…and this is it.
Expect a surge in building French restaurants in Switzerland.
Oh, yeah. And expect the French to recoup a fraction of the money they expect to recoup from it.
45 thoughts on “I Have Seen The Future Under Obama, Dayton And Company…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Haven’t we seen this movie before?
Mitch predicted: “Expect a surge in building French restaurants in Switzerland.”
On the plus side, that would give Mitt Romney someplace to eat when he goes to visit his money.
“Expect a surge in building French restaurants in Switzerland.”
Well that explains why Bachmann and family got Swiss citizenship.
Based on dominant media culture reports, I assumed Bachmann ate exclusively at Chik-Fil-A. And Switzerland doesn’t have any outlets. (If you’ve seen the video: Can you imagine that lefty prick – who got himself fired btw – rudely lecturing the poor drive-up window girl in French? How would she know if she was being treated rudely?)
Nope, no French chefs are coming here. With the way lefty is banning everything from Foie Gras to Sunny Side Up Eggs, no respectable chef would waste their time setting up their Brasserie only to be harrassed by jack booted thugs from City Hall deciding that the Tartare is a little to rare for the Dictator’s, er make that Mayor’s, liking.
I say let’s meet the Lefties half-way.
Go back to the high marginal income tax rates of the 1950’s like the Lefties want, but reduce the government claim of GDP to what it was in the 1950’s.
Social security, too. Also, get rid of medicare, since they didn’t have that in the 50’s.
What did they have? Big honkin’ fins on their cars. A president who was a four-star general. And nuclear-tipped air-to-air missiles. Wowza!
Ha, ha. Swiss Miss says she’s “happy to stand with chick-fil-a” while holding their bag. That doesn’t mean she eats the stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYbO1iShhAE
I don’t believe a French restaurant has been harassed here by government (perhaps you could show a link to that info?).
“Also, get rid of medicare, since they didn’t have that in the 50′s.”
What was happening to the elderly when they got ill back then? What was happening to renal dialysis patients?
Medicare happened for a reason.
Why did Mitt Romney praise the Israeli healthcare system (individual mandate for all) on his recent trip? Seems odd that he’d be effuse in praising them while opposing the mandate system being put into place here.
http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/19706899/article-Good-enough-for-Israel–Romney’s-nice-words-about-single-payer-health-care?instance=home_opinion
“What was happening to the elderly when they got ill back then?” They died.
“What is happening to the elderly when they get ill now?” They die.
What was happening to renal dialysis patients?
During most of the 50s if they were lucky they received a few dialysis treatments until it was no longer possible to find a usable/undamaged vein or artery to plug into, at which point they went into renal failure and died. Eventually the Scribner shunt allowed for dialysis without damaging the access points – followed by the Buselmeir Shunt in 1972.
These were the lucky ones who found a doctor who would administer dialysis treatment – medical consensus at the time was that this was an “abomination” and even if Medicare/Medicaid had existed dialysis would not have been covered. In fact there was a great deal of pressure on Kolff to stop his reasearch.
“What was happening to the elderly when they got ill back then?” They died.
“What is happening to the elderly when they get ill now?” They die.
Well, what the heck. Let’s get rid of Medicare and let them die, after they go bankrupt paying for treatment.
You conservatives have something here . . .
Punishing success will lead to less success. This is not complicated.
That’s right, and this is why the rich, like Romney, should not have to pay taxes. Oh wait, he didn’t, and that’s why he isn’t releasing his tax returns for 10 years.
The rich are special. They shouldn’t have to pay like the rest of us.
It takes a special kind of retardation to turn “punishing success” into “should not have to pay taxes”. And you’ve got it!
Oh wait, he didn’t, and that’s why he isn’t releasing his tax returns for 10 years.
Since Sanity is using the same logic/narrative that Sen Reid did, I shall use the same logic/narrative in return:
Sanity,
Have you stopped molesting young boys yet? I have several unnamed sources from the Minneapolis area who say you love to Sanduskyize the cute ones. I’m not basing this on a figment of my imagination. I’ve had a number of people tell me that. Elaborate on my sources? No, that’s the best you’re going to get from me. I don’t think the burden of proof should be on me. The burden should be on you. You’re the one I’ve alledged to buggering little boys. Why haven’t you proven that you haven’t done that? The word is out that you defile young boys. You can’t prove that you haven’t, because you have!
(Sentences #3 thru #10 have been plagiarized almost directly from the exact words spoken over several press conferences by Sen. Harry Reid, with the accusatory crime changed for dramatic license)
“The rich are special. They shouldn’t have to pay like the rest of us.”
And yet they do pay. If you make more than $250,000 (the Obama definition of ‘rich’), you and people who are rich like you (like Angry Clown) are currently shouldering the vast majority of the income tax burden. Now, some ‘rich’ people like Treasury Secretary Geithner, a Democrat; Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat and other rich people (many of whom are Democrats) hide income or just plain cheat the tax system and that’s wrong. Other ‘rich’ people (like Mitt Romney and Angry Clown) use legal tax strategies to reduce their taxable income yet still pay a significant amount of income tax each year covering for people like me and you who pay far less than the ‘rich’ do.
Let me extend my thanks to Angry Clown, Mitt Romney and all the other rich people who aren’t cheating the system and paying all the taxes they do.
“use legal tax strategies to reduce their taxable income yet still pay a significant amount of income tax each year ”
So then why is he refusing to release his tax returns? Every other presidential candidate has done it (since his dad ran).
What gives? If he’s paying so much in taxes, what’s there to hide?
“Have you stopped molesting young boys yet?”
I don’t see how this is relevant. When I run for president I’ll release all my tax returns. No problem. Romney is just being held to the same standard as every other candidate going all the way back to his father’s time.
Why can’t he release his tax returns?
Well, your “Daddy” issues aside, he is not required to release his tax returns just as Barack Obama is not required to release his tax returns (although he has) or his school transcripts (which based on his Presidency and number of gaffes committed he should continue not to).
Hmm, but if Romney did release his tax records, how many years should he go back? According to this site, most Presidents, going back to Nixon (Romney’s “Dad’s” era) only released the years they were President.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns
For example, the now 2nd worst President in history, Jimmah Carter only released his for the years ’77, ’78 & ’79. Even Billy Jeff Clinton, when he wasn’t slapping around the help who wouldn’t give him head, only released the year he ran and the subsequent years he was in office.
Hopefully you agree and respect, that IRS records are private information. Given that Axelrod has never been able to beat an Obama opponent without leaked private information, it’s smart of Romney to keep as much of his private information private – like Teresa Heinz Kerry did when her husband ran for President in 2004.
Okay – so now I understand where Sanity’s “Daddy” issue came from. When these guys coordinate an attack – as McCarthyistic as it is – it is coordinated down to the pissant level with poor Sanity having to deal with the heathen at SitD.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-warring-over-tax-returns/2012/08/06/73fa40ec-dff6-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_story.html
But according to Eugene Robinson, Romney released his 2010 tax records and will release his 2011 when it is filed as he requested an extension. So now that the claim “Romney Needs to Release his Taxes” has been busted, what else ya got?
I don’t know what “Daddy issues” are. My Dad is a great guy, WWII combat veteran and fantastic father and husband to my mother. Perhaps you could explain what a “Daddy issue” is? Thanks.
The problem for Romney (and it won’t go away until he releases his taxes) is that the 2010 tax returns point to bigger issues going backward. And seriously, this is just like the birther deal, where it won’t be over until the documents are produced. File it under “what goes around comes around.”
George Will has stated, he “must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd agreed, saying “there’s obviously something there” in Romney’s returns that he doesn’t want public.
“If something’s going to come out, get it out in a hurry,” Will said this morning on the “This Week” roundtable. “I do not know why, given that Mitt Romney knew the day that [John] McCain lost in 2008 that he was going to run for president again that he didn’t get all of this out and tidy up some of his offshore accounts and all the rest.”
That’s the odd part of this. He’s planned to run for president for many years. Why didn’t he clean up his tax act years ago?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/george-will-matthew-dowd-blast-romney-for-not-releasing-tax-returns/
“Taxes are high in France for a reason: they pay for one of Europe’s most generous social welfare systems and a large government.”
“France is miserable because it is filled with Frenchmen, and Frenchmen are miserable because they live in France.” – Mark Twain
What an ironic name you have, “Sanity”.
Maybe instead of asking conservatives stupid questions, you should ask yourself why you are going to vote for a man who has overseen the destruction of more middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth than any president in history.
Well, I can only speak for myself. The lion’s share of my middle class wealth destruction occurred during the housing collapse which happened under the Bush admin. The banking collapse occurred in 2008 (remember Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, the bank bailout under Bush)?
I’ll stop now, because for sure if I respond further I’ll be accused of having “Daddy issues” or “Mommy issues” or whatever.
No, “Sanity”, you have “brain issues”, or you would have noticed that the “lion’s share” of middle class wealth creation came under Bush as well. With Obama it’s all a one-way street leading to lowered expectations, higher prices, and and fewer jobs.
Unless you are one of his crony-capitalist donors. Then you hold in your hand the key that unlocks the golden door.
“you would have noticed that the “lion’s share” of middle class wealth creation came under Bush as well.”
Clearly it was fake wealth creation, as the bubble burst quickly at the end of his administration. It was all smoke and mirrors, not built to last.
“The rich are special. they shouldn’t have to pay like the rest of us.” Poor Sanity. The rich, of course, pay more than their fair share. Top1% pay 40% of all income taxes, which I’m sure you knew. Here, I’ll fix it for you- “The bottom 50% of wage-earners are special. They don’t have to pay income taxes like the rest of us. There.
This chart shows the wealth destruction at the end of Bush II’s term in office (select 10 year chart and look at end of 2008). The markets fell off a cliff starting in July, 2008 (again, during Bush administration, Obama didn’t take office until 2009). Then look at wealth creation rebound since 2009 (under Obama admin). Very impressive. Anyone with money in the stock market has lived this story. Destruction of wealth (enormous — 401K became 201K) at end of Bush reign of financial terror. Since then we’ve come back (those of us who sat tight), so yes, great wealth creation under Obama in the equities markets. NOT coming back in the housing market (yet), but Warren Buffet rang the bell on that one a couple days ago. It is coming back more slowly. Bush policies really did a number on the economy. Seems the Democrats always have to clean up the Republican messes 😉
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXSP:.INX
“Top1% pay 40% of all income taxes,”
Oh good. I look forward to seeing Romney’s tax returns showing him paying 40% of his income in taxes.
Why isn’t he rushing to show those?
Oh, so the rich do pay more than their fair shore, as i see by your non-rebuttal and poor attempt at deflection. But ok, I’ll play along. How come you’re not rushing to show how the rich don’t pay like the rest of us? Lame.
Let’s talk about what people really care about.
Lets talk about how Obama lost the greatest number of middle class jobs of any American president.
Let’s talk about near record gasoline prices combined with high food prices — all on Obama’s watch.
Oh, those foolish working people who thought that Obama would look after their interests rather than the interests of his rich banker pals.
Let’s talk about the sheer incompetence implied when Obama says that increasing taxes on the “rich” by 70 billion will fix trillion dollar deficits.
Let’s talk about Obama’s Chairman Economic Advisers belief that the household measure of unemployment is accurate to three decimal places.
Let’s talk about the tax cheat Obama put in charge of the IRS.
And don’t forget the crony capitalism. Five hundred million dollars thrown down the toilet on Solyndra alone. Five hundred million would be enough money to give 2000 poor, deserving students full-boat scholarships at a public university — or it could line the pockets of Obama’s political contributors. Guess what Obama chose to do with it?
Let’s talk about Obama’s iunconstitutional use of “executive orders” to bypass the people’s elected representatives.
Oh, my, there are so many things to discuss about politics, and all of them reflect poorly on the affirmitive-action lawyer the media annointed president in 2008.
“Sanity”, the economic collapse occurred when both houses of congress belonged to the Democrats. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd ran the government oversight of the financial sector in 2008.
I hope you enjoy 8%+ unemployment and a flat stock market, “Sanity”, if Obama is re-elected you’ll have them for a long time to come!
The stock market has been anything but flat since Obama took office (going up, up, up since 2009 — take a look at the S&P chart I referenced).
Jobs? Take a look at this chart:
http://veracitystew.com/2012/03/10/once-again-for-the-gop-deniers-job-growth-under-president-obama-chart/
We have seen two years of private sector job growth under President Obama.
The American auto industry is once again thriving and profitable with GM leading the world in automobile sales. Manufacturing demand is on the rise.
Hey, and how about Bachmann? She’s glad no Americans were killed in Wisconsin!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/michele-bachmann-thankful-no-americans-died-in-sik,29071/
😉
Well, sounds like your Dad is a swell guy, Sanity. I hope that he has had an opportunity to travel to Washington, DC on an Honor Flight to the WWII Memorial. My wife’s father did one last year and really enjoyed it. Please give your father my thanks for his service.
I couldn’t quite figure out why you, the cast of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Eugene Robinson and so many other Lefty’s were bringing up Mitt Romney’s Dad in relation to the tax return release. The folks coordinating the message down at Central Committee certainly got you folks to sell the line; I just have to wonder how many people care what George Romney did or know who he was (anybody who headed a company that produced the Rambler probably isn’t someone I’d emulate – but hey the only good Republicans are the dead ones amiright?). From your standpoint though, it must beat talking about 8.3% unemployment, $4 gas or Fast & Furious.
So you claim that Romney’s “2010 tax returns point to bigger issues going backward”. I hadn’t heard that before. So I searched and here is what I found…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577185400648004424.html.
Apparently, Romney is pretty smart when it comes to taxes. He paid a lower rate than many of his fellow 1%’ers (and me) due to a strategy of taking his income in the form of capital gains (which are taxed at a lower rate) and he gives millions of dollars to charity. One tax expert quoted says that Romney may even be paying more than required. No where in the article is there anything ominous mentioned – it’s a fairly standard return for a wealthy person.
So above, in the 2:00 hour you said: “So then why is he refusing to release his tax returns? Every other presidential candidate has done it (since his dad ran).” That Dad thing again! So your claim that Romney refused to release his taxes has been shown to be false. The link I posted above demonstrated that in fact not every other presidential candidate has released their taxes like you want Romney to. And relating back to the topic of the post made by our genial host, these high tax rates never bring in the money that their proponents say they will and because the ‘rich’ study and apply the law or just leave the jurisdiction and quite frankly, there just aren’t that many rich people.
“Sanity” wrote a bunch of left-wing talking points here: http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=29480&cpage=1#comment-104115
I won’t bother to repeat them, but I will quote one of Althouse’s commenters on the lefty spirit of political dialog:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/08/i-dont-care-about-chick-fil-or-gay.html
There is no thought behind “Sanity”‘s opinion, it is repetition of factoids gleaned from lefty journals and blogs. Notice that he never he never says how Bush “wrecked” the economy, or how Obama “rescued” it. That’s because “Sanity” was never told this. My dog knows more about Bush’s and Obama’s economic policies than “Sanity” does. There is no critical thought in “Sanity”‘s comments, and certainly nothing like awareness of how he came by them. It has never occurred to “Sanity” that the claims he makes about Obama now could have been repeated, just as truthfully, by a Bush supporter in 2004. Clinton drove us into depression, Bush had saved us. The stock market was up! All the wealth destroyed by Clinton’s feckless policies was restored, and then some, by the wise, far-sighted Bush.
All while fighting two wars.
No, Obama didn’t “save the economy”. He’s a frikkin lawyer. He does not understand the first thing about economics. He couldn’t run a lemonaid stand and turn a profit. He does know, however, how to extort money from people who create wealth.
Obama ran as a redistributionist. There is no hint, even in his own rhetoric, that he believes that economic growth is a good.
Obama gave amnesty to over a million illegal immigrants at a time when unskilled and low skilled wages are depressed. Big businesses that hire low skilled and semi-skilled workers rejoiced at the news.
What more do you need to know about Obama’s warped view of economics?
Sanity said:
” “Top1% pay 40% of all income taxes,”
Oh good. I look forward to seeing Romney’s tax returns showing him paying 40% of his income in taxes.”
This is why it is best for Romney to keep his old tax returns to himself. Stupid people, people who can’t even understand how percentages work, can be lead to believe anything their leadership says because “duh, numbers!”.
It’s as bad as the “duh, science!” arguments. People fed arguments that they don’t have the intelligence to understand or properly defend, then endlessly repeating them. They want to believe them true and they don’t have the rectitude to care if they are right or wrong.
“This is why it is best for Romney to keep his old tax returns to himself.”
He’s lost. Between the tax problems and Andrea Saul’s Romneycare gaffe it’s over. The campaign management and tactics are failing.
http://www.thenewsburner.com/2012/08/09/gop-top-aide-andrea-saul-praises-romney-care-infuriates-republican-base/
“Oops, Andrea Saul just threw the entire Republican machine under the bus. Conservatives immediately began to blast Ms Saul with an onslaught of criticism over the gaffe. Red State founder Erick Erickson, Tweeted: “OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election. Wow.”
Rush Limbaugh went off on Saul this afternoon, telling his listeners that “Andrea Saul’s appearance on Fox was a potential gold mine for Obama.”’
Gee, let’s see what Sanity is lying about today…
Tax Problems? What tax problems? Contrary to the lie you told yesterday, Romney has released a tax return (2010) and plans to release 2011’s as soon as it is completed. A review of his 2010 return by tax experts – contrary to your lie yesterday regarding its dubious nature – showed that it is likely Romney paid more in taxes than he was required to.
Your new lie: The wingnuts are outraged about Romney’s campaign response to Stephanie Cutter’s lie regarding the poor fellow (and Democrat party activist) who’s wife died of cancer six years after he took a buyout and long after Romney left Bain. Your source: The Newsburner!
Were you listening to Rush today? He wasn’t outraged, he was disappointed that no one in the Romney campaign knows how to respond when the Obama campaign – in an ad that was likely illegally coordinated with their SuperPAC – accuses Romney of killing someone with cancer.
I realize you’ve got a crap candidate to sell but please go peddle your crazy somewhere else.
Don’t you just love it when liberals tell you what conservatives are thinking?
Troy wrote:
Stupid people, people who can’t even understand how percentages work, can be lead to believe anything their leadership says because “duh, numbers!”.
That would be the liberal base. It’s part of the reason, I suppose, they want an illiterate electorate.
Their man, a lawyer by training and a money spender by profession, tells them that increasing taxes by 70 billion a year will fix a trillion dollar spending problem, and that, despite the fact that it defies the rules of both classical and keynesian economics, the tax increase will not diminish growth.
But then, your typical Obama voter believes that the massive amount of money Obama spent in 2009 was a) really spent by Bush and b) was also spent by Obama and that it saved the economy.
As I wrote, there is no critical thought out there in left field.
“Your new lie: The wingnuts are outraged about Romney’s campaign response to Stephanie Cutter’s lie regarding the poor fellow (and Democrat party activist) who’s wife died of cancer six years after he took a buyout and long after Romney left Bain. Your source: The Newsburner!”
This is NOT a lie. Ann Coulter went ballistic on FOX over it. Check out Limbaugh’s response too.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-ann-coulter-and-rush-limbaugh-attack-romney-spokeswoman-andrea-saul
Well! Ann Coulter! That settles it then!
Honestly, where do you get your talking points from, “Sanity”?
This is proof that all small busness owners hate Obama!
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120808/NEWS0106/308080130/Owner-Take-deli-out-Obama-ad
“Sanity” taught me my impeccable understanding of rhetoric.
What about Limbaugh? Doesn’t he count as a somebody in the Republican party?
He’s not happy with Romney’s campaign right now . . . just sayin’.
Limbaugh has never been happy with any republican’s campaign. Sheesh. USE COMMON SENSE!
“Disappointed Hollywood Giving Obama Cold Shoulder”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disappointed-hollywood-giving-obama-cold-shoulder-236068
Gasp! Obama has lost HOLLYWOOD!
I’m sure Obama will be able to get by without the political advice from public policy geniuses like Charlie sheen and Barbara Streisand, but how will he be able to win without their money? It’s unpossible!
“Limbaugh has never been happy with any republican’s campaign. Sheesh. USE COMMON SENSE!”
Like Limbaugh?
Well it makes sense that Hollywood doesn’t like Obama. He’s too centrist for them.