November 27, 2012

“York: After victory, liberals want income redistribution”

Which we knew before the Obama victory.  Both of them, actually.

Good thing we’re allowed, finally, to speak of it, though.  That way we can vent without fear of turning off those moderates and independents who went and voted yet again for Obama!

Checkmate!

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:51pm
32 comments | Trackback

Comments (32)

  1. Who knew? Besides anyone paying attention, I mean.

  2. After victory
    Before victory
    During victory
    After loss
    Before loss
    During loss

  3. Can we at least get the GOP to change their definition of “Losing with honor” ?

    Bleah.

  4. “Losing with honor” implies that there was some sort of resistance or counteroffensive involved. Hard to justify when their first instinct is capitulation. Oh, sure, they mouth a few words for the cameras, but nobody believes they’ll do anything to back up their pretty speeches.

    These days, the Democrats don’t “reach across the aisle” so much as they just bypass the Maginot Line.

  5. Eh, true enough Squid. But I really feel that concept in of itself is trying to be pushed away in the culture. Allow for holding onto your convictions, even acknowledging when they’re not popular.”
    Not this endless “Whatever it takes so that I don’t go away completely.”

    I know, I know. Wishcasting. I guess I’m just not personally built for holding onto power even as it kills my soul, so it’s hard for me to understand the allure.

  6. GOP didn’t find a hill worth dying on. Now all out of hills. Looking for a ditch to die in instead.

  7. The middle class is going to find out that “the rich” includes THEM.

  8. I linked this the other day, but in case you missed it, even the Russians are calling Obama a dirty commie.

    I gotta admit, I didn’t see that one coming…

  9. Maybe York was talking about 2008. That’s when Obama told Joe the Plumber that he planned to spread the wealth around.

  10. OT: the narrative now is this “fiscal cliff” crap. I say, let’s go over, screaming, waving our hands in the air!

  11. The American Prospect article they are referencing is an amazing piece of doublepeak.

    http://prospect.org/article/great-societys-next-frontier

    The government currently gives large tax breaks to private retirement savings accounts like 401(k)s, breaks that overwhelmingly go to the top 20 percent of workers. It could instead use its resources to provide a universal IRA with an automatic enrollment to all Americans, as well shifting 401(k)s over to a public-private, defined-benefit plan. This would boost the savings of those with less income while also providing greater retirement security.

    Boosting savings indeed.

    Given trends in the global economy, Kenworthy argues that even if we get unemployment below 4 percent, it is unlikely that wages at the bottom end of the distribution would grow. Instead, he calls for using the EITC to subsidize wages. The EITC, he argues, could be used to boost wages even in the middle class, say, for workers making up to $80,000, and indexed to increases in GDP or average worker compensation. This would use the tax code to boost the stagnant wages of average Americans.

    Taxes. Is there anything they can’t do?

  12. shifting 401(k)s over to a public-private, defined-benefit plan.

    DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!

  13. In other words, confiscate everyone’s 401K and pour the money into Social Security’s bottomless pit.

    Fucking brilliant!

  14. If they try and take the pension plan I’ve been contributing to for 20 years to stick in Social Security, I plan to go down in a hail of bullets, outlaw style.

    That is, unless I can distract the feds with hookers, which seems a good bet.

  15. Everyone’s 401ks are in jeopardy. If I were you, I’d shelter it elsewhere.

  16. - The Obama Utopians are busily handing out sheet music on the fantail of the Titanic.

    - In other news…..

    Following on their meeting with UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) released a statement bashing her performance and stating that President Obama had serious questions to answer about Rice’s statements in the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

    The text of the statement:

    “We respectfully disagree with the White House’s statement today that ‘there are no unanswered questions’** about Ambassador Rice’s September 16 Sunday show appearances and the talking points she used.

    Around 10:00 this morning in a meeting requested by Ambassador Rice, accompanied by acting CIA Director Mike Morell, we asked Mr. Morell who changed the unclassified talking points to remove references to al-Qaeda. In response, Mr. Morell said the FBI removed the references and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation. We were surprised by this revelation and the reasoning behind it.

    However, at approximately 4:00 this afternoon, CIA officials contacted us and indicated that Acting Director Morell misspoke in our earlier meeting. The CIA now says that it deleted the al-Qaeda references, not the FBI. They were unable to give a reason as to why.

    We are disturbed by the Administration’s continued inability to answer even the most basic questions about the Benghazi attack and the Administration’s response.

    Beyond Ambassador Rice’s misstatements, we continue to have questions about what happened in Benghazi before, during, and after the attack on our consulate – as well as the President’s statements regarding the attack.

    Perhaps most important, we also need to understand why the U.S. military was unable to respond within seven hours to save American lives in Benghazi and why our consulate was left so unsecure despite a series of previous attacks.

    In more than a dozen letters, we and other Senators have repeatedly requested that the Administration provide answers to our questions. Yet, today most of them remain unanswered. We eagerly await their response.”

    **(Partial statement of Carney)

    - So now that Patraeus has been shuttled off, the CIA is being asked to fall on its sword, which if you recall was 180 in a statement they released back a few weeks ago.

    - The lies continue to pile up, and not a single ract has emerged as of yet, other than the “fog of wat” and “evolving intel”, neither of which answers a damn thing.

    - I don’t think they ever intend to answer anything. Apparently whatever is being covered up is so damning, the entire cabinet is going to stonewall.

    - Which, when you think about it, is really bad.

  17. The only place your wealth is truly safe is in some commodity not dependent on the value of the dollar, in a locked safe that you are standing in front of, holding a gun.

    If you cannot put your hands on it, you do not own it. If you cannot protect that wealth personally, you don’t own it. If it’s held in paper, even if that paper is in your possession, it’s worthless.

  18. That is, unless I can distract the feds with hookers, which seems a good bet.

    That will probably work.

  19. california just raised sales taxes, which is an extremely regressive thing to do

    they don’t really give a shit about helping poor people

    not even a little

    it’s a shame poor people tend to be even dumber than your average americans

    but what can you do when you live in a country what can’t even make twinkies

  20. Line of the night went to Happyfeet.

  21. Good thing we’re allowed, finally, to speak of it, though. That way we can vent without fear of turning off those moderates and independents who went and voted yet again for Obama!

    Respectfully, your analysis here is wrong. Moderates and independents voted for Romney, who lost because he didn’t carry enough social conservatives to offset social liberals.

    But the Republican Party would rather spend two more generations in the minority than admit they need social conservatives.

  22. he didn’t carry enough womens neither

    or young people

  23. - So then, are we saying that Romney didn’t win because he didn’t get enough votes, because, you know, that would be downright amazing.

  24. Has anybody linked this one yet?
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/26/president-obama-briefly-worried-that-his

    Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

    The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6.

    My favorite part:

    “There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

    They don’t even have to pretend.

  25. This is definitely racist. Thwarting attempts to raise the black man up is exactly the same as keeping the black man down.

  26. *who lost because he didn’t carry enough social conservatives to offset social liberals.*

    Really? I hadn’t seen those stats. Where did you get that from ? Not doubting you, I’ve just been looking at alot of the post-election numbers and didn’t realize there was a lack of social conservative turnout. If its true, talk about a group of folks shooting themselves in the foot.

  27. You mean all those people who couldn’t be bothered to vote for Obama-lite, because get in line, shut-up and quit embarrassing us is such an appealing message?

    Repeating from memory, correctly or not, what I’ve read and heard about Romney underperforming McCain in a base-turnout election.

    As I’ve said before, maybe Romney should have set his hair on fire.

  28. The thing about social conservatives is, they know that a shot foot can be healed, but a soul shot to hell is lost.

  29. FWIW, last I heard — as all the various absentee ballots were being tallied — Romney had more-or-less matched McCain’s total vote, possibly even beat it slightly. * Not that it matters, the day-after-the-election “3 million fewer votes than McCain” meme is effectively Common Wisdom now, even if wrong.

    * Which is still pathetic, obviously. It should’ve been a landslide, what with running against the Worst President Ever.

  30. But he’s not the Worst President Ever. He’s a Good Man, A Nice Guy who Means Well. He’s just In Over His Head and It’s Not Working.

    Because of Bush.

  31. Respectfully, your analysis here is wrong. Moderates and independents voted for Romney, who lost because he didn’t carry enough social conservatives to offset social liberals.

    I don’t think so. The point was that in winning more moderates and independent — whom the GOP always tell us we must target — wasn’t enough to offset those put off by such panders. That is, Romney didn’t have to win moderates and independents. He had to win them all if he wanted to offset the fact that he refused to please his base.

    You’re correct, though, that the GOP would rather keep this up than allow the icky types a voice. Save in the platform, which nobody really believes in anyway.

  32. I seem to remember a brief but embarrassing fight over the platform that probably resulted in a number of Ron Paul supporters sitting out the election.

    But yeah, your right that the GOP will conclude that it didn’t move far enough left.

Leave a Reply