Romney: Occupy Wall Street 'wrong way to go'

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I still fail to see how those two links, which show opposition to Social Security and Medicare cuts among the Tea Party faithful, make the Tea Party any different than Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. What does the Tea Party want that is any different than what Bill Clinton aimed for in the late 1990s? Like Clinton, they want a balanced budget, elimination of government waste, ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Social Security rather than expanding government to such a large size that nothing is affordable anymore, etc.

That cartoon is ridiculous. Nobody is saying that people who are suffering should just be silent. Everybody knows what is happening, and the type of suffering that is going on. But when it gets to the point where people are pitting Americans against Americans, talking about how we must raise taxes to steal from one group of people to give those funds to another group, that is just what it is: class warfare. It's Eurotrash that does not belong in America (And time and time again, it is shown that when such policies are conducted they have the exact opposite intended effect: They create barriers to upward social mobility and essentially lock almost everybody permanently into the situation they are born into regardless of merit or lack thereof). By the way, Mr. Monopoly is fiction. The real-life wealthiest American in history was John D. Rockefeller, a man who made his way without being born into privilege. His philanthropic legacy continues to help people more than countless bureaucratic agencies abroad.

The Welfare State is not coming back, so get over it. Things will eventually get better, and in the meantime it is prudent to scale government back to a manageable and efficient size...

Well, Bill Clinton sure as hell didn't spit on old men suffering with Parkinson's, like one teabagger did.  He wanted balance, not extremism.  And he pushed for universal health care, which the Tea Party is strongly opposed to.

Obviously I am talking about post-1995 Clinton, not pre-1995 Clinton. When you get down to it, The Tea Party is pretty much espousing exactly what Clinton espoused in the late 1990s: End the Era of Big Government. That means getting rid of waste and getting spending back in line with reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is because they oppose the expansion and increase in government spending that started before Obama and has accelerated to an uncomfortable level with Obama. Regardless of whether or not Obama is a political loser, he is an economic loser. The results do not lie. Furthermore, it is impossible to run trillion dollar deficits on annual basis forever. The man thinks there is no consequence to such reckless behavior...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, some people have a word for taking something from one group of people and giving those proceeds to another group: Theft.

Yes, there is income inequality, but America is still the best nation on earth to get ahead, and one of the few nations where somebody who is born into extreme poverty can eventually rise to become a Ross Perot, for example, or even just a successful, small businessperson, which there are millions of examples of in American history. The best thing a privileged person can do if they want to help is donate to charities. But it is un-American to force anybody to do anything they do not want to do so long as they are not harming anybody (other than potentially them self)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Tea Party is not in favor of stealing from one group of Americans to give to another group. There are political differences, and then there's a line in the dirt that can be crossed. A lot of the "Occupy Wall Street" types cross that line. I am not sure I see that with Tea Party members who essentially want a limited federal government, unlike the OWS types. They may not know it, but what the OWS types really want is to destroy our entire economic system so that everybody enters the ghetto and never gets back out. I mean, look at these people. Would you even trust them to manage your personal financial budget?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am talking about the whole Welfare State mentality, such as the old welfare system to give a specific example of a byproduct of this mentality. The Welfare State was prevalent as recently as the 1970s, and even had quite a bit of support up until Clinton and the GOP basically buried it in the past around 1995/1996. Those days are never coming back.

In that case, Obama is also a teabagger.  He has also spoke for cutting waste.  You can't be black and white about this, and you can't claim Clinton for your own.  So just stop right now.

George Bush expanded government, took us to wars, passed health care reform, and passed a stimulus bill.  How are continued policies suddenly more discomforting under Obama?  "Economic loser"?  It took FDR years to get us out of the Depression.  Does that make him an "economic loser"?  Absolutely not.

If you're opposed to taxes from rich people paying for stuff, then here are my suggestions: don't use public libraries, don't ever call the police, don't ever call firefighters, don't take Social Security checks, don't take Medicare/Medicaid checks, don't drive on public roads.  And I've already told you that it's extremely difficult for a person who has nothing to become rich.  Poverty is an issue in America.  If it were that easy to be rich, everyone would be rich.  That is reality.

I have nothing wrong with welfare being a program for temporary assistance instead of a second way of life, but what the US is now is not a welfare state.  Quit taking Clinton for your own.  He is not a teabagger.

[Politico]

We already live in a world where those who work pay taxes, and the more you earn, the higher your individual tax contribution. Advocating we take more and more from successful people to give to others is advocacy of theft through coercion. Or, perhaps a less harsh way of putting it is by calling it class warfare. Take your pick.

The vast, vast majority of those successful people busted their ass to get to where they are, and continue to bust their ass. Many of them are like everybody else, too: a few unlucky bounces away from bankruptcy. They do not owe anybody else a living. And the day we take away incentives for striving to be successful, is the day we will lose our competitive edge and end up with a lot of unsuccessful, unmotivated, entitlement-mentality losers. That is NOT how to return America to greatness.

Lastly, by and large, the vast majority of well-to-do Americans donate considerable amounts of resources to charities that actually help people who need help.

We do not live in a perfect world, but adopting Eurosclerosis will make things worse, not better.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

malcontents who think the world owes them a living, young adults of privilege who want to "be cool," and the economically illiterate

What an accurate description of the Tea Party!

yeah, all those twenty-something yuppies like to hang out there, posing as beatniks while they drink their green tea lattes and rave about Herman Cain.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

malcontents who think the world owes them a living, young adults of privilege who want to "be cool," and the economically illiterate

What an accurate description of the Tea Party!

yeah, all those twenty-something yuppies like to hang out there, posing as beatniks while they drink their green tea lattes and rave about Herman Cain.

You mean Atlasia members?

[NVGonzalez]

see my sig.

[pbrower2a]

We already live in a world where those who work pay taxes, and the more you earn, the higher your individual tax contribution. Advocating we take more and more from successful people to give to others is advocacy of theft through coercion. Or, perhaps a less harsh way of putting it is by calling it class warfare. Take your pick.

Successful at what? Being born into the right family? Getting a bigger profit by treating one's subordinate as expendable objects? Schmoozing with political leaders? Such people deserve to pay higher tax rates. I find it hard to see what good they do for us except to do no harm. Someone who changes the bed pans in the hospital or does construction work? Such is tangible. A sane economic order recognizes that hard work deserves to be taxed slightly and that cash-cow income can be taxed heavily without people giving up the cash cows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't say that people who make an extraordinary living because they serve customers well or have made themselves into top-notch surgeons, attorneys, engineers, or creative people should be taxed into ruin. It's the people with the cash-cow incomes who need the government services to ensure that their property rights be protected, that they have a customer base that would disappear if working people went destitute, that their investments overseas be protected by the Armed Forces, and that the roads that deliver their luxuries pe passable for those luxuries and be safe from highway robbers. The richer one is, the greater one's stake is in preserving the status quo from obvious threats.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like funding groups whose purpose is to debase and impoverish everyone but themselves? The Food Stamps that keep some people from starving are funded through taxes. 

 

[Politico]

Do you think the person who changes a bedpan in a hospital should make just as much as the doctor who treats the patient, or the executive who ensures the hospital continues to survive, or the individuals who actually own the hospital and have taken on all of the headaches from the risk involved in owning the entity?

A sane economic order does not have a government that essentially steals over half the income of one group to consistently give those funds to another group. That descends into the type of crap one witnesses over in Europe, where most of the group receiving funds develops this loser entitlement-mentality where they think the world owes them a living. You eventually end up with 20% unemployment like in Spain if you are lucky, or worse.

The top order is having the largest degree of economic efficiency possible by having a legal infrastructure that ensures the largest possible degree of competition among all sectors of the economy while also ensuring property rights (including intellectual property) are protected and contracts are enforced. In other words, free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody. If we couple this with a government that provides adequate basic infrastructure (i.e., defense, law and order, highways that facilitate commerce, GOOD education choices for those under 18 regardless of who the hell delivers the education, etc.), and do our best to help kids that have lousy parents (complemented by charitable activities, of course), we should achieve the highest level of meritocracy in society that is realistically feasible (not to mention the best economy possible).

What I have outlined above, save for a few minor details, will get us to where we would all like to be (Mitt Romney is the only candidate who understands this, too; Obama does not get it, and never will, although I do concede that I think Hillary Clinton would be getting it by now and I really wish I had supported her in 2008 rather than Obama). Class warfare rhetoric and the crap spewed by the "Occupy Wall Street" types is not going to get us anything but further decline.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Wow. Even by the standards of politicians that statement was a vacuous piece of fluffy nothingness signifying air.

Next-up: Obama on why hope and change are good things, but perhaps not appropriate right now (or perhaps he´ll go Clinton and start questioning the meaning of the word "are". It would be highly revealing anyway).

[Link]

Here's a nice cartoon that I felt was very appropriate for this discussion.

That cartoon is ridiculous. Nobody is saying that people who are suffering should just be silent.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Do you think the person who changes a bedpan in a hospital should make just as much as the doctor who treats the patient, or the executive who ensures the hospital continues to survive, or the individuals who actually own the hospital and have taken on all of the headaches from the risk involved in owning the entity?

A sane economic order does not have a government that essentially steals over half the income of one group to consistently give those funds to another group. That descends into the type of crap one witnesses over in Europe, where most of the group receiving funds develops this loser entitlement-mentality where they think the world owes them a living. You eventually end up with 20% unemployment like in Spain if you are lucky, or worse.

The top order is having the largest degree of economic efficiency possible by having a legal infrastructure that ensures the largest possible degree of competition among all sectors of the economy while also ensuring property rights (including intellectual property) are protected and contracts are enforced. In other words, free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody. If we couple this with a government that provides adequate basic infrastructure (i.e., defense, law and order, highways that facilitate commerce, GOOD education choices for those under 18 regardless of who the hell delivers the education, etc.), and do our best to help kids that have lousy parents (complemented by charitable activities, of course), we should achieve the highest level of meritocracy in society that is realistically feasible (not to mention the best economy possible).

What I have outlined above, save for a few minor details, will get us to where we would all like to be (Mitt Romney is the only candidate who understands this, too; Obama does not get it, and never will, although I do concede that I think Hillary Clinton would be getting it by now and I really wish I had supported her in 2008 rather than Obama). Class warfare rhetoric and the crap spewed by the "Occupy Wall Street" types is not going to get us anything but further decline.

Ah! Rich people are "winners" and poor people are "losers!" Gotcha!

Yes, let's have a "meritocracy-it's a marathon race, where a few Olympic runners get an hour head start over the rest of the competition, none of whom are Olympic runners and all of whom have broken legs! And the people on the sidelines cheering the Olympic runners are scolding the people with broken legs for not keeping up!

You don't realize that "Free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody" is a hopelessly impossible thing to enforce, because that inevitably favors the already rich.

[t_host1]

 When municipality cleanup committee's submit to the fed for additional funding of the OWS party party, the baggers of TEA will appropriately refer all OWS municipality expense request to the Obama election campaign.

 When the collapse of the economy occurs, as being projected sooner rather than later, will you;

 (1) follow the OWS party doctrine of WTF - (Obama's - wining the future) stimulus, blame the "Baggers of TEA"?

 (2) have your Jesus moment?, 'Oh Barney! - I've been punk'd, thinking - this is my Obama inheritants! 

 (3) WTF!!! (where the food)?

 (4) ...ahhh, what's this work thing all about?

 (5) Vote! Romney, what would be any different? _____________

 (6) start a solar panel business?

 (7) start your own stock market?

  go back to skool?

 (9) insist the unions, Canadian alliance's and Obama pay more to Occupy Wall Street.

 ...damn teabaggers

[Politico]

Do you think the person who changes a bedpan in a hospital should make just as much as the doctor who treats the patient, or the executive who ensures the hospital continues to survive, or the individuals who actually own the hospital and have taken on all of the headaches from the risk involved in owning the entity?

A sane economic order does not have a government that essentially steals over half the income of one group to consistently give those funds to another group. That descends into the type of crap one witnesses over in Europe, where most of the group receiving funds develops this loser entitlement-mentality where they think the world owes them a living. You eventually end up with 20% unemployment like in Spain if you are lucky, or worse.

The top order is having the largest degree of economic efficiency possible by having a legal infrastructure that ensures the largest possible degree of competition among all sectors of the economy while also ensuring property rights (including intellectual property) are protected and contracts are enforced. In other words, free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody. If we couple this with a government that provides adequate basic infrastructure (i.e., defense, law and order, highways that facilitate commerce, GOOD education choices for those under 18 regardless of who the hell delivers the education, etc.), and do our best to help kids that have lousy parents (complemented by charitable activities, of course), we should achieve the highest level of meritocracy in society that is realistically feasible (not to mention the best economy possible).

What I have outlined above, save for a few minor details, will get us to where we would all like to be (Mitt Romney is the only candidate who understands this, too; Obama does not get it, and never will, although I do concede that I think Hillary Clinton would be getting it by now and I really wish I had supported her in 2008 rather than Obama). Class warfare rhetoric and the crap spewed by the "Occupy Wall Street" types is not going to get us anything but further decline.

Ah! Rich people are "winners" and poor people are "losers!" Gotcha!

Yes, let's have a "meritocracy-it's a marathon race, where a few Olympic runners get an hour head start over the rest of the competition, none of whom are Olympic runners and all of whom have broken legs! And the people on the sidelines cheering the Olympic runners are scolding the people with broken legs for not keeping up!

You don't realize that "Free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody" is a hopelessly impossible thing to enforce, because that inevitably favors the already rich.

Do you not realize that the economic pie is not fixed in size? It is not stagnant nor is it set in stone as to who gets what percentage of the pie every year (since people retire, die, emigrate, etc. all of the time).

I never said anybody is a "winner," and I only claimed that entitlement-mentality people who think the world owes them are a living are "losers," NOT that all poor people are "losers" (there are plenty of poor people who do not think the world owes them a living, and these people rightfully want an opportunity to better themselves and their family). It is YOU who is engaging is such shameless class warfare rhetoric, and you are doing NOTHING to help America with such rhetoric.

Free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody is easily enforced as outlined in the steps I have already given. Yes, LIKE EVERY OTHER SYSTEM, it favors the already-rich TODAY. However, the big differences between what I propose and what others propose is that my proposal provides the poor with the greatest possibility of advancement based upon merit, and my proposal does not guarantee anybody who is wealthy today will stay wealthy forever (i.e., their descendants).

What you fail to realize is that your tax-and-spend policies lead to the opposite of the intended effect: They keep the poor, poor and largely dependent upon government while limiting their ability to move up through effort, talent, etc. Tax-and-spend policies inevitably end up acting as a barrier-to-entry into markets, including the labor market, and essentially keep things in place the way they are rather than providing opportunities, and the pursuit of happiness for all regardless of the situation they are born into.

[Ebowed]

When municipality cleanup committee's submit to the fed for additional funding of the OWS party party, the baggers of TEA will appropriately refer all OWS municipality expense request to the Obama election campaign.

 When the collapse of the economy occurs, as being projected sooner rather than later, will you;

 (1) follow the OWS party doctrine of WTF - (Obama's - wining the future) stimulus, blame the "Baggers of TEA"?

 (2) have your Jesus moment?, 'Oh Barney! - I've been punk'd, thinking - this is my Obama inheritants!  

 (3) WTF!!! (where the food)?

 (4) ...ahhh, what's this work thing all about?

 (5) Vote! Romney, what would be any different? _____________

 (6) start a solar panel business?

 (7) start your own stock market?

  go back to skool?

 (9) insist the unions, Canadian alliance's and Obama pay more to Occupy Wall Street.

 ...damn teabaggers

See a doctor please.

[pbrower2a]

Do you think the person who changes a bedpan in a hospital should make just as much as the doctor who treats the patient, or the executive who ensures the hospital continues to survive, or the individuals who actually own the hospital and have taken on all of the headaches from the risk involved in owning the entity?

The doctor? Of course a doctor merits far more pay than an orderly. It would be easy to make an orderly out of a physician but not to make a doctor out of the usual orderly. Isn't that obvious? Most hospitals used to be non-profit, and turning a non-profit entity into a for-profit entity (not always a good idea) often requires some sweetening of the deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have something like 10% unemployment as it is and declining standards of living despite efforts to privatize everything. Leaving the economy to cartels and trusts is one way to ensure high prices and high unemployment. At that the "winner" entitlement that we see in America can be just as destructive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the US has the highest level of economic inequality in the advanced industrial world. People are going hungry as the welfare system is gutted. Our economy has gone from "Everyone has a chance" to "Suffer for my greed!" In many respects things are worse than they were when Carter was President.  The rich have gotten richer and others are certifiably poorer. So much for "progress"!

Our corporate masters want an order in which the common man is obliged to compete to establish who will suffer the most for bosses and owners in return for the least of rewards. Those masters are of about the same level of morality as the planters of the Old South, commie bureaucrats, feudal lords, and the sorts of tycoons who bankrolled Mussolini, Hitler, and Tojo.
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the Hard Right, anyone who dissents with plutocracy as it is now developing is a participant in "class warfare". The Hard Right is as dishonest in its lexicon as commies, fascists, and the fictional masters of Orwell's Oceania in 1984. The super-rich have imposed their sort of class warfare upon us, and they have been winning. 

[pbrower2a]

(previously cited)

Ah! Rich people are "winners" and poor people are "losers!" Gotcha!

Yes, let's have a "meritocracy-it's a marathon race, where a few Olympic runners get an hour head start over the rest of the competition, none of whom are Olympic runners and all of whom have broken legs! And the people on the sidelines cheering the Olympic runners are scolding the people with broken legs for not keeping up!

You don't realize that "Free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody" is a hopelessly impossible thing to enforce, because that inevitably favors the already rich.

Do you not realize that the economic pie is not fixed in size? It is not stagnant nor is it set in stone as to who gets what percentage of the pie every year (since people retire, die, emigrate, etc. all of the time).

Our elites are shrinking the shares that they allow us to have as the pie increases -- because they are transforming manufacturing companies into importers.  The sort of competition that they allow us is a race to the bottom -- perhaps even back to debt-bondage. How nice!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People whose living standards are going down solely so that tycoons and executives can wax even fatter are losers. Losers with good attitudes by your standards are still loses. But most of us did not choose to become losers. Someone else often made the profitable choice that multitudes would be losers on behalf of an economic paradigm that holds that maximal inequality is a good idea in itself.

Our elites are cheating us out of all dignity, and for what? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No favoritism? Privatization deals usually involve some choice of political hacks in on them. Merit means nothing without opportunity, and the opportunity even to own and operate a business means nothing other than personal ruin if there are no potential customers.  Entities like Wal-Mart have been crushing small-scale competition. 

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. Tax-and-spend creates a secondary market. Food assistance ends up back in the system through the cash registers of food sellers. Medicaid payments go to medical staff and medical suppliers (including the landlords of medical offices and pharmacies). Government spending on public works itself works its way through contractors to construction workers and to companies that supply glass, steel, concrete, and other necessities of those projects.  Tax-and-spend puts people back to work -- people often in great need who can then buy new stuff, pay off bills, and meet neglected needs. 

Tax-and-spend enlarges the tax base; austerity shrinks it.