Someone ought to write a song.
We already know Mitt Romney is a really, really wealthy guy. But there have been a lot of rich presidential candidates. And, though he was born to wealth, Romney also made a lot of money himself. He’s also said he’ll release information about his wealth, his assets … a lot of stuff. But just not the tax returns.
So what’s the deal? It’s pretty simple. We might say that a specter is haunting Mitt Romney — the specter of the Buffett Rule.
But it couldn’t be that simple, could it? Nope, it turns out that the banksters are also closet lie-berals as Kevin Williamson (not the Dawson’s Creek/Scream guy, the other one who got his start as a Koch-sucker at IHS) patiently explains to busty radio cartoon Hugh Hewitt:
KW: Well, I don’t know that they’re necessarily all that anti-Romney, although they’re certainly more pro-Obama. The thing is that there is a great misconception that Wall Street is politically conservative, or even that big business, high finance in general is politically conservative. It’s not. If you look at the kinds of issues that most American conservatives really care about, where they are culturally, where they are morally, where they are religiously, these guys aren’t there. And not only are they not there, they’re actively opposed to it. I mean, these are guys making five, six, seven hundred thousand dollars a year who live in Manhattan and getting manicures and sending their kids to Choate and places like that. They’re not showing up at parent’s day in a Sarah Palin T-shirt. That’s just not who they are, not what they believe. But the one thing that they really are good at is using the rhetoric of being pro-business and being pro-free enterprise to kind of buffalo us conservatives, and get us to agree to all sorts of favors and subsidies and handouts for them.
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
No one was injured in this posting.
Update: No, worse than that.
More likely what was going on was that Mitt Romney’s son knows his father needs support from the Republican base to win the nomination. And since birtherism runs strong among Republicans, Matt was saying whatever he thought the crowd wanted to hear. Like father, like son.
This wasn’t supposed to happen, according to the ideology that dominates much of our political discourse. In March 2011, the Republican staff of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee released a report titled “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy.” It ridiculed concerns that cutting spending in a slump would worsen that slump, arguing that spending cuts would improve consumer and business confidence, and that this might well lead to faster, not slower, growth.
Of course I wouldn’t expect them to man up and admit they were wrong going into an election year, but one cannot argue with the reality of the situation not only in Europe, but here in America.
It is a shame that we live in a time when no one can admit to being mugged by reality.
Multiplier issues aside, funding is cheap, and many of the resources you would use would otherwise be unemployed. There’s really a compelling argument that we should be doing a lot of public investment right now.
Obviously this would require the government to invest a lot of money in projects that private companies, like construction companies, would feel compelled to participate in, and so they would bid for thoses jobs and then the real downside is they would have to hire people to carry out those contracts. Now those people would end up paying taxes and so repay what ever money the government borrowed cheaply, more quickly, and worse case sceanario, actually start paying down the bill for two off budget wars.
Worst than that, the government would have to actually regulate and oversee those projects and that might lead to doing so to Wall Street.
Besides how are you going to drown the government in a bathtub doing stuff like that for the people? And speaking of the multiplier effects…
You should have bought yesterday.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from geek.com (based on a report at Droid Life) that makes me consider quitting or at least suspending the very expensive service 3G data service I get from Verizon:
“With 2012 about to start, it seems Verizon has decided paying your bill online or over the phone is now worthy of an extra charge. So, from January 15, anyone choosing to pay their monthly bill using either method will incur a $2 charge. Verizon is classing the charge as a ‘convenience fee’ which translates into them deciding allowing you to pay either online or over the phone is a convenience. They also explain in the FAQ above that the fee allows them, ‘to continue to support these bill payment options.’ Really, Verizon? When did offering online payments or accepting phone calls from customers get so much more expensive?”
It’s probably too counter-intuitive for most people to understand how paying Verizon, using a software program on an old machine, is somehow less convenient than sending them a check in the mail.
!!:Even below this!
!: After hours of journalistic research, I must infform you that the $2 dollar fee applies only if you don’t agree to a direct payment system, which requires both parties to cancel.
There is nothing — nothing — in what we see suggesting that this current depression is more than a problem of inadequate demand. This could be turned around in months with the right policies. Our problem isn’t, ultimately, economic; it’s political, brought on by an elite that would rather cling to its prejudices than turn the nation around.
So far, American banks have largely managed to avoid catching the contagion of the Eurozone debt crisis. That’s partly because there’s little direct exposure to the banks in the most distressed countries. But there are other big reasons behind the U.S. banks’ relative health, as the Economist points out. First, in the wake of our own 2009 meltdown, U.S. banks have raised their capital holdings significantly.
Secondly, Ben Bernanke’s multiple attempts to inject liquidity into the U.S. economy has not only helped protect U.S .banks here, but also the U.S .subsidiaries of European banks…
Undoubtedly the universe is unfolding as it should…
The bills’ progress has been temporarily halted in Congress until January 2012, but nonetheless, opposition the House’s much-criticized Stop Online Piracy Act and its counterpart in the Senate, the PROTECT-IP Act, is growing as opponents seek to punish those businesses and lawmakers that have publicly expressed support of the bill.
The first targets: Controversial domain registrar GoDaddy.com, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN).
Now I kind of know how Al Franken felt when he was in bed with Arianna
Both Marsha Blackburn and Debbie Wasserman Schults, the head of the Democratic National Committee and a Congresswoman from Florida, are cosponsors of the Stop Online Piracy Act.
The Act intends to stop online piracy. The way the Act goes about doing this is, in large part, allowing Eric Holder to take control of the internet and shut down websites he does not like. It is a totalitarian response from a bipartisan coalition of Congresscritters most of whom admit they have no freaking idea how the internet even works. Don’t believe me?
The response from SOPA defenders was painful in its cluelessness. Rep. Watt more or less admitted that he thought Polis’ interpretation was wrong, so he wouldn’t support the amendment. That makes no sense. If Watt thinks the language already says that, what’s the harm of clarifying that with the text of the Polis amendment? It makes no sense to refuse to do so. And if Watt and Deutsch really believe that the meaning of 105 is clear and doesn’t need any amendments to clarify, they might want to talk to some actual legal experts, because they’re analyzing the bill and reading it to say exactly as Polis interpreted it. And since this is a private right in the bill, if lawyers are already interpreting it that way, that means it’ll get used that way. So why not clarify? It’s mind-boggling.
I love Murica! See shiny baubles they give me?