Recent Posts

Leave those rich people alone! Haven’t Target’s upper managment endured enough hardship?

by The Big E on March 13, 2012 · 14 comments

The Chicago Tribune interviewed vulture capitalist and billionaire Kenneth Griffin who moaned about how awful everything is under the Obama Administration. He runs a hedge fund and is a conservative. Hedge funds and men like Griffin have made trillions of dollars betting against our economy and stripping American companies of all value.

After nearly weeping over the state of our nation under Obama (aka The Weeping Orange Man), bemoaning how little influence the billionaires have over American politics and blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the financial crisis he and his ilk caused, Griffin lets us know that our efforts are actually scaring the 1% … as much as the unwashed masses are ever going to scare them:

Q. How much do you think your influence comes from the size of your donations? Do you think you should be able to make unlimited donations? Should you be able to donate $500,000 to a super PAC?

A. In my opinion, absolutely. Absolutely. The rules that encourage transparency around that are really important. And I say that with a bit of trepidation.

Q. Why with trepidation?

A. Target made a political donation and there was a huge boycott organized.

Q. So do you or don’t you think the public should know if you’re giving this money?

A. My public policy hat says transparency is valuable. On the flip side, this is a very sad moment in my lifetime. This is the first time class warfare has really been embraced as a political tool. Because we are looking at an administration that has embraced class warfare as being politically expedient, I do worry about the publicity that comes with being willing to both with my dollars and, more importantly, with my voice to stand for what I believe in.

That’s right. The spoiled rich kid hates class warfare when we po’ folk point fight back. The guy who started on third base and thinks he hit a home run after he made his first billion, isn’t happy that the 99% might not like it that he and his friends have bought Congress.

Sheesh. Sorry, dude. We didn’t know you silver spooners had it so rough. Maybe we should ease up on the poor guy considering the hardship he’s undergone.

And to Target’s upper management: We’re really sorry we got angry that you tried to buy the governor’s race for your homophobic muppet Tom Emmer.

We’ll stop demanding transparency, honesty and any sense of ethics. We’ll just go back to buying your cheap **** made in China and keeping our mouths shut. Sorry. Won’t happen again.

Just please stop crying.

AO March 13, 2012 at 7:48 pm

Are you also looking for transparency about who we vote for?  Is the only time I’m allowed to make a private or anonymous political effort on election day?

Wouldn’t class warfare waged from the rich against the poor look like higher income tax rates for the poor, or maybe a wealth requirement to live in a certain town or vote?  Is fighting for more of your own money “class warfare”?

The Big E March 13, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Great to hear from you, AO, and get your ever-illuminating insight into the mind of the average teabagger.

How’s the bagging of the tea going? Does it hurt much?

Hoping to change the subject?

AO March 13, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Were my questions not about your subject?  Aren’t questions about bagging tea off-topic?

ericf March 13, 2012 at 8:33 pm

“higher income tax rates for the poor”

Have you looked at your own likely presidential candidate’s tax proposal? Have you looked at what Republicans have done in other states? That’s exactly what they do.

These guys aren’t fighting for their own money. Their fighting for the power to take more of everyone else’s.

AO March 13, 2012 at 8:49 pm

I said “income tax rates”, not “effective tax rates”.  As in, taxing the first $25,000 one makes at 45% and the next $100,000 at 5%.  

Let me try another question, Is “class warfare” a proposed reduction in forced charitable giving to the poor?  

If you choose not to give $20 to the homeless guy on the street corner, are you harming him or are you just not helping him?  An act of harm or warfare might be if you decided to kick him or take whatever money he had.

Alec March 14, 2012 at 7:49 pm

there is no point in arguing with people like AO. He honestly thinks that whatever you have is due 100% to your own hard work.

How do you argue with a guy who thinks that a stable society has nothing to do with quality of life? How do you argue with a guy who honestly believes, that if Bill Gates had been born in a hut in Rowanda or a refugee cap in Thailand, that he would achieve the exact same success, because it is all his and he deserves it all? Anyone who does not have millions is either stupid, lazy, or both.

And Jesus said, “Take as much with you when you die as you can, for my father’s kingdom needs a re-model.”

From the book of AO 1:1

AO March 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm

When I say keep “more” of the money one makes, I don’t mean “all”.  I am not an anarchist.  

My biggest issue is not reducing the portion of taxes that the rich currently pay, it is reducing the size of government spending.  When we accomplish the reduction in spending, everyone’s portion will go down.

I don’t think it’s very worthwhile to discuss who is conducting class warfare.  Let’s pretend that both sides have everyone’s best interest at heart and get down to discussing the actual policy recommendations.  

Alec March 15, 2012 at 5:11 am

Obama has reduced the size and cost of government. You despise him.

Reagan increased the size and scope of government dramatically. You worship him.

It is truly, truly Orwellian.,  

AO March 15, 2012 at 11:07 am


From 5.34 trillion in 2008 to 6.28 trillion in 2012.

I don’t worship Reagan’s spending increases or Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”.

TwoPuttTommy March 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm

And compared to Bush The Lesser, Reagan looked like a tight wad.

And Cheney is reported to say: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

So tell me: why is it that RWNJ’s only get upset about spending when a Democrat is in office?  

TwoPuttTommy March 15, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Do you dispute that Reagan increased the number of Federal Employees – “increased the size of government” while Obama DECREASED the number of Federal Employees?

AO March 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm

I don’t dispute it.  Reducing the number of employees while increasing the spending doesn’t make much difference to me.  spending is spending.  

To answer your deficits don’t matter question, I would say that they always matter in that we must raise more money in the future to pay off the added debt, but certainly deficits don’t matter as much when you’re spending less as a share of the economy and the economy is growing quickly.  Those 2 conditions don’t exist today.  Federal spending is a higher share of GDP today than it was under reagan and the economy is not growing as fast as it was under Reagan.  When the economy grows like it did under Reagan, it’s not hard to see why DC would find ways to spend more money even if conservatives like me disagreed with that approach.

TwoPuttTommy March 15, 2012 at 7:37 pm

“When the economy grows like it did under Clinton, and at the end of Democratic Party Clinton’s term there would be “surpluses as far as the eyes can see” even conservatives like me will find a way to bash him, even though the results of his two terms were WAY more fiscally conservative than Reagan, Bush The Elder, and Bush The Lesser.

Isn’t that what you really mean, AO?

Here’s a hint:  ”yes”  

AO March 15, 2012 at 8:04 pm

I wasn’t bashing or even addressing Clinton.  I was addressing Reagan, Bush and Obama which were the presidents brought up in the argument.

When Clinton and the Dems had control his first two years in office he didn’t pass new healthcare entitlements or get to the level of spending that Dems currently seek.  That I give him credit for.  Partial credit must be given to both parties for the surpluses in his later years as the dems lost control of congress in ’94.

There are obviously other things to bash Clinton about, but certainly if you gave him a choice of Clinton or Obama, I’d choose the guy who signed welfare reform and “don’t ask, don’t tell” into law.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: