Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Liberal hypocrisy a sign of the Times

  1. #1

    Liberal hypocrisy a sign of the Times

    [url]http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120628/COLUMN/120629869/1021&parentprofile=1061[/url]

    [I]What a difference four years make. Around this time in 2008, Sen. Barack Obama was well on his way to shattering every campaign fundraising record on the books. Before his campaign was over, the great reformer from Chicago decided public campaign financing wasn't so great after all — and he passed it up in favor of accepting almost three-quarters of a billion dollars in contributions.

    But for a handful of muted good-government voices, the entire political left celebrated Obama's fundraising as proof of his extraordinary support and mass appeal. [B]When it was over, the president-elect outspent his political opponent, John McCain, by more than 3-to-1[/B].

    Fast forward to 2012 and Mitt Romney's first month of out-fundraising the president, notwithstanding the fact that Obama has spent more time fundraising, by a factor of two or more, than any incumbent president in history. All of a sudden, [B]the news is awash in the left's concerns about unregulated campaign fundraising[/B].

    Twice in the past week, in fact, The New York Times editorial page singled out Republican fundraising efforts as a serious threat to our democracy.

    In the more sanctimonious of its two editorials, the Times railed against Sheldon Adelson, a wealthy casino owner who gave $20 million to Newt Gingrich in his unsuccessful bid to capture the Republican nomination and now has pledged millions more for the Romney campaign effort.

    Apparently blind to its own reporting that Adelson's money did virtually nothing to help Gingrich, the Times is now in a state of panic that Adelson's money could upset the balance of the fall campaign. Even worse — for the Times — the editors wrote that Adelson was “attempting to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation's needs.”

    Really? Exactly what agenda does the Times expect citizens to pursue if not their own personal, ideological and financial agenda? Isn't that what the Times does every day in its reporting and editorializing?

    It gets better. The Times also scolds Adelson — a Jew who is married to an Israeli Jew — for opposing a Palestinian state and for wanting to “keep his billions intact,” by opposing higher taxes.

    Whatever your views about the establishment of a Palestinian state (personally I think it's probably a necessary evil), it's certainly a legitimate political view for Israel and its friends to hold, given their history with Palestine.

    As for “wanting to keep his billions intact,” by opposing higher taxes, I think it's fair to say that Adelson is not “wildly at odds with the nation's needs,” at least not for taxpayers who believe they already pay their fair share and a whole lot more.

    [B]But the real kicker for me was the Times criticizing Adelson for paying only 9.8 percent in corporate taxes on his casino operations, despite a “statutory rate” of 35 percent in the United States.[/B] The Times did not accuse Mr. Adelson of tax evasion, but it did snidely imply that there is something fundamentally wrong with his taking full advantage of the legitimate deductions and expenses in the tax code.

    Just for fun, I thought I would pull The New York Times Co.'s Securities and Exchange Commission filings to find out what the paper's effective corporate tax rate was over the past few years.

    As it turns out, [B]as recently as 2009, The New York Times paid an 8 percent corporate tax rate — after legally taking advantage of all its exemptions and deductions — despite our “statutory rate” of 35 percent.[/B]

    What is worse than the Times' hypocrisy about its own tax bill, however, is the paper's apparent willingness to call for limits on Adelson's free speech for no other reason than the fact that his opinions are sharply at odds with those of the Times' editorial writers.

    The Times makes a feeble effort to argue that unlimited campaign contributions result in one individual gaining too much influence in our political process. Again, I have to ask, “Really?”

    Through its ownership of 19 of the leading daily papers in the country, The New York Times Co., and the Ochs Sulzberger family that controls it, has greater influence over the nation's political agenda than any other family in the land.

    Instead of criticizing Adelson, you would think the Times should be writing editorials defending our precious freedoms, including our rights to unlimited free speech and unlimited freedom of the press.

    And, in the event a few more editorials add to the Times' cost of doing business, I'm quite sure that the paper's accountants would have no trouble taking the additional deductions on their next tax return.[/I]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,675
    Do as I say, not as I do strikes again.


    Actually, it strikes every 5 secs.

  3. #3
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,100
    [QUOTE]When it was over, the president-elect outspent his political opponent, John McCain, by more than 3-to-1.[/QUOTE]
    Kind of goes both ways; BO "won" the record number of contributions, so he spent it. But I agree that the Left looks ridiculous spinning away from the truth. :yes:



    [QUOTE=sackdance]What is worse than the Times' hypocrisy about its own tax bill, however, is the paper's apparent willingness to call for limits on Adelson's free speech for no other reason than the fact that his opinions are sharply at odds with those of the Times' editorial writers.[/QUOTE]

    It's so ridiculous.
    Last edited by WestCoastOffensive; 06-28-2012 at 02:05 PM.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4502962]Kind of goes both ways; BO "won" the record number of contributions, so he spent it. But I agree that the Left looks ridiculous spinning away from the truth. :yes:[/QUOTE]

    Obama should of kept his promise about campaign finance.

  5. #5
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,100
    [QUOTE=cr726;4502968]Obama should of kept his promise about campaign finance.[/QUOTE]

    no kidding?

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Big Apple, USA
    Posts
    22,219
    Citizens United maybe changed things just a tiny.bit with the Kock Bros..Adelson and Willards 12 other contributors being able to give multi billions thus outspending the Presidents millions of small grassroots contributors..

    Sadly for poor Willard...All that Kock money still wont be enough to elect the empty suit from the Cayman Islands or Utah or Mass or Michigan or whatever other mansion he is currently.residing at
    Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=sg3;4502975] 12 other contributors being able to give multi billions thus outspending the Presidents millions of small grassroots contributors..
    [/QUOTE]
    LOL.

    The President could piss on your head and you'd call it fragrant rain.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,675
    [QUOTE=sg3;4502975] thus outspending the Presidents millions of small grassroots contributors..

    [/QUOTE]

    Jamie DImon just laughed at your silly-ass post, knucklehead. Along with a ton of other left leaning Wall Streeters. :rolleyes:

  9. #9
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,100
    "This is no place for a homer!" :homer:


    [I]D'OH![/I]

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,603
    [QUOTE=sg3;4502975]Citizens United maybe changed things just a tiny.bit with the Kock Bros..Adelson and Willards 12 other contributors being able to give multi billions thus outspending the Presidents millions of small grassroots contributors..

    Sadly for poor Willard...All that Kock money still wont be enough to elect the empty suit from the Cayman Islands or Utah or Mass or Michigan or whatever other mansion he is currently.residing at
    Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

    get a hint, Clint

    [URL]http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638[/URL]

    [B]Barack Obama (D) [SIZE=2]Top Contributors[/SIZE][/B]

    This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. [COLOR=red][B][I]The organizations themselves did not donate[/I][/B][/COLOR][B], rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.[/B] Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
    [B]Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big [U]bundlers[/U].[/B]

    [SIZE=2]Microsoft Corp [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$387,395[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]University of California [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$330,258[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]DLA Piper [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$306,727[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Google Inc [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$271,300[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Sidley Austin LLP [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$257,296[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Harvard University [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$232,158[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Comcast Corp [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$201,606[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Stanford University [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$187,290[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Time Warner [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$178,164[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Skadden, Arps et al [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$169,753[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]US Government [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$149,458[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]US Dept of State [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$147,917[/SIZE][SIZE=2]N[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]National Amusements Inc [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$138,955[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Morgan & Morgan [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$135,145[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Columbia University [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$134,497[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Kaiser Permanente [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$132,257[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Wells Fargo [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$127,807[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]University of Chicago [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$127,507[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Wilmerhale Llp [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$117,661[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]Kirkland & Ellis [/SIZE][SIZE=2]$113,770[/SIZE]

    [B][B][SIZE=2]Percent of Contributions Coded [/SIZE][/B][/B]


    [SIZE=2][IMG]http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/legend1.gif[/IMG][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Coded[/SIZE][SIZE=2]$86,314,083[/SIZE][SIZE=2](74%)[/SIZE][SIZE=2][IMG]http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/legend2.gif[/IMG][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Uncoded[/SIZE][SIZE=2]$30,167,367[/SIZE][SIZE=2](26%)[/SIZE][SIZE=2]Total[/SIZE][SIZE=2]$116,481,450[/SIZE]

    B. Hussein Bundlers:
    [URL]http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638[/URL]

    0 SuperPACS:

    [URL]http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/superpacs.php[/URL]
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-28-2012 at 04:15 PM.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    [QUOTE=sg3;4502975]Citizens United maybe changed things just a tiny.bit with the Kock Bros..Adelson and Willards 12 other contributors being able to give multi billions thus outspending the Presidents millions of small grassroots contributors..[/QUOTE]

    You're in over your head.

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