This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on
September 19, 2012 4:49 PM.
The previous post in this blog was
Admiral Randy's latest land play is sidelined.
The next post in this blog is
Hey hey, my my.
Many more can be found on the
main index page or by looking through
the archives.
Comments (37)
Will Omitt Romney work in the future or shall he be called Remitt Romney?
Posted by Evergreen Libertarian | September 19, 2012 5:07 PM
ObamaCare "Penalty Tax" Now Estimated to Hit 6 Million Mostly Low- and Middle-Income Americans: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-penalty-tax-now-estimated-hit-6-million?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+TaxPolicyBlog+(Tax+Foundation+-+Tax+Foundation's+%2522Tax+Policy+Blog%2522)
Posted by Molly | September 19, 2012 6:22 PM
Never develop a political opinion from someone who draws cartoons.
Posted by annoyed | September 19, 2012 6:36 PM
Hey, Matt, that guy you drew looks more like Nathan Lane than he does like the Mittster.
Posted by Allan L. | September 19, 2012 7:33 PM
The national debt has increased by more than $15,000 per man, woman, and child in this country since he took office, yet Obama couldn't remember the size of the debt when asked by Letterman. And "Richie Mitt" is out of touch? Wow.
We're demonizing Romney's self-made wealth while Obama robs us blind. I just don't get it.
Posted by PD | September 19, 2012 8:14 PM
Romney's self-made wealth
You are completely delusional.
Posted by Jack Bog | September 19, 2012 9:24 PM
I love how Mitt sticks his golden foot in mouth about every three days. His campaign is dying the death of a thousand self-inflicted wounds. If the Republicans were smart, they'd put him in a cave until about a week before the election.
PD - Mitt's daddy-o was the head of American Motors, as I recall. Doubt Mitt had a paper route as a young lad. Unless the chauffer drove.
Posted by umpire | September 19, 2012 9:45 PM
The national debt has increased by more than $15,000 per man, woman, and child in this country since he took office, yet Obama couldn't remember the size of the debt when asked by Letterman. And "Richie Mitt" is out of touch? Wow.
Yes, not knowing the precise amount of the debt is worse than writing off 47% of the public as parasitic moochers. Riiiiiiiight.
Posted by Dave J. | September 19, 2012 9:54 PM
Jack, I know it doesnt fit the narrative, but Mitt gave away almost all of the money inherited from his father's estate...
Posted by it's Mike | September 19, 2012 10:05 PM
Come on. The suggestion was that Mitt's wealth was "self-made." It's totally ridiculous. He is the ultimate trust fund baby.
Posted by Jack Bog | September 19, 2012 10:09 PM
"...Mitt gave away almost all of the money inherited from his father's estate..."
And he donated his salary from the running the olympics to charity.
The statement that Romney is a simply a "trust fund baby" embodies a lot that's wrong with this country. When somebody is as successful as Romney, they're often ridiculed for having been "born on third" or born with a "silver spoon". This isn't entirely true.
Romney was born advantaged. He came from a good home with parents that had access to opportunities that opened many doors that most of us will never see. There is absolutely nothing in Romney's past that suggests that he's a playboy whose parents funded his every whim. He's a self starter that did a fantastic job of leveraging the opportunities he was lucky enough to be born into. We may not like Bain Capital, and some just love the narrative that he's "Richie Mitt" the outsourcer...but he's far from a "trust fund baby".
Honestly Jack, I think I like Romney only slightly more than you (I'm "plugging my nose" the other direction), but I'd rather trust the next four years to Romney (which will be pivotal) rather that to the greatest squanderer of wealth and opportunity of all time, Barack Obama.
Romney's wealth was "self-made", that's pretty well documented; the opportunities presented to him are another story. The sad thing about this country is that many people don't know the difference.
Posted by PD | September 19, 2012 10:48 PM
Romney's wealth was "self-made",
As long as you count zero-sum, heads-I-win-tails-you-lose corporate looting.
Posted by Allan L. | September 19, 2012 11:03 PM
That's right, Allan. Every rich guy is a corporate looter just like every transit union employee doesn't work hard and is just there to suck off the public trough, right?
Posted by PD | September 19, 2012 11:10 PM
Romney's wealth was "self-made", that's pretty well documented; the opportunities presented to him are another story.
Are you really such a hopeless money worshipper? This man was set for life before he was born. He was George Effin' Romney's son. You can argue policy, but please don't try to tell me his wealth is "self-made," because that is complete and total horses**t.
Posted by Jack Bog | September 19, 2012 11:14 PM
Jack, I'm arguing that Romney was "set for life" because of the family he was born into, not because his parents dumped truckloads of cash in his lap. There is a difference.
Posted by PD | September 19, 2012 11:33 PM
And are people suggesting that Obama wasn't set for life? He was pulled forward by a series of socialist sugar-daddies and mentors who provided everything he's ever needed. They made sure he passed his classes, made sure his college was paid for, made sure his degree materialized, made sure he got jobs with sympathetic law firms. He has done nothing by the sweat of his own brow.
Posted by HagbardCeline | September 19, 2012 11:42 PM
You are "supporting" a man with NO experience or expertise over one with an established successful career.
What is wrong with you? What is it you want for all of us? What is it you want for your daughters? Marxism, communism, enslavement? Think carefully Jack.
Posted by Molly | September 19, 2012 11:48 PM
Right, the guy that's been our president for four years has no experience or expertise. And he's shown himself to be a communist with his policies.
What the what?
Posted by Aaron | September 20, 2012 12:28 AM
What is wrong with you? What is it you want for all of us? What is it you want for your daughters?
Mitt Romney could give a rat's tuchis about my kids -- or about you, Molly. And I don't want anyone's daughters dying in some back alley abortion, God forbid they should need one. Sorry, but as much as I detest that phony sellout Obama, I'd never vote for the likes of Romney and Ryan. You can have them, and the Clarence Thomases that come with them.
Posted by Jack Bog | September 20, 2012 1:07 AM
It can't come down to that. Your daughters will NEVER need a back alley abortion. Romney isn't the answer. GOD is.
Posted by Molly | September 20, 2012 1:51 AM
Ryan won't even let them have the morning-after pill. Those guys belong back in a cave somewhere.
Posted by Jack Bog | September 20, 2012 2:14 AM
"Enslavement?"
I love how Obama helping to get everybody health care is "enslavament" while Republicans wishing to destroy the social safety net, and destroy worker rights, environmental protections, etc. you know unleash the Randian job creators--or worse the paper pushing banker frauds to do whatever the f*** they want to you, your family and your neighborhood, is...freedom? Molly go to Russia, China, or better yet Somalia and see how that sort of lawlessness works out for the little people--or their daughters. Or even better yet take your own advice and go read your bible pay attention to what Jesus said about rich people and camels, and weather we should be helping poor people, because you obviously missing his message. Or do you have another religion in mind, one that rewards cynical greed and denigrates the majority of people as less than worthless.
Posted by Shadrach | September 20, 2012 2:40 AM
I'm often surprised at people like 'Molly'. It's obvious they can write complete sentences, so I figure their mind is fully functional. Yet the content of what they are saying is so ludicrous I'm not sure if they are joking or not.
Posted by Jo | September 20, 2012 4:30 AM
Lots of open minds in this comment list. On both sides.
Posted by MachineShedFred | September 20, 2012 5:22 AM
An open mind does not mean you blindy, unquestioningly accept BS. That would be what's wrong with most of the media these days.
Posted by Ex-bartender | September 20, 2012 6:18 AM
Can we all cut the political nonsense about making abortion illegal in the USA?
In order for that to happen, a law has to be passed by both houses of Congress, has to be signed into law by the President and would immediately be appealed through the Federal Court System. The REAL likelyhood of that happening is virtually nil.
Posted by Dave A. | September 20, 2012 6:18 AM
Hey Dave, try to get an abortion on the South. Or Kansas.
I'm looking forward to seeing people argue that Mitt paid his own tuition, too. And he had to bag groceries to buy his first car. And how his family being a part of the elite had no bearing whatsoever on his success. Hate Obama all you want. Theres plenty material, but geez, at least reconsider the Romney hero worship.
Posted by Chuck | September 20, 2012 6:40 AM
I'm looking forward to seeing people argue that Obama paid his own tuition, too. And he had to bag groceries to buy his first car. And how his family of cronies being a part of the elite had no bearing whatsoever on his success. Hate Obama all you want (racists)! Theres plenty material, but geez, at least reconsider the Obama is Messiah-with-experience-and-expertese worship.
Posted by Harry | September 20, 2012 7:19 AM
Seek help man.
Posted by Chuck | September 20, 2012 7:28 AM
I think the most glaring omission in the discussion about who is on the public dole, is the fact that the Federal Reserve is propping up Wall Street, and the Dow, and has been for years. Considering that money is ultimately charged to the Treasury as more national debt, and the rich people of America are dependent on it to keep their stocks going, how can you say they aren't on the federal dole, too?
When you hear people like Mitt Romney complain about the debt, he's actually complaining about being on the federal dole himself, maybe not with a monthly check, but in a roundabout way that is every bit the welfare a single mom receives, only of course, costing many times more.
Posted by Bill McDonald | September 20, 2012 7:47 AM
Hey, Chuck: be a bit more clueless with your next example, okay?
I *grew up* in Kansas and Wichita was considered one of the abortion capitals of the world. George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer in my neck of the woods) was one of the few late-term abortionists in the U.S. until he was gunned down by a wacko in his church.
Using Kansas as an example of a place it is hard to get an abortion is ludicrous.
Posted by TacoDave | September 20, 2012 11:33 AM
Let's not forget that little Richie gets a huge tax subsidy from the rest of us, because his income is sprinkled with fairy dust so that he pays around 13% in income taxes while suckers who earn wages pay up to 32%, and pay a whole lot more of their income in payroll tax. The money he saved in taxes by being a subsidized capital gains earner this past year would keep him in food stamps well into the fourth millennium.
Posted by Cary | September 20, 2012 12:21 PM
At least if Obama is re-elected he can finally bring to an end four years of campaigning. And play more free golf. Fore!
Posted by Gil Slater | September 20, 2012 1:22 PM
"At least if Obama is re-elected he can finally bring to an end four years of campaigning."
But will he blame the current lousy economy on the guy who was President the last four years?
And if so, will he also be called a racist?
Posted by Harry | September 20, 2012 1:37 PM
"George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer in my neck of the woods) was one of the few late-term abortionists in the U.S. until he was gunned down by a wacko in his church."
You realize that you just made my point, right? Didn't Kansas just try to bring criminal charges against Planned Parethood?
Posted by Chuck | September 20, 2012 2:12 PM
Let's redistribute the wealth. (Obama 1998)
Posted by snowdog | September 20, 2012 2:31 PM
Chuck: I did no such thing. Tiller was an abortionist in Kansas for almost 40 years. Your "point" was that it's hard to get an abortion in Kansas. It isn't.
If your point had been "Being an abortionist in Kansas can be dangerous" then I would have made your point for you.
Posted by TacoDave | September 21, 2012 10:31 AM