Republicans have a long history of dismissing the opinions of celebrities who support liberal positions while simultaneously embracing the celebrities who support their ideals (see Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Fred Grandy, Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton, Jim Bunning, and Jack Kemp).
The latest attack is an attempt to smear Natalie Portman. Apparently her view that Democrats are doing a better job of defending women's rights has put her in the crosshairs of conservatives.
The claim against her seems to be that it is hypocritical of Natalie Portman to campaign for Barack Obama using the rhetoric about the rights of middle class women given the fact that she is not in the middle class.
One author claims that Natalie Portman has been "showered with goodies" by the current administration. The examples of this? Natalie Portman owns two hybrids.
Other than the obvious issue that one tax credit does not a shower make, it should be noted that the tax credit in question was approved back in 2005 in a bill sponsored by a Republican with a Republican controlled House and Senate and a Republican president.
Does Barack Obama support tax credits for green energy projects like hybrid cars? Yes. But claiming this particular tax credit as an Obama "goodie" is not factually accurate.
The second issue with this is that like Mitt Romney, Natalie Portman does not release her tax returns and there is no evidence supplied by the author which proves that she actually took the tax credit that is the basis for the argument. But if conjecture is all that is required, it is worth mentioning that celebrities don't typically get paid with capital gains so odds are the income taxes paid by Natalie Portman even with a $3,000 hybrid tax credit would be significantly higher than that of Mitt Romney.
Additionally, one provision of this credit is that if you pay the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure that rich pay their fair share of taxes, you do not qualify for the hybrid credit. So if Natalie Portman was using a bunch of tax loopholes to avoid taxes then she would not receive the tax credit.
Of course Republicans certainly aren't against tax credits and they aren't against ones that help out their celebrity friends. For example as governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney enacted a tax break for the film industry which noted chair whisperer, Clint Eastwood, promptly took advantage of.
But even if we take this accusation at face value and Natalie Portman did get a tax credit for purchasing a hybrid car, Republicans should applaud her since after all it was their candidate that said "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more".
The reality is that politicians support a litany of tax breaks that help a certain segment of their supporters. For every Obama green energy tax break there is a subsidy for coal and oil. I hope those that think the hypocrisy of Natalie Portman is a big deal also acknowledge that believing so makes them hypocrites as well.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
The hypocrisy over the faux war on coal
Recent conservative media reports suggest the jobs picture won't get better unless Obama and the EPA roll back clean air regulations that are leading to job losses in the coal industry.
It should be noted that the job losses in the coal industry are mainly due to less power being used and the fact that coal is losing market share to natural gas. And that is the really odd part about this argument. Conservatives love the free market and competition yet the reality is that coal just isn't competitive right now.
Sure a small part of the reason that coal isn't competitive is the clean air regulations that require lower emissions which are more expensive for the coal industry to meet than the natural gas industry but conservatives are more than happy to make extraneous regulations that costs jobs when it comes to other industries so why is coal such a sacred cow?
Additionally we know that Mitt Romney's chief energy advisor believes the subsidies to the oil industry are necessary for the industry to "produce jobs" while when it comes to renewable energy Mitt thinks would like to remove all subsidies and let it "thrive wherever it is economically competitive". Regardless of whether the advantage given by the government comes from subsidies or regulations it is still a manipulation of the free market.
Of course it should also be noted that jobs in energy are not disappearing because the coal mining industry is shrinking. The jobs are just moving. The Natural gas industry, for example, added more jobs from 2006 to 2008 (105,000) than ever existed in the coal mining industry (peaked at 89,000 jobs in 1997). The country is also adding tens of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy segment.
According to the American Lung Association 72% of Americans support new standards for carbon emissions. Capitalism tells us that if coal isn't cost effective in an environment where clean air is a priority then they should and will die.
The reality is that the US only uses so much energy and saving coal jobs will end up costing natural gas jobs. Typically when the government makes special exceptions like this that interfere in the free market, conservatives complain about the government picking the winners and losers but this debate is not about the insincere implication that conservatives hate all regulations. It's about votes.
It should be noted that the job losses in the coal industry are mainly due to less power being used and the fact that coal is losing market share to natural gas. And that is the really odd part about this argument. Conservatives love the free market and competition yet the reality is that coal just isn't competitive right now.
Sure a small part of the reason that coal isn't competitive is the clean air regulations that require lower emissions which are more expensive for the coal industry to meet than the natural gas industry but conservatives are more than happy to make extraneous regulations that costs jobs when it comes to other industries so why is coal such a sacred cow?
Additionally we know that Mitt Romney's chief energy advisor believes the subsidies to the oil industry are necessary for the industry to "produce jobs" while when it comes to renewable energy Mitt thinks would like to remove all subsidies and let it "thrive wherever it is economically competitive". Regardless of whether the advantage given by the government comes from subsidies or regulations it is still a manipulation of the free market.
Of course it should also be noted that jobs in energy are not disappearing because the coal mining industry is shrinking. The jobs are just moving. The Natural gas industry, for example, added more jobs from 2006 to 2008 (105,000) than ever existed in the coal mining industry (peaked at 89,000 jobs in 1997). The country is also adding tens of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy segment.
According to the American Lung Association 72% of Americans support new standards for carbon emissions. Capitalism tells us that if coal isn't cost effective in an environment where clean air is a priority then they should and will die.
The reality is that the US only uses so much energy and saving coal jobs will end up costing natural gas jobs. Typically when the government makes special exceptions like this that interfere in the free market, conservatives complain about the government picking the winners and losers but this debate is not about the insincere implication that conservatives hate all regulations. It's about votes.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Mitt Romney built that
If you have been the least bit tuned into political news the past few days you know that there has been a considerable amount of flap over a video of Mitt Romney pigeonholing about half of the US population.
While it is true that 46% of households paid no federal income tax, Mitt Romney's statement that these people "believe that they are victims" and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" certainly is not.
First this ignores the fact that 1.5% of millionaires, 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million, and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000 pay no federal income tax. Does Mitt really think that the "job creators" (millionaires) believe the government has a responsibility to care for them?
Second this ignores that once you add in all taxes many in the "47%" actually pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than many in the 53%.
And of course it Mitt also ignores the other facts pointed out in articles here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
But the inaccuracies aren't even the most disappointing part. Given how much conservatives have invested in beating Barack Obama they are coming out in support of Mitt Romney's statement with a few even calling Mitt Romney's statements "courageous".
How low has the bar been set when slandering millions of people behind closed doors at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser becomes courageous? This is like calling Chris Christie health conscious when he orders a salad with his 1/2 pound cheeseburger.
Is there a rational debate to be had about entitlement programs? Sure there is but Mitt Romney did not make that argument. Instead he chose to pigeonhole millions of American's to appease a group of elites.
So while conservatives desperate to oust Obama continue to try and put lipstick on this pig there is one thing they can all be proud of, Mitt didn't need any government assistance on his latest deregulation of the mouth because the firestorm regarding these remarks, well, Mitt built that.
While it is true that 46% of households paid no federal income tax, Mitt Romney's statement that these people "believe that they are victims" and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" certainly is not.
First this ignores the fact that 1.5% of millionaires, 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million, and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000 pay no federal income tax. Does Mitt really think that the "job creators" (millionaires) believe the government has a responsibility to care for them?
Second this ignores that once you add in all taxes many in the "47%" actually pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than many in the 53%.
And of course it Mitt also ignores the other facts pointed out in articles here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
But the inaccuracies aren't even the most disappointing part. Given how much conservatives have invested in beating Barack Obama they are coming out in support of Mitt Romney's statement with a few even calling Mitt Romney's statements "courageous".
How low has the bar been set when slandering millions of people behind closed doors at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser becomes courageous? This is like calling Chris Christie health conscious when he orders a salad with his 1/2 pound cheeseburger.
Is there a rational debate to be had about entitlement programs? Sure there is but Mitt Romney did not make that argument. Instead he chose to pigeonhole millions of American's to appease a group of elites.
So while conservatives desperate to oust Obama continue to try and put lipstick on this pig there is one thing they can all be proud of, Mitt didn't need any government assistance on his latest deregulation of the mouth because the firestorm regarding these remarks, well, Mitt built that.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The costs of education
I wanted to follow up on my most recent post regarding education spending. As I had expected many commenters took issue with my assertions about teachers pay.
First there is the standard complaint that my source is bias even though the link provided was to a government agency that took its data from the Bureau of Labor and statistics (BLS). Regardless it should be noted that according to the BLS the increase in pay for education over the past decade is 0.2% while categories like business and financial operations (3%), Architecture and engineering (4.5%) Healthcare practitioners (11.4%), and Management (13.2%) have all seen much higher increases.
This of course leads to the next standard complaint that maybe teacher pay is stagnant but pension and healthcare costs are the real problem.
While the cost of increased pensions is a major contributor, attributing these costs to current teachers as an "increase in benefits" is inaccurate. First the employee contribution portion has been increasing steadily for the past several years. Second the teachers union does not set this rate. Lansing does.
There are a number of reasons for this increase and they have nothing to do with greed by the current teachers.
Back in 1991 John Engler decided that the state no longer needed to prefund the pension fund and funneled this money elsewhere. Unfortunately this decision led to a shortfall in the pension fund which taxpayers and teachers are now being asked to cover.
The dot-com crash also put a strain on the system and again rather than take their medicine and make the necessary changes it was agreed that reserves would be used to cover the shortfall.
Of course the Republican legislative agenda has also contributed to the problems. The push for more private schools has left less teachers contributing for more retirees. According to an article on Mlive "A decade ago, there were roughly 2.5 school employees paying into MPSERS for every retiree drawing benefits. The ratio this year is 1.23 employees for every retiree." This number is also a result of the Republican austerity measures which led to as many as 350,000 less teachers in the US since 2009.
So while the per pupil costs of pensions are increasing the benefits to current teachers are not. If anything they are decreasing due to the additional contributions currently required to make up for past mistakes.
As far as healthcare costs are concerned, again while per pupil spending is affected by healthcare costs it is bizarre to blame educators for the increasing costs in the healthcare industry. The cost of text books have increased by twice the rate of inflation over the past 20 years. Are teachers somehow to blame for this as well?
The reality is that teachers are not getting better insurance now than a decade ago. They are getting the same or less coverage and contributing a higher percentage of their salary for it.
So why are per pupil costs on the rise? Like the cost of text books the cost for special education has risen by twice the rate of inflation. The same is true of gasoline which makes transportation more expensive than 10 years ago. Additionally between 2000 and 2007 infrastructure spending for public education hit record highs and the cost for keeping up with technology is a never ending quest.
In Michigan teachers are already making less and contributing more. So while there are a number of reasons that per pupil spending has increased, it is a fallacy to suggest wages and benefits for teachers are the cause.
First there is the standard complaint that my source is bias even though the link provided was to a government agency that took its data from the Bureau of Labor and statistics (BLS). Regardless it should be noted that according to the BLS the increase in pay for education over the past decade is 0.2% while categories like business and financial operations (3%), Architecture and engineering (4.5%) Healthcare practitioners (11.4%), and Management (13.2%) have all seen much higher increases.
This of course leads to the next standard complaint that maybe teacher pay is stagnant but pension and healthcare costs are the real problem.
While the cost of increased pensions is a major contributor, attributing these costs to current teachers as an "increase in benefits" is inaccurate. First the employee contribution portion has been increasing steadily for the past several years. Second the teachers union does not set this rate. Lansing does.
There are a number of reasons for this increase and they have nothing to do with greed by the current teachers.
Back in 1991 John Engler decided that the state no longer needed to prefund the pension fund and funneled this money elsewhere. Unfortunately this decision led to a shortfall in the pension fund which taxpayers and teachers are now being asked to cover.
The dot-com crash also put a strain on the system and again rather than take their medicine and make the necessary changes it was agreed that reserves would be used to cover the shortfall.
Of course the Republican legislative agenda has also contributed to the problems. The push for more private schools has left less teachers contributing for more retirees. According to an article on Mlive "A decade ago, there were roughly 2.5 school employees paying into MPSERS for every retiree drawing benefits. The ratio this year is 1.23 employees for every retiree." This number is also a result of the Republican austerity measures which led to as many as 350,000 less teachers in the US since 2009.
So while the per pupil costs of pensions are increasing the benefits to current teachers are not. If anything they are decreasing due to the additional contributions currently required to make up for past mistakes.
As far as healthcare costs are concerned, again while per pupil spending is affected by healthcare costs it is bizarre to blame educators for the increasing costs in the healthcare industry. The cost of text books have increased by twice the rate of inflation over the past 20 years. Are teachers somehow to blame for this as well?
The reality is that teachers are not getting better insurance now than a decade ago. They are getting the same or less coverage and contributing a higher percentage of their salary for it.
So why are per pupil costs on the rise? Like the cost of text books the cost for special education has risen by twice the rate of inflation. The same is true of gasoline which makes transportation more expensive than 10 years ago. Additionally between 2000 and 2007 infrastructure spending for public education hit record highs and the cost for keeping up with technology is a never ending quest.
In Michigan teachers are already making less and contributing more. So while there are a number of reasons that per pupil spending has increased, it is a fallacy to suggest wages and benefits for teachers are the cause.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Dumbing down the debate on teachers unions
Since the start of the teacher strike in Chicago I have received a number of comments and emails from people who either purposefully or unintentionally misrepresent my views on unions and education from calling me a "WHORE to the unions" to suggesting the problems with education are "expressly [my] fault".
While I have posted on both unions and education in the past, my intention has never been blanket support of unions and their goals but rather to counter the misinformation being spread by those who oppose unions.
For example the rhetoric surrounding teachers recently has been that teachers unions are at fault for the increase in spending and as a result their wages should be cut. Whether teachers are properly compensated when compared to the private sector has been debated Ad nauseam but I take issue with the idea that teachers should reduce their pay because of higher per pupil spending.
This solution draws a conclusion without all of the facts. In Michigan the average teachers pay has been reduced by 7.7% since the 1999-2000 school year yet per pupil spending has increased by nearly 20%. How can you blame the teachers for the increase in spending when they have taken a pay cut?
Similarly people act like the Teachers unions are to blame for the stagnation of test scores over the past 30 years yet the percentage of teachers in unions went from 84% in 1989 to 38% in 2010. If the rhetoric surrounding this were correct and unions were to blame for low test scores we should have seen a steady increase in test scores as the number of teachers in unions decreased.
So does presenting this information that runs counter to current talking points mean I support the Chicago teachers union protecting poor performing teachers? Nope. Does it mean I care more about teachers unions than the kids? Nope.
It means there is a rational debate to be had regarding teachers, unions and the success of America's education system and that debate should include a thorough analysis of what works and what doesn't. Because panning information solely on the basis of political affiliation doesn't help the kids either.
While I have posted on both unions and education in the past, my intention has never been blanket support of unions and their goals but rather to counter the misinformation being spread by those who oppose unions.
For example the rhetoric surrounding teachers recently has been that teachers unions are at fault for the increase in spending and as a result their wages should be cut. Whether teachers are properly compensated when compared to the private sector has been debated Ad nauseam but I take issue with the idea that teachers should reduce their pay because of higher per pupil spending.
This solution draws a conclusion without all of the facts. In Michigan the average teachers pay has been reduced by 7.7% since the 1999-2000 school year yet per pupil spending has increased by nearly 20%. How can you blame the teachers for the increase in spending when they have taken a pay cut?
Similarly people act like the Teachers unions are to blame for the stagnation of test scores over the past 30 years yet the percentage of teachers in unions went from 84% in 1989 to 38% in 2010. If the rhetoric surrounding this were correct and unions were to blame for low test scores we should have seen a steady increase in test scores as the number of teachers in unions decreased.
So does presenting this information that runs counter to current talking points mean I support the Chicago teachers union protecting poor performing teachers? Nope. Does it mean I care more about teachers unions than the kids? Nope.
It means there is a rational debate to be had regarding teachers, unions and the success of America's education system and that debate should include a thorough analysis of what works and what doesn't. Because panning information solely on the basis of political affiliation doesn't help the kids either.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Policy concern or political posturing?
In his recent stop here in Detroit, Vice-President Joe Biden went out of his way to talk about how the Obama administration helped GM survive the great recession. It should be noted that George W. Bush actually started the process however I imagine the distinction that Biden was attempted to draw was between the fact that Mitt Romney did not support the auto bailouts and Barack Obama did.
Regardless of the jobs saved, conservatives by and large still oppose the bailouts and with the election process in full swing pundits like Michelle Malkin have gone on the offensive to diminish the value of the program. Unfortunately all of the pundits seem to be working from the same flawed playbook.
Malkin laments the fact the GM is expanding their operations in other countries using “tax payer” funds. As though she supports a government mandate dictating how GM can run their business. Conversely, you can bet that if GM failed because they didn't compete globally like every other auto company is doing Malkin would be first in line to suggest Obama was at fault for supporting such a short sighted business plan.
Malkin also blames Obama for the troubles GM is experiencing even though the biggest drag on the company currently is their European division which the board of GM, not Obama, decided to retain rather than sell back in 2009.
Another idea that seems to have really rankled the conservative pundits is the idea that the firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner as part of the bailout is unprecedented. Never mind that this also happened with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and Chrysler. Never mind that the GM lost $85 billion under Wagoner's watch. Never mind that the government owns over 50% of the GM stock and is able to make any changes it wants. Never mind that Wagoner asked for and agreed to accept money from the government. And never mind that long before Obama became president members of the board of GM maneuvered to get Wagoner removed. Conservatives don't want government involved in "private" decisions.
Oddly enough these are often the same people who want to put preconditions on any individual who asks for and accepts government funds.
If you want to get welfare, conservatives think you should submit to a drug test and search for a job or get training for a new job. If you want to get food stamps, conservatives have a list of things that they don't think you should be allowed to purchase. If you want to get Medicaid, conservatives won't pay for an abortion even though it is a legal activity.
The reality is that the US has a long history of setting preconditions for receiving government money and acting like the requirements Rick Wagoner agreed to are an example of a massive socialist shift is outlandish.
As with most things these days it seems like this political posturing has more to do with the man at the top of the ticket than any actual policy concerns. But I suppose that is what happens when your number one goal is to make that man a one term president and you use the theory of "anyone but" in deciding how to vote.
Regardless of the jobs saved, conservatives by and large still oppose the bailouts and with the election process in full swing pundits like Michelle Malkin have gone on the offensive to diminish the value of the program. Unfortunately all of the pundits seem to be working from the same flawed playbook.
Malkin laments the fact the GM is expanding their operations in other countries using “tax payer” funds. As though she supports a government mandate dictating how GM can run their business. Conversely, you can bet that if GM failed because they didn't compete globally like every other auto company is doing Malkin would be first in line to suggest Obama was at fault for supporting such a short sighted business plan.
Malkin also blames Obama for the troubles GM is experiencing even though the biggest drag on the company currently is their European division which the board of GM, not Obama, decided to retain rather than sell back in 2009.
Another idea that seems to have really rankled the conservative pundits is the idea that the firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner as part of the bailout is unprecedented. Never mind that this also happened with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and Chrysler. Never mind that the GM lost $85 billion under Wagoner's watch. Never mind that the government owns over 50% of the GM stock and is able to make any changes it wants. Never mind that Wagoner asked for and agreed to accept money from the government. And never mind that long before Obama became president members of the board of GM maneuvered to get Wagoner removed. Conservatives don't want government involved in "private" decisions.
Oddly enough these are often the same people who want to put preconditions on any individual who asks for and accepts government funds.
If you want to get welfare, conservatives think you should submit to a drug test and search for a job or get training for a new job. If you want to get food stamps, conservatives have a list of things that they don't think you should be allowed to purchase. If you want to get Medicaid, conservatives won't pay for an abortion even though it is a legal activity.
The reality is that the US has a long history of setting preconditions for receiving government money and acting like the requirements Rick Wagoner agreed to are an example of a massive socialist shift is outlandish.
As with most things these days it seems like this political posturing has more to do with the man at the top of the ticket than any actual policy concerns. But I suppose that is what happens when your number one goal is to make that man a one term president and you use the theory of "anyone but" in deciding how to vote.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Stacking the deck
This election season Republicans have finally decided to fight back against this country's repressive policies which have been limiting the opportunities for rich white men for decades.
If you are a woman, the Republican Party has a new set of rules for you to follow. If you're in a union, the Republican Party is going to take away right to collectively bargain. If you're an immigrant, you better have your papers ready. If you want to vote, you are going to need to more I.D. than it takes to get a gun. If you're poor, the Republican Party is going to cut your benefits.
But while these are all important ways for the Republican Party to suppress the groups that tend to vote for Democrats, one of the biggest ways Republicans are stacking the deck for oppressed rich white men is education.
Republicans want to cut funding to public education, cut wages for educators, and eliminate the department of education. When President Obama stated he wanted everyone to go to college he got push back from the top to GOP presidential candidates suggesting that Obama was a "snob" who was trying to indoctrinate American children.
But given that these same men attended private school and hold multiple degrees it seems that they do value education. Just not yours, because what both of these men know is what a recent poll revealed. The only segment of the population that consistently supports Mitt Romney over Barack Obama are those without a college education.
So how better to broaden the Republican base and ensure future election success than to limit the opportunity for the middle class and the poor to get an education.
They start with the fallacy that educators make too much while simultaneously suggesting that in business to get the best employees you have to be willing to pay above market value.
They cut funding for early education programs which have been shown to increase a child’s odds of completing college. This of course builds on itself since children of parents who didn't attend college were less likely to attend college themselves.
They are also looking to cut funding for Pell Grants and other student aid programs. Studies show the more a student works while attending college the less likely they are to graduate.
Of course this tactic also has the added benefit of giving the privileged children of these men a leg up when they hit the job market since with less college graduates from the poor and middle class there will be less competition for the high paying jobs.
So if you're part of the vastly underserved minority of rich white men, don't worry. Mitt Romney has your back. If you're not a rich white man Mitt Romney has a plan for you too. He is going to offer you the "dignity of work" to pay for your own schooling. That way you will truly appreciate it when you become successful. Until then, Mitt thanks you for your vote.
If you are a woman, the Republican Party has a new set of rules for you to follow. If you're in a union, the Republican Party is going to take away right to collectively bargain. If you're an immigrant, you better have your papers ready. If you want to vote, you are going to need to more I.D. than it takes to get a gun. If you're poor, the Republican Party is going to cut your benefits.
But while these are all important ways for the Republican Party to suppress the groups that tend to vote for Democrats, one of the biggest ways Republicans are stacking the deck for oppressed rich white men is education.
Republicans want to cut funding to public education, cut wages for educators, and eliminate the department of education. When President Obama stated he wanted everyone to go to college he got push back from the top to GOP presidential candidates suggesting that Obama was a "snob" who was trying to indoctrinate American children.
But given that these same men attended private school and hold multiple degrees it seems that they do value education. Just not yours, because what both of these men know is what a recent poll revealed. The only segment of the population that consistently supports Mitt Romney over Barack Obama are those without a college education.
So how better to broaden the Republican base and ensure future election success than to limit the opportunity for the middle class and the poor to get an education.
They start with the fallacy that educators make too much while simultaneously suggesting that in business to get the best employees you have to be willing to pay above market value.
They cut funding for early education programs which have been shown to increase a child’s odds of completing college. This of course builds on itself since children of parents who didn't attend college were less likely to attend college themselves.
They are also looking to cut funding for Pell Grants and other student aid programs. Studies show the more a student works while attending college the less likely they are to graduate.
Of course this tactic also has the added benefit of giving the privileged children of these men a leg up when they hit the job market since with less college graduates from the poor and middle class there will be less competition for the high paying jobs.
So if you're part of the vastly underserved minority of rich white men, don't worry. Mitt Romney has your back. If you're not a rich white man Mitt Romney has a plan for you too. He is going to offer you the "dignity of work" to pay for your own schooling. That way you will truly appreciate it when you become successful. Until then, Mitt thanks you for your vote.
David Koch: Radical Socialist
According to some, Barack Obama is a radical socialist. Among the list of things that these people feel make him a radical socialist is his support for raising taxes, support of gay marriage and support for cutting defense spending.
In a related story, noted Romney supporter and general Republican political philanthropist David Koch recently came out in support of raising taxes, in support of gay marriage and in support of cutting defense spending.
This is not to say that David Koch suddenly agrees with Barack Obama but rather to point out that politicians and the media love to gin up a rational debate with unnecessary rhetoric that vastly exaggerates the truth.
This sort of divisiveness gets Barack Obama labeled as unpatriotic when he opposed the war in Iraq while David Koch's opposition to the war went un-chastised.
Neither Barack Obama or Mitt Romney represent even a small threat to liberty, freedom, social welfare or capitalism and the fact that Romney, Obama and Koch all essentially agreed at one point on increasing taxes and supporting the rights of gays to marry tells you how not radically different the choice is this fall.
So when Chuck Norris's wife tells you that electing Barack Obama will plunge the US into a thousand years of darkness realize how absolutely crazy such a statement is and base your decision on the actual policies each party presents not the ramblings of an actor or the misleading rhetoric of your party's talking heads.
In a related story, noted Romney supporter and general Republican political philanthropist David Koch recently came out in support of raising taxes, in support of gay marriage and in support of cutting defense spending.
This is not to say that David Koch suddenly agrees with Barack Obama but rather to point out that politicians and the media love to gin up a rational debate with unnecessary rhetoric that vastly exaggerates the truth.
This sort of divisiveness gets Barack Obama labeled as unpatriotic when he opposed the war in Iraq while David Koch's opposition to the war went un-chastised.
Neither Barack Obama or Mitt Romney represent even a small threat to liberty, freedom, social welfare or capitalism and the fact that Romney, Obama and Koch all essentially agreed at one point on increasing taxes and supporting the rights of gays to marry tells you how not radically different the choice is this fall.
So when Chuck Norris's wife tells you that electing Barack Obama will plunge the US into a thousand years of darkness realize how absolutely crazy such a statement is and base your decision on the actual policies each party presents not the ramblings of an actor or the misleading rhetoric of your party's talking heads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
