221 replies to this topic

[Ogul]

Does anybody really doubt that workers are important?

Well, part of the problem right now is that they're being taken for granted. Businesses that used to employ, say, 30 workers in 2008, lost business and had to fire maybe 10 of those workers, but now their business might be at or above what it once was, but they still only employ 20 workers, because those workers slowly got used to doing more and more work, and are too afraid of losing their jobs to slack off. It's great for the business owners, but it sucks for overall employment rates. There's also the matter of pay rates not keeping up bellow upper management level.

[Will]

Now with poll.

[Russell H]

I don't know who Romney's running mate will be, but I'll assume that he won't do what McCain did and pick someone off the radar. It will be someone who has already made a name for themselves - maybe not a big name, but not a complete nobody.

[Jim Ohara]

It won't be anyone named on the list as they want to run in 2016 and will try to avoid the stink of loser in November. Nikki Haley would be a great choice but I'm sure she doesn't want to be dragged through the mud. Rubio and Ryan fall apart when you look at them closely. And Daniels and Christie didn't bother trying to get the nomination, they're not going to want to waste their time and office on VP. Condie Rice has long said she's not running for anything.

It'll be some bland nobody.

[Ogul]

It would be that one boring guy. You probably don't know the one I mean. He's like the hipster candidate.

[Todd Gambrel]

My personal choice would be Rubio. I like Daniels the best, but I hope it's not him because if Obama wins(which is likely, because nothing ever goes my way) then I want Daniels to run for President in 2016.

[Will]

It won't be anyone named on the list as they want to run in 2016 and will try to avoid the stink of loser in November. Nikki Haley would be a great choice but I'm sure she doesn't want to be dragged through the mud. Rubio and Ryan fall apart when you look at them closely. And Daniels and Christie didn't bother trying to get the nomination, they're not going to want to waste their time and office on VP. Condie Rice has long said she's not running for anything.

It'll be some bland nobody.

I think it will be Rubio, but I agree he may fall apart.

I'd love it to be Rice; everyone denies they're interested in being on the ticket but I don't think she'll accept.
Haley's a long shot but being female, a minority, and tea party darling make her an attractive candidate.

[MPNeeb]

Other: Bob McDonnell of Virginia.

it's so bland only Romney could think of it.

[garjones]

Wealthy Americans adverse to paying higher taxes may have found a new enemy in famous novelist Stephen King, who lashed out at his fellow high income earners Monday afternoon for complaining about a possible increase in their rates.
In a brutally candid and colorful op-ed column for The Daily Beast, King was relentless in his criticism of rich people upset over tax increases and Republican figures who defend them.
“Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it,” King said. “I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing ‘Disco Inferno’ than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.”
“Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tells-rich-people-upset-over-tax-increases-tough-st/

[Jim Ohara]

It still baffles me that an advanced country like the US can believe such utter drivel like cutting taxes on the rich will get them to create more jobs.

Baffles me that a political party have made it their agenda to defend low taxes on rich people too. I'm guessing the Republicans saw it as a divisive issue along with abortion, immigrants, Christianity and guns with which they could get their 51%, but that plan is really backfiring with this new generation.

[Ogul]

Baffles me that a political party have made it their agenda to defend low taxes on rich people too. I'm guessing the Republicans saw it as a divisive issue along with abortion, immigrants, Christianity and guns with which they could get their 51%, but that plan is really backfiring with this new generation.

Yeah, I almost can't believe that the Republican platform actually exists as a thing that real people believe is a good idea. As near as I can tell, the Democratic platform (by and large) is based on reason, "here are the things that we, as a modern civilization, need to thrive," while the Republican platform has slowly evolved into "yeah, whatever those Democrats want? Fuck'em, we're doing the exact opposite." Democrats believe in global warming? Made up. Democrats believe in lower taxes to people that need to spend their money and higher taxes on those that have more money than they can spend? Let's do the opposite. Very few of their positions have any rational basis to them, they're just automatic counterattacks.

[garjones]

King's pals that would rather set their dicks on fire are the people bankrolling them. That's where it comes from.

So you create a narrative, which they are very good at, that produces reasons why countering their wishes are bad for the country. Look at healthcare, US healthcare by any measure is ridiculously expensive and not very effective. They spend six times as much government money as the UK for poorer results, people die younger and live less healthy lives.

However HMO CEOs make crazy money that they plow back in to make sure they keep making crazy money. So cancer survival rates are better in the US. It's one stat out of a thousand but they drive it home, any government involvement is a bit like Communism so push that agenda.

It happens in the UK too, the banks lose 200+ billion that the taxpayer foots and the proposed solution from the right wing is cut disability benefits. Let the bankers continue with million pound bonuses but let's stop the 99 quid a week for the guy in a wheelchair but I think people are getting wise to it. It's not working like it used to, the numbers show there's no trickle down and even billionaires are arguing the point.

[Jim Ohara]

King's pals that would rather set their dicks on fire are the people bankrolling them. That's where it comes from.

That in part makes sense. Court the rich, fund your campaigns and effectively bribe your way into office (the rich get more money if you're elected - tax cuts are a bribe and nothing more). However, I think the strategy wasn't about the bankroll. Conservatives have always had an easy time getting funding as their basic philosophy is 'keep things running as they are right now' and that suits pretty much everyone with enough spare cash to waste it donating to politicians.

I think isn't not about the bankroll. I suspect some psychologist identified taxes-for-the-rich to be a divisive issue they could campaign on. It's like they made a list in the 70's that included national security, tax cuts, abortion, church in school, immigration, guns and the gays. And they paid lip services to those issues throughout the 80's and 90's, talking about it but not actually doing much. But now the latest generation of right wingers have taken that list to heart, aren't in on the strategy, and actually started passing laws around these issues. And they look like lunatics.

[garjones]

Yes which is fair, I think it's partnered with the 'return to base' idea which is repeated behaviour in many cases. The electorate drifts in one direction and the party wanting positive feedback after a spanking lurches in the opposite direction.

They lost the centre so turn right for affirmation.

It's like Stephen G saying Romney needs to move right to win key support, no he doesn't, those people will never vote Obama. They may vote Paul if he runs as a third party and if he does Romney has no chance because the vote will be split.

[Todd Gross]

http://www.washingto...m=Cheat%20Sheet

EXCLUSIVE: Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives

By Jennifer Rubin

Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.

In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:

I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.

According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign.

Pieces in two conservative publications, the National Review and Daily Caller, reflected the uproar by some social conservatives over the appointment. [UPDATE, 4:30 p.m.: Although Grenell also raised the ire of liberal commentators with now-deleted tweets about certain prominent women, none of the sources I spoke with mentioned the tweets as a factor in his resignation decision.]

In the National Review, Matthew J. Franck wrote late last week: “Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?”

The argument that Grenell could essentially not be openly gay and serve on a GOP presidential campaign was belied by the fact that Grenell has been a loyal Republican for many years, working for esteemed foreign policy figures including former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.

The ongoing pressure from social conservatives over his appointment and the reluctance of the Romney campaign to send Grenell out as a spokesman while controversy swirled left Grenell essentially with no job. The Romney camp has not responded to my request for comment.

UPDATE (3:10 p.m.): The Romney camp has now responded via campaign manager Matt Rhoades: “We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons. We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”

That is a perhaps too subtle retort to those calling for Grenell’s head, that he was not hired to advise on gay issues but on foreign policy matters.

UPDATE (3:50 p.m.): Right Turn has learned from multiple sources that the senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful. During the two weeks after Grenell’s hiring was announced the Romney campaign did not put Grenell out to comment on national security matters and did not use him on a press foreign policy conference call. Despite the controversy in new media and in conservative circles, there was no public statement of support for Grenell by the campaign and no supportive social conservatives were enlisted to calm the waters. Beyond his statement, Grenell has declined further comment today.

[al-x]

Hello:

Gingrich ends campaign, urges party to back Romney

Published - May 02 2012 04:30PM EST
PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) — Newt Gingrich, the colorful former House speaker and fiery partisan, formally exited the Republican presidential contest Wednesday and vowed to help Mitt Romney's bid to defeat President Barack Obama.

Ending a campaign that seesawed between implosion and frontrunner and back again, Gingrich threw his support to his one-time rival as expected and promised his supporters he would continue to push conservative ideas. Gingrich bowed out of the race more than $4 million in debt and his reputation perhaps damaged.

"Today, I am suspending the campaign. But suspending the campaign does not mean suspending citizenship," Gingrich told a ballroom in a suburban Washington hotel.

"We are now going to put down the role of candidate and candidate's spouse and take back the role of active citizens," he said, adding he would continue to promote conservative ideas on college campuses, as well as through newsletters and films.

He also urged conservatives to rally behind Romney as a better alternative than Obama.

"This is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan. This is a choice between Mitt Romney and the most radical, leftist president in American history," Gingrich said.

Gingrich saw extremes during his campaign. His senior staff resigned en masse last summer when Gingrich seemed unwilling to undertake a traditional campaign schedule of person-to-person campaigning and fundraising. Instead, he leaned on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as a steady stream of broadcast interviews he seemed to relish.

It seemed to work for a while. Gingrich plodded along with a proudly nontraditional campaign and strong debate performances. The showings helped him win in South Carolina — one of only two states he would win — but were insufficient to stave off Romney's spending and organization in Florida. After Gingrich's stinging January loss there, the always high-spending campaign seemed to sputter along while amassing enormous debt.

The campaign ended February with $1.5 million in the red but continued spending as though donors were coming.

The campaign now owes more than $1 million to Moby Dick Airways, the air charter company he used to ferry himself and his wife around the country, mixing campaign rallies with stops at zoos and historical sites. The campaign also owes the Patriot Security Group almost $450,000 for security services.

A raft of advertising agencies, consulting firms, pollsters, attorneys and former aides litter the list of those he owes money. He owes his former campaign manager, Michael Krull, more than $27,000. Top spokesman R.C. Hammond, who joined Gingrich at his final campaign event, is owed almost $4,000.

The campaign also owes JC Watts Enterprises — run by the former Republican representative from Oklahoma — some $35,000 for outreach to religious conservatives. Watts, who served in the House with Gingrich, endorsed his bid and vouched for the thrice-married admitted adulterer among skeptical social conservatives.

Gingrich's campaign also owes members of the Gingrich family cash.

Gingrich himself is owed almost $272,000 and has already been reimbursed more than $514,000. His daughter is owed more than $6,000.

That's not to say the Gingriches didn't earn money along the way.

Gingrich Productions, which is run by wife Callista, was paid $67,000 last year. And Cushman Enterprises, run by his daughter Jackie Cushman, brought in more than $100,000 from the campaign.
As Gingrich was mulling an exit from the race, his aides were talking with Romney's campaign about how his one-time rival could help him retire the debt. Romney's team has offered to be helpful in that effort.

"the most radical, leftist president in American history,"...

It reminds me of some of Bachman's rhetoric of making
Obama "a one term President", "take the country back"
(from what?), and so on.

Apparently, Obama is a great evil and his presidency is an outrage
that they must put a stop to.


Al...

[Rory Abel]

Hello:



"the most radical, leftist president in American history,"...

It reminds me of some of Bachman's rhetoric of making
Obama "a one term President", "take the country back"
(from what?), and so on.

Apparently, Obama is a great evil and his presidency is an outrage
that they must put a stop to.


Al...

Bachman's rhetoric? It's been the republican party's rhetoric since he took office. They've openly stated that they were dedicated to making him a one term president. There's nothing new in this statement.

[Russell H]

Yup, he's the most radical president in American history. He's also totally tubular and grody to the max. Like, for sure.

[Todd Gross]

Yup, he's the most radical president in American history. He's also totally tubular and grody to the max. Like, for sure.

GNARLY!!!

[jamon g]

King's pals that would rather set their dicks on fire are the people bankrolling them. That's where it comes from.

So you create a narrative, which they are very good at, that produces reasons why countering their wishes are bad for the country. Look at healthcare, US healthcare by any measure is ridiculously expensive and not very effective. They spend six times as much government money as the UK for poorer results, people die younger and live less healthy lives.

However HMO CEOs make crazy money that they plow back in to make sure they keep making crazy money. So cancer survival rates are better in the US. It's one stat out of a thousand but they drive it home, any government involvement is a bit like Communism so push that agenda.

It happens in the UK too, the banks lose 200+ billion that the taxpayer foots and the proposed solution from the right wing is cut disability benefits. Let the bankers continue with million pound bonuses but let's stop the 99 quid a week for the guy in a wheelchair but I think people are getting wise to it. It's not working like it used to, the numbers show there's no trickle down and even billionaires are arguing the point.

I agree, but putting being cynical aside, no one's found a solution to limiting private company payouts, there's no model for it. The regulation of the banking sector has to come from the govt. which should be part of any rescue package, but besides some odd countries there's not a great deal of history of govt. run banks. I find it hard to argue though that you need ridiculous sums of money to attract the best people, but then, should we pay people who run the country more than a football player? would we be happy if politicians were earning 10-100 million bucks a year from the public purse??
Dunno. I also don't know about taxing billionaires to solve the economy, I mean, how many are there and how much money would you actually raise by increasing the income tax rate to them. Most tax money is only ever going to be raised from the 99% of the economy. Most money attributed to the wealthy is actually tied up in various company structures and investments so it's not like in their bank or anything.