished fairness for all. To say that fairness is a Marxist ideology is an affront to Jefferson, our Declaration of Independence, and our democratic ideals.
You seem to think that my desire for fairness and equality means that I want to unfairly take from others. Nothing could be further from the truth. I only want for those who work hard to get the rewards for which they work and for those who do not work hard to not continue to unfairly take from others. Sometimes the lawmakers and other elite institutions work against the majority of the citizens of the USA to support certain elite organizations and individuals who feel that they are unfairly entitled to more than the majority. When lawmakers support the powerful elite and deny rights to the majority population of the USA we are not only promoting inequality, but we are weakening our standing. Supporting greedy executives by giving them millions of dollars to cover up their mistakes without requiring that they not receive anymore rewards for their poor work is unfair.
Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5) — 11/28/2008 @ 1:34 pmBomber – Is having the government set salary levels for the private sector part of the ideals of fairness and equality you found in the Constitution or a cute idea you dreamed up after reading a little Karl Marx?
Enforcing compensation plans on companies as a condition of aid is one thing, but your aim is much grander according to what you write. Where is the authority for that under the Constitution?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/28/2008 @ 1:58 pmIf we’re bailing them out, we’re setting salaries.
Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5) — 11/28/2008 @ 3:52 pmBomber – Unresponsive.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/28/2008 @ 4:01 pmI did respond. I said that if we’re bailing out companies, then we have the right to determine salaries. Let me be clear, no where in any of my statements did I say that the government has the right to set salaries for those who work in the private sector of our economy. I assumed that you understood what I actually said. My bad. I simply stated that I did not appreciate FREE money from the government being given to these foolish executives. Any money from the government must be provided ONLY to continue what Congress mandated which was to inject capital into financial institutions so that they would in turn provide equity. And Congress should have put into place a system that would account for every penny of tax payers money used to stave off the collapse of these companies. If we miss even one penny when paying taxes, we will be held accountable for it. They should be held accountable for every single penny. Instead these executives have been paying off their shareholders by providing dividends, paying their salaries, funding mergers, paying for expensive trips, refueling their jets, providing bonuses to each other, and ignoring Congress’s mandate and unfairly stealing tax payers money.
Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5) — 11/28/2008 @ 4:30 pmBomber – How do you explain the following statement of yours, which is not tied to any words relating to government assistance or bailouts:
“You seem to think that my desire for fairness and equality means that I want to unfairly take from others. Nothing could be further from the truth. I only want for those who work hard to get the rewards for which they work and for those who do not work hard to not continue to unfairly take from others.”
It seems to me straight phoney baloney marxist feel goodism that you claim you are against. The government is going to magically determine who is working hard and who isn’t and then decide how much everyone decides to get paid. No thank you.
You also claimed you debate fairly yet you didged the question about Sarah Palin.
My question: Do you still believe that Sarah Palin is not Trig Palin’s mother?
Your Non-Answer:“Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!”
Your non-answer does not address whether you believe Sarah Palin is Trig Palin’s mother. So much for your claim to honest debate.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/28/2008 @ 9:30 pmOne only needs to read my statement to understand my position. You are putting words in my mouth rather than speaking to what I have actually said. If you would pay attention to what I have written, you might be able to learn something. You want me to be a Marxist follower, so that everything I say can be seen as immediately false to you. It’s easier for you to just call me Marxist and decide that nothing I say has truth. It is a huge challenge and very difficult for you to actually see me as a participant in a democracy and to see that the only thing that separates us is that I have a differing view from yours. In order to do this, you might have to realize that your ideas are not perfect and that would probably not be able to handle. I have never claimed Marxism, nor do I believe in it. I believe and support wholeheartedly our democracy.
Please do not attribute me to that remark. Your projection of my ideas is totally wrong. I totally don’t think that a solution to making sure that hard workers get rewards and that those who do not work hard will not continue to unfairly take from others will come through the government deciding how much everyone gets paid. My idea is way simpler and way more equitable than that. Firstly, I am only concerned with those businesses who have run themselves into the ground through their abuse and negligent work and who have come to you and me asking for us to bail them out. Secondly, I would’ve done things differently than Paulson did. I would’ve made many mandates that the companies who needed taxpayer money would have to meet in order to take the money. For example even Gordon Brown negotiated better deals for Britain than was negotiated for us by King Paulson. He made sure that shareholders would get a fixed rate of interest rather than any dividends and that shareholders would not get voting rights. Voting rights went to the government. Their government also has seats on the boards. Also, he ensured that 12 percent dividends went to the UK taxpayers rather than the 5% we got from the bailout. And we got no seats on any boards and no voting rights. Brown also got in writing from the financial institutions that they must use the money to start lending as soon as they got the money as opposed to King Paulson who did not do the same. Now, banks are not lending. The purpose of the bailout was to get banks lending so that US citizens and small businesses and other institutions could start borrowing. Instead the banks have used the money to pay off their shareholders by providing dividends, pay their exorbitant salaries, fund mergers, pay for expensive trips, and provide bonuses to each other. They have generally ignored Congress’s mandate and are unfairly stealing taxpayers money. Which brings me right back to my original point. These elitist financial institutions are unfairly taking your money (if you work) and my money and are not using our money to loan to the institutions that I support and to other US Citizens. And the way to fix that has nothing to do with having the government “magically determine who is working hard and who isn’t and then decide how much everyone decides to get paid.” That comment is beyond speculative and doesn’t take advantage of the insurmountable amount of information already available to us to get the government to work more efficiently and fairly for the US taxpayers when dealing with these financial crises.
I tried to be as honest and forthcoming as possible. I don’t know and I don’t care. I never have been interested in tabloids, the yellow press, popular magazines, celebrities, the families of celebrities or other trendy issues. You might say that I’m boring in that respect. I care very much about the well being of US Citizens and about how all politicians address the issues of US Citizens. I don’t know anything about Sarah Palin or her children because that isn’t a policy issue, so I really don’t care.
Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5) — 11/29/2008 @ 11:36 am