I love these things.
And it would be far funnier and "lighter" if it didn't have any painful truth to it.
On their one point in this, where they point out--rightfully, right now--how corporations can make unlimited contributions for and against any candidate or candidates or proposition in the country while, here, one private citizen is being chastised for supporting candidates--let's see. What political system is that most resembling??
Oh! That's right! Fascism!
Now they need to do one on how the Republicans and the Tea Party are going to try to destroy America so Pres. O doesn't get re-elected. It'd be perfect. Just a bit exaggerated but true, sadly.
Enjoy that beautiful weekend out there, folks. It's seemingly lasting forever but we know better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
You should note that both corporations and unions were given the same freedom to contribute to campaigns by the recent Citizens United decision. Why is it that you only mention corporations?
And oh yeah there's a big difference between what a person legally can or cannot do, and what an employer is or isnt willing to put up with.
Keith Olbermann ran afoul, not of the law, but of his employer. You act like he's being deprived of his civil rights by the government.
The fact is that he is free to work for any employer he chooses. But when he voluntarily agrees to cash their check, he also agrees to the conditions that he knew ahead of time.
Olbermann purposely tried to make himself a martyr and ended up looking foolish because it's not the law that he's in trouble with. He's chosen to bite the hand that pays him quite handsomely.
First, I don't know why I should note it (that corporations and unions were both allowed to contribute to campaigns by the recent Citizens United decision) and secondly, I only note corporations because the amount of money they will all have to contribute to these campaigns is so much more obscenely large than what the unions can contribute, it's absurd. Well, that and the fact that the unions are fighting for their members, at large, while corporations are only for an ever-larger profit for themselves, their leadership and their stockholders, not any more noble, larger group. There's no benificence for or from them.
I have to tell you, I'm not that concerned about Keith Olbermann's plight. I put this up for humor, more than anything. That said, I do think his being chastised is ridiculous and only a good way for the parent corporation to keep him from saying things about the ugly, selfish ways of the corporations.
Olbermann hasn't tried to make himself a martyr and didn't here. He's sanctimonious and self-righteous but the fact is, he's right on his topics and he's fighting for me--the little guy. His getting put in his place by his employer is no doubt okay by his contract, sure, but it's wrong for and on the larger issues of having the freedom to contribute to campaigns he thinks are right, that's all.
Olbermann 'fights for what he thinks is right' eh?
Ok, lets look at the Bush tax cuts.
Olbermann undoubtedly is in the tax bracket above $250,000 of which Obama and Olbermann say that it is 'just wrong' that these folks dont pay more taxes.
So, has Olbermann sent in the extra dough that he 'should have been taxed' but wasnt? Has he lived by his stated convictions? (Or is he going to wait until he is REQUIRED BY LAW to live by his stated convictions?)
I think we both know the answer to that.
So as he 'fights for the little guy' he continues to cheat the country of the revenue that he claims should go to the Treasury.
You've apparently not watched "Countdown" or you would know that, yes, Mr. Olbermann fights for the working scmuck on the street.
That out of the way, I have to say, I so tire of the "little guy" who goes out there--against his own best, self-interests--and fights, like this, like you, now, for the corporation and/or the corporation's best interests. (Unless, of course, you were either born to wealth or you are a CEO or some other corporate officer and you're doing this for just that reason--to fight for the corporation and their plight). I just don't get it. I don't understand how the corporations have done such a magnificent job with whatever they do, so people like you and Sevesteen will fight for the corporation's benefits.
Anyway, you have no idea what Keith Olbermann pays in taxes and neither do I. Could he have paid this extra amount? Sure. Did he? I have no idea. Like you, sure, I rather doubt it but a) we'll never know and b) it's beside the point.
The point is, you and I are being short-shifted by corporate America unless you're part of that machine. And even if you are, the likelihood, particularly with health care, that you're still getting the short end of the proverbial stick is incredibly high.
I'm for the working guy first. The corporations do very well, thanks very much, and they certainly don't need my help.
Or Keith Olbermann's.
And if the gov't says he owes "x" amount of taxes--hypothetical question here--and he pays that much, how is it, exactly he's cheating anyone?
If Olbermann or Obama is gonna make the argument that folks with higher incomes 'should' pay more taxes, that it's 'the right thing', then why would they wait to pay more until they are FORCED to?
Their whole moral argument about 'it's the right thing' is hypocritical if they aren't willing to do 'the right thing' unless it's required of them.
What would you think of a guy who spends each evening in the bar and argues for the return of Prohibition because, says he "It's the right thing to do"?
'Oh I'll quit drinking when Prohibition passes' he assures you.
Why isn't he doing what he tells you is 'the right thing' and wants to force on you by law?
Obama should lead by example. So should high income liberals like Olbermann, Alan Grayson, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, the leftists in Hollywood and every other liberal who tells us 'it is the right thing' for folks with higher incomes to pay more. Why don't they put their money where their mouth is?
Unless they are willing to pay more right now, before it's required, all their hypocrisy about 'it's the right thing' is so transparent. Their moral argument is just for show.
It's like with health care. We were treated to endless sermons on how greedy insurance companies were ripping people off. Why dont all the rich Democrats (and there's quite a few more we could add to the list above including the Kennedys, George Soros, etc) all buy an insurance company or two and show us how it's 'supposed to be done'? Because they'd lose their shirt that's why. They shoulda put their money where their mouth is.
You make me laugh when you wonder 'why I defend corporations' I noted earlier that unions received the same bump from the Citizens United case as the corps did, but most liberals don't want to talk about that.
Am I a rich corporate exec? Far from it my friend.
Do I trust corporations? Not much. And I trust government even less.
If you don't like what a corporation does, you don't have to patronize them. You've got control over their destiny. They don't have the power of law to force you to buy from them. OOOOOOOPS, that is until Obamacare kicks in.
Democrats have empowered corporations in a way that Republicans never did. Now corporations have the big stick of the IRS to punish you if you don't buy their product.
Yeah, Obama really 'stood up for the little guy against the corporations (insurance companies) didnt he? You are so deceived.
Obamacare was the most massive corporate welfare scheme ever.
I am against corporate welfare.
Democrats used to be.
Democrats wonder why they are losing independents like me.
Your claim on everyone paying more in income tax, before they're required to seems not based in any kind of reality. Since when do people pay more than they're required, with some few, rare exceptions, first. Second, how do any of us know what people pay and third, this tax President Obama wants to repeal on the Bush tax cuts would have only applied to the really wealthy. You may have seen the news clip where Warren Buffett thought it a good idea. For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone would be against it. As Mr. Buffett said, the money has to come from somewhere--should it come from the guy who serves him at a restaurant or himself?
On health care--we have the most expensive system in the world AND we are ranked 37th---behind Costa Rica (which has universal health care). 35 countries have higher mortality rates than the US. Also, we're up to 51 million people now, who have no health care insurance because it's not accessible--read: it's too expensive. From this last note of yours it seems clear you don't think we needed any reform. And if it's "the most massive corporate welfare scheme ever", then why do the corporations want it undone and why are their toadies, the Republicans, now trying to undo it? The Health Care Reform Act wasn't everything it needed to be for us, but it was a good start, for sure.
You say I "make me laugh when you wonder 'why I defend corporations' I noted earlier that unions received the same bump from the Citizens United case as the corps did, but most liberals don't want to talk about that." Actually, that's patently untrue. We just spoke of it, earlier, above, I explained myself and the logic is very clear. Why any working class person is against unions defies logic.
The fact is, if we would and do cut governmnet spending, we'd be helped, for sure. What we need to do is cut the defense budget, for instance, by half. We'd still be outspending the rest of the entire world by a huge amount. But this won't happen. Geo. W. Bush starting the Homeland Security Dept. was a huge mistake and a boondoggle of spending. We shouldn't have created that as a country. etc., etc.
And I do try to not patronize corporations, period, but more than anything, I try to only purchase from companies that have horrible internal practices, of whatever sort.
It sounds as though the one big thing for you and the health care reform we got is the fact that it is required we have insurance. And that makes some sense, here in the States. We hate being told what to do. And for this provision, we can, again, thank the corporations. They insisted that provision be included so they could be sure they had enough profits to cover other things in the bill. What we should have had was the "Public Option". That would have taken care of the competition factor, against the insurance companies.
And your question "Why dont all the rich Democrats...all buy an insurance company or two and show us how it's 'supposed to be done'?" is silly to the point of absurd. If you're not in an industry, you virtually never have the ability to just impose yourself into it. That's certainly true with the insurance industry.
You, in turn, make me both laugh and sad, when you defend corporations.
Your claim on everyone paying more in income tax, before they're required to seems not based in any kind of reality. Since when do people pay more than they're required, with some few, rare exceptions, first. Second, how do any of us know what people pay and third, this tax President Obama wants to repeal on the Bush tax cuts would have only applied to the really wealthy. You may have seen the news clip where Warren Buffett thought it a good idea. For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone would be against it. As Mr. Buffett said, the money has to come from somewhere--should it come from the guy who serves him at a restaurant or himself?
On health care--we have the most expensive system in the world AND we are ranked 37th---behind Costa Rica (which has universal health care). 35 countries have higher mortality rates than the US. Also, we're up to 51 million people now, who have no health care insurance because it's not accessible--read: it's too expensive. From this last note of yours it seems clear you don't think we needed any reform. And if it's "the most massive corporate welfare scheme ever", then why do the corporations want it undone and why are their toadies, the Republicans, now trying to undo it? The Health Care Reform Act wasn't everything it needed to be for us, but it was a good start, for sure.
You say I "make me laugh when you wonder 'why I defend corporations' I noted earlier that unions received the same bump from the Citizens United case as the corps did, but most liberals don't want to talk about that." Actually, that's patently untrue. We just spoke of it, earlier, above, I explained myself and the logic is very clear. Why any working class person is against unions defies logic.
The fact is, if we would and do cut governmnet spending, we'd be helped, for sure. What we need to do is cut the defense budget, for instance, by half. We'd still be outspending the rest of the entire world by a huge amount. But this won't happen. Geo. W. Bush starting the Homeland Security Dept. was a huge mistake and a boondoggle of spending. We shouldn't have created that as a country. etc., etc.
And I do try to not patronize corporations, period, but more than anything, I try to only purchase from companies that have horrible internal practices, of whatever sort.
It sounds as though the one big thing for you and the health care reform we got is the fact that it is required we have insurance. And that makes some sense, here in the States. We hate being told what to do. And for this provision, we can, again, thank the corporations. They insisted that provision be included so they could be sure they had enough profits to cover other things in the bill. What we should have had was the "Public Option". That would have taken care of the competition factor, against the insurance companies.
And your question "Why dont all the rich Democrats...all buy an insurance company or two and show us how it's 'supposed to be done'?" is silly to the point of absurd. If you're not in an industry, you virtually never have the ability to just impose yourself into it. That's certainly true with the insurance industry.
You, in turn, make me both laugh and sad, when you defend corporations.
Your claim on everyone paying more in income tax, before they're required to seems not based in any kind of reality. Since when do people pay more than they're required, with some few, rare exceptions, first. Second, how do any of us know what people pay and third, this tax President Obama wants to repeal on the Bush tax cuts would have only applied to the really wealthy. You may have seen the news clip where Warren Buffett thought it a good idea. For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone would be against it. As Mr. Buffett said, the money has to come from somewhere--should it come from the guy who serves him at a restaurant or himself?
On health care--we have the most expensive system in the world AND we are ranked 37th---behind Costa Rica (which has universal health care). 35 countries have higher mortality rates than the US. Also, we're up to 51 million people now, who have no health care insurance because it's not accessible--read: it's too expensive. From this last note of yours it seems clear you don't think we needed any reform. And if it's "the most massive corporate welfare scheme ever", then why do the corporations want it undone and why are their toadies, the Republicans, now trying to undo it? The Health Care Reform Act wasn't everything it needed to be for us, but it was a good start, for sure.
You say I "make me laugh when you wonder 'why I defend corporations' I noted earlier that unions received the same bump from the Citizens United case as the corps did, but most liberals don't want to talk about that." Actually, that's patently untrue. We just spoke of it, earlier, above, I explained myself and the logic is very clear. Why any working class person is against unions defies logic.
The fact is, if we would and do cut governmnet spending, we'd be helped, for sure. What we need to do is cut the defense budget, for instance, by half. We'd still be outspending the rest of the entire world by a huge amount. But this won't happen. Geo. W. Bush starting the Homeland Security Dept. was a huge mistake and a boondoggle of spending. We shouldn't have created that as a country. etc., etc.
And I do try to not patronize corporations, period, but more than anything, I try to only purchase from companies that have horrible internal practices, of whatever sort.
It sounds as though the one big thing for you and the health care reform we got is the fact that it is required we have insurance. And that makes some sense, here in the States. We hate being told what to do. And for this provision, we can, again, thank the corporations. They insisted that provision be included so they could be sure they had enough profits to cover other things in the bill. What we should have had was the "Public Option". That would have taken care of the competition factor, against the insurance companies.
And your question "Why dont all the rich Democrats...all buy an insurance company or two and show us how it's 'supposed to be done'?" is silly to the point of absurd. If you're not in an industry, you virtually never have the ability to just impose yourself into it. That's certainly true with the insurance industry.
You, in turn, make me both laugh and sad, when you defend corporations.
MoRage wrote:
"Since when do people pay more than they're required"
I dont drink, because I believe it's the 'right thing to do'. I dont have to wait till it's illegal to stop drinking.
Obama and the Democrats are making a moral argument that rich people should 'do what's right' and pay more.
So how come they dont do it unless they are required to?
Their hypocrisy is evident.
They dont want increased taxes because 'it's the right thing', but only because it'll (they hope) give them more money to spend and hence more power/control over others.
Show me one Democrat millionaire who consistently pays more taxes than currently required because he truly believes 'it's the right thing'.
There aren't any.
Your logic is peculiar, at least.
This entry looks and reads just like your earlier one and it still rings hollow for me.
I believe you're reacting strongly to what you believe is accurate but what I see as a stereotype of a "Liberal" and/or Democrat. We really don't want to simply tax everything that moves and spend as there's no tomorrow.
That would be the previous president who did and wanted that.
All that said, surely we agree that, for instance, spending 511 million dollars in the next year on an expanded embassy for Kabul Afghanistan is at least mistaken, agreed?
Mo Rage wrote:
"I believe you're reacting strongly to what you believe is accurate but what I see as a stereotype of a "Liberal" and/or Democrat."
No, I am reacting to what Obama and the Democrats actually say.
Obama tries to make a moral argument about 'the rich' who don't pay 'their fair share' and how 'it's the right thing' to pay more if you're 'rich'.
Ok, so how come no 'rich' Democrats are willing to be fair and 'pay their fair share' unless they are forced to do it by law?
How come none of them voluntarily 'do the right thing' that they are telling us they believe in?
Their attempt at a moral argument is what rings hollow because they dont practice what they preach to the rest of us.
First, President Obama has never tried to "make a moral argument about 'the rich' who don't pay 'their fair share'..." or "...how 'it's the right thing' to pay more if you're rich." You're using quotes but a) those are not his quotes and b) he never said either.
What he has said is that we are in a bad way on debt and that they have done very well in the last several years, from our earlier ecocnomy--which is true--and that it seems more than fair for them now to chip in tha 4%---four percent, for pity's sake--to take their taxes--that of the truly wealthy--from 35% to 3%.
I know it's going to kill you to pay that additional amount but it does seem fair and besides, now, with a Republican-controlled House, you don't have to worry about it any longer. You and all the rich people are protected. Lucky you.
Finally, I say again, you nor I nor anyone else knows what these Democrats are paying in taxes. You have no idea. You don't know. Clearly, you have to leave that alone.
But you won't.
Now, let's move on to another topic like getting out of Iraq, not adding $511 million dollars to the Kabul embassy or getting out of Afghanistan or something else. Your mind is made up, it isn't going to change and we've covered all aspects of the now-dead small tax increase on the truly wealthy of America.
Mo Rage wrote:
"I know it's going to kill you to pay that additional amount"
No, you don't know what you think you know, Mo.
I said that in jest
Mo Rage wrote:
"Finally, I say again, you nor I nor anyone else knows what these Democrats are paying in taxes. You have no idea. You don't know. Clearly, you have to leave that alone."
While I'll agree that it's difficult to nail it down exactly, what we've seen isnt good.
Obama's tax-law-writer-in-chief
"Representative Charles B. Rangel, chairman of the Congressional committee that writes the nation’s tax code, failed to pay an unspecified amount in federal taxes during the past five years on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic, his lawyer said on Tuesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/nyregion/10rangel.html
Obama's choice to head the federal dept which includes the IRS
"Timothy F. Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary, failed to pay more than $34,000 in federal taxes over several years early this decade, and also faces questions about the employment papers of a former household employee, suddenly complicating what had seemed to be an easy confirmation process in the Senate." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/politics/14geithner.html
I can't imagine anyone--except maybe a wife, close family member or extremely close friend--who would stand up for Charlie Rangel and I certainly won't.
And Timothy Geithner? Please. I would no more stand up for him or Larry Summers or Hank Paulson, any of them.
We absolutely need to get Goldman Sachs and all like them out of the White House. It isn't happening but that's what needs to happen.
Post a Comment