Thursday, May 24, 2012

Lady Gaga's Greatest Monster

She really captures his essence, doesn't she? No one is surprised that she would shave her head or 'go there' with the make-up just to further her "ART". Lady G_g_ has done it again!
I guess it is Parody Parity-Weird Al mocks her in "Perform This Way" and she has to up the ante by going where Mr. Yankovic wouldn't. Call it a weirdness tie.
Speaking of ties, more and more Democrats seem to be untying themselves, leaping clear of the Obama Popularity Avalanche (which, by nature, goes downhill).
What was it, a couple of weeks ago, a Texas felon on the ballot in North Carolina captured quite a share of the Democratic Primary votes? Now Arkansas and Tennessee Democrats have shown a willingness to vote for ANYONE but President Obama. As the incumbent, he should be riding high at 90%!
I'm not overconfident, though-elections can turn on a dime and President Obama has the Press and 'opposition research' both in the palm of his hand. Plus quite a lot of silver in the other hand. Labor unions and Acamania (not a typo) in a third hand.
It's getting funny now. Asked about the economy and President Obama attacks Bain Capital. As if it mattered- if Mitt Romney had run PBS, then PBS would be the greatest villain ever to soil our great country.
Demonize your opposition, first rule of Saul Alinsky.
Capitalism is evil? If you live in a house, somebody from Capitalism built it. The refrigerator in your kitchen? Bought from Capitalists FOR capitalists (you) to put their (bought through capitalism) food in.
One of the greatest comparisons I've heard about this Obama war on "Venture Capitalists" such as Bain Capital, which he claims closed businesses and lost jobs...(pay attention now) is that is exactly what Obama did with General Motors and its government takeover. They shuttered many dealerships, many (most?) of whom were owned by Republicans. President Obama did the very thing he accuses Mitt Romney of doing!
If his Obamacare survives the Supreme Court, it will be responsible for killing off private medical insurers, with the aim of moving the population to Government run Healthcare. Millions of insurance professionals forced out of business as they can't compete with the Government? How very Bain Capital of him!


Doug said...

Post often find their own direction-I was going to head towards Galatians, and here I ended up picking on Barry again.
ah well.
If I'm reading public opinion rightly, President Obama is going to have a tough sell, convincing the American people to trust him with another term. But incumbency has it's privileges, and I wouldn't say that he is finished. If he loses, that simply opens opportunity for him to run again in the future, possibly after slinging mud from the sidelines through a Romney presidency.

Whomever wins the election, God is still in Heaven and all is right with the world. It was God that, for His own good purposes allowed Obama to win last time, as He sets all rulers on their thrones...and casts them off of their thrones.
May God have Mercy on the United States of America (and the rest of the world)!

James said...

Yes, the government needs to allow innovation and reward entrepreneurs and business owners. However, they're not entirely what fuel growth. Spending fuels growth ... spending by consumers (predominantly the middle class, which is shrinking). You can't grow a company, no matter how good the product, if no one can afford the product you're selling.

Another thing: People say that there's a percentage of people who don't pay any taxes and that this isn't "fair" to the wealthy. That's not entirely true: they pay sales tax, state tax, gas tax and their employers have a payroll tax (which ultimately reduces their salaries so that their employers can pay that tax). With gas prices at almost $4/gallon, food prices increasing by 5-10% and rents/mortgages being what they are, those people would only end up on federal assistance if we taxed them, anyhow. These aren't all slackers. Some of them have PHDs. So yes, it's "fair" that some people don't pay any federal tax at all. The wealthy, by all accounts, are amassing a greater percentage of American wealth than they ever have before.

Economics is a very difficult juggling act. I try not to resort to overly-simplistic ideological claims about "evil capitalists" OR "socialists".

Doug said...

"Another thing: People say that there's a percentage of people who don't pay any taxes and that this isn't "fair" to the wealthy."

There is where you have parity, James: the rich also pay sales tax, state tax, gas tax. All are incorporated into our economy and we all, as participants in our economy, are equally taxed in that way.
The abusing of 'the rich' for being 'evil capitalists' and somehow stealing money from the not logical, but emotional.
The baser emotions: envy, greed, jealousy, anger all play part in the demonizing of 'the rich'.
No one likes to think of themselves as being envious or jealous, so often these baser emotions are dressed up in terms of "fairness" or "economic justice".
Logically, if I earn a million dollars, then I've earned it and deserve it. The simple fact that I have a million dollars doesn't mean that I stole it from poor people,or that I don't deserve what I've earned.
As for 'socialist'-if used as a pejorative, calling someone a socialist would be emotionally charged labeling-not logical.
But I reserve the right to call socialists by that name who are indeed socialists (and usually proud of it).
Cutting to the chase-if President Obama pursues a socialist agenda, as described here:
then I will call him a Socialist.
Sir (Saint) Thomas More described the perfect Socialist ideal in his book, "Utopia" which I heard detailed by Mark Levin in his book, "Ameritopia-the Unmaking of America".
Levin argues that we are slipping down the slippery slope of anarchy due to efforts to create a Socialist state, replacing our Capitalist system.
That's not hate mongering, or emotionally driven rhetoric- when President Obama says that our Capitalist system has never worked, he means that, in his eyes, it has never been fair. That is a Socialist idea, as deeply rooted in his ideology as the idea that 'the rich' act unfairly towards the poor (NOT counting Hollywood, George Clooney or the Wall Street CEOs who contribute to his campaign).
Here's what I believe: President Obama has been attempting to 'fix' something that isn't broken. I believe that the Capitalist system 'raises all boats', meaning that when the Capitalist economy is good, poor people benefit right alongside the rich.
I could very well be considered poor, or lower, lower middle class. I am not jealous of anyone, including millionaires and billionaires. I am happy with where God has put me, and to be content is to be successful in life.

Lucia said...

People who get rich don't do it in a vacuum. They do it using resources we all paid for: roads, police and fire services, clean air and water, and on and on and on. They should pay their fair share just as we do.

I don't hate rich people. (By some measures I am one myself, though I'm orders of magnitude less rich than Romney, never mind Buffett.) I want them to acknowledge that they are part of the same social contract as everyone else and to pay taxes accordingly.

As for the comparison between the auto industry and Bain Capital, I can't improve on this. (N.B. Facts are no less factual for appearing on a site you don't like.)

Doug said...

"They do it using resources we all paid for:"

lu, that's a...lulu!

Not just a quibble-they ALSO pay taxes, pay for those resources.
I went to the Maddow site, and wasn't surprised to see "opinions" masquerading as "Facts". The author, Steve Benen, for example, stated: "Obama's rescue policy saved over 1 million jobs and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, auto industry employment has increased by over 100,000 jobs since Obama took office in January 2009. Romney has this backwards."
It sounds convincing, what with the addition of the note from the Bureau of Labor Statistics...which isn't actually shown-we're asked to accept Benen's assertion as to what the BLS said.
He also states that what President Obama did with taking over GM and closing many dealerships is nothing like what Romney did with Bain Capital. How does it differ?
As for vulture/venture capitalism-one major difference between Bain Capital and President Obama's efforts with Solyndra and other 'green energy' companies which went bankrupt: Bain made money for their stockholders, President Obama LOST our money indulging in "crony capitalism"
which in my opinion is worse-Bain didn't pick my pocket to fund Solyndra.
Lu, since you were kind enough to link to Maddow, have fun with this site:

Lucia said...

The difference is, the Obama administration was trying to invest in clean energy and benefit the taxpayers. Bain made money for its investors, true -- by sucking all the assets out of its corporate victims, overloading them with debt, then sending them back out into the "free market" to sink or swim while those investors laughed all the way to the bank. Bain's business model put hundreds if not thousands of people out of work, and they didn't care as long as the few made huge profits. If that's not gaming the system, I don't know what is.

Lucia said...

Oh, and about those taxes, in the last year for which he released records, Mitt Romney paid about 14 percent of his income in taxes. That's way lower than my rate and probably lower than yours as well. Warren Buffett has famously (or infamously, depending on your side of the fence) pointed out that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's.

Doug said...

As usual, Lu, you have plenty of emotionally colored 'arguments' but they don't equal facts.
Here-try some of mine:
the only reason you dislike Bain Capital is because you don't want Romney to win the election, and you know that his successes in the private sector help him.
So Bain Capital, which before a few months ago you never had an opinion now some evil enterprise? Nah.
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals includes the rule for 'demonizing your opponent'. Make the public HATE the other guy, whether it's George Bush or Mitt Romney. Alinsky's acolyte is in the White House. 1+1 still= 2.
Don't you ever feel angry that your emotions are being 'used' to further Democrat agendas?
Doesn't it bother you that they get you all riled up with righteous indignation over political issues?
Oh, sure, they can make you hate Mitt Romney-it is far easier to manipulate someone's baser emotions (hate, envy, anger) than the finer emotions (love).
But I don't like being manipulated.
Oh, Lu, about those taxes.
You keep ignoring the fact that Romney's income for one year is different than his wealth-if he makes 1 million dollars in 2012 he pays income tax on that one million dollars; the rest of his wealth is income on which he has already paid previous years taxes.
So, if he cleared 2 million in 2011, that doesn't count against him for 2012.
Did you miss that the press did some checking and that President Obama's tax rate was actually lower than HIS private secretary's rate?
Did you also miss that Buffett has been fighting the IRS about his back taxes?
He's not Tim Geithner or Al Franken, but he does have the liberal lingo down: Rules are for other people to follow.
Here's the funniest thing yet:
Under President Romney, our economy will improve and you will be better off than you are now under Obama's regime. Of course, you will still continue to hate him, but your life will be better.
You're welcome.

Lucia said...

I don't hate Romney, I just don't want him to be president. Or in any other position of power over me. The man is a liar and a bully who doesn't care how many people his business practices hurt. I have been familiar with him and his ways for many years, thanks to having lived in Massachusetts all my adult life, and if you study his record as governor you will know why I don't want him elected. His only positive achievement was health-care reform, which for some reason is OK if it's at the state level but rampant evil socialism at the national level.

Thank you, I do understand the difference between wealth and income, and I am talking about the latter.

Doug said...

"Thank you, I do understand the difference between wealth and income, and I am talking about the latter."
Glad to hear it, Lu-could you please write to President Obama and explain the difference to him?
I first became aware of Romney back when he did a great job with the Olympics-I thought that he would go far.
Back in dreary 2008 he was my first choice, and I will be happy to vote for him this time.