Earlier this year I was spellbound by Newt Gingrich’s gift for debating. I was also fascinated by his skills as a brilliant political wonk.
Nevertheless, when he attacked the very foundations of capitalism by levying charges of class warfare against Mitt Romney, he lost me – completely.
There are certain things that conservatives should never do. Attacking capitalism and rugged individualism are two such things. Mr. Gingrich did both. The attack on “vulture capitalism” was nothing but a direct attack on the very foundations of capitalism itself in which the market determines a company’s fate. Goading voters for support and political gain by tapping into widespread class envy of Mr. Romney’s professional and financial success was Mr. Gingrich’s second cardinal sin.
Furthermore, Mr. Gingrich has inadvertently become a proxy warrior for President Obama’s reelection campaign by associating himself with special interest groups doing their utmost to exaggerate or invent unsavory and/or salacious accounts of Mitt Romney’s successful tenure in private equity.
Mr. Gingrich’s sins are unpardonable, and if he wins the nomination, my choice will be between not voting at all or voting for President Obama.
Reflections of a Rational Republican 
when he attacked the very foundations of capitalism by levying charges of class warfare against Mitt Romney, he lost me – completely.
I’m more of a “I like Newt but Romney has a better chance to win” guy. Grain of salt should be taken.
1. I think Newt recognized his mistake and decided that attacking Romney in this manner was bad politics.
2. I think Newt is more, way more, free market than Obama.
On #1, he probably did recognize his mistake. However, for me that mistake is an unforgivable one.
On #2, I would agree that he is more free market than Obama, despite his language to the contrary. I expect Democrats to throw a core American principle like capitalism under the bus, but a Republican? Unforgivable.
“Rugged individualism”? What, you want to feel his stubble on your cheek?!?! When the hell was W “ruggedly individual”? Or Reagan (not counting movies)?
And enough with the “class envy” stuff. No one is saying “I wish I’d been born into an affluent family and had every advantage.” We’re not jealous of the fact the Romney has never had to worry about the same problems that millions of Americans deal with. We’re just not enthused at the idea of a former executive who, not surprisingly, thinks that giving the rich even more tax breaks is the solution. That’s not class envy, and it’s pretty ridiculous (not to mention insulting) to imply that people who disagree with that view are jealous.
“We’re just not enthused at the idea of a former executive who, not surprisingly, thinks that giving the rich even more tax breaks is the solution. That’s not class envy, and it’s pretty ridiculous (not to mention insulting) to imply that people who disagree with that view are jealous.”
The problem is that the left’s dialogue plays the mantra of “fairness” over and over again in relation to income and status. However, the left never defines fair. The only definition I’ve been able to piece together is “more.” The top 1% of income earners pay 40+% of taxes. There is simply nothing “fair” about it.
Also, I don’t think Romney believes that giving rich tax breaks is the only solution. Again, this is a common left wing fallacy about the right. In fact, he advocates eliminating taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200k on interest, dividends, and capital gains. The only thing I don’t like about his policy is its elimination of the death tax, which does disproportionately benefit the wealthy scions of rich parents.
“And enough with the “class envy” stuff. No one is saying “I wish I’d been born into an affluent family and had every advantage.”
Then why the focus on corporate jets and “fat cats”? Why the incessant “fair share” mantra? To me it sounds like something straight out of a Bolshevist mir. I agree that no one is saying they wish they’d been born into an affluent family, but they are saying that the government should take more from people who worked hard for their financial gains, when those people pay a higher share of total tax dollars than any other OECD country.
On rugged individualism, one means personal responsibility and accountability. I think both Reagan and G. W. supported that notion.
Take a deep breath man. Get a hold of yourself. The communists aren’t coming. You’re safe.
Now, the actual issues being debated here in America are: (1) should we reward Mitt Romney’s business career with the presidency? Or do we think that he actually didn’t help economic growth & employment much with his career? (2) Should we return some tax rates to where they were when we had a surplus?
It’s not socialism. You’re ok. You’re going to be ok. There isn’t really a boogeyman under your bed.
As to “fairness”, well, right now, when you account for state, local, and federal taxes, everyone pays right around what they earn: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TbG1L-PYTdI/AAAAAAAAAeM/cAtrN2W0K98/ctjshare.jpg And remember: the federal government gets roughly equal amounts from the payroll tax & the income tax, so when you want to ignore overall tax incidence, and ignore how much income is concentrated, to wail about the calumny of all the horrible impositions on the besotted top 1%, you have to specify that it’s federal, income taxes that are serving as death panels for our job creators.
Do you think we lost in Vietnam because our soldiers were demoralized at the realization that we were the exact same thing as the North Vietnamese? After all, we had some income tax rates above 60 percent. So America sucked forever, in your view, until about 1982. Eisenhower was a communist, paling in comparison to Clinton’s true patriotic love of liberty. Nixon was a communist. Or perhaps, in the alternative, you’re being overemotional here.
I’m not really sure (or clear) about which Gingrich’s actual view toward capitalism that you, Sean, are alluding to. He is certainly a capitalist and a free enterprizer as any Republican I heard. But whatever it is, I do agree that a Gingrich nomination will be a liability to a Republican winning the Whitehouse. Obama will most likely beat him (all things being equal). That’s why I think a Romney ticket will maximize our chance for a win — though it will by no means be a guarantee. Romney has the greater appeal to moderate conservatives and even Independents. That is why I suspect he will win the greater number of delegates from the remaining States. That’s my sense.
I do agree that a Gingrich nomination will be a liability to a Republican winning the Whitehouse. Obama will most likely beat him (all things being equal). That’s why I think a Romney ticket will maximize our chance for a win — though it will by no means be a guarantee. Romney has the greater appeal to moderate conservatives and even Independents.
I agree.
When Newt’s on, he’s on. But he stumbles an his personal life is a bit of a mess.
Romney is the better ticket.
Thanks for your response. I thought Gingrich did fairly well in today’s debate in Tampa. Contrasts with my impression of him during the South Carolina debate. The Florida primary will be very interesting seeing that Gingrich is closing in on the lead Romney has been enjoying. How rapidly things can change! And … only in America!
Newt criticized Mitt Romney for “destroying jobs” and participating in “vulture capitalism”, when in reality he likely created more jobs than he destroyed.
I agree with you that Romney has the best chance against Obama.
Thanks for your reply, Sean. I guess I wasn’t clear as to what Gingrich meant when he said ‘vulture capitalism’ (I must have missed the context of it). I agree about Romney and his creating more jobs — which actually wasn’t contested in the debate. In today’s debate in Tampa, Gingrich did well, I must say — sounded more toned down, much less aggressive, and more focused on issues. (Looks like NBC’s Brian Williams did a better job than CNN’s John King.)
I’m not surprised. Newt has always been an excellent debater. I’m just not pleased about his railing against capitalism.
Oh yeah, it’s not because of Newt’s poorly disguised racist leanings. It’s not because he can’t go fifteen minutes without lying. It’s not because he’s called for a return to child labor, or to forcibly seize children from “welfare moms”. No, it’s because he’s betrayed the right-wing religion of “free-market” economics. Yeah, it’s easy to see where your priorities lie.
And please tell me how it is fair that a billionaire pays 15% on his income, less than what the driver of his bus pays. Yeah, the upper 1% may pay more in taxes, but that’s because they have more money. The upper 1% has seen their income grow by 175% over the last 25 years, compared to 25% for the middle class. Income inequality is at the worst it’s been since 1928. Sound familiar? Right before the Great Depression.
Read a history book sometime. Massive income inequality NEVER has a positive outcome. Check out any third-world country if you have any doubt. Saddam lived in a palace with gold-plated toilets while his people starved. Same thing in North Korea, Sudan, China, or any other totalitarian regime.
What’s your solution?
What’s yours?
You’re the one who is so distressed by income inequality, not me. What’s your solution?
You’re not distressed? So you don’t care if the US becomes a third-world country? My, what a patriot you are.
I’ll reserve my solution for later, since I know if I present it now you’ll run away and not explain why you want the US to become like North Korea or China.
I’m less distressed by economic inequality than I am by the core problem of anemic GDP growth. Solve that problem, and everyone benefits.
Increasing the size of the pie is always better than taking slices of a smaller pie from others.
Dodge some more, chicken little.
I published my solution months ago here (https://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2011/10/08/a-proposal-for-a-more-rational-jobs-bill/).
For the third time, what is your solution?
Hahaha! She doesn’t have one. She’s “reserving it for later”, remember? I think that’s code for: “I’m frantically scanning obscure liberal blogs right now for something to plagiarize before my parents kick me off the computer.”
She likely does. It is called “More.”
Like any good engineer, go back to what works. Go back to the 50’s and 60’s, with double the capital gains tax of today and upper brackets in the 90% range. Provide lots of opportunities for tax breaks, but make it so you have to EARN them. Actively discourage speculation of all types as was done during and after the New Deal.
While we’re at it, repeal the “reforms” made by GWB to overtime legislation which remove a strong incentive for new hiring.
How exactly will increasing taxes drive economic growth?
That’s a “solution” to income inequality? That’s not a solution, it’s a bad joke.
A fifteen-year tax holiday to relocate? Gee, why don’t we just promise them that they never pay taxes again? Not that it’ll make much difference, those companies left to avoid paying decent wages, not taxes. ANd what’s to stop the Chinese from making a better offer?
Here’s what I say, stick a huge tariff on the products made in those factories. You don’t build here, you don’t get access to our market.
Accelerate depreciation? Why? Are American companies building shoddier factories? Hate to break it to you, but the value of real estate used for manufacturing generally goes up, not down.
Accelerated regulatory review? Yeah, because deregulation works sooooooo well. Overregulation is just another right-wing boogeyman, it has nothing to to with the mess you’re in. And American companies have a track record of committing abuse whenever they’re allowed.
Paying workers out of UI for the first 8 to 12 weeks? That’s awfully socialist of you, shame! Sounds interesting but I have a question: what if they just can them after the 8-12 weeks are over?
Payroll tax holiday..didn’t Obama do that?
Oh, and a tariff on outsourced products is nothing like Smoot-Hawley. Smoot Hawley was a imposed on a number of European companies, which weren’t totalitarian regimes or had anything like CHina’s working climate. You have a HUGE trade deficit with China. If they retaliate, so what? Even if trade between you and China were completely eliminated, you’d still enjoy a net benefit. As long as you keep insisting on dealing with a totalitarian, abusive country like China on an equal footing, you’ll lose. Unless you want to turn America into a country like China. You never answered whether or not you thought that was a bad thing.
LOL! Enforce anti-currency speculation WITHOUT introducing tariffs? That’s like hiring more policemen while burning down all the jails. How are you supposed to enforce those laws without imposing some penalty for breaking them?
ing
“A fifteen-year tax holiday to relocate? Gee, why don’t we just promise them that they never pay taxes again? Not that it’ll make much difference, those companies left to avoid paying decent wages, not taxes. ANd what’s to stop the Chinese from making a better offer?”
They left for both reasons. Look at the HBS poll I published.
“Here’s what I say, stick a huge tariff on the products made in those factories. You don’t build here, you don’t get access to our market.”
Have you ever heard of Smoot Hawley? Not to mention the price increases in the United States on every good imaginable.
“Accelerate depreciation? Why? Are American companies building shoddier factories? Hate to break it to you, but the value of real estate used for manufacturing generally goes up, not down.”
Have you looked at housing prices in Detroit lately?
“Accelerated regulatory review? Yeah, because deregulation works sooooooo well. Overregulation is just another right-wing boogeyman, it has nothing to to with the mess you’re in.”
You’ve obviously never been to California.
“And American companies have a track record of committing abuse whenever they’re allowed.”
Yes, they are despicable, especially compared with Chinese companies and whatnot.
“Paying workers out of UI for the first 8 to 12 weeks? That’s awfully socialist of you, shame! Sounds interesting but I have a question: what if they just can them after the 8-12 weeks are over?”
That’s a fair point. I imagine their would be some sort of tax penalty if they canned them after 8-12 weeks.
“Payroll tax holiday..didn’t Obama do that?”
He didn’t do a tax holiday for repatriating overseas dollars.
“Oh, and a tariff on outsourced products is nothing like Smoot-Hawley. Smoot Hawley was a imposed on a number of European companies, which weren’t totalitarian regimes or had anything like CHina’s working climate. You have a HUGE trade deficit with China. If they retaliate, so what? Even if trade between you and China were completely eliminated, you’d still enjoy a net benefit. As long as you keep insisting on dealing with a totalitarian, abusive country like China on an equal footing, you’ll lose. Unless you want to turn America into a country like China. You never answered whether or not you thought that was a bad thing.”
A state’s government has nothing to do with the economic consequences of retaliation. How on earth would we enjoy a net benefit?
“LOL! Enforce anti-currency speculation WITHOUT introducing tariffs? That’s like hiring more policemen while burning down all the jails. How are you supposed to enforce those laws without imposing some penalty for breaking them? ”
A very fair point and the weakest part of my plan. I frankly don’t know, but am open to suggestions.
“And please tell me how it is fair that a billionaire pays 15% on his income, less than what the driver of his bus pays. Yeah, the upper 1% may pay more in taxes, but that’s because they have more money. The upper 1% has seen their income grow by 175% over the last 25 years, compared to 25% for the middle class. Income inequality is at the worst it’s been since 1928. Sound familiar? Right before the Great Depression.
I swear, liberals should be banned from quoting numbers. They hate math anyways…
ANYONE who earns investment income, whether that’s a billionaire on a billion dollar investment or you and I with a $100 mutual fund investment (in a dividend or capital gains fund) pays a lower rate of tax than someone who earns direct income through a wage. That’s the same in Canada and the U.S., and pretty much anywhere in the civilized world. The reasons for this are obvious (except to the galactically stupid): the money put in is already after tax money, and the investors are compensated for the increased level of risk. Salary is largely risk-free – it’s legislated to be mostly guaranteed through employment law. So is “interest”, which is largely guaranteed through contract law. Lower degree of risk, higher degree of taxation by the government, typically around 100%.
So since liberals want the government to create jobs, and the only people who can afford to build a factory are rich people, what tool does the government have to incentivize people away from parking their money risk-free for a safer rate of return? Since they can’t guarantee the performance of the investment, they offer a lower tax rate that is deemed by the market to be appropriate to the level of risk that they’re taking.
You probably can’t understand this because unlike businesspeople, you’ve probably been on just the receiving end with everything in your life. That’s fine, but why not ask someone to make sense of the 15% for you before criticizing it when you don’t have a clue?
“The upper 1% has seen their income grow by 175% over the last 25 years, compared to 25% for the middle class.”
I don’t disagree that some executive pay is ridiculus, especially when it’s paid when the company is tanking. Again, you’re not going to see much argument from conservatives over that one, only perhaps how it should be corrected.
Here’s another perspective on income inequality, however. In the past 20 years, how much has any one business’s marketplace changed? It’s become faster, more vast, and more competitive. Capital, also, has become more fluid and companies have to do far more to compete for customers’ and investors’ dollars. By “companies”, I mean executives. The things I’ve mentioned above apply to nowhere near the same degree as they do to the rank and file workers within that company. Does a line worker punching holes in a circuitboard have to worry, in that moment, about a new plant that’s just come online? Or a new product that was successfully kept in stealth mode by a competitor until this morning? Or some new regulations that the company’s lobbyists have heard is coming down the pipe that could literally wipe out their industry? No – they just have to keep punching that circuit board.
Executives in companies nowdays do 10 to 100x more than they had to 20 or even 10 years ago, and no longer is “work” in a company brawn work, it’s brain work. People who think, and think strategically, and who can lead a company after doing so, get paid the most based upon the value that brings in or protects in terms of the company’s overall performance. The worker punching the hole in the circuitboard makes none of those decisions, therefore they don’t tap into those revenues (for the most part) when determining their value.
What additional value does the regular worker add? Quality? Nope. Workers in other countries are now just as good or better. Productivity? Nope. Since they’re in a union, they could decide to stop working tomorrow and put a company further in the hole for months. (A risk that has to be mitigated at a price premium for the safety of the company). Intelligence or Innovation? Studies continue to show how far we’ve fallen behind other countries in that area.
The fact is most workers for the past 20 years figured they could leave the problems of globalization and a company’s competitive advantage in terms of it to management and the government, and simply neglect to consider their own competitive advantage as a worker here at home. They neglected this, and other workers ended up not only catching them, but passing them. On most if not all fronts, the value of the average worker in Canada and the U.S.. has not gone up, and inflation has only averaged about 2-3%, so why should they receive anything more than that for doing pretty much the same job that now more and more people in the world can actually do?
If these workers were actually worth more, businesses would be either forced or willing to pay more because the market would be willing to pay more for their products which would support the higher wage. As it turns out, however, consumers all over the world (even liberal ones like yourself), vote against this by buying the iPods, flat-screen TV’s, clothing, and other manufactured items at the cheapest prices that we can. How often do you deliberately pay a price when you buy something that’s 5, 10, 20x more?
This all doesn’t mean I’m a big supporter of the amount of wage inequality we have. A small but significant fraction of it is pure crony capitalism between the board of directors and the C-suite and those guys need to be in jail. As far as general wage inequality, however, to me it just means that liberals who bitch the most about it a) barely understand it from a real-life perspective, and b) are complete hypocrites when they repeatedly buy products at prices that exist only as a result of the very actions they say they supposedly hate.
Oh, gee, where do I begin…
First off, the claim that investors are “due” that lower rate in return for the increased risk. That might be true if Romney were earning twice what his bus driver was, or three times, or five times. BUt not if he earns a hundred times. To suggest that ten thousand dollars of income should be treated the same as ten million is simply stupid.
“Only the rich can afford to build a factory”. Guess what, that’s what banks are for. Oh, and in case you’ve forgotten your history, the economy did just fine when we taxed the rich at rates of around 90% – in fact, it even worked better for the rich. So so much for the idea that we “need” those lower rates.
“Does a line worker punching holes in a circuitboard have to worry, in that moment, about a new plant that’s just come online? Or a new product that was successfully kept in stealth mode by a competitor until this morning? Or some new regulations that the company’s lobbyists have heard is coming down the pipe that could literally wipe out their industry? No – they just have to keep punching that circuit board. ”
Umm, actually , the answer to all those questions is yes. They just can’t do anything about them (and neither can the managers/owners, in most cases). In addition, they also have to worry about feeding their families. Do you honestly believer workers don’t have to worry about the bigger picture?
“ntelligence or Innovation? Studies continue to show how far we’ve fallen behind other countries in that area.”
Apart from your obvious disdain for people who work for a living, what’s this “we” shit. It’s America that’s falling behind, Canada’s doing fine. Mostly because we don’t have right-wingers slashing the hell out of our education budgets, and we have universities and colleges that people can still afford. Just more proof that you consider yourself an American.
“Executives in companies nowdays do 10 to 100x more than they had to 20 or even 10 years ago,”
Yeah, and how would you know this? By watching Fox News?
10-100 times more? So, you’re saying that if executives work 60 hrs a week today (yeah, right), they worked six hours a week back then? Math isn’t your strong suit, is it? And executive work has never been “brawn work”, moron. And considering the quality of work executives have been performing lately, we’re due a refund.
“How often do you deliberately pay a price when you buy something that’s 5, 10, 20x more?”
Try 26% more. That’s how much is saved by having Iphones built in America instead of in China under brutal working conditions. And I’m sure that FoxConn’s owners are putting every penny back into the factory instead of their pockets…right?
Buying an IPhone makes you a hypocrite? Tell me, are you a hypocrite if you vote against John Kerry but still use Heinz ketchup? So opposing a corporations policies means you can’t use a computer or a cell phone? Pretty stupid, aren’t you?
And please, don’t try to tell me you have any unique perspective on anything. Everything I’ve heard from you suggests you’re just some American wannabee sitting on his couch blaming the big bad guv’mint for everything that’s gone wrong in his pathetic life.
“That might be true if Romney were earning twice what his bus driver was, or three times, or five times. BUt not if he earns a hundred times.”
There’s no bottom to the depth of how stupid that statement is. First, you say and yet contradict yourself with your use of the operative word here, which is “EARNS”. Second, we once again the non-specificity of a liberal when it comes to these matters. At what point does it go from being OK to not OK? What dollar amount? What multiple? 2x? 5x? 50x? Or is just anyone who’s successful and not publicly acting/feeling guilty about it, those are who wealth is not OK for? Show us here why you don’t have some ridiculous double standard, or perhaps answer. Hazelett’s question here and simply propose a solution from your own vast knowledge and experience..
“Guess what, that’s what banks are for.”
Haha. Ok, Shannon, go into your bank and tell them you want to build a $1 billion factory based on your background of Burger King paycheques and Occupy Movements, and tell us how that goes.
“Oh, and in case you’ve forgotten your history, the economy did just fine when we taxed the rich at rates of around 90% – in fact, it even worked better for the rich.”
Thanks for the cherry-pick, Michael Moore, now go back to your box of donuts. Here’s a list of tax rates since taxation began: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf
First of all, in your beloved 90% years capital gains were still being taxed far less (25% at that time). Translation: Government was still incentivizing investment through lower taxes for the simple reasons I mentioned. Second, you ignorantly disregard the market conditions at the time, giving all your attention to “fair” and none of it to “practical” or realistic. If we earn our money we have a right to spend it pretty much any , way we choose. At the time, (North) America offered pretty much the best place for investment. What competition did the U.S. have? Where were countries like China and India in terms of their competitiveness with the U.S. at that time? The 50’s and 60’s were a completely different era. To fantasize so much about it based simply on a high marginal tax rate shows just how out of touch you are with present reality.
“Do you honestly believer workers don’t have to worry about the bigger picture?” You completely missed what I said. Tell me what strategic decisions a hole-puncher has to make in the moment based upon competitive responses to the product he’s hole-punching.
“And I’m sure that FoxConn’s owners are putting every penny back into the factory instead of their pockets…right?”
Who cares? If you own an Apple product, you don’t – at least, not as much as you care about paying the least amount you can for an iPhone, so you might as well quit pretending that you care about some anonymous factory worker somewhere. As for me, it’s not my place to tell some foreign country or its companies what they have to pay its workers, or tell their workers what they have to demand as a wage. That’s a citizen’s individual responsibility to themselves. Who ultimately allows those wages, btw? It’s your beloved federal government.
“Apart from your obvious disdain for people who work for a living,”
Nice try. The only disdain I have is for people like who you think they’re automatically owed anything more than the paycheck they just voluntarily agreed to. You’re like the fat kid who still wants a first place medal in the 100m race he didn’t finish, just because he’s all sweaty and breathing hard.
“Buying an IPhone makes you a hypocrite?”
Jesus, do you need EVERYTHING explained to you? First, here’s the definition of a hypocrite: “a person having pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess” therefore it depends on what you’re criticizing, and how. Buying an iPhone makes you a hypocrite if you on one hand say you despise capitalism and everything about it whereas saying there’s ways that you think capitalism could be improved however, to give workers a better way to make a living or more say in their futures, however is a completely different thing.
What makes you a hypocrite starts with basically the artificial moral high ground you insist on making all your arguments from, because your arguments are all emotional. You criticize someone for supposedly lying about who they are and attack their credibility, et at the same time you’re lying by omission about who you are, hiding behind some anonymous, single username and not offering even one thing to support credibility of your own. Have you disclosed once here what you do for a living or anything regarding your background which would offer some validity to your opinions? That’s one example of you being a hypocrite. Another would be your supposed rejection of capitalism in all its forms, and yet you’ll willingly partake in all its benefits (starting with a job).
“Everything I’ve heard from you suggests you’re just some American wannabee sitting on his couch blaming the big bad guv’mint for everything that’s gone wrong in his pathetic life.
Ahhh. Just like someone couldn’t possibly have a Harvard degree or couldn’t possibly have served in the military, or couldn’t possibly be a business person and actually be doing constructive things to help the needy, right? You’ve been wrong on basically everything so far, especially your personal characterizations, so it’s no surprise that you’re wrong again now. You obviously have some serious filters that prevent you from seeing anything real about the people who are on the other side of your viewpoints, but once again your stress response to that is to volley straw men arguments and ad Hitlerium attacks over to the other side. Hopefully to the benefit of everybody you”ll get tired of it at some point.
“Oh yeah, it’s not because of Newt’s poorly disguised racist leanings.”
If the majority of food stampers are non-white and someone’s talking about a) working, and b) getting off food stamps in the same sentence, by simple math, not racism, they’re going to be speaking mostly to non-whites on the issue however by speaking about people getting jobs and going off food stamps, the generality of the statement means it applies to ALL who are on food stamps.
.
“It’s not because he can’t go fifteen minutes without lying.
Oh that’s right, most politicians don’t lie or stretch the truth. Or is it that politicians on the left don’t lie, or is it that they don’t lie as much? The left lies, too – they just lie in the way you like (i.e. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”) so you give them a free pass when they do it.
“It’s not because he’s called for a return to child labor, or to forcibly seize children from “welfare moms”.”
This one’s laughable. Yeah, that’s exactly what he did was call for a return to “child labor”. Come on. He’s actually for murdering lazy people and clubbing old people with baseball bats, too, because they’re such a burden on the system. Do you believe that? You might as well, if you believe ANY politician seriously does promote child labor in the way you’re implying. Encouraging a 10 year old to get a paper route and build some sort of a work ethic rather than an entitlement ethic is hardly like sending kids into the coal mines of before.
And as for the comment on seizing children from welfare moms, who’s cherry picking now? There’s a number of comments from Gingrich in this area, some I think good and some I think bad, but the point is, there’s both no matter which side of the aisle you’re on.
According to issues2000.org, “Gingrich did say that he wanted to cut welfare benefits to mothers of those whose paternity was not established and those born out of wedlock to women under 18.” This seems excessive. Yet on the other hand, we can also hear him say “I dreamed of a society that would begin to move the powers of a smothering, overcentralized federal government back to the states and local governments back into the hands of volunteers much closer to the people and better aware of their real needs and wants”. That doesn’t sound so bad.
Or in another case, we see him on the one hand saying “No one must fall beneath a certain level of poverty, even if we must give away food and money to keep that from happening” yet on the other hand he apparently suggested that minor girls should be ineligible for Aid to Families With Dependent Children if they became pregnant, that aid would go first to their parents or guardians.
As much as there’s probably a big dislike for someone like Pelosi here (for instance), I think you’d have a hard time finding anyone who says she does nothing but lie, or wants nothing more than say to bankrupt every small business in America, and yet this is the kind of rhetoric you’re throwing around here. At the very least, it lowers your credibility.
If your goal is to insult Americans in general, or try and speak all-knowing about an election that you have absolutely no personal stake in whatsoever perhaps you’d find the Republican-bashing over at Ben’s blog or the Huffington Post much more to your liking.
Pingback: Liberal Nostalgia – The “Things Were Great When The Rich Were Taxed At 90%” Stupidity | The Rantings of Vern Rigg Kaine