Monthly Archives: September 2012

Movies that show rich as good #8 The Family Man

“We have a house in Jersey. We have two kids, Annie and Josh. Annie’s not much of a violin player, but she tries real hard. She’s a little precocious, but that’s only because she says what’s on her mind. And when she smiles… And Josh, he has your eyes. He doesn’t say much, but we know he’s smart. He’s always got his eyes open, he’s always watching us. Sometimes you can look at him and you just know he’s learning something new. It’s like witnessing a miracle. The house is a mess but it’s ours. After 122 more payments, it’s going to be ours. And you, you’re a non-profit lawyer. That’s right, you’re completely non-profit, but that doesn’t seem to bother you. And we’re in love. After 13 years of marriage we’re still unbelievably in love. You won’t even let me touch you until I’ve said it. I sing to you. Not all the time, but definitely on special occasions. We’ve dealt with our share of surprises and made a lot of sacrifices but we’ve stayed together. You see, you’re a better person than I am. And it made me a better person to be around you. I don’t know, maybe it was just all a dream. Maybe I went to bed one lonely night in December and I imagined it all. But I swear, nothing has ever felt more real. And if you get on that plane right now, it’ll disappear forever. I know we could both go on with our lives and we’d both be fine, but I’ve seen what we could be like together. And I choose us.”

 

As we continue our discussion of movies that show the rich in a positive light we come to one I’ve already covered as a Christmas film…The Family Man.  I’ve said a great deal about this movie already.

 

Most of the movie is our central character Jack Campbell, played by Nicholas Cage, as he adjusts from wealth to middle class living, from single life to be the family man.  But one has to remember this movie starts and ends with him being wealthy, really wealthy…Penthouse in a New York high-rise, President of a major brokerage firm, sports car….the whole nine yards of wealth.  And he earned every penny of it starting at the bottom and making something of himself.

 

And besides working his employees hard (which is the idea of Wall Street investment firms, work REALLY hard for 10-15 years and retire rich) there is not a single complaint you could make about this man or his ethics.

 

In fact Campbell gets into the whole situation when he risks his life to save the lives of others in a corner store from an apparent hold up (it was a bit more complicated, the least of which being that the guy with the gun was actually an angel of some kind (?)testing people’s ethics…this part was never really explained…) so the whole movie occurs because the guy in the upper half of the top 1% is shown to be a much better person with more character than a couple of working stiffs in the movie who fail the angel’s tests.   (This actually is even a more rare concept to show that the rich can be noble and the poor without character in the same film, it’s amazing this movie was ever made.)

 

Now I can already see the objection “but the movie shows he is a better person in his middle class life without all his money.”  No…and it’s no for a couple of reasons.  The first is that he is hardly poor in his other life, he runs a small business (and is clearly going to inherit said small business), his wife is a lawyer who also works (trust me even a lawyer who clearly works for a firm that takes pro-bono cases is probably making more than the median level of income…and doing that kind of law is what you do when you don’t have to really worry about money).  Their kids want for nothing (ballet, violin lessons, etc.).  The reason they don’t have every extravagance in life is because they have kids, and kids are very expensive and you will give every dime of disposable income you have to raising kids if you can, not because they don’t have money.

 

The more important point is that his life is not better because it has less money, it’s better because he has a wife he loves and who loves him and has children whom he loves.  That’s what makes his life better.  We all want money, but we’d be an idiot’s idiot if we consciously chose money over a loving relationship and a wonderful family.  Money just helps it get better (as both I and others have shown money is necessary for happiness).

Yes there are things better than money, but the story of Jack Campbell shows that having money does not make you in any way, shape or form villainous or not worthy of respect.  It is what you do that matters, not how much you make.

 

 

Honorable Mention

It could happen to you.  Another great Nicholas Cage film (as anyone who watches film knows, Cage films come in two categories and only two, very entertaining and why-the-hell-did-they-make-this-shit?)

 

I didn’t include this movie in the official list, because honestly 2 million dollars (split two ways) isn’t rich, it’s well off…it’s a safety net not a license to retire.  Despite what Cage’s crazy wife thought in the film, it was not the kind of money that allows you to enter the upper echelons of society (even in the early ‘90’s when the film was made).  But that’s what makes Cage and Fonda’s characters so admirable, they knew that they still had to work; they knew that money wasn’t the answer to all things, and they knew that money could yield more happiness via philanthropy than through just buying things they didn’t need.  So while they aren’t a true depiction of Hollywood showing the reality that the rich are like everyone else, with their good and their bad, it does show that money is not the all corrupting thing most liberals think it is.

1 Comment

Filed under character, Christmas Movies, Evils of Liberalism, Love, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, virtue

Movies that show rich as good #9 Castle

There are two kinds of folks who sit around thinking about how to kill people: psychopaths and mystery writers. I’m the kind that pays better.

Before anyone thinks that this is only going to be a list of movies made before 1970 where everyone in almost every film is wealthy and sporting more liquor than I would possibly know what to do with (don’t believe me, watch a Thin Man movie, fish drink less). But have no fear, this is not just a list of classics…

Take our number #9 pick: Castle and its eponymous character Richard Castle. Is Castle rich? Oh yeah, this bestselling author can buy a bar just because he feels like it or put out 100K just to help get a killer. The man certainly qualifies as rich enough to quit working and still have enough to live comfortably. (Which is arguably what he’s done since he’s now only averaging a book a year).

Richard Castle: Oh, I’ve been kicked out of all of New York’s finer educational institutions at least once. The irony is, now that I’m rich and famous, they all claim me as alum and want money.
Kate Beckett: It is just so rough being you.
Richard Castle: My cross to bear.

And what makes him so great?

Well there is one thing, his clear sense of justice…not just in catching the bad guys but in the sense of that this is a man who digs through old case files to see that the true love of a man who breaks his girlfriend out of jail for a crime

And let us not forget that Kate comes from money as well…not Castle money, but certainly from that line between upper middle class and lower upper class…and she is also shown as a hero without equal.

they didn’t commit ends with them being released not both thrown into prison. This is a man who puts his life on the line for friends and never does anything he even remotely considers wrong. (Immature to the nth degree yes, wrong no, and when he has screwed up he is remarkably willing to apologize).

Further, Castle while obscenely generous at times, he also understands the real purpose of money: to use it in furthering happiness. Yes Castle seems like he is irresponsible and devil-may-care…but that’s not because he can’t be mature (he has too many moving scenes with Alexis, Martha and Beckett for it to be that) it’s just that he has earned his second childhood through the hard work of writing over two dozen best sellers. He earned it and he’s going to enjoy it, and that’s more or less exactly what money is for.

Like most good people with or without money, Castle is a good child even to a mother of sometimes questionable skills (while we all love Martha at this point in her life, we all have to admit she was a terrible parent from some of the stories she and Castle tell). But like a good son Castle loves his mother, and for all of his annoyance is always there for her with a shoulder to cry on or a rent free apartment if she needs it.

And of course, forget Beckett and Martha, forget his generosity and devil-may-care attitude, the single most important thing is that Castle is admirable and that he is perhaps the single greatest father in the history of television. The character has raised a mature, self-reflective, high-achieving, self-sufficient daughter who is also well adjusted socially. And it’s just not writers shoehorning these characters in, the writing of the character of Castle is at all times supporting, caring, loving, and encouraging of his daughter and acts in exactly the way you would need to raise and encourage such a young woman. For whatever flaws of ego or clownishness the character comes with, his parenting skills and infinite love for his daughter more than wipe them out.

That is not to say money is a necessity of good parenting (although I think you’re rather selfish to bring a child into the world if you don’t have the money to support it) but the writers of Castle have gone out of their way to show a character who has more virtues than vices (and rather superficial ones as they disappear the second they are inappropriate), and they have made this character very rich without a moment of or scintilla of remorse over his well earned riches.

Like father like daughter?

Honorable Mention

Simon Tam from Firefly.  Yeah, Simon was uncomfortable and out of place.  But he gave us his whole extensive fortune for the love of his sister.  Have to appreciate that.

1 Comment

Filed under Art, Capitalism, character, Charity, Evils of Liberalism, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, politics, virtue

Movies that show rich people as being good #10: Holiday

“I don’t want her dough I want to earn it myself.”

Any long time reader of this blog will know that I love movies (and books, but book reviews are a little more difficult to do) but I’ve pretty much run out of holidays to tie to movies (yes, there seems to be a holiday for every day on the calendarbut that would be pushing it) so I’ve decided to start looking at particular themes and genres.

So I’ll first turn to a theme I’ve seen a lot of in the recent coverage of the presidential election and in movies: the rich.  Specifically this obscene fallacy that rich people are all evil.  Evil I tell you, EVIL!  Romney’s worth $250 million, thus he must be evil! (Let’s just ignore the rich Democrats who earned their money in ways extremely less ethical than Romney’s way of earning his money, Mitt is evil because he is rich.)  However those of us who deal in the real world know this is not the case: there are some very, very good rich people in the world and some very, very evil ones.  There are good ones who earned their money and good ones who inherited it.  But you don’t see this very much in the realm of film.  You see the liberal nonsense that all wealth is ill gotten, either stolen, swindled, cheated from the poor or the result of criminal or corrupt practices.

But then again this is Hollywood we’re talking about.  Take a look around most films and TV shows. The rich live in opulence that in reality most of the top 1% couldn’t hope to afford.  The middle class in film seems to live in houses or apartments five times the size of what most of those really in the middle class (even the upper middle class) could usually afford to get.  And the poor seems to constantly live in a state somewhere below the poverty of the third world.  In short Hollywood’s idea of classes is a little skewed (and by skewed I mean ignorant and psychotic).

So the problem was that I tried to find my usual 20-30 movies.  I couldn’t.  There are not 20 good films that show rich people in a positive light.  10 with a few honorable mentions.  So we’re stuck with 10.

So here are my criteria for these 10.

  • The character must be admirable and have made their money through ethical means (yes inheritance is ethical so long as the original money was inherited).
  • The character must be really rich.  By that I mean they have to have enough money to retire for the rest of their life, never work another day, and still live a comfortable life style.

You’d think with such limited requirements I’d have more than 10, but no 10 is all I could find.

So let’s start with #10

Holiday (1938)

 “If I’m going to get stuck with a rich girl, I’ll just grit my teeth make the best of it.”

We start with one of the greatest romantic-comedies of all time, Holiday, starring Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn.  It is based on a play my Philip Barry, a playwright who loved to show that the rich were human (with their good and their bad) as much as every other class.  The film is directed by great director George Cukor (you should know that name, he’s only the director of Gone with the Wind, The Philadelphia Story, Adam’s Rib, Born Yesterday, Pat and Mike, My Fair Lady)

The story centers around the Setons, a family of bankers of whose wealth places them in the highest levels of American society.  The father is set in his ways of a misguided reverence for money.  Oldest daughter Linda (Katherine Hepburn) is the black sheep and free spirit.  Youngest child and only son Ned, an artist at heart, is slowly being destroyed by his alcoholism because he doesn’t have the spine to tell his father he won’t be a banker.  And younger daughter Julia is very comfortable in her social strata and is looking for a man who can guarantee she will always be kept in wealth.

The problem is Julia settles on Johnny Case (Cary Grant) a successful up and coming businessman, and our first example in Hollywood of the admirable rich.  A regular genius he reengineers a failing company during the Great Depression for the firm he works for (hmm…buying failing companies and through reorganization of management making them successful…sounds very familiar) into a profitable business…in the process making himself a cool million in on its stock.  (in 1938 when this film was made a million would be about 15 million in 2010 dollars, so yeah he’s rich). But despite being a millionaire at 30, and all through his own work add brains, Johnny Case understands what money is actually for (something his fiancée does not).   Being happy.

Johnny:  But…I’m afraid I’m not as anxious as I might be for the things most people work toward. I don’t want too much money.

Edward:  Too much money? Johnny:  Well, more than I need to live by…You see, it’s always been my plan to make a few thousand early in the game, if I could, and then quit for as long as they last, and try to find out who I

There needed to be more movies with these two…

am and what I am and what goes on and what about it…I’m sure Julia understands…don’t you, Julia?

Julia:  [laughs, uncertainly]. I’m not sure I do, Johnny…

[…] Even if it turns out to be one of those fool ideas people dream about then go flat on.  Even if I find I’ve had enough of it in 3 months time, still I want it.  I’ve got a feeling if I let this chance go by there’ll never be another one for me.  So I don’t think anyone will mind if I just have a go at it.  Will they Julia?  Will they dear?

This classic shows the truth that it is not money that corrupts, more that it allows the corruptible to be even more vile.  Case wants to use his money to be happy because he knows that making money isn’t his primary goal in life and he won’t listen to those who say otherwise.  He is not only intelligent and competent, but he is happy and ethical and won’t violate his principles.

Even if you haven’t seen the film, I’m probably not spoiling anything by revealing Cary Grant actually gets Katherine Hepburn not the other sister.  Duh.  And here we see that someone born to money can be just as good as Cary Grant’s Case who started with nothing and earned it all himself.  She also embraces life at its fullest, cares about others, and does not compromise her values.

This film also subtly praises true capitalism in that it shows that through intelligence and work one can go from rags to riches even in the midst of the Great Depression.

Yes, Barry is fair in his depiction of the rich.  From the father of the Seton family who knows only his social class and doesn’t dare offend any of its traditions (competent at his job, not evil, but not necessarily living life to the fullest), to Julia who wants protection that wealth brings and nothing more, to the pro-fascist cousins of the family (remember this was 1938 and there were many stupid enough in all classes to think fascism held the answers for economic woes).   But even these are merely balance to show that the rich are not some terrible caricature or a group of white knights, they’re human and, as within any group, there is a wide variety of character.

Even the somewhat vapid Julia has an inkling of the proper nature of wealth…when trying to win Case to her side she states:

If you think that you can persuade me that a man of your energy and your ability possibly could quit at 30 […] But you haven’t any idea yet at how exciting business can be.  Oh Johnny see it through, you’ll love it I know you will.  There’s no such thrill in the world as making money.

This is true of some people.  Some businessmen enjoy creating things, businesses, systems, products because they can.  The great titans of industry from Vanderbilt to Jobs did it because they were driven to create, and they did thrill at creating wealth.  Case is not one of them and there is nothing wrong with that either as while he wants to find himself, he wants to do it on his dime, not someone else’s.  Julia’s problem is her narrow-minded belief that everyone has to fit into her model, and also the hypocrisy of why doesn’t she go out and build her own fortune (yeah it’s 1938 and women’s liberation hasn’t happened yet, but there were women in Congress at this point, no reason other barriers couldn’t be broken…especially in a movie starring Hepburn, a woman who broke barriers and traditions wherever she found them).  So her words are true, even if coming from her they ring hollow.

Honorable Mention

As I said there are a few honorable mentions that depict the rich well, but not so well they make it onto my top ten list.  The first of these is The Philadelphia Story.  Another joint venture of Barry, Cukor, Grant and of course Hepburn.  It’s a wonderful romantic comedy about high society.  And while Hepburn and Grant are admirable and rich, the issue of wealth is more setting than theme in this film.  The nature of money and why we seek it is central to Holiday, in The Philadelphia Story wealth is just a backdrop.  And so while it shows some wonderful (and some not so wonderful) people it ranks only as an honorable mention on this list…although one of the greatest romantic comedies of all time in its own right. 

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, character, Conservative, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Happiness, Individualism, Mitt Romney, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, politics

Romney: The Man of Near Infinite Empathy and Compassion

Mitt does not like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point.–Ann Romney

So the continuing attacks on Romney are just getting more and more egregious.

In the last few days I’ve seen Romney called a fanatic and shameful for actually saying America should be defended and respected…and I’m apparently a fanatic for defending this belief as well. But then again apparently any defense of Romney is my “salivating” over him without using any intelligent thought. (This while the left ignores all of Obama’s flaws and slobbers over him.)

But apparently to some of those who support government any defense of the free market or American Exceptionalism is fanaticism and a call for genocide. Back here in reality it’s a defense of virtue, facts, and what works.

So just to annoy them, and I would recommend all my readers do the same in their personal lives (just for fun), let’s point out the numerous qualities that make Romney the kind of person I want to vote for.

Now I prefer intelligence and common sense in my candidates, but there seems to be a large call for a candidate with empathy. Now everyone but a sociopath* has empathy but some exude and act on it better than others***. Mitt Romney is apparently not one of these people who exudes a “I feel your pain” feeling on camera (I can however tell you from personal experience that he’s very charismatic and likable when you’re ten feet from him, but again that shouldn’t necessarily be a reason to vote for him). However, since liberals are hitting him as being a cold and vicious heathen for not exuding this empathetic claptrap on TV let’s look at his actual behavior to determine if this is a man who acts with charity and compassion to others.

This is the man who would give a struggling family $250,000 because he heard they needed help. 

This is the man who has saved a drowning family.

This is the man who shut down his company, possibly loosing thousands if not millions in the process, so that he could direct his company’s full attention on finding and saving the daughter of a friend

This is a man who gives millions in charity, giving more than what is tax deductible

A man who is so uninterested in money he gives up his salary as governor (about half a million over 4 years) and who took no salary for the work he did to save the Olympics.

A man who takes time to comfort the sick and needy, to care for those who feel they are in darkness and who need help.


And there are EVEN MORE STORIES HERE…
You know what, you can say a lot about Romney? You can say that, “Oh he has money, he can afford to be that generous”…true…but what about the people the left defends endlessly like tax evader Warren Buffett***. The fact is that he has earned his money and then does what few of us ever have the chance to do, and what few of those who have the chance ever actually do, use it to gain happiness by helping others. I guess you could claim that ALL these people are lying, but that would be fairly petty. You can claim that compassion and empathy and charity aren’t everything…I would agree, but do you really want to have an argument about intelligence and policy when your candidate is Obama?

But you can’t claim that Romney is not a man of extreme empathy, extreme compassion, and extreme charity.

Any attack on this man’s character is just silly.

*I could name some politicians, but I’ll be polite.
**I believe the word for exuding empathy is charlatan.
***If you bring up Romney’s tax returns, you’re an idiot. There is not a single iota of evidence to suggest Romney has cheated on his taxes or hid money. It is a fact on the other hand that Buffet and half the cabinet are avoiding paying their taxes.

Leave a comment

Filed under character, Charity, Election 2012, Faith, Free Will, God, Individualism, Love, Mitt Romney

Stupid Liberal of the Day…Our old friend Paul Krugman

 

I’d say he’s the dumbest person to ever get a Nobel Prize…but have you seen some of the crap they’ve given it out to in the last couple of decades?

Paul Krugman is at it again.  After having to make up lies to try and face off against Senator Rand Paul  (He claimed the federal workforce is down under Obama…as blatant a lie as you can get…state and local employment is down, federal employment is up, way up) he further shows off his idiocy with a brand new rant of lies and desperation to keep Obama in power.

 

In “Obstruct and Exploit” he makes the rather farcical claim that the economy is not the fault of the Democrats (the Democrats who control the Senate and refuse to pass the budget) as good people and the Republicans are evil obstructionists.

 

Actually he makes several bizarre claims…like that Romney is a Keynesian who wants to use military spending to create jobs.  Paul, I know you’re a dimwitted hack, but do you know how to listen to speeches or how to read policy papers?  Romney is concerned primarily about defense spending because with Chinese expansion in the Pacific, a resurgent al-Qaeda from the Arab Spring, and Putin wanting to reestablish the Soviet Empire you’d have to be as dumb as Ron Paul or Neville Chamberlain to not see that maybe we might need an American military to deal with problems that are obviously coming.  The fact that cutting defense would cut jobs merely tangential to the discussion, but true.  The goal of Romney’s policies with defense spending are to protect America and Classical Liberalism in general, not to create jobs.  But you’d have to actually read his statements to know that.

 

But let’s actually deal with the heart of his argument.  You can’t blame Obama because his ideas have been stopped at every turn (let’s ignore that Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years and only did things that ruined the economy…yes I’m sure Obama would have suddenly come up with good ideas if his party was still in power…).  For instance Obama has the American Jobs Act, which Krugman implies would have saved America.  (Again let’s ignore that not all of Obama’s Democrats voted for the bill.)  As Krugman points out “Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases,” (and let’s ignore the 5.6% tax increase on the wealthy that was in the bill so we can’t call it a tax cut, chalk another lie up to Paul Krugman).  I’m personally stunned just at the statement lower taxes and raise spending…cause the raising of our debt even further is a bright idea how Paul?  Show me cut taxes and cut spending and cut regulation and then you might have a plan that would work.

 

But let’s go over the AJA to see what it has in it.  That Krugman in his infinite idiocy thinks would work…and for fun let’s compare the points from the Romney plan.

 

So here are the points of the bill according to the White House web page  (and keep in mind this bill may be dead, but these are Obama’s ideas and this is what he will have in a second term so it is relevant even if this bill died).

 

 

  • Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
  • A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages
  • Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year

So let me get this straight here, further making Social Security unsound is a good thing?  Yes I love having more money, and I would love if we were to privatize the whole thing, just paying off on benefits for everyone who is going to be on Social Security in the next 10 years…but that’s not what this is.  It’s keeping the same Ponzi scheme but simply making it more insolvent.  Good plan genius.  You know I like the extra money, and I hate social security…but under this plan it will cost me and future generations more in the long run.

 

Meanwhile the Romney plan offers real tax cuts that will actually spur growth of business (i.e. job growth) and actually end up putting more money in your pocket.  (All points of Romney’s are taken from his 59 point plan and are italicized…Romney has a lot more than that plan…but I’m trying to be fair here and compare one bullet pointed plan to another…if I actually compared substantive proposals of Romney to what passes as substance from Obama it would just be more embarrassing for the President and Krugman)

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the death tax

Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,

flatter rates on a broader base

Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent

 

 

 

  • Extending 100% expensing into 2012
  • Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

So we’re going to force more banks to make more bad loans (probably to Obama cronies like every other Obama “investment”) and we’re then going to let them write off the investment they made with money that banks were forced to give them (and if every other Obama venture is any indication they’ll be allowed to pocket the money, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven by Obama).  And as icing I’m sure Obama will blame the banks again for the effect on the economy.

 

And instead of regulations designed to help Obama supporters, Romney has real regulation reform in his plan that will help every business.

 

 

Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements

Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy

Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies

Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations

 

 

  • A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans

Again picking winners and losers, not what the government should be doing.  Not improving the economy to actually create more jobs, we’re just going to make it a good call for businesses to fire their existing employees, hire new ones (probably at a lower rate) and a tax write off for it.  (Now the good news is most businesses won’t behave in this terrible fashion…except, you know, the kind of bastards who pay off Obama for crony connections).

 

Screw helping this group or that group, Romney has the reform that will kill the single biggest killer of jobs there is:

Repeal Obamacare

 

  • Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
  • Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

Yeah that’s it, we need the federal government getting involved in local and state matters.  Oh, and given the spectacular behavior of teachers in Chicago, getting an average of $76,000 a year (before benefits) to get 80% of students to learn nothing…it’s clear that what the education system needs is new facilities and keeping all the current teachers…and not, you know fire all the union pieces of shit who offend the very profession of teaching by daring to call their pathetic behavior teaching.

You really want to help workers and really want to get better hiring practices for not only government but all employees try these points from the Romney plan:

Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit

Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election

Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month

Or maybe let states deal with their own problems.

Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds

 

 

  • Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank

Oh great because the Fed wasn’t enough, you need a new bank to fund your own bad behavior even more.

 

You can talk infrastructure build up…or you can reduce the regulations that prevent the private sector from building that infrastructure, like in the Romney Plan

Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals

Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities

Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas

 

 

  • A New “Project Rebuild”,

I’m sure that project is shovel ready and won’t be a waste like every other thing you’ve done.

 

I’ll take not killing a project that will actually create jobs and improve the economy over Obama’s shovel ready BS.

Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States

 

  • Expanding access to high-speed wireless

Holy shit, when did Internet become a right?  You want Internet you buy it or go to Starbucks like everyone else…I am not subsidizing everyone’s ability to access porn on high speed wifi

 

I’ll take energy over wifi any day

Open America’s energy reserves for development

 

 The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years:

Because people need more incentives not to go find a job.

A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers

Again, trying to get businesses to just create jobs isn’t going to work.  You need to improve the fundamentals of an economy to create growth (which would include lowering taxes, lowering regulation, lowering government, lowering the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and getting free trade agreements—none of which this administration has done).

 

Or maybe you can be responsible for your own life

Facilitate the creation of Personal Re-employment Accounts

 

 

  • Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers

So you mean I can’t take into account whether a person was fired or not in deciding whether they’re going to be a good employee…like every other form of “discrimination” legislation in the last 30 years this is just a pay off to the trial lawyers and will result in even less growth and less jobs.

 

Or instead of making more bad lawsuits you could have real Tort reform.

 

Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation

 

  • Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

“Subsidized employment.”   You’re kidding right?  You’re going to pay people to hire people.  (And keep in mind Obama was touting this plan as including tax cuts…so where exactly is the money for this coming from?  Oh I forgot Obama won’t be happy until the debt is three times the size of the GDP.)

 

But how about rather than subsidizing hiring people but actually making a climate where you can actually hire good people.

Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws

Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

 

  • Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates

This would be a choice for the banks, not the government…which means the President is planning to control the banks even more and force them to do more stupid things…you know the behavior that got us into this mess.

There is no exact counterpart to this, but the fact is that Romney will not rule by fiat, like some people.

 

  • 5Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.  To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

The humor of this part speaks for itself.

 

But Romney does have some real plans on how to deal with the insane size of government

Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
 Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
 Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition

 Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services

 Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

 

 

The fact of the matter is that Paul Krugman putting up Obama’s abysmal American Jobs Act as the better part of his proposed legislation shows you how unspeakably stupid Krugman is and how bereft of any real ideas Obama is.  Romney has real plans not just platitudes that have some conception of how the economy works.  Now I’ve breezed over a lot of Romney’s plans, I do this intentionally, I want you to go and do the research on your own and see for yourself that his plans are

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Harry Reid, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part IV

 

So Obama did say you didn’t build your business, government did.  This is just about as evil and stupid as it getsand any claim that Romney is just as bad is just stupid.

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Why?

Because Obama makes statements like this:

I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back. Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Dear God in Heaven!  EVERY INDUSTRY!

Because you want this debacle to be the standard of all industry…don’t you?

So we’re all supposed to run businesses like GM

Bloated union salaries.  CEOs that are answerable not to boards and shareholders but to czars and wanna-be dictators.  Practices that violate the bedrock principles of capitalism and screw shareholders out of their investment.    No really the stock is in near free fall.   Run your company to near bankruptcy by building overpriced green death traps that explode and that no one wants to buy.   Lose your government investment somewhere in the realm of 25 Billion Dollars.   A company that while going under is investing 600 Million in a British soccer team…???  And that is just a highlight of the problems with GM.   This company has become so dysfunctional from top to bottom that the millisecond government help stops it will crumble like a house of cards in a hurricane.

God help us.  If we ran every company in the nation like this cluster!@#$ the Dark Ages would look advanced by the time Obama was done.

So why does Obama want to run every industry like GM…hmmm…let’s see.  That would mean that the government would own a large portion of the every company and the president would have the ability to fire every CEO and would have the power to appoint his people to run every industry.

Hey what do you call that where the government owns and runs every business?

It starts with an S….um…shit for brains…serious deluded…senseless…stupid…all good answers…but no, I think the word I’m looking for is SOCIALISM.

His words, not mine.

Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

He wants to do the same thing he did with the auto industry, a complete government take over and revoking of basic principles, with every industry.

Go on, I really want to hear from liberals how that isn’t a textbook definition of socialism.  Government ownership and control of every industry.

Granted you could go with he’s a blithering idiot and doesn’t know what the hell he’s saying, which I fully am willing to buy…but that is just as much an argument against him being allowed to go back for four more years.

But while I do believe Obama makes Forrest Gump look like Sherlock Holmes, I believe he meant and understood (well as well as Obama’s limited mind can understand anything).  He wants to control everything.  I don’t know if it’s because he believes he can make it better (to hell with the lack of evidence) or because he wants to destroy the whole system.  It doesn’t matter.  He does want to be in control of everything, of every aspect of government and industry.  And just ignoring the horrific despotic and unconstitutional overtones of that idea…let’s not forget that he has wrecked GM and it will go down within the next few years, only it will be worth less when we sell off the parts to other car companies, it will have hurt every taxpayer who has to eat the loss, and this whole debacle will have delayed real growth and real recovery.  (And all of this ignores that eventually the courts will find that the Obama administration broke numerous laws in screwing over the bond holders which will cost the government a massive bundle of cash to boot).

This is true of GM and of industry Obama has or wants to get his hands on.  This is true not only of Obama but of government in general.  And Obama wants more government.

To hell with just “You didn’t build that” he wants complete socialism.

And half the country doesn’t see a problem with this?

A final point.  Even though Obama is clearly a socialist (and an idiot, and an asshole, and a wannabe tyrant…and worse), many conservatives are still clamoring and screaming about the fact that Romney isn’t going to war against Obama, about him being too cowardly or being too nice and calling Obama out as the socialist he is. Yeah because Reagan won the election calling Carter a communist anti-Semite whose utter lack of intelligence makes you question how much inbreeding is going on down in Georgia…oh wait, no, Reagan ran a quiet campaign on the issues.  Romney is running an intelligent campaign to win by a landslide, not a campaign to make the base feel good about itself; he’s running to make sure conservative ideals become policy, not to just spout conservative platitudes.  He’s sitting quietly right now raking in cash, while Obama burns through his entire reserve just to keep the polls static.  Romney will spend his money in the last months when it will actually have an effect on Election Day, while Obama will be broke by October.   Besides with Obama saying crazy shit like this, why would you need to campaign, Obama’s mouth is already the best campaigner for Romney there is.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Obama did say, “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part III

 

“They might be giants, and we might be pygmies; but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.” Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton

So just to recap, Obama did actually say that government is responsible for all of your success and this is perhaps the dumbest idea in history.

Liberals will try and deflect from this by pointing out that Romney said the following at the Salt Lake Olympics:

Hand it to liberals to take a quote out of context…and still miss the point of what they’re taking out of context.

Well first off this, unlike the “You didn’t build that” comment is slightly out of context.  But before we get to context let’s just deal with the quote the liberals chose…as even that isn’t the same thing as Obama’s dipshit statement.

Let’s see what words does Romney use in that quotes.  Encouraged.  Guided.  None of which is equivalent to “You didn’t do that others did that.”   “All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them up.”  Which of course brings us back to the quote I have started each part of this series with: “but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.”  Those who stand on the shoulders, on the groundwork others have built have done something those people couldn’t.  They have done something that almost no one else could.

But is thanking someone equivalent to you didn’t do that?  No.  Look at the front or back of any book there is a long list of thanks and acknowledgements by the author to the people who helped them.  But just because people may have helped in deep and meaningful ways, it is the author’s name on the dust jacket because they’re the one who did the vast majority of the work, they’re the ones who created something out of nothing, they’re the ones who poured their soul out, worked long hours, fought the impulse to give up and created something.  And this is true of ANY entrepreneur, any Olympian, any person who accomplishes anything. They may have help and they should thank those individuals who helped them…but no sane person mistakes the kind of help individuals offer to one another for the actual accomplishment itself.

But ignoring that there is even a massive gulf between the two quotes out of context, let’s look actually at the full quote and see how while “You didn’t build that” wasn’t taken out of context, the Romney one kind of is.

“Tonight we cheer the Olympians, who only yesterday were children themselves,” Romney said. “As we watch them over the next 16 days, we affirm that our aspirations, and those of our children and grandchildren, can become reality. We salute you Olympians – both because you dreamed and because you paid the price to make your dreams real. You guys pushed yourself, drove yourself, sacrificed, trained and competed time and again at winning and losing.” …

“You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!.”

Remember how the full context of Obama’s statement was that it doesn’t matter if you’re smart or worked hard because lots of people are smart and lots of people worked hard…and I guess the implication is that they all fail if government isn’t there to decide who wins and who loses. Everything preceding Obama’s statement was “You are not good enough.  You cannot do it on your own.  Your intellect and drive are worthless unless government decides you should win.”  Well notice the context of Romney’s quote.  He starts off telling the Olympians they did do that.  “We salute you Olympians – both because you dreamed and because you paid the price to make your dreams real.”  (And don’t even get me started on how Obama wouldn’t understand the idea of paying the price for your dreams…he is a man who has had everything in his life handed to him without effort…which is why he believes you didn’t build that, he didn’t.)

“We salute you Olympians” Did Obama anywhere in his speech say we should salute the businessman who create products and services for us to buy or whose business creates jobs and wealth?  Does he say anywhere we should applaud them for taking a risk that could have lost them everything?  Does he say we should be in awe of them sometimes, like now when they’re keeping their businesses alive when they have a piece of shit President doing everything in his power (both through legal and illegal means) to try and destroy them?  Nope he doesn’t.  Romney starts his speech acknowledging that it is the individual who accomplished something that deserves credit first and foremost.  Obama doesn’t even understand that this should be anywhere on the list.

“You guys pushed yourself, drove yourself, sacrificed, trained and competed time and again at winning and losing.”  Romney recognizes that it is the individual who chooses to push themselves and the individual who works to achieve their goal. The greatest parents and coaches in the world in the best facilities in the world can’t do a thing if the person isn’t willing to drive themselves.  Compare that to “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.”  In Obama’s world you don’t push yourself to achieve, you’re “allowed” to achieve because government, all powerful government, deigns that you may achieve at their sufferance.

So in answer to question that some truly idiotic liberal put on that picture above “Why is it ok for Mitt to remind elite athletes that they didn’t do it alone, but when Obama says the same of business people, the Right throws a hissy fit?”  Because what Mitt and Barry are saying are not equivalent.  Because there is a difference between you had help in achieving your dream and you didn’t do it, the government did it for you.  Because one embraces what the individual is capable of and one denies the ability to shape your own life.  Because one glorifies what man is capable of and one denies he is capable of anything.  Because one is the basis of a system that provides freedom for the individual and one is the basis for the slavery of the collective.  Maybe that’s why we’re getting into a “hissy fit” as idiotic liberals put it (intelligent people might call it justified righteous indignation). Because we can tell the difference between ideas and recognize their consequences.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, character, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Taxes