Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: More Hypocrisy from the Fiscal Hawks

  1. #41
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4322360]Since wealthy people are overwhelmingly the people who become elected politicians, especially on the state and national level, they are far more likely to be engaged in the form of corruption that we have discussed. Simply put,[B] they are the people in the position to do it. [/B]

    Also, your post offered a nice straw man argument because I never said that [B]all[/B] wealthy people [B]must[/B] enter into public office because they have side deals. Simply that [B]some do[/B]. My point was only that in light of the disfunctional state that our government is in it is prudent to question, from a general point of view,[B] the motives of why millionaires leave ridiculously wealthy positions to work for peanuts in comparison.
    [/B]
    Its easy for you to understand why some might be skeptical of their motives considering the state of our elected politicians today; Just substitute Mitt Romney's name for say, Jon Corzine or a Rockefeller or Kennedy and you will have 50 posters shaking their head in unison.[/QUOTE]

    Duty. People who work hard, invest and save usually have a huge personal stake in their families and communities and want to make them better.

    Somewhere along the line you have come to the conclusion that wealth isn't built it just happens. People make and lose fortunes, people who earn the same income die with millions or owing millions.

    People have all kinds of reasons for wanting to participate in government including networking, power, money and creating a better future for their families and their communities.

    Rather than attacking motives we should get rid of the conflict of interest that is all over our government. The current President is a populist by day and a tuxedo wearing money machine at night. I don't agree with his politics but I don't question his belief that his bat **** crazy leftist ideas are actually good for the community even though he has become a millionaire since he got into elected office and has walked away from removing any of the trappings of conflict of interest that helped get him elected in the first place.

    Look who the left put in as speaker of the House when they controlled the House. She has used her position in power to multiply her wealth many times over.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 01-10-2012 at 02:50 PM.

  2. #42
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4322545]Somewhere along the line you have come to the conclusion that wealth isn't built it just happens.[/QUOTE]

    It's the cornerstone of left-leaning economic thought.

    Wealth is only created by A. The Govt. or B. The Individual stealing it from their fellow "Workers" or from the Govt., who rightfully should have it, so they can fairly distribute it.

  3. #43
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322549]It's the cornerstone of left-leaning economic thought.

    Wealth is only created by A. The Govt. or B. The Individual stealing it from their fellow "Workers" or from the Govt., who rightfully should have it, so they can fairly distribute it.[/QUOTE]

    And they put in Elitist who use the system to build their own personal empires of wealth and power to distribute it.

  4. #44
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322549]It's the cornerstone of left-leaning economic thought.

    Wealth is only created by A. The Govt. or B. The Individual stealing it from their fellow "Workers" or from the Govt., who rightfully should have it, so they can fairly distribute it.[/QUOTE]

    This is in your imagination. Where are these left leaning economic thinkers? 1919 Bolshevik Russia?

    alot of charges of Democrats = wealth distribution, what exactly is the proof of that? If Obama was a socialist, why is the stock market way up since he took office? Why are tax rates lower? it's a fun message that has no facts to back it up.

  5. #45
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4322605]This is in your imagination. Where are these left leaning economic thinkers? 1919 Bolshevik Russia?

    alot of charges of Democrats = wealth distribution, what exactly is the proof of that? If Obama was a socialist, why is the stock market way up since he took office? Why are tax rates lower? it's a fun message that has no facts to back it up.[/QUOTE]

    One need only read this forum for a while. No fantasy involved.

    We could play the "Search Feature" Game yet again if you like, but I got stuff to do right now.

    As to why we're not under a more Socialist Rule today, thats easy.....policy has to be passed, and it hasn't been. Not yet at least.

    And lol at "how can Obam be a Socialist, look at the Stock Market!" :rolleyes:

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    The LOLs continue....

    Obama is such a socialist that Wall Street is willing to do the following:

    [B]Wall Street Responsible For One-Third Of Obama's Campaign Funds[/B]
    Ricky Kreitner

    One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports.

    That percentage is up from the 20% of donations that came from Wall Street donors in 2008, and contradicts reports that a growing Wall Street animosity towards the Obama administration may jeopardize his re-election bid.
    Obama's $86 million haul set a record for incumbent fundraising at this point in an election campaign. While the campaign has downplayed the larger donations by emphasizing that the average donation was $69, it also released a list of contributions by "bundlers;" those who can "bundle" more than $50,000 in contributions from friends, relatives and business associates.
    Of the 244 Obama campaign "bundlers," 80 work in finance, insurance, and real estate. Politico's Byron Tau and Ben Smith report today that many of the Obama bundlers have official business before the U.S. government.


    Read more: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-responsible-for-one-third-of-obamas-campaign-funds-2011-7#ixzz1j5imNQmM[/url]

  7. #47
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4322669]The LOLs continue....

    Obama is such a socialist that Wall Street is willing to do the following:

    [B]Wall Street Responsible For One-Third Of Obama's Campaign Funds[/B][/QUOTE]

    So what you're saying is Obama is bougth and paid for by his Wall Street Cronies, eh?

    If only A. and B. were mutually exclusive. Socialism and Crony Profiteering go hand in hand like white on rice.

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322673]So what you're saying is Obama is bougth and paid for by his Wall Street Cronies, eh?

    If only A. and B. were mutually exclusive. Socialism and Crony Profiteering go hand in hand like white on rice.[/QUOTE]

    I am absolutely saying that Obama is bought and paid for.

    Why would some of the most successful venture capitalists in the world donate millions of dollars to reelect a socialist that would then cause severe profit losses?
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 01-10-2012 at 04:20 PM.

  9. #49
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4322694]I am absolutely saying that Obama is bought and paid for.

    Why would some of the most successful venture capitalists in the world donate millions of dollars to reelect a socialist that would then cause severe profit losses?[/QUOTE]

    Why do you assume Socialims for the Masses means profit loss for the power elites?

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322717]Why do you assume Socialims for the Masses means profit loss for the power elites?[/QUOTE]

    If you are talking about the power elites who made their fortunes through free-market enterprises then its no assumption; its fact. Simply stated, the basic principles of socialism runs counter to what a venture capitalist stands for.

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4322805]If you are talking about the power elites who made their fortunes through free-market enterprises then its no assumption; its fact. Simply stated, the basic principles of socialism runs counter to what a venture capitalist stands for.[/QUOTE]

    It worked out well for the venture capitalists that donated to Obama then got him to guarantee 500million in loans to Solyndra as the 2nd lein holder. Behind.........you guessed it, the Obama bundlers.

  12. #52
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4322805]If you are talking about the power elites who made their fortunes through free-market enterprises then its no assumption; its fact. Simply stated, the basic principles of socialism runs counter to what a venture capitalist stands for.[/QUOTE]

    In Theory, yes.

    In practice, no.

    lol, welcome to the real world.

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322821]In Theory, yes.

    In practice, no.

    lol, welcome to the real world.[/QUOTE]

    In the "real" world wealthy and powerful individuals look for ways to become more profitable. If the president was truly a socialist there would not be a 20% [B]increase[/B] in donations from these people to his socialist reelection campaign. Its simply not good for their bottom line.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 01-10-2012 at 07:42 PM.

  14. #54
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4322175]Actually, I contend that wealthy people are a hell of a lot less easy to "buy" than people without means. And that it takes a remarkably cynical person to argue that any wealthy person running for office [B]must[/B] have some side deal on which they are making money, because otherwise they wouldn't run.

    It's a sad argument, IJF, more reflective of the arguer than of the subject.[/QUOTE]


    The deal is:
    support military spending and the arms makers will do all they can to make him President.

    "All that glitters is not gold"


    But Whatever.

    Romney is going to keep the Pentagon budget where it is
    He is going to CUT taxes
    And he is going to balance the Federal Budget

    That adds up
    :rolleyes:
    :rolleyes:
    Last edited by Buster; 01-11-2012 at 01:48 AM.

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4323761]The deal is:
    support military spending and the arms makers will do all they can to make him President.

    "All that glitters is not gold"


    But Whatever.

    Romney is going to keep the Pentagon budget where it is
    He is going to CUT taxes
    And he is going to balance the Federal Budget

    That adds up
    :rolleyes:
    :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    100% correct.

    Here is the hypocrisy; this is supposed to be an era of renewed emphasis on ending wasteful spending, excessive taxes and smaller government. The Tea Party has been a powerful voice for this and the republicans, including the candidates running for president, have all championed this cause. Yet with the exception of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, not one of them is addressing the billions in waste in the area of "defense" spending.

    We spend more tax money on "defense" then the next ten countries [B]combined[/B]. And that is even after Obama's cuts which amounts to a pin prick in comparison.

    Yet with the exception of Paul and Huntsman, every other "fiscal hawk" has not only blasted the president for the cuts, but pledged to [B]spend more[/B].

    Take a good look at what is happening; this is what fascism looks like.

  16. #56
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    I love the rich, they worked for their money as opposed to many others who live off everyone's elses money. The 46% who pay no taxes!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us