The American Quislings?

Quisling

Vidkun Quisling, Norwegian Leader, Nazi-collaborator (1887-1945)

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, “Quisling”, no, this is not an article on some rare flora or fauna (or whatever else you may think a Quisling is). Read on, and take the term to heart – we are sure to see plenty more pseudo-Quislings as election time draws nearer…

A “Quisling” came about in the Second World War, and draws its name from a Norwegian politician, named Vidkun Quisling. Even before the Germans considered invading Norway, Quisling traveled to Berlin and sought to convince Hitler how valuable a country like Norway would be under the German swastika. Vidkun lost his name to the term, invented by the British press, after it learned of Mr. Quisling’s actions when Norway faced an imminent German Nazi invasion. Perhaps the closest American parallel that I can offer, would be a cross among:  a band-wagon rider, crossed with Benedict Arnold, crossed with Nero. You might be thinking, surely no one’s that disgusting a character – but Mr. Quisling fit the bill. Facing a German invasion, Quisling, who had already been a member of a fascist party in Norway, and received support from Germany, simultaneously declared himself leader of the country, and ordered Norwegians to throw down their weapons and not attack the now “friendly” occupiers, the Nazis.

For a position of power in the new occupied government, Quisling sold his soul, and attempted to sell his country’s as well. His collaboration with evil, his disregard for the safety and well-being of others, especially his own countrymen, has made him infamous in Europe – he is the European equivalent of our own aforementioned, Benedict Arnold. So, how have I arrived at a column about a new American version of the infamous Quisling? I have simply taken a look at the past three plus years of American government and “leadership” – that is how. And while the crisis of leadership we now have in America is of the voters‘ (and non-voters’) creation, whereas Quisling’s own actions lead him to a short stint in charge, I see more than a few parallels in the behaviors and attitudes of our leaders and the Norwegian.

  1. A sense of entitlement: “We belong here.” Democrats read far too much into their capturing of Congress in the first two years of Obama’s term, and they gave Americans, Obamacare (but yet no budgets). What they saw as some sort of mandate, we now see was voter weariness at republican swagger and spending. Voters may have thought, “well, the republicans are spending like democrats – wonder if the democrats are really any worse?” And of course, we see that they are much, much worse. The Senate continues to languish, with no budgets in three plus years, and the stonewalled House, seeking documents from a law-breaking attorney-general, who seeks to cover his own tracks on an illegal and botched operation in the southwest, passes legislation that is constantly tabled in said Senate.
    And do not forget Obama’s infamous quips: “We won.” and “You would think they’d be saying ‘thank you!’
  2. Belief that their way is the best or only way: Of course, the American people needed Obamacare, right? Through various tricks and legislative maneuvers (including near-bribes for supportive votes in Congress), the democrats went against the prevailing public opinion that Americans did not want the healthcare over haul. All that work to shove the faulty, expensive, and ultimately destructive measure down the gullets of Americans, and now the bill itself looks sick, and could be buried in the next session of Congress, under Congressional authority to regulate taxes…
  3. Using their position for themselves, rather than for their countrymen: Numerous very expensive vacations, bringing large entourages of yes-men and security ring a bell? So many holes of golf in only three years of a presidency. While we are in the most serious economic miasma since the Great Depression of the 1930s and 1940s, and the president finds all this time to play golf and sight see? How about bridges to nowhere and Big Digs? Earmarks and pork barrel projects for everybody – what better way to ensure your re-election, than to give the voters a few crumbs every couple of years?
    How about various congressmen and women, allegedly using their inside knowledge of upcoming votes on legislation to enrich themselves from stock trades, or using their power to gain entry into “closed” (nearly impossible to join) IPOs? There are numerous other examples of the American people struggling to make their ways and pay their bills while fat cats in D.C. fill their pockets – and yet much of the vitriol those same folks in the government spew is against the so-called rich…

There is no imminent invasion, there is no impending army on the American doorstep – but make no mistake, we are on the edge of a precipice. Changes are necessary, or the dire possibilities will become events that cannot be avoided. Whether it is a fundamental change in America – a moral and cultural shift toward the selfish – or “just” economic ruin, the current state of politics and leadership in America is an unhealthy, untenable one. Are the politicians willfully selling the country out? Maybe, I think that there are far more that are merely ignorant of the results of their actions, and (thankfully) do not fit the tightest definition of a Quisling.

There are many examples of power-hungry politicians, and those who would do anything to get their required face-time on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, but to me, it seems like there are so many more these days. I cannot remember anything resembling this media circus when I was growing up – perhaps it’s just the increase in outlets that has allowed so many more politicians to interview? Perhaps it is the symbiotic relationship between the networks and politicians, knowing that one line or one claim, could instantly create a personality that might be repeatedly asked to return?
Regardless, this notion that everyone is in it for themselves, is wearing very thin. The idea that, “this is America, and you can become anything”, used to come with the understanding that you did not walk on people or act like a cut throat to do it. Whatever happened to that notion?

About these ads

Categories: Barack Obama, Bureaucrat, Congress, Democratic Party, Entitlements, Europe, Fascism, History, Hitler, Hypocrisy, Ideology, Journalism, Leadership, Liberal Fascism, Liberal Politics as Usual, Politics, Politics as Usual, Republican Party, Shared Sacrifice?, Washington

Tags: , , , ,

43 replies »

  1. For a position of power in the new occupied government, Quisling sold his soul, and attempted to sell his country’s as well. His collaboration with evil, his disregard for the safety and well-being of others, especially his own countrymen, has made him infamous in Europe – he is the European equivalent of our own aforementioned, Benedict Arnold. So, how have I arrived at a column about a new American version of the infamous Quisling?

    You know, it’s interesting you would bring this up now.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html?hpid=z1

    —-
    Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

    During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    —-

    • So what? I’m not really a Romney fan but, his job was to make those companies profitable. One of the best ways to make a manufacturing company profitable is to lower the cost of production. So we should dislike because he did his job well?

      • “So what? I’m not really a Romney fan but, his job was to make those companies profitable.”

        The “so what” is that he did so at the expense of American workers and America. He took over working companies based in America, loaded them up with debt to pay off his take-over, funneled any available cash off as “dividends”, extracted his share as profit, and offshored them leaving them as hollowed out shells. The end result was American workers out of jobs, goods produced off American shores, higher trade deficits – and Romney sitting pretty with $100 million in his IRA and with untold amounts hidden away in tax havens elsewhere…

        22 percent of the companies Bain Capital invested in wound up going bankrupt or closing down entirely.

        Saying “So what?” is like saying “So what?” to someone selling secrets to the Soviet Union – they did it to earn some money, so does that make it alright?

        http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-private-equity-firms-like-bain-really-are-the-worst-of-capitalism-20120523

      • Like the several hundred thousands that work for Staples?

        That’s the job, to make a company profitable, or close it. How’s Obama doing as a Venture Capitalist? something like 0 for 50? with money stolen from the American taxpayer.

        If you’re not good enough to compete with the Chinese Red Army and it’s slaves, you’re not good enough.

        A 78% success rate in venture capitalism is very exceptional. And, at least he’s not outsourcing his campaign.

        In case you haven’t noticed, there are very few buggy whip manufacturers left. That how capitalism clears the dead wood for the next phase.

      • “If you’re not good enough to compete with the Chinese Red Army and it’s slaves, you’re not good enough.”

        Classic.

      • “If you’re not good enough to compete with the Chinese Red Army and it’s slaves, you’re not good enough.”

        Precisely. That’s what Romney thinks of ordinary Americans.

        “A 78% success rate in venture capitalism is very exceptional. And, at least he’s not outsourcing his campaign.”

        It’s not a 78% success rate. 22% of the companies failed outright – the rest suffered along under increased debt burdens and offshored jobs – all so Bain capital got a bit richer.

        It’s like claiming that bleeding a patient with leeches is 78% successful if only 22% die. The rest ain’t dead, but they sure as hell ain’t better off.

        “In case you haven’t noticed, there are very few buggy whip manufacturers left. That how capitalism clears the dead wood for the next phase.”

        The buggy whip manufacturers died out well before 1955, which is when the first leveraged buy-out took place. LBOs are not necessary for capitalism, or for clearing “dead wood”, and companies like Bain Capital who profit from them do so at the expense of America and ordinary Americans.

        Thank you for proving my point.

      • I don’t know what Romney thinks, I’m not in his head. That’s what I think about Americans, including me, quit your whining.

        Staples, and others.

        LBO’s are not VC and irrelevant.

        Thanks for playing.

      • You don’t appear to know what you’re talking about.

        —–
        There’s only one problem with Romney’s story: It doesn’t describe most of what private equity firms actually do. The companies Romney holds up as successes – Staples, Sports Authority et al. – were not Bain private equity deals; they were venture capital investments in companies that Bain neither owned nor ran. All well and good: Venture capital is a good thing – essential for funding the growth of new and developing companies. But Romney didn’t make his fortune through venture capital­; he made it through private equity – and private equity, as President Obama pointed out this week, is a very different proposition. “Their priority is to maximize profits,” the president said of PE firms, and “that’s not always going to be good for businesses or communities or workers.”

        Here’s what private equity is really about: A firm like Bain obtains cheap credit and uses it to acquire a company in a “leveraged buyout.” “Leverage” refers to the fact that the company being purchased is forced to pay for about 70 percent of its own acquisition, by taking out loans. If this sounds like an odd arrangement, that’s because it is. Imagine a homebuyer purchasing a house and making the bank responsible for repaying its own loan, and you start to get the picture.
        —–

      • Let’s try that again.

        If you had bothered to read the Rolling Stone article I referenced, you would have seen that Romney made his money mainly from LBOs, not VC. Your comment is irrelevant, and demonstrates a lack of understanding.

        And to get back to the topic, anyone who thinks ordinary Americans SHOULD be reduced to the status of the Chinese workers who labor enslaved by the Red Army, is pretty much an American Quisling.

      • I said nothing about status, I said outcompete with all the advantages of being an American. Go harass someone else, when you accuse me of being a traitor to both of my peoples, I’m done.

      • WO, whining about Romney in the era of Obama is really, just plain silly. There is no way the man could do any worse than the current occupant and with the “help” of a Tea-party influenced congress there is an actual, slight hope we might actually be able to move the country forward and begin to correct the horrendous damage that has been done to the country. Not to mention perhaps slow down the rush to bankruptcy and national catastrophe we are currently experiencing.

      • “WO, whining about Romney in the era of Obama is really, just plain silly. There is no way the man could do any worse than the current occupant ”

        You are wrong. A Romney Presidency can indeed be worse than the Obama Presidency, and almost certainly will be if it comes to pass.

        I’m not basing that on animosity towards Romney or Obama. I’m basing it on the comparison between Bush and Obama in which the former was considerably worse, and on the observation that I see no significant difference between Bush and Romney as regards stated policies or personal capabilities. Both are lucky ducky rich boasting their “business expertise”, and both put forward no substantial ideas in campaigning. A Romney presidency, like Bush, will implement policies that favor the looting of America for the benefit of his corporate backers.

        Romney’s greatest campaign theme so far – replace the ACA with, um, nothing. Well, nothing but the already broken health care system that prompted cries for change.

        What absolutely WILL happen if Romney gets in is that the Right will engage in special pleading, ignoring the facts, and jingoiism to avoid fair comparisons of Romney with Obama.

        if America is very very lucky, it might avoid another useless Middle Eastern war being started to boost a Republican President’s popularity, probably with Iran. The Right never learns.

      • Obama hasn’t looted the country for his corporate backers and supporters? Absolutely he has, Solyndra, and about 20 other failures. We are currently being looted! What about the 5 Trillion dollars spent, with next to nothing to show for it?

      • “I’m basing it on the comparison between Bush and Obama in which the former was considerably worse”

        Now consider for a moment jobs. Obama has been faced with a serious recession.

        None the less, from May, the US put on 35,000 private sector jobs since Obama took office – a positive number. Weak as all heck, but positive. This was overshadowed by the fact that the US lost 607,000 public sector jobs. The government shrunk under Obama, mainly at the local levels.

        In Bush’s first term, the economy lost 913,000 private sector jobs. It also added 900,000 public sector jobs.

        So tell us exactly how nothing could be worse than Obama?

      • I’ll take my chances… Obama is a dismal failure and a trainwreck we chronicle here daily…

      • “Obama hasn’t looted the country for his corporate backers and supporters? ”

        Obama doesn’t have a hundred million dollars holed up offshore havens avoiding taxes.

        Isn’t it interesting how Romney wants to have an amnesty on taxation of repatriated money…?

      • To any leftist fool commenting here (not you NE): The claim that Romney is doing anything wrong by avoiding any further taxes is a bold face lie. Bain paid every dime of it’s corporate tax liability. If not, prove otherwise. Then Romney paid every dime of his income tax liability from employment at Bain, If not, prove otherwise. Every dime not sent off shore has been taxed in multiples at every subsequent transaction on down to buying the aspirin needed by the Bain janitor to deal with the tax headache he has.

        Holding investment assets offshore is NOT illegal and the notion that one has an obligation to let govt take more than the rules mandate IS immoral. If you don’t like it then ask Obama, Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz et al for why they didn’t end the ability when they controlled everything. Could it be because they too have similar accts? (DWS, Kerry, etc apparently do.)

        And as far as this Bain raider canard NO One breaks up a profitable company and sells it for scraps. If they bought a dying, soon to be corpse and picked its bones then tough! The majority of companies it bought it has turned around. When you invest (why would you when you have the glorious social security to look forward to?) what do you expect? Future losses or a return on investment? If that investment isn’t making a profit do you let it bleed you dry or do you recover what you can by selling it off to the highest bidder in all or in part?

        Stop whining and demanding everything free from others who have more you class envy pimps!

      • “To any leftist fool commenting here (not you NE): The claim that Romney is doing anything wrong by avoiding any further taxes is a bold face lie. Bain paid every dime of it’s corporate tax liability. If not, prove otherwise. Then Romney paid every dime of his income tax liability from employment at Bain, If not, prove otherwise.”

        Speaking about fools, what do you call someone who rants on without knowing the difference between tax AVOIDANCE and tax EVASION?

        “And as far as this Bain raider canard NO One breaks up a profitable company and sells it for scraps.”

        GS Technologies. Deal with it – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/14/135889/romneys-bain-made-millions-as.html

        “Stop whining and demanding everything free from others who have more you class envy pimps!”

        Explain to all of us why ordinary workers like me pay 25% income tax, but Mitt Romney pays 15%. It seems to me he’s a parasite on those of us who actually work for a living.

      • “Speaking about fools, what do you call someone who rants on without knowing the difference between tax AVOIDANCE and tax EVASION?” Answer: Whale Oil

        “GS Technologies. Deal with it – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/14/135889/romneys-bain-made-millions-as.html” Thx for providing example of company that was not sufficiently profitable/competitive to survive ;-) If it were, it would

        “Explain to all of us why ordinary workers like me pay 25% income tax, but Mitt Romney pays 15%.” Simple He paid income tax at income tax rate. His 15% is investment tax rate.

        “It seems to me he’s a parasite on those of us who actually work for a living.” It seems to me you resent fact you didn’t achieve as much in life and prefer to believe Bain is run by lazy people who don’t actually work. Note: Bain partner Steve Pagliuca – a DEMOCRAT – tells CNN: Mitt Romney left for Olympics 1999 and “has had absolutely no involvement” since. No doubt you are bitter at this Dem owner as well ;-)

      • Oh my. Turns out Barrack Obama made just under $270k off of foreign investments in 2011 and only paid about $5800 in taxes on it. A whopping 2% http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president_obama_complete_return_2011.pdf

        Time to show intellectual honesty and attack him as well for his evil off shore investments that he paid waaay less than 25% income tax on

      • ““Speaking about fools, what do you call someone who rants on without knowing the difference between tax AVOIDANCE and tax EVASION?” Answer: Whale Oil”

        Really? Brief clue, fool – one of us was waffling on about “legality” in response to a comment about tax AVOIDANCE.

        ““Explain to all of us why ordinary workers like me pay 25% income tax, but Mitt Romney pays 15%.” Simple He paid income tax at income tax rate. His 15% is investment tax rate. ”

        Pardon me, by “explain to us” I meant “justify”, not “repeat the blindingly obvious”.

      • “Really? Brief clue, fool – one of us was waffling on about “legality” in response to a comment about tax AVOIDANCE.” See answer below

        “Pardon me, by “explain to us” I meant “justify”, not “repeat the blindingly obvious” One is not obligated to justify not feeding the behemoth any more than the behemoth legally requires but nice try…not really. You inference continues to be that he has done something “wrong.” Burden of proof lies with you that he has. When you’re done proving it (chuckling) you can explain why you are not addressing Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Kerry etc who are also “guilty”. Happy twisting.

      • “One is not obligated to justify not feeding the behemoth any more than the behemoth legally requires but nice try…not really. You inference continues to be that he has done something “wrong.””

        I see you’re trying to avoid the point that you didn’t know the difference between tax AVOIDANCE and tax EVASION when you launched into your foolish rant. Why you can’t just come out and admit the obvious, no-one knows.

        You seem to be admitting that American “conservatives” can’t tell the difference between something being WRING and something being LEGAL. As Warren Buffet has pointed out, it is WRONG for the very rich such as he or Romney to be paying 15% while those who actually work for a living pay 25% or more.

        It is unfair, unjust and immoral. That it is legal shows just how corrupted this Republic has become because people such as yourself blindly follow your leaders.

        Most of us WORK for a living, and work hard, and face constant financial insecurity. It is WRONG for the rich to pay less than we do. It is WRONG for the American Republic to be run for the benefit of a tiny handful of the superrich rather than for the majority of actual Americans.

        If you “conservatives” could keep RIGHT and WRONG in mind instead of obsessing about trying to paint Obama as a Muslim, this country would be a lot better off – and people might not have such contempt for you.

      • “I see you’re trying to avoid the point…” Nice try at evading the issue. No one owes the govt more than they owe. Oh News Flash. WH official was key player in creating Chase Bank offshore acct marketing program.

        “You seem to be admitting that American “conservatives” can’t tell the difference between something being WRING and something being LEGAL.” You are clearly one of those sick leftist that think keeping what you earn instead of giving it to wasteful and immoral govt is “WRING”

        “It is unfair, unjust and immoral.” Prove it

        “That it is legal shows just how corrupted this Republic has become because people such as yourself blindly follow your leaders.” Oh News Flash. WH official was key player in creating Chase Bank offshore acct marketing program.

        “It is WRONG for the American Republic to be run for the benefit of a tiny handful of the superrich rather than for the majority of actual Americans.” The vast majority of taxes are paid by the rich and now 47% pay no income taxes at all. Until you support the notion that EVERYONE should pay the same percent of their income you are a disingenuous. Furthermore, Until you stop equating investment tax rates (available to you) with employment income you are without credibility.

        “If you “conservatives” could keep RIGHT and WRONG in mind instead of obsessing about trying to paint Obama as a Muslim, this country would be a lot better off – and people might not have such contempt for you.” CANARD. Muslim has not been brought up in this debate. Fact that you are raising the issue is telling ;-) BTW I enjoy your contempt for me because it confirms the rightness of my position. “Right” to a leftist is virtually always confiscatory, restrictive, and immoral, ie WRONG

      • “You are clearly one of those sick leftist that think keeping what you earn instead of giving it to wasteful and immoral govt is “WRING””

        Uh-huh. You’re saying that taxation is wrong, and you’re calling ME a “sick leftist”?

        I’m an American patriot. I believe in paying my fair share to support a government instituted to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. And I believe others should pay their fair share too.

        If you think government is “wasteful and immoral” and taxation is just taking away “your” money, you’re some kind of anarchist. You’re not much of an American.

        Have you considered moving to Somalia to be among your own kind?

      • “Uh-huh. You’re saying that taxation is wrong, and you’re calling ME a “sick leftist”?” Snicker. Note: Find where I have said ANYWHERE on the net that taxation itself is wrong, though most is highly questionable.

        “I’m an American patriot.” If you are then you would understand that most taxation by govt is wasteful and immoral though I won’t question your emotional claim to patriotism ;-)

        “I believe in paying my fair share to support a government instituted to form a more perfect Union,…..and I believe others should pay their fair share too.” As do I but unlike you I believe in Constitutional limits to that taxation which has mostly been abused. Nevertheless, you have failed to demonstrate that Romney has not “paid his fair share”

        “If you think government is “WASTEFUL AND IMMORAL” and taxation is just taking away “your” money, you’re some kind of anarchist. You’re not much of an American.” I’ll just let the reader ruminate on that one…snicker

        “Have you considered moving to Somalia to be among your own kind?” Considering the words of most of our founders on the issue of unreasonable taxation (and what THEY thought that was) I’ll let the reader further ruminate on your previous contention of patriotism.

      • “Find where I have said ANYWHERE on the net that taxation itself is wrong, though most is highly questionable.”

        That would be this comment, TP – “keeping what you earn instead of giving it to wasteful and immoral govt”.

        “If you are then you would understand that most taxation by govt is wasteful and immoral ”

        Gee, TP – do you really think that people can’t see you desperately backpeddling by inserting that little word “most” in there? You did not say “most” before – you were referring to ALL taxation as being “giving [money] to wasteful and immoral govt”

      • “Considering the words of most of our founders on the issue of unreasonable taxation ”

        Well, let’s see –

        “”Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” –Thomas Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785.

      • “Considering the words of most of our founders on the issue of unreasonable taxation ”

        Well, let’s see again –

        ““The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People’s Money out of their Pockets, tho’ only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors’ Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell’d to pay by some Law.

        All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”

        – Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris, 25 Dec. 1783, Writings 9:138

      • ” Nevertheless, you have failed to demonstrate that Romney has not “paid his fair share” ”

        Once again, why SHOULD ordinary working Americans who face insecurity from unexpected medical costs, or loss of jobs, or pressure from rising fuel, or their houses plummeting in value, PAY 25% OF THE MONEY THEY WORK FOR when Mitt Romney, with $250 million and maybe a hundred million stashed offshore PAY 15% OF THE MONEY HE GETS JUST FOR BEING ALREADY RICH?

        Why SHOULD the Americans who ACTUALLY sweat and create for a living have to pay proportionately more than the Paris Hiltons, Mitt Romneys, or Warren Buffets of teh world?

      • “So what? I’m not really a Romney fan but, his job was to make those companies profitable. One of the best ways to make a manufacturing company profitable is to lower the cost of production. So we should dislike because he did his job well?”

        And here’s a bit of investigative journalism from Bloomberg on how Bain Capital ACTUALLY made its money – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/romney-s-bain-yielded-private-gains-socialized-losses.html

        I assume people here are going to dismiss Bloomberg as a “radical leftist” site so they can ignore the inconvenient facts…?

      • ”Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” –Thomas Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785. Nice try Whale Oil, not really. Income taxes were not what Jefferson was referring to. If you wish to be relevant with your quotes you’re stuck waiting until at least 1862 ;-)

        Here’s a few more great Jefferson Quotes: “To preserve our independence, we must not let our politicians load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, the people will be much happier.”

        or… “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

        or…”I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

        or…“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

        or perhaps you respect this quote “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison

        or maybe “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison

        or possibly this classic? “[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

        Or perhaps you prefer some Benjamin Franklin? “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

        “Why SHOULD the Americans who ACTUALLY sweat and create for a living have to pay proportionately more than the Paris Hiltons, Mitt Romneys, or Warren Buffets of (the) world?” Why should those who pay proportionally ZERO pay nothing? This principle of our founders was that to vote, one should have skin in the game. Under current form there is no responsibility by many who then vote largess from the public treasury.

    • So, WO, even if the claims are true, as a businessman Romney did his job as such, and did it well. As a president, I have no doubt, he’d do that well, too.To hear you talk, it would have been better to keep the jobs in America, sell the produced products at a loss, and then loss the jobs anyway as companies wither away under giant losses. You’d no doubt be carping about how he’s a crappy businessman, and has no business leading anything. That is asinine.
      Citing an entertainment magazine is somehow supposed to sway me too? R.S. is a sad joke for “news”. Just what am I supposed to glean from a partisan attack piece? I’m supposed to actually take it on its face as something objective? Please.
      You strike me very much as an Obama apologist and partisan hack. You made little in the way of concrete claims yourself, and would rather attack Romney, because you believe he’s so much like Bush, who’s like Obama. If you cannot see that Obama is the worst possible option for the country, I feel bad for you.

      And btw, the main part of Obama’s outsourcing commercial has already been reviewed and debunked.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-new-attacks-on-romney-and-outsourcing/2012/06/29/gJQA5FbbCW_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker
      From the article: ‘(Our colleagues at FactCheck.org have also offered their own analysis of the Obama outsourcing ads and the issues raised in The Post’s article, saying “some of the claims in the ads are untrue, and others are thinly supported.’”

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-hits-back-calls-obama-outsourcer-in-chief/

      • “So, WO, even if the claims are true, as a businessman Romney did his job as such, and did it well. ”

        Yes, just as Al Capone did his job as a gangster and did it well, Mohamad Atta did his job as a pilot for Al Qaeda and did it well, or (as above) Quisling did his job as a politician and did it well. Romney’s “job” involved extracting wealth from American companies and ordinary Americans and enriching himself, to the detriment of himself (and the benefit of countries such as China). He was indeed good at his job – but America would have been better off if he had never started.

        “You made little in the way of concrete claims yourself,”

        Those facts again – from May, the US put on 35,000 private sector jobs since Obama took office – a positive number. This was overshadowed by the fact that the US lost 607,000 public sector jobs. The government shrunk under Obama, mainly at the local levels. In Bush’s first term, the economy lost 913,000 private sector jobs. It also added 900,000 public sector jobs. that’s a little bit more concrete than anything you’ve put forward ere.

        “If you cannot see that Obama is the worst possible option for the country, I feel bad for you.”

        If you can’t deal with facts and the real world, I – well, actually, I don’t feel bad for you at all.

      • “to the detriment of the US as a whole” I meant to say.

  2. What we have here is over a century of corrupt party politics, which includes bribery, nepotism, family favoritism, and connections over expertise and integrity – it’s time for a big shakeup and house cleaning (no pun intended)! Let’s face it, we need a lot of new blood and not the same old cronies and stooges!!

    • Well, you have a serious problem. If you include Obama in your list of politicians, and I assume you do, then it’s difficult to imagine someone who’s more “new blood” – a half black, half white son of an African, bought up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who went through college on an earned scholarship.

      So if Obama is part of the problem, then it’s systemic – it can’t be solved by calling for “new blood”. The very process of getting to the top in modern American politics creates corruption and bribery – no matter how “new” they start off with, every single President and senior politician will wind up enmeshed in the system.

      And the reason for that, I would put forward, is the absolute need to raise money for campaigns from corporates and elites who will always attach quid pro quos to that funding. You’re not going to have cleaner politics just as long as those politics rely on paid-for TV advertising and behind the scenes campaign fund-raising.

      Unless you live in a fantasy world where waving the flag around and mouthing empty pieties about “freedom” and “liberty” hard enough will magically lead to virtue.

    • So long as progeny are up to the task, I don’t have so much of a problem with kids going on with daddy’s business. It’s when they’re not that, and many aren’t, that it becomes an issue.

      New blood would be nice, but nowadays that means living in a fishbowl and that is not appealing to many Americans. We have a hard enough time with police readily getting cell phone GPS records from cell phone companies without a warrant. (That’s a whole different post brewing.)

  3. Wow. W Oil makes the claim that Bain was some sort of business/capital vampire, sucking its unfortunate and helpless business-victims of their meager capital and resources , and leaves the wreckage, laughing all the way to the bank. This makes me very interested in just where you are getting your talking points, and who on earth educated you in business. If mere raiding was the name of the game, why on earth wouldn’t we be seeing so much more of it? I find it hard to believe that disgruntled workers of the thousands of left-over shells wouldn’t be marching on the White House, or Wall Street, or taking hostages at the corporate raiders’ headquarters…
    He’s gone so completely hyperbolic in an attempt to demean and demonize Romney, and minimize the good that he HAS done. He’s also offered a hackneyed, false, narrative that’s unfortunately all too common to the internet today. You should think about changing your name to “Snake Oil”.

    • Yes, it’s somewhat insnrettieg to know whether a candidate believes in the Bible or not—but is it the sort of question that should come up at a national debate? You can thank Karl Rove for making the Republican Party synonymous with values voters and thus cannibalizing important moments in national debates with pointless speculation on candidates’ faith. Expect it to continue in even more important Presidential debates next October. Mitt Romney was also confident and poised. Wow you decided to mention Willard today. First time in months considering he’s the frontrunner. First of all, I think Rudy hurt himself with his exchange with Romney. He’s the front-runner (at least nationally), Rudy’s the frontrunner ..in states that are weeks or months behind the kingmaking early primary states. Unless Huckabee and Paul collectively steal Willard’s thunder in Iowa and New Hampshire, Rudy will be a nonfactor by the time Florida comes around, getting clobbered with a month’s worth of negative headlines about his sputtering campaign unable to find traction. Ron Paul is a nut. He’s a nut who, given his massive advertising budget and unique message, I now expect to get third place in both Iowa and New Hampshire.It is going to be insanely insnrettieg to see this GOP primary battle unfold as it’s poised to be the most unpredictable nomination dogfight of my lifetime in either party. Two weeks ago, it looked like Willard was on the fast-track to the nomination having worked his way into leads in all of the first four primary states. Now, the surge of Mike Huckabee, a likely pending surge of Ron Paul, and Giuliani and Thompson seemingly in decline, there’s very little assurance that this is still Willard’s race to lose. On the other hand, Paul is a novelty candidate with a significant but limited appeal, and Huckabee doesn’t have the fund-raising capacity or the support of the party’s robber baron wing, meaning he’ll be unlikely to carry momentum from Iowa to the de facto national primary on Super Tuesday. I still think it’s gonna be Willard. The other guys all seem poised to divide their vote amongst one another.

  4. tldr the comments, whole oil is a troll

  5. What i do not understood is aclltauy how you are not really much more well-liked than you may be right now. You’re so intelligent. You realize therefore considerably relating to this subject, made me personally consider it from so many varied angles. Its like women and men aren’t fascinated unless it is one thing to do with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs excellent. Always maintain it up!

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 )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,370 other followers

%d bloggers like this: