Way harsh new pro-Obama PAC criticism: Romney doesn’t know how to make steel, he knows how to make money

posted at 5:21 pm on August 10, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Ohhh, the populism. It would be kind of precious, if it weren’t so maddening. The fact that ads like this, another one from Priorities USA, even exist means that they must appeal to somebody out there in this crazy ol’ mixed-up universe of ours — which displeases me to no end.

Once again, Priorities: What, exactly, is your point supposed to be? In the same vein as the ‘Mitt Romney more or less killed a woman’ ad, they aren’t advancing any actual policies, just denigrating Mitt Romney on the basis of… well, as Allahpundit has pointed out, it seems like they’re just against layoffs on principle. Apparently, closing down unprofitable factories is the height of immorality rather than, you know, an engine for economic growth or whatever.

Believe it or not, though, there’s actually a pretty good reason that steelworkers make steel, and businessmen manage businesses. It’s because everybody wants to make money, and people set out to perform the specialized jobs at which they are skilled. All jobs and businesses have a shelf life, whether they be buggy-whip makers or automobile manufacturers, and part of the task of people who pursue careers like Mitt Romney’s is to be good at determining what that shelf life is. And yes, it can cause individuals real material pain in the short term, but everybody is better off in the long term.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Please. Let’s not pretend that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is anything other than a propaganda spreadsheet for the 1%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Of which Obama is a part, and those of whom stuff his pockets, including for his election and re-election. You’re such a hypocrite.

Schadenfreude on August 10, 2012 at 6:44 PM

The guy says 2 things interesting to me

1)I depended on the Steel Mill and the Steel mill depended on me

2) Romney is a business man who only knows how to make money

If you have ever heard the union hall claptrap they give to union members this is where this mentality comes from that the white collar workers can’t make a profit without using the blue collar workers and as a matter of fact the blue collar workers ARE MORE important than management or investors…therefore the mill NEEDS me (I am irreplaceable and should be treated as such)

This leads the union members to take a hard line with Management (At the union leaders behest) thinking they can never be replaced and then just as GST did they are deemed unprofitable and shut down (to their surprise) and they still talking to this guy can’t believe they are out of work since they are so fricking important and irreplaceable and since that is a fact they have to blame someone else’s greed other than their own for the bad gamble the striking workers took.

Conan on August 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Well done!

Schadenfreude on August 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

THE FACTS that URBAN DOES NOT WANT you to know:


The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.

For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

I’m not even sure what this means.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Maybe when you grow up.

I thought you had important stuff to do. What’s the matter, they wouldn’t let you in the door?

cozmo on August 10, 2012 at 6:46 PM

My rich college professor wife and I probably paid more in taxes last year than you earned.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Didn’t realize you were married to Elizabeth Warren! Heap funny stuff!

What a life you two must have-getting paid obscenely high amounts of cash to turn out shoddy products. And you’ll never have to face any consequences for your failures, like us folks in the private sector. Must be sweet.

A+

Del Dolemonte on August 10, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Please. Let’s not pretend that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is anything other than a propaganda spreadsheet for the 1%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Wow you crushed them. Such intellect.

///

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Please. Let’s not pretend that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is anything other than a propaganda spreadsheet for the 1%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Seems to me you claimed this last week, and I sent you running away when I cited a study that showed that overall, the WSJ’s actual bias is farther to the left than the NYT and NPR.

Del Dolemonte on August 10, 2012 at 6:48 PM

The LIES about Romney’s Tax plan DESTROYED—

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Read it and share it. Don’t let these pukes continue with their dishonesty.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Please. Let’s not pretend that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is anything other than a propaganda spreadsheet for the 1%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Prove what they said is wrong and prove the claims the the Tax Policy Center’s claims are not only correct but based on specifics from Romney’s plan …good luck you lying POS.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM

My Utopian dream involves the lottery, the South of France, and household staff of scantily clad local girls. Only the guy at the liquor store can starve that dream (as he has been doing).

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:42 PM

He stopped giving you a six pack of Old Mil for a hummer??

Tough break kid..

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Heh heh. You gave me about the response I expected. Pretty lame there buddy. Hey at least they didn’t simply trash it by only pointing out that the study you rely on was done by a liberal think tank…they actually backed up their argument.

God you are pathetic.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Oh, come on. You can’t say that the WSJ Editorial Page — especially in an editorial that is virtually completely speculative — is an objective observer.

urban elitest–

Also dipshite…why do you rely on such a study that takes so much liberty with the facts? You know how that makes you look right?

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I’m losing track: which study?

Wait a sec I thought YOU were a 1%er……

Let me let you in on a little secret….that 1% here you hate…..?

Champ……check the average american wage versus the population of the world…..

welcome to the 1% for real comrade…..

they’ll be burning down our houses in justifiable rage shortly…..

whiffle

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

According to the New York Times I’m more of a 3 percenter.

I like one percenters. Most of the ones I’ve met, anyway.

But the fact that they have made money as individuals, doesn’t necessarily make their views on views on economic policy correct. Moreover, policies that explicitly favor the 1 percent have never proven to do much for, say, the middle 60%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Please. Let’s not pretend that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is anything other than a propaganda spreadsheet for the 1%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I bet the people running your “Index Fund” read it every day.

And if you know so much about how best to allocate capital, why are you invested in an “Index Fund”?

Trying to make easy money off of capitalists and the comanies they create and run profitably without having to do any hard work yourself, like thinking about where best to invest your own capital?

I bet your “Index Fund” is invested in enterprises that Bain Capital helped start up or save from bankruptcy. So Bain Capital is helping you make money and you are making money off of what Bain Capital did.

You have absolutely no idea how capitalism, free enterprise, and free markets work, do you? Not a clue.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

He stopped giving you a six pack of Old Mil for a hummer??

Tough break kid..

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Is that how you do it in Wyoming? I knew about the sheep thing, but this is new.

Prove what they said is wrong and prove the claims the the Tax Policy Center’s claims are not only correct but based on specifics from Romney’s plan …good luck you lying POS.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM

you’re the one who invoked an editorial as fact. I said nothing at all about the study.

But, tell me. If you cut tax rates across the board by 20%, what loopholes do you close to make it revenue-neutral, as Romney has promised?

I’m waiting….

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I’m losing track: which study?

Oh, come on. You can’t say that the WSJ Editorial Page — especially in an editorial that is virtually completely speculative — is an objective observer.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Just as I knew. You cannot refute their claims. If they were so off base it would be ease for someone as intelligent as yourself.

You failed.

You know you’re a mooch and a parasite. That added to the fact that you have no issues with perpetrating lies says much about your character.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:42 PM

The lottery? You can’t even dream about coming up with some innovative idea, working hard & making the money yourself, huh? But that would probably involve laying someone off or something so yeah, stick with the lottery dream.

Dark Star on August 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Urban you still cannot refute or support either WSJ’s claims or the Tax Policy Center’s claims–you know the one that YOU and Obama use to claim that Romney’s tax plan will raise taxes on the middle class.

You seem to think that you can argue by asking questions when you are the puke that made the original contention that you cannot even back up. Where were you educated. Seriously, you are an embarrassment.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Why is it that SCUM like Urban Elitest think they can run with studies that make dishonest assumptions? These turds then try to turn the table when asked to support their contentions…not surprised…in the least.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Well done!

Schadenfreude on August 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

TY, it is not hard though….

you ever hear of the line Cicero told his populist understudy as the town fell to hell….?

“You dolt you sincerely believe that Crassus got 50 billion cestares through wanting the underclass to have land to farm? That is OUR land as a Republic and the men who know how to farm it can do so with three times the production that neophytes could manage. I’d pay good money to watch these loafers break their back without the knowledge those farmers have earned through time and see their efforts wasted, we’d all starve.

Crassus and Catalina want to buy power in perpetuity with control of our resources and land picking winners and losers so they will have bought all of Rome for the price of nominating themselves the realtor of the nations’ soil.”

He managed to defeat the first incarnation of the Land reform bill which led to the Cataline Conspiracy…..

the point being as I will go to my grave laughing bitterly…..

“yes yes Mr. politician or Activist please do tell me how this is all new and we need new answers to make things work and it is worse than ever so YOU need to be further empowered.”

screw the people who think they have the right to use other people’s wealth taken by coercion to pick winner and losers.

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM

According to the New York Times I’m more of a 3 percenter.

I like one percenters. Most of the ones I’ve met, anyway.

But the fact that they have made money as individuals, doesn’t necessarily make their views on views on economic policy correct. Moreover, policies that explicitly favor the 1 percent have never proven to do much for, say, the middle 60%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM

So does the guy sitting at 35% get to eat your dinner and burn down your house, or are you REALLY so weak you need 98 men to steal the one man’s wealth?

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I bet the people running your “Index Fund” read it every day.

I read it every day, too. And not just real estate porn on Fridays.

And if you know so much about how best to allocate capital, why are you invested in an “Index Fund”?

Index funds consistently outperform managed funds. And they have lower management fees. You have to be more specific on my claims to have special capital allocation knowledge — I don’t recall ever claiming it, certainly not at the micro level.

Trying to make easy money off of capitalists and the comanies they create and run profitably without having to do any hard work yourself, like thinking about where best to invest your own capital?

Or, the other way of looking at it, capitalists are trying to make money off me, getting hold of my equity so they can spend it and not have to pay me back if they go belly up.

Or, a a system in which we’re all capitalists, each doing our little part, whether it’s supplying capital or deploying it in mutually beneficial ways.

I bet your “Index Fund” is invested in enterprises that Bain Capital helped start up or save from bankruptcy. So Bain Capital is helping you make money and you are making money off of what Bain Capital did.

Probably not, or not much, because its indexed to the S&P 500, and Bain focuses on smaller enterprises — an alarming number of which stay small or get smaller.

You have absolutely no idea how capitalism, free enterprise, and free markets work, do you? Not a clue.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

You’re such a kidder…

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Sadly, the only alternative is Romney-nomics, which consists of enriching his peer group and impoverishing everyone else (see Bain Capital/the Romney tax plan)

The guy’s a lose.

innercity effeteist on August 10, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I said nothing at all about the study.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Oh please. You’re just full of dishonesty. You reek of it.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

The mooch is a hoot.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM

The lottery? You can’t even dream about coming up with some innovative idea, working hard & making the money yourself, huh? But that would probably involve laying someone off or something so yeah, stick with the lottery dream.

Dark Star on August 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM

You need a drink, my friend.

Utopian dreams do tend to be, you know, Utopian. You never asked about reality. Which isn’t bad, it just isn’t France with servant girls.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Is that how you do it in Wyoming? I knew about the sheep thing, but this is new.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:54 PM

How does a hipster douchbag that’s never lived anywhere other than a human antpile know anything about sheep???

Been around a lot of livestock have you??

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

GM and Chrysler eliminated dealerships in a way that was most conducive for future profitability 0bama campaign donations.
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:05 PM

MANY of the dealerships eliminated were very profitable ones, which were owned by Republicans / donors to the GOP.

LegendHasIt on August 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Oh please. You’re just full of dishonesty. You reek of it.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

No one needs a study to know that if Romney cuts rates 20 percent and still reduces the deficit, he either has to close loopholes that benefit the middle class or eliminate programs that benefit the middle class.

It’s arithmetic.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM

How does a hipster douchbag that’s never lived anywhere other than a human antpile know anything about sheep???

Been around a lot of livestock have you??

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

probably not as close to them as you. I hear in Wyoming, “animal husbandry” means something very different than it does elsewhere.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

It’s arithmetic.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Simplistic . You don’t ever surprise me.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Conan on August 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

You know what the minimum wage for HIS job is right now?

“zero”

The “average” Wages

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean hourly wage for a steel worker is $23.30 as of May 2009. The mean annual salary for steel workers in May 2009 was $48,470. Many steel workers belong to a union such as USW, also known as the United Steelworkers Union, and receive health benefits as part of being a union member.

The Union worker in steel bitches the average Chinese steelman makes 8-14 bucks when I drive by them on a picket line…..

hmmm

“hard math” I can make a% of 23 -37 bucks or I can make zero or go to china and make 8-12……

and the steelworker gets butthurt and says, “wahhhh pay me 37 bucks or I’ll kill this puppy”…..

hey idiots you ALREADY killed the puppy…..go to hell and leave your protectionist bent there.

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Formatting glitch:

GM and Chrysler eliminated dealerships in a way that was most conducive for future profitability 0bama campaign donations.

LegendHasIt on August 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Urban it is obvious you lied about reading the WSJ editorial.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Urban your comment about ‘what study’ gave you away. Dishonesty is just part of you.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM

That’s another thing — “utopian” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Maybe you can get your “rich college professor wife” (lolz) to help with that.

Dark Star on August 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Dishonesty is just part of you.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

That would be all of them. At least the current crop.

cozmo on August 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

You do not know what capital is.

You do not even realize that by investing your own capital in an index fund that you are a capitalist.

You are simply delegating your decisions as a capitalist to the people managing your fund, your capital, your money. Just like the people who invested in Bain Capital did.

I have seen nothing to indicate you know anything at all about the role finance, investment, and the efficient allocation of capital plays in capitalism, free enterprise, productivity, and creating wealth.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Please. Let’s not pretend that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is anything other than a propaganda spreadsheet for the 1%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM

What is your opinion about Holder and the boy king refusing to prosecute many of those 1% who had a role in the financial crisis, because of cronyism in the DOJ and donations to the boy king’s campaign from the 1%?

Flora Duh on August 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

The fact is that Urban simply brushes away the WSJ’s points. Urban is intellectually lazy.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

No one needs a study to know that if Romney cuts rates 20 percent and still reduces the deficit, he either has to close loopholes that benefit the middle class or eliminate programs that benefit the middle class.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM

The middle class by definition does not need “benefit programs”.

Your screaming and complaining is due to the fact that you are, like your Charles Rangel, likely committing welfare fraud and taking money from those who genuinely need it so you don’t have to pay your own bills.

northdallasthirty on August 10, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Urban is intellectually lazy.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I think that incapable would be a better choice.

cozmo on August 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM

probably not as close to them as you. I hear in Wyoming, “animal husbandry” means something very different than it does elsewhere.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

So we can equate that with your knowledge of finance..which is absolutely zero…

Look up misnomer when you get around to look up CAPITAL, doorknob.

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Urban it is obvious you lied about reading the WSJ editorial.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM

It’s a bunch of defensive blather. It’s worse than a campaign speech.

Second, the Romney campaign says it expects to increase revenues by increasing the rate of economic growth to 4%, up from less than 2% this year and in 2011.

Dynamic scoring is a myth.

For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%.

Ignores the vastly increased share of taxable income earned by the richest 1%

This reality is treated as a state secret in Washington because it refutes Mr. Obama’s campaign theme that the rich are undertaxed. The same crowd that has been howling that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes now touts a study concluding that cutting taxes will only benefit the rich. Well, which is it?

Empty rhetoric.

Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson recently testified before the Senate Finance Committee that “a tax reform similar to the Reagan effort of 1986″ would raise economic output over the long term “by $7 trillion in 2011 dollars.”

Define “long-term.” This is a meaningless statistic as presented.

The Romney plan of cutting the top tax rate to 28% and closing loopholes to pay for it is conceptually very close to what Simpson-Bowles recommended.

What loopholes? Mortgage interest deduction?

The difference is that the Romney plan caps tax revenues at about 18% of GDP so that taxes don’t have to rise on the middle class. If Mr. Romney’s numbers don’t add up, then neither do those in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan that the media treat as the Holy Grail of deficit reduction.

So, by slashing Medicare and Social Security that the middle class rely on? Because he’s raising military spending.

The great irony is that the candidate most likely to raise taxes on the middle class is Mr. Obama. He could raise every tax on the rich he proposes and still not come up with enough revenue to finance the increases in spending he wants in a second term. Where do you think he’ll turn then?

Rhetoric again.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Well if the Soptic response is any indication we’ll have a squish surrogate screw it up followed 7-10 days later by a not so hard hitting response ad.

bgibbs1000 on August 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

What is your opinion about Holder and the boy king refusing to prosecute many of those 1% who had a role in the financial crisis, because of cronyism in the DOJ and donations to the boy king’s campaign from the 1%?

Flora Duh on August 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

*cue* some pap that properly translated will seem suspiciously like the Romans having their elite rich and most poor wind up conspiring to hand Rome over to the julio-Claudian dynasty and limiting the upward mobility of the middle class for about three generations.

or

The peasants in Russia deciding that a bunch of moron expats who had spent the last 25 years hectoring each other over how to destroy boogeymen capitalists from the industrial age’s birth in England were JUST the guys to give them all land and a chance at self-determination…..

or any of another multitude of destructive shit fits by cultures on their way to oblivion and huge retraction or warfare to establish a new order that more often than not left all unwilling to bargain worse off or less free……

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM

You are simply delegating your decisions as a capitalist to the people managing your fund, your capital, your money. Just like the people who invested in Bain Capital did.

I have seen nothing to indicate you know anything at all about the role finance, investment, and the efficient allocation of capital plays in capitalism, free enterprise, productivity, and creating wealth.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Hey he is perfectly okay with having Bambi be “the decider” so long as he gets a check…..

except nah never mind it is so obvious it is sick…..

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 7:22 PM

probably not as close to them as you. I hear in Wyoming, “animal husbandry” means something very different than it does elsewhere.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Big surprise coming from you. You know someone who if such a gross comment was made about let’s say black people would be all up in arms.

Save your talk of your strange sexual proclivities for your friends please.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:23 PM

That’s another thing — “utopian” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Maybe you can get your “rich college professor wife” (lolz) to help with that.

Dark Star on August 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Just having some fun.

You do not know what capital is.

You do not even realize that by investing your own capital in an index fund that you are a capitalist.

You are simply delegating your decisions as a capitalist to the people managing your fund, your capital, your money. Just like the people who invested in Bain Capital did.

I have seen nothing to indicate you know anything at all about the role finance, investment, and the efficient allocation of capital plays in capitalism, free enterprise, productivity, and creating wealth.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I just said I was a capitalist, moron. Notice I gave three choices? Number three was the right answer.

The glee with which you mouth buzzwords underscores your insecurity in the matter…I’m impressed: oooh, you can say “wealth creation.”

Daily Show is on. Goodby for real.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Rhetoric again.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Your responses were hilarious. Sounded liked a campaign speech.

I love how guys like you think you are so smart yet post such and embarrassing retort. The irony and the hypocrisy are dumbfounding.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Later Urban eat chit.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

That’s another thing — “utopian” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Maybe you can get your “rich college professor wife” (lolz) to help with that.

Dark Star on August 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Just having some fun.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012

Sure.

/

Sheesh you are such a joke.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I’m betting urban’s eyes are brown from internal pressure.

viking01 on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Daily Show is on. Goodby for real.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM

This actually explains confirms my opinion of this Toilet Bug.

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Big surprise coming from you. You know someone who if such a gross comment was made about let’s say black people would be all up in arms.

Save your talk of your strange sexual proclivities for your friends please.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I believe it was Mr. Wyoming who started with the gross sex comments. And someone else, as well.

Seems to me you claimed this last week, and I sent you running away when I cited a study that showed that overall, the WSJ’s actual bias is farther to the left than the NYT and NPR.

Del Dolemonte on August 10, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Send it again. It ought to be good for a laugh. I don;t recall it.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Yeah, whatever.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Later Urban eat chit.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

and DIAF…

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Ignores the vastly increased share of taxable income earned by the richest 1%

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

And there we have what this is about, folks: pure, unbridled jealousy and hatred toward those who earn more than poor urban elitist does.

That betrays so much about its personality. Urban elitist is a spiteful, hateful little bigot who insists that anyone who has more money than he does didn’t earn it, doesn’t deserve it, and should have it forcibly stripped from them at the point of a gun so that HE can have it.

This of course can be turned around when you point him at the Pelosi, the Reid, the Kennedy, the Kerry, the Rangel, the McCaskill, and the others who are a) wealthy, b) profligate, and c) tax evaders, welfare cheats, and frauds.

Which makes it clear what a lying, sniveling little syncophant and toady it is.

northdallasthirty on August 10, 2012 at 7:31 PM

I believe it was Mr. Wyoming who started with the gross sex comments. And someone else, as well.
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

You better call me ‘Mr.’ you simpering gonad.

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:34 PM

So epic a fail is this ad, Romney should consider picking it up and using it. Leftist just don’t get irony. I’m convinced it escapes the pitiful void they call a brain. Funny though! Go team 0!!! Best pro Romney ad yet.

Bmore on August 10, 2012 at 7:35 PM

harlekwin15 on August 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Nice post. Thanks

Schadenfreude on August 10, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I believe it was Mr. Wyoming who started with the gross sex comments. And someone else, as well.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Oh so that excuses you…got it.

Goodby for real.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Such the liar.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Been around a lot of livestock have you??

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Lol! Minor correction.

Been in and around a lot of livestock have you??

Bmore on August 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Urban good to know you believe in the “but you did it first” defense.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Urban good to know you believe in the “but you did it first” defense.

CW on August 10, 2012 at 7:42 PM

You should really go back and read what the ignorant SOB is on about there..

BigWyo on August 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

My rich college professor wife and I probably paid more in taxes last year than you earned.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

I know you to be a pathetic little 5th tier troll, but this is comedy gold. You never cease to amaze me with you’re remarkable lack of perception. Keep up the good work. You are funny!

Bmore on August 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Your ignorance of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is astonishing.

Did the GM and Chrysler auto dealers shutter when:

GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 8 June 2009, from which it emerged on 10 July 2009.

Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 30 April 2009, from which it emerged by 28 August 2009.

Resist We Much on August 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

No. Because the federal backing assured a smooth transition.

Both could have received federal backing. The fact is that Obama, after bailing them out, promised that they would NEVER be permitted to go bankrupt. They did anyway.

The companies would have shut down and the bondholders would have been wiped out,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Nearly all analysts at the time felt at the time that without government bailout — GM and Chrysler would have been liquidated.”

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

There were many analysts that felt otherwise and the Indiana pensionholders (teachers, policemen, and firemen), who primed the UAW, were wiped out or nearly so. The UAW were UNSECURED CREDITORS. Pursuant to over 200 years of bankruptcy law, they should have been paid last.

Resist We Much on August 10, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I DO want a guy that knows how to count big piles of money, and knows how to turn things around and make them works, and gets rid of things that cost too much and are not working, and LAYS OFF government workers, making the federal government simpler and cheaper.

If he can do to the federal government the things that he did for MA, with the approval of the liberal Massachusetts legislature, who had run out of money to spend and falling into deep deficit…then he can do it in Washington.

The Boston Globe said that Massachusetts put itself into the receivership of Mitt Romney.

Here in MA there are democrats at Bain too, they didn’t go after Bain…

But the DNC are treating this old man in the commercial like scrap steel, I hope they paid him, using him, it’s sad.

Fleuries on August 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I DO want a guy that knows how to count big piles of money, and knows how to turn things around and make them works, and gets rid of things that cost too much and are not working, and LAYS OFF government workers, making the federal government simpler and cheaper.

Fleuries on August 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Yeah we’d all like that – the problem is … neither party nominated a guy like that!

HondaV65 on August 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

The UAW were UNSECURED CREDITORS. Pursuant to over 200 years of bankruptcy law, they should have been paid last.

Resist We Much on August 10, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I don’t remember too many of the GOP establishment getting too red faced over that. Yeah – Rush and Levin got pretty upset – but I don’t remember Crybaby Boehner giving enough of a good g** damn about it to even shed a tear.

HondaV65 on August 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Please. Let’s not pretend that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is anything other than a propaganda spreadsheet for the 1%.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM

What is your opinion about Holder and the boy king refusing to prosecute many of those 1% who had a role in the financial crisis, because of cronyism in the DOJ and donations to the boy king’s campaign from the 1%?

Flora Duh on August 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

*crickets*

Flora Duh on August 10, 2012 at 8:20 PM

The companies would have shut down and the bondholders would have been wiped out,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Nearly all analysts at the time felt at the time that without government bailout — GM and Chrysler would have been liquidated.”

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

There were many analysts that felt otherwise and the Indiana pensionholders (teachers, policemen, and firemen), who primed the UAW, were wiped out or nearly so. The UAW were UNSECURED CREDITORS. Pursuant to over 200 years of bankruptcy law, they should have been paid last.

Resist We Much on August 10, 2012 at 7:50 PM

From what I can tell, UE does not know how to read a balance sheet. Apparently it thinks liquidated means worthless, or something.

Apparently it thinks that getting a few shares of equity, worth a few cents on the dollar originally loaned, of a now government and union controlled company — shares that are now at post bankruptcy lows, is not getting “wiped out”.

Apparently it thinks making massively negative equity companies worth something by giving them tens of billions of tax payer dollars and screwing what were formerly favored debt holders is a good thing, even if the taxpayers see only a fraction of a dollar in return.

Apparently UE thinks this is an efficient use of capital. And all around better than what Bain Capital did in the case of a handful of businesses it tried to save but could not.

Apparently UE thinks the government should bail out all failed big businesses this way and that enterprises like Bain Capital should not exist, that government should play that role.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Romney doesn’t know how to make steel? Obama knows how to steal our money!

JimC on August 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Either you’re going to some third-tier community college desparate for a warm body
 
urban elitist on March 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

 

My rich college professor wife and I probably paid more in taxes last year than you earned.
 
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

 

Republicans hate the middle class, that’s why they support Mitt Romney.
 
urban elitist on March 4, 2012 at 11:01 AM

 
So funny.

rogerb on August 10, 2012 at 8:48 PM

BTW urban elitist, we’re still waiting for your answers to these two questions after you fled/let the thread die:
 
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/07/28/this-romney-dressage-hobby-certainly-is-snooty/comment-page-2/#comment-2035853
 
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/07/28/this-romney-dressage-hobby-certainly-is-snooty/comment-page-2/#comment-2035878
 
Feel free to post your responses in the original thread.

rogerb on August 10, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I saw an interview with John Lennon at one point where he said that they started Apple Records but didn’t want any business people involved. He said something like “we thought it should just be there for anyone who wanted to use it” but when Apple Records was on the verge of failure and closing up they realized that it was the business people who made it viable.

The point was that it was a music-making business, but the bottom line was that it was a business. The music makers could not make the business work. The business people made it work.

Same thing with government. Government cannot make business work. We’ve seen it time and again throughout the world.

jaime on August 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM

There are a lot of people who will hear this and go What?

If Mitt Romney knows to make money. Then he could not make money with this Steel plant. Most people understand that you do not close plants you can make money with and also understand that Steel has done poorly in the United States.

This is just a bad ad full of lies and distortations. Believe it the same plant that closed two years after Romney left Bain. Romney had no part in the decision to close the plant and possibly saved it for a while.

Do not like Romney but hate ads like this that are just blatant lies worse. Even if it is against a Democrat pretending to be a Republican.

Steveangell on August 10, 2012 at 9:24 PM

From the other thread:

To my buddy Rogerb —

I may be a liar/moron/commie/statist/elitist/welfare cheat, but I apparently have more of a real life others who post here and so I often spend my time living, rather than keeping endless internet discussions going. It’s fun to have fun and all that, but sometimes I like to read a book, talk to my wife, catch a movie, see friends or have a nice meal. Certainly, I have to wonder about someone who comes back to week old discussions looking for answers to questions that — as you looked them over — should have seemed a little insipid. But:

So you and I paid for the care and feeding of his horse.

urban elitist on July 28, 2012 at 8:08 PM

For consistency’s sake, you also oppose any/all welfare recipients keeping pets other than service animals, correct?

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Mitt Romney’s horse is (potentially) costing me money. For consistency’s sake, I oppose welfare recipients keeping pets if it costs me money — that is, if their TANF payment increases based on the number of pets they’re feeding. Also, for consistency’s sake, I have no problem with the Romneys keeping a dressage horse whose grooming does not become a tax write-off.

Here’s the problem — you clearly didn’t think this question through, because a non-taxpayer funded cat is not the equivalent of a show horse that doubles as a tax write off.

Urban Elitist, one more, and it’s a simple yes/no question:

So governments create their budgets anticipating taxpayers’ full total pre-adjusted wages/incomes, and then have to figure out ways to make up the funding after they’ve “lost” taxpayer deductions?

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

That’s, of course, not at all what I said — or so gross an oversimplification (I know you need to keep things simple) as to miss the point entirely.

Government expenditures have to be paid for, either through current revenue or borrowing, which in turn must be paid for. In its wisdom, the government determines various tax rates for various groups and entities: corporations, partnerships, individuals and families of varying income levels and so on. Whenever one group pays less, that amount must be made up somehow.

We allow mortgages and donations to NARAL and other charities to be deducted from our income taxes. That means, in order to realize the same amount of revenue, the overall tax rate has to rise. This is arguably unfair to renters and the non-charitably-minded, but society has determined that your church and my house deserve to be supported by people who will never set foot in either one of those structures. And a credible, if not entirely persuasive, argument can be made that charitable donations and home ownership bring sufficient public benefits that the public should support them.

If Mitt is writing off $77k on his horse, the tax on that income that is foregone by the feds will ultimately have to be made up somehow.

Really, it is simple. And if you were a conservative, rather than just some random internet crank, you’d be as appalled as I am. Even Romney should be appalled — isn’t this just the type of loophole he’s pledged to close so that he can lower tax rates?

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 9:51 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Apparently UE thinks the government should bail out all failed big businesses this way and that enterprises like Bain Capital should not exist, that government should play that role.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Actually, what I think is that there are a number of vulture capitalist companies that do a good job of turning businesses around, creating wealth and jobs. I just don;t think that was the Bain business model. Bain was interested in pumping earnings short-term, using debt financing to get a favorable tax treatment, borrowing money short term, paying themselves dividends and then dumping a weakened company back on whatever dupes would take it off their hands.

I also believe that, while the creative destruction of capitalism is generally a pretty good thing over the long term, that allowing the a huge chunk of the domestic auto industry to go belly up in 2009 would have such horrific ramifications for the economy as a whole and millions of families — far beyond Detroit — that there was no real alternative but to bail them out.

Obama had a choice — dramatic action at a critical juncture in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, or allow the economy’s downward spiral to accelerate.

The cost of the bailout was miniscule compared to the cost of another 15% drop in the stock market and another few points of unemployment.

The real economy is not the same as the charts and graphs they put in whatever textbook you might have skimmed back in college.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Face it little man, you’re in way over your head here. Its why you consistently act the coward. Funny as heII though so there is that redeeming feature. Little else though. Funny! Laughing in your face fool!

Bmore on August 10, 2012 at 10:58 PM

I just don;t think that was the Bain business model. Bain was interested in pumping earnings short-term, using debt financing to get a favorable tax treatment, borrowing money short term, paying themselves dividends and then dumping a weakened company back on whatever dupes would take it off their hands.

This is your fantasy. You have no evidence this was their business model.

Or even that any such a enterprise, operating within the law, even exists other than in Hollywood movies and in anti-capitalist propaganda.

allowing the a huge chunk of the domestic auto industry to go belly up in 2009 would have such horrific ramifications for the economy as a whole and millions of families — far beyond Detroit — that there was no real alternative but to bail them out…

Speculation and unfounded assaertion.

Including the part about “belly up”, whatever that means.

GM and Chrysler could have gone through the same bankruptcy process tens of thousands of businesses have gone through and come out reorganized. But the unions contracts would have been null and void, which is what the taxpayer funded bailout, the tossing away of centuries of bankruptcy law, and the screwing of bondholders was really all about.

farsighted on August 10, 2012 at 11:13 PM

This ad is utter stupidity.

It was Newt’s Bain attacks on Romney that convinced me that Romney is the right man for this time in our history.

Mitt may not be as rock-solid in a few areas as I want, but without a financial expert leading our ship of state the next four years we are truly doomed.

Does anybody really think our country will be in better shape after 4 more years of Nobody-votes-for-my-budget than 4 years of Bain-type leadership?

rwenger43 on August 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM

It’s fun to have fun and all that, but sometimes I like to read a book, talk to my wife, catch a movie, see friends or have a nice meal.

 
Don’t forget the Daily Show.
 

but I apparently have more of a real life others who post here…
 
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

 
Those are usually the funniest ones. It almost always boomerangs. As your buddy, I say this for help in future posts: when you’re considering writing about the other awesome things you do besides posting, stop and delete it. One because it serves no purpose, and two because it will almost always end up like that. The mere act of hitting “submit” proves you’ve chosen hotair.com over your wife, a book, a movie, your friends, etc., and it automatically establishes that those other things aren’t as fulfilling or important at the moment. The time stamp sometimes makes it worse.
 

but I apparently have more of a real life others who post here…
 
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

 
Typed right before following it up with ~800 words at 10:30 on a Friday night. Well done. (See?)
___
It’s a bit of an aside, but this is interesting in context as well:
 

Certainly, I have to wonder about someone who comes back to week old discussions

 
Your Hotair threads are important enough to trump your wife, a book, a movie, your friends, etc., but they’re not important enough to finish once you’ve started? Probably best to not tell your wife or friends.
___
 
BTW, I know we’re in the same time zone, but I’m sorry I couldn’t be here to converse with you in semi-real time. My wife and I had gone out.

 
Regardless:

 

And if you were a conservative, rather than just some random internet crank…
 
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

 
 
Well played. There are those who might even say “Palin-like”.
 

Or is this sort of third grade name calling all you’ve got?
 
How Palin-like.
 
urban elitist on February 23, 2012 at 7:42 AM

 
Say, do you know that guy?
 
And I know you were lashing out and meant it as an attack, but thanks also for this: “I know you need to keep things simple”. The word “elegant” is used in my field as high praise (maybe different than “elegant” in your circle. Think more “optimal outcome with minimum effort and expense”), but you managed to get close with “simple”.
 
For example, your 250+ word response to my yes or no question would likely not be considered simple or elegant, while “Welfare animals (four legs) good, Romney’s animal (two legs) bad” is a bit closer. Thanks for your response on the matter, though. I figured it was all political, but I appreciate the confirmation.
 
___
An aside so you understand the counter to your position:

Money welfare families spend on their pets is money that could reduce their dependency on any/all welfare programs, not just TANF (I liked how you tried to isolate it btw). You can’t separate a family’s total spent any more than you can separate water in a tub.
___
 

That’s, of course, not at all what I said

 
So there is no confusion, here’s the post that started it all:
 

When somebody takes a deduction from their taxes, that revenue has to be made up from other sources — you and I. Reducing your taxes by $11k is, from budget point of view, exactly the same as getting an $11k subsidy.

urban elitist on July 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM

My response/inquiry:

So governments create their budgets anticipating taxpayers’ full total pre-adjusted wages/incomes, and then have to figure out ways to make up the funding after they’ve “lost” taxpayer deductions?

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

And now your follow-ups:

If Mitt is writing off $77k on his horse, the tax on that income that is foregone by the feds will ultimately have to be made up somehow.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Government expenditures have to be paid for, either through current revenue or borrowing, which in turn must be paid for. In its wisdom, the government determines various tax rates for various groups and entities: corporations, partnerships, individuals and families of varying income levels and so on. Whenever one group pays less, that amount must be made up somehow.
 
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

 

How are yours any different than mine? Please understand I’m not attacking you. I’m genuinely interested in your (thrice stated) view of money/taxes/government/possession.
 
(FWIW, that discussion wasn’t about Romney, crankiness, or being appalled, but solely about how you viewed individual and government ownership of money. Your ad hominems and talk of Romney are distractions from that. One guy around here might even call it “Palin-like”.)
 
Our statements are almost identical, so your answer to my question:
 

So governments create their budgets anticipating taxpayers’ full total pre-adjusted wages/incomes, and then have to figure out ways to make up the funding after they’ve “lost” taxpayer deductions?
 
rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

 
should’ve been a “yes”. It’s fine that you believe that, by the way, and God bless America that people can have such drastically different views.
 
Otherwise, if you can articulate how they aren’t identical please do. Feel free to not introduce Romney, carburetors, or apples as none of them have any bearing on this specific conversation.

rogerb on August 11, 2012 at 2:59 PM

rogerb on August 11, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I will add that all indications are Romney simply declared a loss against possible future earnings, so the tax effect is nil unless or until his horse business becomes profitable.

Breeding, selling, raising, and training world class horses is big business. He is doing exactly what everyone else in the business routinely does.

The Romney’s have a possible world class horse and have done what everyone else in the business does, they formed a company to manage it, care for it, and train it, in partnership with some other people. And they put money into it.

Apparently they invested at least 77K in this horse with zero return. Some of that may have gone to pay the salaries of a manager and trainers, groomers, and caretakers — that is, creating jobs. So they declared that as a loss, as the business tax code lets them do. If in future years they manage to show a profit on their investment in the horse they can help offset it for tax purposes with this loss.

The only thing unique about this is the business is a horse and Romney is running for President.

Over the years tens of millions of business owners who start a business take losses in the first years of operation. Most businesses lose money in the first year or two, at least. They do essentially the same thing Romney did, declare those losses. When they finally show a profit they can use those losses to offset their initial profits for tax purposes.

If doing this is disallowed not only would starting a business would become much more expensive but the cost of doing business for all companies, big and small, would go up because they all declare losses in non-profitable years and use them the same way.

People who understand how businesses are created, started, and built and who understand the tax code understand this, including Democrats who start and run businesses.

But apparently Team Socialism, their propagandists in the MSM, and the libtard trolls on HA do not.

farsighted on August 11, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3