Home > Uncategorized > Big Fat Effing Liar: Part Trois

Big Fat Effing Liar: Part Trois

UAW President Bob King on Romney’s latest lies: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/31/mitt-romney-jeep-chrysler-uaw/1672501/

This is the real Romney, a man who objected to the rescue of the domestic auto industry, then made astronomical profits after his business partners threatened the survival of GM. A man who lies about Chrysler moving jobs to China, when his history at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, shows that he has invested in Chinese factories where workers are grossly exploited. Romney won’t even act to stop the Sensata factory in Illinois, in which he is an investor, from closing the doors and moving to China the day before the election.

  1. November 1, 2012 at 9:54 am

    I’m laughing and crying…the voter suppression, the incessant lying and fake photo ops, the reports of voting machines skimming 10% from Dems to GOP. Can’t take much more of this!

  2. Plain Jane
    November 1, 2012 at 10:08 am

    I just can’t believe this man stands a chance of becoming president. Romney loves the Chinese business model so why anyone would believe he has a different model in mind for us is delusional. His financial and political connections with Paul Singer, a vampire vulture, should scare the bejeezuz out of everyone. These men aren’t Americans as much as they are global vultures and we are their next meal.

  3. November 1, 2012 at 10:16 am

    I’m hopeful that Romney won’t be elected, but the fact that a person as truly disreputable as Romney is likely to come close may well be our last warning of what’s to come.

  4. November 1, 2012 at 10:54 am

    “Of what’s to come”? Have you taken a good look at your neighbors lately, Mitch? That’s what should scare the hell out of you. It does me. “What’s to come” is already here. I suppose we all should hope it’s the last warning.

  5. November 1, 2012 at 11:18 am

    You guys are way too paranoid. Romney, if elected, will be much more centrist than he is being portrayed by people who dont like him. Just as Obama promised unreasonable things to the ‘far left’ – so does Romeny to the ‘far-right’.

  6. November 1, 2012 at 11:23 am

    bolithio,

    You think Romney would appoint an abortion “centrist” to the court? You think he’d be “centrist” on taxes and regulation? Is his VP choice “centrist?”

    One thing I’m ready to agree with completely — it’s pointless to listen to Romney’s words in an attempt to get a preview of his actions.

  7. Plain Jane
    November 1, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Bolithio, read the lead editorial at the NY Times today. There is no reason to believe Romney is anything but an opportunistic vulture who will say and do anything to win. He has never demonstrated the slightest bit of concern for this country or the majority of the people. His entire life has been about self enrichment and power, using despicable means to do so without any regard for the consequences of his actions on others or our country. He’s the epitome of sociopath and we are going to be his victims.

  8. Plain Jane
    November 1, 2012 at 11:42 am
  9. November 1, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    See what I mean by what’s already here? What the hell does “liking” got to do with reason?
    The people that voted for Obama didn’t think his so-called “promises” were too far left. You’d think the American voter would learn, but I guess Romney’s taking a page out of Obama’s playbook. I wonder whatever happened to judging a person by his or her PROVEN CHARACTER?

    bolithio :
    You guys are way too paranoid. Romney, if elected, will be much more centrist than he is being portrayed by people who dont like him. Just as Obama promised unreasonable things to the ‘far left’ – so does Romeny to the ‘far-right’.

  10. Plain Jane
    November 1, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Michael Bloomberg just endorsed Obama.

  11. Plain Jane
    November 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    The thing about Romney is he’s been so all over the place that he could claim a mandate for just about anything and have documentation to prove he said it on the campaign trail.

  12. Plain Jane
    November 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    How hungry would people have to get before they would beg for a 16 hour shift in a factory for a dollar a day, a bed and a bowl of soup? Romney wants to make the US business friendly like China is so manufacturers will produce here instead of there. Do you think he’s got good paying jobs with benefits in mind? Bottom line on the balance sheet or nature’s bottom line?

  13. Anonymous
    November 1, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    You people are laughable.

  14. Just Middle Finance
    November 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    Yes, we are laughing at third world children who work for slave wages so Americans can have cheap Bluray players. We laugh at the Americans who are unemployed because of Preditorial Capitalist like Romney. We laugh at the deteriorating American infrastructure. We laugh like madmen fiddling while Rome burns.

  15. HUUFC
    November 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    On question not answered, the Federal government has an 16 trillion dollar debt, obummer has had over a trillion dollar deficits each of his four years in office. What has he done to indicate he will do anything different if he is elected to a second term? Trillion dollar deficits for four more years, over 20 trillion dollars of debt at the end of eight years. Anybody see a problem with that? I do.

  16. Jack Sherman
    November 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    It’s a privilege to read the Nation, Greg Palast, and the NYT…and vote accordingly…but, most of the U.S. will hear, see, and read none of it. Like many other parts of our society, information is efficiently sequestered.

    It’s a good thing for imperialism that most of the folks my age are sequestered. We remember the labor sections of most U.S. newspapers that would have highlighted the current UAW ethics complaint against Romney with weekly followups. For the truth to be believed and understood, it must be repeated.

    There might be a few million people in the U.S. who can define the “Vulture Capitalism” funding the Romney campaign, most of them affiliated with Wall Street.

    Unless people hear it in line at the grocery, the vast majority will never know the gritty details of Mitt’s lies and are easily reprimanded or fired at work for engaging in such topics. Today’s media reeks of fear. The softball debate questions were followed by kid-glove “fact checkers” compelled to “balance” Romney’s claims with remotely conceivable excuses. His 4,000 percent profit in the Delphi Auto Co., looted from the public’s pocket, might as well have been a story about the 10,000 percent profit U.S. cell phone and computer manufacturers make on those 50 pound bags of cobalt carried on the backs of 8 year-old Congolese child-miners…compelled into slavery from the threat of starvation…thanks to another U.S. bombing and subsequent support of a despotic DRC regime. A scenario repeated worldwide for many of our commodities. 25 poor nations bombed since WWII, without declarations of war!

    Just like the people of ancient Rome, Americans have little knowledge of what an imperial economy is, how it works, and why it inevitably fails. The wars thought to protect our way of life against the “terrorists” hasten every empire’s collapse. To protect THEIR way of life, this empire’s elites turned against our own people, tricking them out of homes, then looting the U.S. Treasury. Then what?

    Confronting the most powerful propaganda machine this world has ever known requires us to use our own bodies to canvass our neighborhoods to educate and register the other half of our county that doesn’t vote. Chronic failures in securing progressive representation outside Arcata, speaks volumes for our “well-informed intelligence”.

  17. FUUHC
    November 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    obummer 20 trillion obummer 20 trillion. am I starting to repeat myself? no, I like to hear myself type. obumeer 20 trillion, I’m an awful lot of zeros, any one see a problem with that? my friends and family do

  18. unanonymous
    November 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    this reminds me of Bush sr. calling Clinton and Gore, “those bozos”,….. desperation. Both candidates suck and you all know it. endless wars, medical mj crackdown, rendition, corporate giveaways (healthcare ins., banks), circumventing due process in bill of rights. Just pretend its all “them” and go back to your tv’s.

  19. unanonymous
    November 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Just Middle Finance :
    Yes, we are laughing at third world children who work for slave wages so Americans can have cheap Bluray players. We laugh at the Americans who are unemployed because of Preditorial Capitalist like Romney. We laugh at the deteriorating American infrastructure. We laugh like madmen fiddling while Rome burns.

    yes, and you laugh at the children killed in the name of some boogieman war on terror.

  20. HUUFC
    November 1, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Maybe so, but the questions go unanswered.

  21. FUUHC
    November 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    HUUFC, STFU!

  22. Just Watchin
    November 1, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    And the lefty meltdown continues. Funny though…….I’m not hearing of any hollywood types promising to move to another country if Romney wins.
    I’ll pay their air fare…..

  23. unanonymous
    November 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    ah yes, beaten down they resort to personal attacks,

    i agree, the question goes unanswered because they know nothing will be done about the debt by big o. Romney doesn’t have the answer either.

  24. FUUHC
    November 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Huufy #15 “What has he done to indicate he will do anything different if he is elected to a second term? … Anybody see a problem with that?”
    Asking barely literate rhetorical questions hardly deserves the energy I am using to type this reply.

  25. HUUFC
    November 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Then dont.

  26. unanonymous
    November 1, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    they are really on their heels now, resorting to grammatical evaluation.

  27. FUUHC
    November 1, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    Yeah, like Mitt’s lies. Just “grammatical evaluation”. Truth, lies, what’s the difference in a world of “collateral damage”, “friendly fire”, and Wall Street Welfare.

  28. Anonymous
    November 1, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    HUUFC:

    As you know, there are basically three factors that affect the deficit: taxes, spending, and economic conditions, the latter of which determines how much revenue those taxes actually bring in. Currently tax rates on upper-income earners are at a historic low, spending continues to outstrip revenues, and economic conditions are still fairly poor — but gradually improving as the country has cleared away the wreckage of the Bush recession and started to rebuild.

    There are no easy answers, as deep cuts in social, health, educational, and infrastructure spending and/or large tax increases on middle-income earners and small businesses could send us into a double dip recession, leading to declining revenues that would erase any budget-balancing effects of the spending cuts or middle class tax rate increases.

    Given those realities, it seems like the most sensible approach is a modest increase in tax rates for higher-income earners (back to something like the Clinton-era rates), restraint of the growth of federal spending (but not draconian cuts), and better prioritization of that spending. Together with some improvement in economic conditions (even at the slow-but-steady rate we are currently experiencing) these policies would allow us to erase the deficit and eventually begin to address the debt. It’s not rocket science, but it would involve hard work and would require compromise and shared sacrifice.

    Instead, Romney is offering the same old thoroughly-debunked-but-still-seductive-to-the-weakminded Laffer Curve financial alchemist fantasy that cutting taxes further would create such a massive improvement in economic conditions, employment and personal income that those lower tax rates would actually bring in higher revenues. Sure, it’s never worked before, but wouldn’t it be nice if it did, because it would allow us all to eat candy and sweets for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and three snacks a day while sitting on the couch and still somehow lowing weight.

  29. SNaFU
    November 1, 2012 at 4:39 pm
  30. Ponder z
    November 2, 2012 at 5:51 am

    How bout a blog that lists all of BOs lies? This onesidedness is boring. BO has been very quiet this week. I can hear him sweating. The pressure must be immense. And Biden is just inching to say something “stupid”.

  31. LOL
    November 2, 2012 at 6:35 am

    Ponder Z, the vast majority of ‘lies’ you think Obama has spoken are in fact lies by the person giving you the information. If you’d care to google those supposed lies with the word “debunked,” you’d know much of what you believe has no basis in evidence.

  32. Mitch
    November 2, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Ponder z,

    Fox News, Newsmax. and the rest of the fascist noise machine will be happy to provide you with lists of President Obama’s lies, both real and fantasy. I know it’s pretty one sided what with the Herald pointing out Mr. Romney’s lies and just Fox News, Newsmax, and the restof the fascist noise machine on the other side.

  33. Anonymous
    November 2, 2012 at 6:57 am

    FUUHC :
    obummer 20 trillion obummer 20 trillion. am I starting to repeat myself? no, I like to hear myself type. obumeer 20 trillion, I’m an awful lot of zeros, any one see a problem with that? my friends and family do

    $20,000,000,000,000 Your greed will saddle your Grandchildren with problems their entire lives.

  34. 713
    November 2, 2012 at 7:47 am

    To be fair:

  35. FUUHC
    November 2, 2012 at 7:50 am

    Don’t you mean Wall Street’s Greed with their $7.2 Trillion Bailout/Welfare Check? I just pay taxes, no bailouts for me.

  36. November 2, 2012 at 8:13 am

    713,

    This administration has been far from perfect on transparency. Do you agree that it has been better than the previous administration on transparency? That seems pretty clear (sorry) to me.

    The President has provided every wage earner a tax cut, through the payroll tax deduction. He’s received very little credit for it, because it shows up as a small weekly increase rather than a big annual check.

    He’s also passed previously-Republican legislation that requires Americans to buy health insurance, so that the taxpayer does not have to pay for the care of people who choose not to purchase insurance. You can call that a tax or not call it a tax — I agree with the President and the old Republican Party that insisting everyone take responsibility for health insurance is the best way to bring medical costs under control.

    To call “Obamacare” a federal takeover of the health care system is a pure lie. No doctors who are not now employed by the government will be employed by the government under “Obamacare.” To call the requirement that people purchase insurance a “tax” is arguable either way — what is not arguable is that the taxpayer has, until now, been paying for the emergency room healthcare of people who declined to purchase insurance, and is now being relieved of much of that burden.

    As for the rest of your video, it’s a good demonstration of how honest the administration has been on most issues. If there were real lies, they’d be in the video; instead, what you find is a lot of right wing drek on things that can be interpreted in multiple ways.

    On the other hand, to find lies from Mitt Romney is easy. Start with his blatant edited misquote of the President on “you didn’t build that.” If any student tried to pull that stunt in a journalism class, they’d get an F and might be suspended. And that was just the beginning. It’s been a disgusting and low campaign by the most dishonest candidate to run for the Presidency in my lifetime.

  37. Just Watchin
    November 2, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Even when video is in their face, libtards can’t admit that their boy Barry lies.

  38. November 2, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Just Watchin,

    He’s not “my boy,” but interesting turn of phrase.

  39. Plain Jane
    November 2, 2012 at 9:16 am

    JW is just warming up for a full blown racist meltdown on November 7th, Mitch. He can barely contain himself now.

    Oh, and there is new news about Benghazi which JW has been very impatiently waiting for:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/cia-played-major-defensive-role-in-libya-attack.html

    I’m guessing Mitt was briefed before the news release and that is why he abruptly dropped mentioning Benghazi between presidential debates. Of course, now the question asked is “why wasn’t there more security?” A more honest question would be “why doesn’t the president have either a crystal ball or unlimited money to provide heavy security around every embassy, consulate and American enterprise everywhere in the world to prevent tragedies?”

  40. unanonymous
    November 2, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    here is a video of the guys our government(Obama) wants to arm. vote democratic OR republican if you approve. thank you.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336051

  41. unanonymous
    November 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    I don’t think anyone will be dropping this one anytime soon. Here is a more in depth analysis of the benghazi situation :

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

  42. Plain Jane
    November 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    WSJ is just another version of Fox now, Unanon. You might as well use World Nut Daily as a source.

  43. unanonymous
    November 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    same facts as your source but has additional info that are omitted by the cherry picked facts of the propaganda rag you cite that endorses Obama reelection:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/new-york-times-obama-endorsement_n_2031488.html

    again all you guys have is name calling to try and debase the facts.

  44. unanonymous
    November 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    btw pj, you used to get pretty chappy about shrubs cia rendition and killing of civillians. where are you on the administration targeting alleged terrorists in civilian population centers. you feeling proud about how we conduct ourselves in Yemen?

  45. Smart 5th Grader
    November 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    I enjoy the different opinions here. However, flat out illiteracy is difficult to digest. But I suppose the illiterates are fellow Americans and are both a product of our society and our educational system, so … keep on slaughtering the English language.

  46. unanonymous
    November 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    that last sentence was a run on…..

  47. Plain Jane
    November 2, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I’m still opposed to rendition and killing of civilians, #44. I am opposed to killing other than in self-defense. But if you think anyone who is president in this country today wouldn’t be ordering drone attacks when they have the location of a known terrorist, you aren’t thinking rationally. Do you think drone attacks are more deadly to civilians than “shock and awe?” Do you think drones are more deadly to civilians than terrorists? Or maybe you think we shouldn’t do anything about terrorists until they try to blow themselves up here in the US? Countries like Pakistan and Yemen which refuse to prosecute terrorists or who actively collaborate with them should get the message and take care of the problem themselves.

  48. Plain Jane
    November 2, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    The WaPo editorial board just endorsed Obama with a BLISTERING rant about how Romney is insulting American voters with his lies and flip-flops.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-election-campaign-insults-voters/2012/11/02/69fcc1fc-2428-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?hpid=z2

  49. Mitch
    November 2, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Not blistering enough. The New York Times might have regained a nibble of my respect if they’d used their entire front page for an editorial headlined: ROMNEY WANTS TO FUCK THE UNITED STATES. Short of that, I’d say the media is pretty complicit.

  50. Plain Jane
    November 2, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    That would be a most appropriate situation for the “F” bomb to explode in a national paper Mitch. Although it would be nice, a front page headline is too much to ask. Think of the children….

  51. 713
    November 2, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    Mitch,
    we went over this. your guys lies, my guy lies. they are politicians.

    And pj, no waterboarding, but blow them up? ok.

  52. Plain Jane
    November 2, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Once they are captured they are prisoners of war with constitutional protections, 7:13. Until then they are enemy soldiers who will be killed if they can’t be captured.

  53. Plain Jane
    November 2, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    Just curious, 7:13, but were you this concerned over the deaths of thousands of civilians in “shock and awe” to get one man who was no threat to us?

  54. Ponder z
    November 3, 2012 at 6:03 am

    IT sounds to me like the HH is a libtard noise machine.

    Think of the children….
    and grandchildren who may have to inherit the obama debt. Do you not understand that? We are printing more money, that there is no more gold to back up. I bet you have a bunch of credit card debt yourself PJ. If you think obama debt is OK. then you probably want me to cover your personal debt too.

  55. Walt
    November 3, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Herein lies the problem: It’s OK to use drones to kill people anywhere in the world, Americans included, are are ACCUSED of being “terrorists.” No investigation, no trial, just “light ’em up.” Or we can put em in prison FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, based on “information” that they might be “terrorists.” That’s because we’re at war, and WILL BE FOREVER.

    This is the “liberal” view.

    The conservatives think anyone who doesn’t have over five houses and has less than $1 billion in the bank (offshore) are untermenschen, and should be ethnically cleansed.

    So this election is saying “Pick one.” That’s democracy.

  56. 713
    November 3, 2012 at 8:05 am

    PJ there are a very specific set of circumstances that allow you POW status and protections. I don’t believe they are enemy soldiers either, combatants is the term. They are terrorists and don’t fit into the traditional legal framework, hence the use of drones, Guantanamo, and torture. Your guy hasn’t slowed it down, BTW. It wasn’t bush who was promising to be out of everywhere and close Guantanamo.

  57. November 3, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Walt,

    The Obama administration’s use of drones is one area where I completely part company with most of the people that I mostly agree with.

    I think you have to take context into account.

    If there are people, unaffiliated with a government, who are plotting to kill Americans in America, I think it is the responsibility of any American government to respond. I believe there are such people, and the previous administration needlessly created many of them.

    There are really no good responses to the reality that such people now exist. Especially in areas where no state has real control over such people, some sort of military action is necessary. Of the set of bad responses available, I’d say invasion is the worst, bombing the next worse, and targeted drone strikes against individuals the least worst.

    If the President had chosen invasion, he’d have won reelection by a landslide. Instead, by choosing pinpoint intelligent responses to minimize loss of life, he gets complaints from civil libertarians. I’ll never understand it.

  58. November 3, 2012 at 9:30 am

    713,

    Yes, we’ve gone over it, but we absolutely do not agree. Further, I think “everybody does it” is a meme that has been developed over the last few decades to assist the right wing. It suppresses vote turnout, especially by young people. Nobody is perfect, but the difference between the Romney campaign lies and the Obama campaign is night and day.

    That’s been completely obvious since “you didn’t build that.”

    If you honestly think there’s a comparison between the Romney misquote and anything done by this Obama campaign or the previous one, then we live in completely different universes. Because in mine, Romney is by far the sleaziest politician I’ve ever seen. I’d feel that way regardless of his positions on any issue — he could match Nader policy for policy and I’d still think he was poison.

  59. 713
    November 3, 2012 at 9:37 am

    They lie Mitch. Both of them. I think Romney will be better for the economy, and that’s what I care about right now. Food on the table and all that.

  60. November 3, 2012 at 9:55 am

    Truly sad, 713. That’s all I can say.

  61. Walt
    November 3, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Hitler, Mussilini, Stalin and the rest were “good” for their economies, too. . .at least for a while. There was some “collateral damage” of course. . . But really, 713, the GNP and Exxon profit margin are all that matters to you?

  62. November 3, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Ignore 713, Walt. He used to talk about how incredibly well all his investments were doing, but now he claims to be worried about putting food on the table. He’s another Republican liar, which is why he’s completely unperturbed by Mitt Romney.

  63. 713
    November 3, 2012 at 10:16 am

    You will be happy to know my investments are doing fine, but when the government is borrowing more than it is taking in continuously, that is bad. So yes, I worry about the economy although I am not currently starving.

    Walt, hyperbole much?

  64. November 3, 2012 at 10:17 am

    “Food on the table and all that.”

  65. 713
    November 3, 2012 at 10:23 am

    There may be people who I worry about besides myself Mitch.

  66. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Obama tried to shut down GITMO but Congress refused, 713. So far as we know, the US is no longer putting suspects in GITMO and the names of the few who remain have been released. He is not torturing or rendering them to other countries for torture. The definition of “enemy combatant” was “Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.” Bush twisted the definition to justify torturing them and refuse them Geneva Convention protections despite the fact that our laws prohibit the torture of anyone by any American official any where in the world.

    It’s ludicrous that you would trust a shameless liar like Romney to even try to do anything he promises since he promises everything and contradicts his own promises repeatedly. That you think his “plan” will be good for the economy is just insane.

  67. 713
    November 3, 2012 at 11:05 am

    You don’t get Geneva convention protection if you don’t follow the rules, like wearing a uniform, etc. they are “unlawful combatants”.

  68. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 11:13 am

    That was Bush’s false argument, 7:13. But our laws say differently.

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm

    Please copy/paste from any legitimate legal source (not John Yoo’s “tortured” memos) an exemption for torturing an “unlawful combantant,” or anyone for that matter. Or are you one of those who wrongly believes that when the president does it, it’s legal?

  69. November 3, 2012 at 11:16 am

    713,

    People you worry about? In China? Mighty multicultural of you. I’m glad your investments are doing well.

  70. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    “I knew that despite actively supporting the Vietnam War, Mitt Romney had taken several deferments to avoid serving in it—including spending time in France as a missionary—but until watching the above video, I’d never seen this quote:

    Mr. Romney, though, said that he sometimes had wished he were in Vietnam instead of France. “There were surely times on my mission when I was having a particularly difficult time accomplishing very little when I would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military,” he said in an interview, “but that was not to be.”

    What an amazing quote. I mean, he had ample opportunity to serve if he wanted to. He took four deferments—that’s four chances that he passed up—yet he said with a straight face that he “would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military.” That’s just pathological B.S. right there. What a fraud.”

    Video
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/01/1153585/-Mitt-Romney-s-Vietnam

  71. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Because, you know, trying to persuade Catholics to join your cult is very difficult compared to fighting guerrillas in the jungle. (Heavy sigh)

  72. November 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    It is what it is. It’s now relatively easy to get half of the voting population to vote for any moderately “Presidential looking” white man. Barring major fraud at the polls, it’s unlikely Romney will be President, but the next one will probably win.

    I’m trying to figure out what that means in terms of day to day life. Part of me just wants to ignore it, part of me wants to find a revolutionary cell, and part of me is thinking this is a great opportunity in the arms futures market, and it’s past time to go long GE. (That’s a bitter joke, btw.)

    The main change it’s meant to me so far is I’ve really developed an awful case of contempt for a lot of mainstream people. I don’t like that about myself. And I’ve lost any expectations from government. I don’t like that either.

  73. 713
    November 3, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    In my community Mitch. The ones who have had their hours, pay, and benefits cut. The ones who have lost their homes, or struggle to make end meet.

  74. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    So voting for the candidate who proposes policies which caused the economic problems at the root of your worry is a solution to you, 7:13? You can’t possibly believe that his economic policy claims have any validity. You can’t possibly believe that a man who is at this moment outsourcing jobs to China (11 Million dollar investment in Sensata which is in the process of shipping its production to China) has any concerns about jobs here at home.

  75. November 3, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    713,

    I’m doing the best I can trying to accept what you say as face value. I’m truly incapable of understanding how anyone can think Romney would improve things. I guess that’s what it means to be partisan.

    The part that I find scariest is that if Romney had known what would happen 20 years ago, he’d be an evangelical Christian today and President next year.

  76. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    I’ll add preemptively that Romney himself said that blind trusts are “an age-old ruse.” President Obama’s share of the loan his pension plan (Illinois State Board of Investment) gave to Sensata (which Romney referred to in defending his own $11 MILLION investment in the debate) is $11 and, as everyone knows, pension plan investment decisions aren’t a ruse.

  77. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    Here is a video secretly recorded of Romney talking to a pro-life radio host (off the air) about his religion and abortion. He says explicitly that he is opposed to choice and is absolutely pro-life.

    You can skip the part about whether the Book of Mormon says the 2nd coming will be in Israel or Missouri and start at 3:00:

    “My church says we are vehemently opposed to abortions ourselves and for ourselves but we allow other people to make their own choice. I disagree with that view. Politically I look at that and said, you know what, that’s wrong. And it’s not a Mormon thing. It’s a secular position to say you know what, I was wrong. We should have as a society a prohibition on abortion in the following circumstances. But it’s not violating my faith, I assure you.”

    As governor “I vetoed any bill that was in favor of choice. I was entirely consistently in favor of life.”

  78. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    This was an eloquent comment on Ross Douthat’s column tonight on why we should vote for Romney:

    Paul ’52New York, NY

    RedIstribution? The great redistribution has been the shift in about 15% of our nation’s income to the 1% already at the top over the last 30 years. This shift dwarfs every item you discuss under the “redistribution” mantra, yet you totally fail to address it.

    The plain fact is that as long as 1% of us make as much s 50% of us, vast numbers of us won’t have enough for basics, thus a larger government will be guaranteed, and some of the great redistribution of the last 30 years will have to be taxed away from the top for these purposes.

    Want smaller government? Start with a fairer society.

  79. November 4, 2012 at 12:02 am

    “want smaller government? Start with a fairer society.”

    That one ought to be cast in amber, to be brought back out for any future generation that needs (again) to relearn what we are relearning now.

    Many thanks for pulling it out, Jane.

    Don’t you find that comments are becoming some of the most remarkable parts of public essays? Each in degree and in direction, of course, but often enough to be interested in it, gems are there.

    The one thing overlooked this time and so often is that we really didn’t get the present situation out of entirely black-hatted thoughts or acts. It is consequent on a lot of things we did because they seemed to make sense, and brought us advancement. Then the ‘side consequences’ and ‘externalities’ added up. It’s the same thing that happens in nature, and it’s why I think attention on resilience may be a path forward.

    Not just because of this article, but it explains the position: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/forget-sustainability-its-about-resilience.html?pagewanted=all

  80. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 12:46 am

    I think a “middle path” with sustainability as the primary goal (and absolute necessity with a finite supply of fossil fuels) and resilience as the fail safe is probably wise because resilience will fail most of us if we have devastating climate change, an inevitability if we don’t achieve sustainability. I don’t see them as contradictory goals, quite the contrary.

    I think comments on public essays is the best part of online news and opinion. No matter the subject or leanings of the author, there is vigorous and often brilliant rebuttal or affirmation of the article which broadens public exposure and understanding of issues and events. The NYT is my favorite to read because they moderate so there is less garbage, but the satisfaction in dashing off a response to a Krauthammer or Gerson column that appears instantly makes me appreciative of WaPost’s after-the-fact moderation of only offensive posts.

  81. November 4, 2012 at 1:01 am

    Yeah. Nothing in the resilience concept (see Lance Gunderson et al, resalliance.org, etc.) precludes dominance of relative stabilities or sustainabilities.

    I think the vociferousness of the article in this way is a) due to placing his own position and book, and b) in what I will agree can be a needful counter to the absolutism which has come to dominate far too many sustainability positions.

    Resilience doesn’t need to be pitched this way, but it can bring a certain relief ;)

    If you have studied actual ecologies, you will notice the panarchy types of time series and situational interchanges have a lot to do with how they operate. Gunderson is a forester. It’s a place to learn something. What we humans do with the observations will always be more complex, in our power and our danger(ousness).

    Late at night, my instinct is on the sides of recognizing flows and the pivotal importance of distinctions, in their important moments.

    Thanks, Jane — sleep beckons now.

  82. 713
    November 4, 2012 at 6:16 am

    PJ, we disagree on the reasons the economy collapsed. Mitch, I am glad you are trying to take my position at face value. I believe we cannot continue to spend more than we take in. It is not sustainable. You can spin things however you want, but the fact is that Obama has spent a shitload of money and the deficit has soared in the past 4 years. Bush wasn’t much better. I agree Obama inherited a mess. He hasn’t made it better.

    PJ if they are shipping jobs overseas it is because we cannot compete, and that is sad. If you don’t outsource and stay competitive, all of the jobs will go away as the companies will eventually go out of business.

  83. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 6:29 am

    713.

    As long as you think it’s about money, and not about value, you won’t get it. As a society, you can spend money and get value, in which case you’ve done well. Or, you can spend money and not get any value at all, in which case you haven’t done very well.

    It’s staring us in the face, but it’s not a shiny bauble. If we value individual freedom, we have to let individuals spend their money however they please. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use our vote as a request that society purchase value for its money.

    Education, safety nets, housing: value.

    Wars, advertising, Wall Street bonuses-for-nothing: negative value.

  84. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 6:32 am

    What do you believe is the reason the economy collapsed, 713? How do you think we can be competitive with a country that steals intellectual property and uses essentially slave labor with few if any environmental regulations, 713? Do you envision American workers packed into dormitories (or prisons?) on-call to work 24/7 without rights for less than a dollar an hour? Don’t you have a problem with a president who offshores jobs even as he is claiming he wants to bring jobs home? If he can’t do that, where are those 12 million jobs going to come from? WHY do you believe a proven, serial liar?

  85. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 6:35 am

    And a complexity that gets introduced is that “value” isn’t constant over time.

    One hundred years ago, extraction industries produced net value, providing us with useful things and pushing externalities onto an environment that was essentially infinite. Today, extraction industries continue to produce the same useful things but, failing sensible regulation and limitation, the externalities have more negative value for the planet than the “useful things” add in positive value.

    But as long as money gets transferred by our industrial processes from people who “don’t matter” to people who “matter,” we’ll continue destroying value in the name of progress.

  86. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 6:53 am

    Op Ed from USA Today by Bob King, Head of UAW 11/2/2012

    “Mitt Romney and his partners made a killing on the GM bankruptcy by gaining control of bankrupt parts supplier Delphi, then threatening to withhold components critical to the production of GM vehicles. Romney’s business partners were willing to force GM into liquidation and cause a national economic calamity unless they got more money. In the end, the Romney investor group got what it wanted and earned a profit of more than 3,000 percent on its initial investment.
    This is the real Romney, a man who objected to the rescue of the domestic auto industry, then made astronomical profits after his business partners threatened the survival of GM. A man who lies about Chrysler moving jobs to China, when his history at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, shows that he has invested in Chinese factories where workers are grossly exploited. Romney won’t even act to stop the Sensata factory in Illinois, in which he is an investor, from closing the doors and moving to China the day before the election.

    Mitt Romney won’t come clean on Chrysler, won’t come clean on his Chinese investments and threatened the restructuring of GM for his own profit. That is the picture of a me-first hedge-fund investor, not someone who has the judgment or character to be President of the United States.”

  87. 713
    November 4, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Yes, I am sure the UAW supports Obama after the gift he gave them PJ.

    Mitch I agree we have to purchase value, as a society. We disagree on what that is. To me, value isn’t borrowing money to satisfy you needs for today and passing the debt on to somebody else.

    I don’t know why you are worried, I doubt Romney has a chance anyway. At some point we will have to pay our bills.

    PJ – the factors that created the collapse are numerous and it was the perfect storm. Greed, easy credit, and a bunch of irresponsible behavior.

  88. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Robert Reich on Romney-Ryan Economic Plan

  89. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Of course UAW supports Obama, but that doesn’t change the truth of King’s editorial, 7:13. Why do you think his support of Obama negates the facts?

  90. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 8:41 am

    713,

    I’m not worried that Romney will be President. I’m worried that he’s able to get more than five percent. Polls show him even with the President in the popular vote. That bodes seriously ill for America’s future.

    You’ll think I’m wrong, but I think a society in which Romney can get more than five percent has already collapsed. That’s how strongly I feel about what he represents.

    As for spending by borrowing, if you look at the record, you’ll see that’s a recent Republican specialty. Sure, Obama’s record on the deficit looks bad at a superficial glance, but he had the most disastrous cleanup job in recent years.

    Also, there are arguments that I don’t pretend to understand that say that treating government debt with the same attitude that you treat family debt is just silly — that the government can always print more money, and that such printing does not trigger inflation under certain circumstances. As I say, I don’t get it, but I do respect the intelligence of the many economists who make that argument.

  91. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Yes Mitch, but as Reich demonstrates in the video above, that is exactly what Romney and Ryan will be doing; but the result of their way of doing it will result in millions more unemployed and trillions more in debt with massive transfer of wealth to those at the top.

  92. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 9:07 am

    And we can’t forget that people like Romney will own most of that debt.

  93. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Actually, PJ, I think that’s a part that if people understood, they’d change their minds. The main, real-world change that has taken place in our economy is that what society used to collect from the wealthy as taxes, it now borrows as debt. Everything on the ground is the same as it was, but we’ve been told we collectively owe money to this tiny set of people.

  94. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 9:24 am

    We gave them tax cuts, they loan it to us to cover what taxes no longer can, and then we pay them interest forever until the world bank forces us to sell public resources and privatize the commons at fire sales where they are the only buyers. What a great scam!

    The Economist just endorsed Obama. “America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill.”

    An indepth critique of both Obama and Romney and then their summation:

    “As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.”

  95. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 9:25 am

    I’ve always respected The Economist more than many papers and magazines that spout my party line. I’m glad to hear they’re still sane.

  96. 713
    November 4, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Mitch, look at the per capita spending. You seem to think the rich aren’t paying anything but the facts don’t support your argument. The “rich” earn 17% of the income and pay 37% of the taxes. http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/30/pf/taxes/rich-taxes/index.html

  97. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 9:39 am

    That is 1% who earns 17% of the income, 7:13.

    From your link, “For one thing, AGI doesn’t give the fullest picture of income. Some wealthy individuals pay little or nothing in federal income taxes because their income is from sources not included in AGI such as tax-free municipal bonds.”

    “The Tax Policy Center incorporates these broader views of income and tax burdens in its calculations. And it found that in 2009, people making more than $1 million in total income paid roughly 16% of all federal taxes in 2009.”

    Of course, those tax-free municipal bonds are public debt that they own…see above.

  98. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Do you think those at the bottom who pay little or no taxes because their wages have stagnated and don’t cover living expenses should pay higher taxes because those who sucked the wealth to the top are now paying a higher percentage of smaller revenues when taxes for the richest are at their lowest rates (with the exception of a few years under Reagan which even he realized were too low) since WWII?

  99. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 9:44 am

    713,

    First, I don’t think the big recent skew in our tax system happened at $100,000 or $500,000 income points. It happened for those with more than $5,000,000 in income or gains. All the talk about the one percent on both sides strikes me as missing the point for a better sounding slogan. It’s the top percent of the top percent who have stolen the country.

    But leaving that aside for the moment, the majority of the taxes most lower middle class people pay is payroll tax; that’s always excluded from your style of calculations, but it funds a large portion of the federal government. And people think they are paying one rate when the reality is they are paying twice (but half is extracted from their employer).

    But leave that aside as well. I would think a fairer analysis than your 17 pay 37 would be to figure out what the minimum cost of staying alive and healthy in America is. That is, figure out what it costs a family of four to live in a studio apartment, eat only rice and beans, purchase transportation and clothing sufficient to work, and obtain dental and health care. Then, take the income above that level, and compare it with the taxes paid. I think you’d find an extremely different result.

  100. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Do you know who paid virtually all of federal revenues at our founding, 7:13? The rich were the about the only people who could afford imports and import duties that funded the federal government.

  101. 713
    November 4, 2012 at 9:55 am

    PJ, if they didn’t give those breaks you wouldn’t see schools get built, etc. they pay a very low rate of interest to help the communities get their stuff built, in exchange for that, you don’t pay taxes on it. This is a good deal for everybody.

    Mitch, the payroll taxes are social security, Medicare, unemployment. You think the low wage earners shouldn’t get social security & Medicare – or they shouldn’t pay for it?

  102. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Wouldn’t it be a better deal for the taxpayers if we had taxes sufficient to pay for schools without paying tax free interest to lenders, 7:13?

  103. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 10:03 am

    I think we need a society where anyone who works full time has enough money to afford to pay into Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment. We used to have a society like that but gave it up so the wealthiest could keep more. If things remain as they are, I don’t think low wage earners should have to pay for those benefits.

    Providing funds to enable elderly retirees to eat is a service that should be required of any government worth having. I can think of few better reasons to maintain a government. It’s an example of America’s oddness that FDR had to set up something called Social Security independent of the regular taxation system in order to get that minimal bit of safety net in place here.

  104. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Like the brilliant Mark from New York said yesterday, “If you want smaller government, you need a fairer society.”

  105. Mitch
    November 4, 2012 at 10:11 am

    One simple, revenue-neutral change — remove the cap on payroll taxes and apply an equivalent tax requirement to capital gains income. Then change the income on which payroll taxes start from zero to whatever would make the change revenue-neutral.

  106. 713
    November 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Call your teachers union about that pj. They are the biggest recipient of school taxes and get a raise every single year.

    Increasing the Capital gains rate will hurt seniors, Mitch. I agree you should be able to work and afford to get by. We don’t agree on how to get there. I don’t think taking money from one person and giving it to another in the name of fairness is a good idea. It bothers me you assume people who accumulate wealth have done something inherently wrong or are bad people.

  107. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    People who take a larger and larger share of the revenues produced by the many while the many don’t have enough to survive are bad people, 7:13. When they further try to cut the social programs that the many need to survive because of their taking a larger share of the revenues, they are very bad people indeed.

  108. 713
    November 5, 2012 at 7:43 am

    So if I get a raise or make money in the stock market, I am bad.

    OK, got it.

  109. November 5, 2012 at 7:48 am

    713,

    Talk about disingenuous. Would you support the elimination of all subsidies to every corporation — period, no exceptions? What about the elimination of all parts of the tax code that allow a corporation to reduce its tax liability by “moving earnings offshore.”? What about beefing up the IRS so that it could audit every corporations’ taxes continually.

    If people saw conservatives standing up for that sort of thing, there’d be a lot more trust, and maybe it would be possible to take some other conservative suggestions a bit more seriously.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s