skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is Elizabeth Warren, former White House financial reform adviser. She is currently running for the Massachusetts senate against Scott Brown. This video has made Ms. Warren a rock star among the collectivist set. However, here on the Free Market side of the world, all I see is one hot mess.
Let's unpack Ms. Warren's statements, shall we?I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No!
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear.
You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.
You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.
You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.
OK stop right there, Ms Warren. Unless this we are talking about some foreigner who just came to this country and started a factory, I am pretty sure this factory owner paid taxes for those roads, schools and police too. Furthermore, thanks to the progressive tax system in this country, anyone with enough money to start a factory surely paid a hell of a lot more for those things than the average Joe or Jane.You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.
But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
As I stated before, anyone wealthy enough to start a factory clearly contributed more for all those government services than average middle class person did. But aside from paying more in taxes, what about the other contributions this factory owner is making?
Let's start with the most obvious J-O-B-S! Most factories require workers and means jobs. It is those jobs that give everybody money so they too can contribute to building those roads, educating those kids and hiring those cops.
Oh, and let us not forget that the whatever is being produced from this factory is no doubt something we all need or desire.
So let us recap everything this greedy factory owner is doing:
- Paying more for his/her share of government services.
- Providing jobs for the rest of us.
- Producing a product we need or desire.
Hum, seem to me that given all of that, it seem rather unreasonable to say they need to contribute more.
If you want to know why this administration has failed to rescue this economy and create an environment conducive to producing jobs, look no further than Elizabeth Warren.
These movie trailer-like campaign ads seem to be all the rage these days. It is pretty easy to see why, they are attention getting and Perry's ad is no exception. The stark contrast between the Obama images (monochromatic and foreboding) and the Perry image (colorful and inspiring) is quite effective.
However, I think this ad would be far more effective if Perry was already the nominee, rather than competing to become the nominee. The type of ad Perry needs now is one that states his record and define himself. That is what is needed by Republicans who are looking for their candidate in 2012.
Since I have not yet given my opinion on Perry yet, I shall do so now.
On paper Rick Perry looked very promising to me (several terms of chief executive experience from a solidly conservative job creating state and buckets of vibrato to stand toe to toe against Obama's arrogance). However, the reality is a little bit lacking (past associations with con man Al Gore, that Gardasil executive order, illegal immigration and two mediocre debate performances). Given these issues, it is not surprising that Perry no longer holds double digit leads over Romney.
At tomorrow's debate, Perry is going to have to bring his A-Game and then some. Otherwise, he may find himself fighting it out with the conservatives he leapfrogged over when he entered the race.
Video h/t: The Blaze
Via: Rasmussen
When everyone was looking for Sarah Palin to make the "Big Announcement" in Iowa on September 3, Sarah quietly introduced a new theme into the 2012 campaign ... Crony Capitalism. So effective was her speech that The New York Times of all places took notice.
In the speech Palin, points out something we should all have noticed, (had we not had our Red and Blue colored glasses firmly in place) that both the right and the left are correct as to what is kill our nation. On the right, we see Big Government as the killer or liberty and freedom. On the left, they see Big Business as the threat to the little guy. The truth is that it is the collusion of the Big Government and Big Business that is messing things up for this nation.
In her latest Facebook post, Palin illustrates how this collusion is on full display with GE, Solyndra and the Obama administration.
Sarah Palin on Facebook: In my recent speech in Iowa, some eyebrows were raised when I took on our government’s enormous economic problems caused by crony capitalism. As if on cue, just days later President Obama selected someone who exemplifies a major crony capitalism problem to sit next to the First Lady when he delivered his “jobs plan” speech before Congress. He selected General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his honored guest.
Having grown up with great respect for GE thanks to stories my grandfather shared with us about his days working for the company and even meeting GE spokesman-at-the-time Ronald Reagan during a company event, I am saddened at GE’s leadership evolution. This corporation is now the poster child of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.
This icon of American industry is a company full of good employees who make some good products (and is the parent company of a huge media outlet), but GE is also a large American corporation that pays virtually no corporate income taxes despite earning worldwide profits of $14.2 billion last year, $5.1 billion of it in the United States. In fact, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, meaning they received more of our hard earned tax dollars than they contributed. How is that possible? It’s because not only do they shelter their money from taxes, but they also get many tax credits, loans, government grants, and other benefits from the federal government that our smaller businesses couldn’t even imagine being able to profit from. [MORE]
Washington Post: Businessman Bob Turner (R) defeated state Assemblyman David Weprin (D) in the special election for the House seat held by former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (D).
Turner’s victory is regarded as an upset given the Democratic history of the 9th district, which takes in portions of Brooklyn and Queens, as well as the fact that President Obama carried the seat by 11 points in 2008.
“New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in a statement after Turner’s win. [MORE]
To be honest, I was ready to chalk up this race as a loss to voter fraud. Polls showing a six point lead by Turner did not seem like enough of a lead to me to overcome New York’s legendary voter fraud.
This victory is a big fat slap in Obama’s face. It means that in the deep blue bowels of New York City, even Democrats are not finding all that Hopey Changey stuff working for them. Worse yet, Jews, a core Democrat constituency of the Democratic Party ain’t feeling the love
What this win doesn’t s spell is a lasting victory for Republicans. This district is going to be erased via redistricting in 2013 and Turner is more than likely going to be a less than reliable Republican vote in the House. He is from New York City after all.
Despite those shortcomings, I am going to do the Snoopy dance anyway.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Nomblog
Via: New York Daily News
Via: The Washington Post
While I do have a problem with some of what Bachmann has done, I generally think her attack is a good thing. Here is why.
First, Bachmann is absolutely correct to drag Perry over the coals for issuing the executive order in the first place. Have we not all spent the last three years railing against government overreach? Well, Perry’s executive order is text book government overreach and Perry’s saying "my bad" doesn’t change the fact.
Second, Bachmann is also correct to raise the issue of crony capitalism. Just the fact that it is coming out today that Perry has received more than the $5,000 from Merck (as he said in the debate) should be enough for use to dig deeper into this issue. If there was a quid pro quo, then let’s sniff it out now and not have such a thing come back and bite us later.
Finally, Bachmann’s demagoguery of the Gardasil issue by retelling this story about a mother who claims her child became mentally retarded because of the injection, is in excusable. Bachmann is damaging her own credibility in the process. However, by unfairly attacking Perry on this ground, Bachmann is providing us a glimpse of how Perry will respond to the unfair attacks that are sure to come in the general election. Let us not forget that Obama and the media will employ all kinds of dirty attacks against whomever the GOP nominee is. It is far better to learn now if Perry has glass jaw than to find out after we are stuck with him.
While we may all cringe at the sight of Republican’s trampling Reagan’s 11th Commandment, a rough and dirty primary is exactly what will be needed in 2012. We need to be absolutely certain that our nominee will be able to withstand “The Palin Treatment” that is sure to come during the general election.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Right Scoop
Via:
National Review
Via:
Hot Air
Tonight’s CNN/ TEA Party debate was a vast improvement over the NBC/ Politico debate last week. While Wolf Blitzer did get the candidates to mix it up, he was subtler in his approach than NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s John Harris. Kudos to CNN for allowing actual TEA Party members to ask question. Unfortunately, Blitzer did not allow all the TEA Party questions to be answered by all candidates. (I really wanted to hear everyone’s answer to that young man’s question about how much should he be taxed).
Here is how I saw each candidate’s performance.
Mitt Romney: Mitt did nothing to regain his front runner status. His attack on Perry on Social Security, sounded like Mitt was willing to go with the status quo. The cat is out of the bag on Social Security, we all know it needs to be reformed. Simply saying that you will fix it, sounds like the failed promises of the past that has led us to the current problems.
Rick Perry: John Podhoretz sums it up best when he says Perry had better get better. Perry needs to really have some solid answers for the Gardasil question and illegal immigration. You could drive a truck through both answers. On Gardasil, simply saying you made a mistake and your emotions got the better of you, leaves you open to the question of will it happen again. On the immigration question, Perry’s answer for Texas’ mini Dream Act, sounds like Romney’s weak answer on RomneyCare. The 10th Amendment is not a Band Aid for past lapses in conservative judgment.
Michelle Bachmann: I think she drew blood with her tangle with Perry over Gardasil. It wasn’t with her accusation that Perry was engaged in a Crony Capitalism with Merck (that was sloppy), but her response to his answer of being bought. Bachmann took the higher ground and sounded like she had her priorities straight.
Herman Cain: I really loved Cain in the beginning, but his answers are sounding way too sound bite-ish at this point. We are well past the stage for sound bites. Meat is needed on the bone of his answers, otherwise it is impossible to take him seriously. My advice to Cain, get Wonkish, like yesterday.
Ron Paul: Given his answers tonight on foreign policy, it is clear the Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination. When Rick Santorum can school you on foreign policy and American Exceptionalism, you have a problem. This is sad, because so much of Ron Paul’s economic views are correct for the times.
Newt Gingrich: I love feisty Newt who has shown up to these debates. Even tonight, Newt looked like he was ready to bust Wolf Blitzer in the mouth if Wolf got out of hand. All of the candidates would do well to take a page out of Newt’s books when it come to handling a biased media. Unfortunately, for Newt, being feisty isn't enough to overcome his early major gaffs .
Rick Santorum: Santorum’s attempts to tie all his action’s of the 1990’s to today is getting very old. Let’s fact it, the political landscape has changed so drastically on the right since the 90’s, that references to the 90’s seems like comparing apples to oranges. Rick needs to find a reason why he is relevant today or he is going to have to make an early exit.
Jon Huntsman: Why is this guy still around? He is polling worse that Tim Pawlenty ever did and I cannot stop detecting the condescending attitude in all of his responses. There is nothing about Huntsman that resonates with today’s conservative base. Excluding him from the next debate would be a wise move.
Overall, I would have to say Rick Perry was the winner tonight because he did just enough to hold on to his front runner status. He will have to do a heck of a lot better in the next debate, because both Romney and Bachmann are sharpening their attacks. Even Palin seems to see an opening. Perry need an air tight A-Game if he wants to stand any chance against Obama, the Bully Pulpit and a complicit media.
Posts
