by Worthington Daily Globe
November 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
ST. PAUL Month after month, we heard a constant refrain from candidates and political pundits alike that this election was going to be all about the economy. Continue Reading
Tags: columns, Opinion, Politics 7 Comments »
This is the same sad dribble that Romney is using in his excuse that he lost due to “gifts” by Obama. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Gov and possible 2016 canidate) has 100% condemned this excuse. He is right and the GOP needs to stop fueling this mentality.
“That is absolutely wrong,” Jindal said. “Two points on that. One, we have got to stop dividing American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent — we need to go after every single vote. And second, we need to continue to show that our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children the opportunity to get a great education, which is for their children to have even better-paying jobs than their parents.”
“So I absolutely reject that notion, that description,” Jindal continued. I think it’s absolutely wrong. I don’t think that represents where we are as a party and where we’re going as a party. And that has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election. If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly. One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream, period. No exceptions.”
Hot debate. What do you think? 21 23
“The vote tally reveals an electorate focused on the economy from a personal perspective rather than from a federal budget viewpoint.” On Nov. 12 @ 10:11 a.m. Minister Merc wrote: “I voted Obama because my 401k has tripled in the past 4 years. ” How ironic! And NOW you say the author is incorrect? Hogwash. You know very well he was voted for because of personal reasons and not the national debt. and economic strength.
Hot debate. What do you think? 21 17
The author is incorrect because he is stating that the ONLY reason Romney lost was the selfishness of the Obama voters. Also implying that the ONLY reason someone would vote Romney is that they didn’t have a personal perspective on the economy. Which is total BS if you look at who funded Romneys campaign…Sheldon Adelson and Koch brothers gave millions but not out of a “personal perspective on the economy” as the author would like you to believe.
My triple 401k in 4 years shows a stronger economy, which is actually BETTER from a “federal budget viewpoint” than any tax plan or spending cut. More money from the economy = more taxed revenue = less debt, not rocket science to see that.
The GOP lost because it doesn’t connect with EVERY American, plain and simple. The big tent party isn’t big anymore. Its weak, fractionated, and clueless.
Hot debate. What do you think? 22 20
How well did lies and dividing voters work last election, Phil Krinkie?
It failed, and will continue to fail.
Keep it up. It only helps the Dems every time you do it.
Hot debate. What do you think? 20 18
“How well did lies and dividing voters work last election,”– Obviously it worked quite well because I see obama got elected again.
“Which is total BS if you look at who funded Romneys campaign…Sheldon Adelson and Koch brothers gave millions but not out of a “personal perspective on the economy” as the author would like you to believ And WHO funded obam,as campaign run? Illegal foreign donations. George Soros, and ”
University of California
Google Inc ( Ever wonder why their search engines are scrubbed of any detrimental info?) Try Bing
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Sidley Austin LLP
National Amusements Inc
Skadden, Arps et al
US Government (???????) OUR tax dollars?
Latham & Watkins
It appears that the “Evil Wall Street Investors” bought themselves more free reign of the markets manipulation.
Hot debate. What do you think? 13 19
A couple commments:
1. It’s humerous that you’re suggesting internet users employ Bing rather than Google, given that Microsoft was just above Google on the list of donors.
2. These donations are not from the institutions, they are : “money from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.”
3. I’m not sure where you pulled these numbers from, but I used opensecrets.org. I suggest you compare the lists of Romney and Obama. A noted difference was that Obama’s donations were more heavily from academia, law, tech companies, and federal and military employees (not directly our tax dollars. These were wages the employees decided to donate).
Whereas, Romney’s contributions were from the corporate banking/investing world. Certainly, one might make an argument that what is good for coporate banking/investing world, is good for all Americans. I’m not sure that this is true, but it certainly could be debated.
4. Lastly, it’s an over simplification to suggest all voters for Obama were only thinking of their personal interests. The last portion of my income is taxed at the highest federal level and it certainly could benefit me personally to pay less in taxes. However, I recognized that I’ve benefited through my life from public school education, college grants for students from low-income families, federal student loan programs, and (*gasp), there was even a time my parent needed WIC, GA, daycare assistance, and food stamps. Not because she was lazy (worked 3 jobs at times and still qualifed for assistance), but because life happens and we’re not always afforded the opportunity to prosper, even if we work hard. Furthermore, it’s unlikely the success I’ve experienced would have occurred had those safetynets not been in place.
Yes, we need to balance the budget. Yes, we need to reform federal programs and spending. Yes, we need reasonable healthcare reform that removes corporate profit from the whole equation. Yes, we need to increase revenue (taxes). Yes, we need a simplified tax code with fewer deductions. Yet, we need a tax code that is progressive, likely has increased number of brackets with smaller jumps between bracks.
University of California $1,092,906
Microsoft Corp $761,343
Google Inc $737,055
US Government $627,628
Harvard University $602,992
Kaiser Permanente $532,674
Stanford University $473,372
Deloitte LLP $430,084
Columbia University $411,894
Time Warner $408,512
DLA Piper $393,102
Sidley Austin LLP $377,133
University of Chicago $325,256
Comcast Corp $320,366
IBM Corp $318,645
US Dept of State $308,926
University of Michigan $308,410
US Dept of Justice $300,455
Wells Fargo $288,804
Apple Inc $270,856
Goldman Sachs $994,139
Bank of America $921,839
Morgan Stanley $827,255
JPMorgan Chase & Co $792,147
Credit Suisse Group $618,941
Wells Fargo $598,379
Deloitte LLP $554,552
Kirkland & Ellis $496,722
Citigroup Inc $465,063
UBS AG $400,390
HIG Capital $385,500
Blackstone Group $360,225
Ernst & Young $293,067
EMC Corp $288,440
General Electric $287,495
Elliott Management $281,925
Bain Capital $279,220
Rothman Institute $263,700
Like or Dislike: 13 15
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first. You can also create an account.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company