Link to KansasPrairie.net

11/5/2012

DID ROMNEY PAY ZERO TAXES FROM 1996 TO 2009? WAS HARRY REID RIGHT? BLOOMBERG FINALLY CRACKED THE STORY…

Filed under: prairie musings, political musings, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 12:07 pm

DAILY KOS

Breaking: Did Romney Pay Zero Taxes From 1996 To 2009?

Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 10:09 AM PST

Using a tax shelter called a CRUT (charitable remainder unitrust)   that was held by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), along with foreign tax credits and deferred capital gains losses, Mitt Romney was theoretically able to pay zero taxes (legally) every single year from 1996 to 2009.  Why did he stop after 2009?  Because he would make public his 2010 tax return, that is why.

This tax loophole was  killed by Congress in 1997. However those including Romney that were already using it were allowed to continue it.   The way it works, is that Romney makes a “charitable” contribution to the Church of Latter Day Saints and it goes into a trust.  Since the trust is held by the church, the money is tax  deferred.  Any capital gains, are non taxed because of the charities status.  Like an annuity, the donor gets a charitable tax deduction and an stream of cash payments.  When Romney dies, the church accepts full ownership..

Bloomsberg’s attorneys estimate as the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011…..

Romney has refused to answer any thing on this topic.  His campaign puts out that it was all legal….

Legal perhaps.  Ethical for the president of the United States?  Well, only if you want a crook running the country….   Imagine!   Legally stealing from your church!.

10/31/2012

GEORGE PYLE IS BACK ON THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD…

Filed under: prairie musings, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, George Pyle — Peg Britton @ 5:22 pm

I’ve found George Pyle! George is my favorite newspaper writer and I’ve tried to follow him as he wandered the country.  It hasn’t been easy.  Under his leadership, the Salina Journal was my favorite read of the day.  Then I found him again in New York and followed him to Salt Lake City. And I lost him.

Yesterday a good friend in SLC sent me the following two articles from the Tribune…and there was George.  Hallelujah!

“George Pyle has been a newspaper writer in Kansas, Utah, Upstate New York, and now Utah again, for more than 30 years - most of it as an editorial writer and columnist. Now on his second tour of duty on The Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board, he has also done a stretch as a talk radio host, published a book on the ongoing flaws of U.S.agricultural policy and, in 1998, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing. His most active bookmarks are Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens and Tina Brown. And he still thinks the Internet can be used for intelligent conversation and uplifting ideas.”

Here are the two articles while keeping in mind Mitts Mormons  predominate Utah…

Obama has earned another term

Tribune endorsement (Barack Obama) goes viral … 

Thanks for tuning in…

9/5/2012

WHERE ARE THE BILLS ON THE CREATION OF JOBS?………

Filed under: political musings, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 5:22 pm

bills1.jpg

9/3/2012

SARAH PALIN TOPS ROMNEY IN 2008…

Filed under: political musings, GOP, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 4:18 pm

romney.jpg

ARE WE BETTER OFF TODAY THAN FOUR YEARS AGO? THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES THIS WEEK.

Filed under: political musings, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 8:09 am

The quarter before Obama took office was the worst since the Great Depression.  That was George Bush’s quarter. When Obama took office, the country was losing 800,000 jobs a month. We’re now in a different place with 29 straight months of job growth and over 4 million jobs created. Recovery takes time.

From Daily Kos:

The Most important question for the Democratic Convention this week will be:

“Are you better off Now, than you were four years ago?”

Democratic Party Leaders better have an answer, and they better be able to discuss the plans for the next four years and the reasons why the last four years have not been better.  I think that the answer to the question is that, Yes, we are better off than we were four years ago.

1.  The war in Iraq is over.
2.  Bin Laden is dead.
3.  The Stock Market is up.
4.  We are creating new jobs, not losing jobs.
5.  We have stopped the increase in medical insurance costs.
6.  More people in the USA have medical insurance than ever before.
7.  The American automobile industry is stronger than ever.
8.  WE are producing more  domestic energy than ever.
9.  We are working toward new and innovative forms of energy.

Still, wages are frozen for working people.  CEO’s are making unprecedented profits.  The income disparity in the USA is completely skewed.

We Can Do Better.  But, not by electing Tea Party and GOP representatives, Senators and Mitt Romney.  Change is the best antidote to any economic problems.

8/21/2012

THE TRUTH IS…OBAMACARE SAVES US MONEY…

Filed under: political musings, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 9:15 am

Republicans Continue to Lie About Obama and Medicare—

The Republicans have been telling the American people that ObamaCare is expensive and will bankrupt the country. But when they asked the Congressional Budget Offive what would happen if they repealed ObamaCare, they discovered that it would result in an additional $716 billion in Medicare costs. Overall, the CBO estimated that the cost of repeal would be $109 billion over the next ten years. So, the truth is that ObamaCare saves us money.

In repealing the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the CBO wrote this:    Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period. Federal spending for Medicaid and CHIP would increase by about $25 billion from repealing the noncoverage provisions of the ACA, and direct spending for other programs would decrease by about $30 billion, CBO estimates.

Don’t be hoodwinked.  Obamacare SAVES us money.

8/16/2012

WHERE HAS ALL THE MONEY GONE? $21 TRILLION OF WEALTH IS OFFSHORE (THAT’S AS MUCH AS THE AMERICAN AND JAPANESE GDPS PUT TOGETHER)

Filed under: political musings, Koch Brothers, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 12:53 pm

£13tn hoard hidden from taxman by global elite.

• Study estimates staggering size of offshore economy

• Private banks help wealthiest to move cash into havens

   Heather Stewart, business editor

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 July 2012 16.00 EDT  

The Cayman Islands: a favourite haven from the taxman for the global elite.

A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together – according to research commissioned by the campaign group Tax Justice Network.James Henry, former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has compiled the most detailed estimates yet of the size of the offshore economy in a new report, The Price of Offshore Revisited, released exclusively to the Observer.

He shows that at least £13tn – perhaps up to £20tn – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks, which vie to attract the assets of so-called high net-worth individuals. Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, “protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy”. According to Henry’s research, the top 10 private banks, which include UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, as well as the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, managed more than £4tn in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.

The detailed analysis in the report, compiled using data from a range of sources, including the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund, suggests that for many developing countries the cumulative value of the capital that has flowed out of their economies since the 1970s would be more than enough to pay off their debts to the rest of the world.

Oil-rich states with an internationally mobile elite have been especially prone to watching their wealth disappear into offshore bank accounts instead of being invested at home, the research suggests. Once the returns on investing the hidden assets is included, almost £500bn has left Russia since the early 1990s when its economy was opened up. Saudi Arabia has seen £197bn flood out since the mid-1970s, and Nigeria £196bn.

“The problem here is that the assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments,” the report says.

The sheer size of the cash pile sitting out of reach of tax authorities is so great that it suggests standard measures of inequality radically underestimate the true gap between rich and poor. According to Henry’s calculations, £6.3tn of assets is owned by only 92,000 people, or 0.001% of the world’s population – a tiny class of the mega-rich who have more in common with each other than those at the bottom of the income scale in their own societies.

“These estimates reveal a staggering failure: inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people,” said John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. “People on the street have no illusions about how unfair the situation has become.”

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: “Countries around the world are under intense pressure to reduce their deficits and governments cannot afford to let so much wealth slip past into tax havens.

“Closing down the tax loopholes exploited by multinationals and the super-rich to avoid paying their fair share will reduce the deficit. This way the government can focus on stimulating the economy, rather than squeezing the life out of it with cuts and tax rises for the 99% of people who aren’t rich enough to avoid paying their taxes.”

Assuming the £13tn mountain of assets earned an average 3% a year for its owners, and governments were able to tax that income at 30%, it would generate a bumper £121bn in revenues – more than rich countries spend on aid to the developing world each year.

Groups such as UK Uncut have focused attention on the paltry tax bills of some highly wealthy individuals, such as Topshop owner Sir Philip Green, with campaigners at one recent protest shouting: “Where did all the money go? He took it off to Monaco!” Much of Green’s retail empire is owned by his wife, Tina, who lives in the low-tax principality.

A spokeswoman for UK Uncut said: “People like Philip Green use public services – they need the streets to be cleaned, people need public transport to get to their shops – but they don’t want to pay for it.”

Leaders of G20 countries have repeatedly pledged to close down tax havens since the financial crisis of 2008, when the secrecy shrouding parts of the banking system was widely seen as exacerbating instability. But many countries still refuse to make details of individuals’ financial worth available to the tax authorities in their home countries as a matter of course. Tax Justice Network would like to see this kind of exchange of information become standard practice, to prevent rich individuals playing off one jurisdiction against another.

“The very existence of the global offshore industry, and the tax-free status of the enormous sums invested by their wealthy clients, is predicated on secrecy,” said Henry.

8/15/2012

PAUL RYAN LOVES AYN RAND AND “ATLAS SHRUGGED” IS REQUIRED READING FOR HIS OFFICE STAFF….

Filed under: political musings, print news, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 11:31 am

If you have never read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and I gather most people haven’t, you really need to do that to know exactly what kind of man Mitt Romney picked for his running mate.  Paul Ryan has visions for America that don’t include you and me. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is frightening.

Paul Ryan has two ideas:  Let’s stop having rich people pay taxes at all and, poor people should look for food in the woods. They say that Ryan is the intellectual in the Republican Party whom we presume to be a step up from Sarah Palin.  He and Sarah Palin agree on everything.  If he’s the smartest guy in the party and she’s the stupidest woman on earth, it’s pretty scarey that they agree on everything.

Ayn Rand is Paul Ryan’s lifelong idol. He’s her devotee and has built his life on her philosophy and said so time after time.  Now he’s denying it.  The article below is by Ian Reifowiz and tells you lot about Ryan’s character and inability to tell the truth.  Here are some quotes:

“Paul Ryan Loves Ayn Rand — And Lied About It.”
Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand. Loves her. He has stated that Ayn Rand is required reading for everyone who works in his office.

Here are some choice quotes highlighted by Elspeth Reeve of The Atlantic Wire from Mitt Romney’s new vice-presidential running mate on Ayn Rand:

• “I just want to speak to you a little bit about Ayn Rand and what she meant to me in my life and [in] the fight we’re engaged here in Congress. I grew up on Ayn Rand, that’s what I tell people.”

• “I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are.”

• “It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.”

• “But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”

• “And when you look at the twentieth-century experiment with collectivism — that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism — you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism than Ayn Rand.”

• “It’s so important that we go back to our roots to look at Ayn Rand’s vision, her writings, to see what our girding, under-grounding [sic] principles are.”

• “Because there is no better place to find the moral case for capitalism and individualism than through Ayn Rand’s writings and works.”

And here are some more:

• He told Insight on the News on May 24, 1999, that the books he most often rereads are “The Bible, Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.”

• He told the Weekly Standard on March 17, 2003, “I give out Atlas Shrugged as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.”

• At a February 28, 2009 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Ryan said Obama was trying “to use this [financial] crisis to move America toward the sort of Europeanized economy… Sounds like something right out of an Ayn Rand novel.”

Of course, once Ryan began angling for the veep-slot he had to say that he “rejects her philosophy,” and even threw in, as he must given the sway of religious conservatives in his party, his condemnation of Rand’s “atheist philosophy.” He went so far as to call the idea that he’s a Rand fanboy an “urban legend.”

So, not only is Paul Ryan a devotee of Ayn Rand, he’s also a bald-faced liar.

7/25/2012

“THAT’S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.” ANN ROMNEY

Filed under: political musings, print news, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 12:27 pm

The Salina Journal Opinion Page, July 25, 2012 ; Article by Mike Mattson
That’s all you need to know

If Obama had an ‘R’ by his name instead of a ‘D,’ he’d be loved by Republicans.

“That’s all you people need to know.”
— Ann Romney

“You people.”  That was Ann Romney’s response when asked why her husband has released only an incomplete tax return for one year and an estimate for another. With a jutting jaw and a toss of the head, she gave an unmistakable indication of what she thought of the unwashed masses, of those who would dare question the royal We, of “you people.” Mitt and Ann Romney don’t expect to be elected, they expect to be crowned. They expect “you people” to not only applaud at their coronation but to genuflect at the same time. In my 70-plus years, I cannot remember such arrogant snobbery in a presidential candidate and his wife.

I doubt that Mr. Romney, to the manor born, has ever broken a sweat in his life. His path to success was a direct shot to the top. Well, I guess that is the luck of the draw. But one can only surmise whether Romney would have been the “success” that he is were he born the son of a peanut farmer or raised in the household of an abusive alcoholic, or the product of a mixed-race union and a welfare mom.

Romney made his fortune with other people’s money on other people’s backs. He has wallowed in his wealth while the victims of his success have struggled to repair their broken lives. Is that how the Jesus of Nazareth, with whom conservatives love to associate  Themselves, would define success?

He has sneered that President Barack Obama is foreign while his jokers neigh that Obama is un-American. All the while, he has had his loot stashed in foreign banks. He pleads for more and more tax breaks for the “job creators” while refusing to explain how investing in tax dodges in the Cayman Islands creates jobs in the U.S. Those are the so-called job creators that got multiple tax breaks in the Bush years and virtually no new jobs were created. In the end, we got the Great Recession. With the lowest tax burden in 70 years, how could that be?

If low taxes encourage job creation, how in the world did we make it through the Fabulous Fifties when the top marginal tax rate was over 70 percent? Did nothing get done from World War II to 1960? Did no one have a job? Well, actually, just the opposite was true. With a flood of educated people, thanks to the GI bill, with a housing boom, thanks to FHA and VHA loans, and with the largest investment in infrastructure in the country’s history (even larger than the New Deal, thanks to Republican President Eisenhower), the country was booming.

Republicans have called President Obama foreign and un-American when, in fact, he is the embodiment of the American dream. His only
real problem is not that he is half black. There are plenty of high profile black Republicans. His real problem is that he has a capital “D” after his name instead of an “R.” Without any change of his positions, had he simply declared himself a Republican instead of a Democrat, Republicans would be falling all over themselves with their accolades.

His health care initiative was the product of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. It was championed by then-speaker  Newt Gingrich as an alternative to Hillary Care. It was put into action by then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who applauds it as a conservative solution while at the same time damning it as a socialist plot under Obama. Is there any flip that he won’t flop? Obama
proposed cap-and-trade as a market oriented solution to greenhouse gas emissions. That was a Republican idea until it was a Democratic one.

Obama gave an unacknowledged nod to the gun community by relaxing restrictions on gun possession in national parks. While he  recognizes rights for gays and lesbians, so do Dick and Liz Cheney. Of course, what choice did they have?

The Obama administration has deported more undocumented workers in 31⁄2 years than George Bush did in eight. He has doubled the size of the border patrol. He increased the number of drone strikes in Pakistan to the delight of the neocons. He extended the Bush tax cuts and dedicated one-third of his stimulus program to additional tax cuts. There is a lot for Republicans to like if only he were an “R” instead of a “D,” and there is a lot to make progressives squirm even if he isn’t.

Today, the so-called left wing would be considered off to the right 40 years ago. If he had only called himself a Republican, he would be well on his way to re-election and the Republicans would have the first black president asterisk in their column.

— Salinan Mike Mattson is a landlord, furniture builder and general hand.

7/16/2012

TODAY’S POLITICAL CLIMATE…

Filed under: political musings, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 10:50 am

WHAT A TANGLED WEB
BY CHARLES M. BLOW
NEW YORK TIMES

Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:22 AM EDT

Romney has only released a complete return for 2010 and an unfinished estimate for 2011. This is less than any other presidential candidate in recent history. As The Times put it in a scathing editorial this week, “what information he did release provides a fuzzy glimpse at a concerted effort to park much of his wealth in overseas tax shelters, suggesting a widespread pattern of tax avoidance unlike that of any previous candidate.” Blind trusts, Swiss bank accounts and Bermuda accounts designed to shield your money from the taxing agency of the country you want to lead just doesn’t sound right. And Romney’s reluctance to reveal more suggests that there is more that’s distasteful.

MITT ROMNEY’S COMPLAINTS
EDITORIAL
NEW YORK TIMES

After three days of Mitt Romney complaining about attacks on his record at Bain Capital, it’s clear that President Obama has nothing to apologize for. If Mr. Romney doesn’t want to provide real answers to the questions about his career, he had better develop a thicker skin. … Mr. Obama’s campaign aides did go too far, perhaps, in suggesting Mr. Romney may have legal problems over this issue. But Mr. Obama’s criticism is fair. Mr. Romney has persistently refused to tell voters about his finances. Even now it is not clear how much money he has made from Bain in the 13 (or 10) years since he left the company.  The right way to respond to Mr. Obama is to release his tax returns from that period, or open up Bain documents.

5/24/2012

MITT ROMNEY DRIVEN BY THE UBER CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MORE THAN THE MORMON CHURCH…

Filed under: prairie musings, political musings, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 9:12 am

My longtime friend, Jan Britain, lives in Salt Lake City among mormons of all beliefs.  Over the years she has sent me interesting tales of being an outsider and working and living among mormons.  I thought readers might like to have some understanding of the different kinds of mormons so I asked if she would explain that in a letter.

I agree with her that Mitt appears to be driven by the uber concertaive religious right considering about 18 out of 24 of his advisors fit that mold.  He and they are not representative of main street Americans.

Here’s what she has to say about the various types of mormons:

There are several kinds of mormons: Utah mormons, non-Utah mormons, excommunicated mormons and Jack mormons, to name the most prevalent.

Utah mormons live in a majority, do as they are told, and have little idea about those who are not “in the fold”.  They have little in the way of independent thought and are ex’ed if they openly and publicly express thoughts that are not in line.  Their kids rarely play with other kids in the neighborhood who are not at the ward on Sundays, and they are far too busy with church work to have time for friendships outside of the ward.  Utah has two separate cultures, and though we live together peacefully, there are boundaries and unwritten rules for getting along.  It’s difficult to have friendships that cross the divide because good mormons are supposed to sell the product, and the rest of us don’t want friends who are consumed by something we don’t embrace.  We generally know what their agenda is, but they know little about us.

Non-Utah mormons live in a minority and have to get along with the rest of the world.  Their kids have to play with kids of other faiths if they want to have friends.  Their communities see them as belonging to a fringe religion, and they are treated the same as others who belong to minority religions.  Because they have to live in the real world, they are not as controlled by the ward or the brethren in Salt Lake City.  They learn to think for themselves and make choices about what they believe and how they live their religion.  Their lives are not planned out for them, and their neighbors are not watching them.  If they move to Utah, they have an adjustment period when they discover that their lives are now controlled by the ward and that the ward members in their neighborhood are watching them.  They either turn into another of the sheep or pack up and move away.

Excommunicated mormons are those who have spoken out and pissed off the brethren.  Some try to earn their way back in, some live on the fringe and pretend they’re still in, others  consider themselves fortunate to have been set free and move on without a backward glance, and some spend the rest of their lives taking shots at “the church.”

Jack mormons are still counted as members but are, as Ed Abbey so perfectly phrased it, “on permanent sabbatical from their religion.”

If I wanted to understand Mitt, I would look hard at how he functioned as governor of MA.  Did he push a conservative agenda, rail against alcohol, abortion and sex education, or did he have other issues that he championed?  I would suggest that he is far more driven by the conservative right of the Republican party than he is by some senile old men in Salt Lake City.

5/17/2012

HELEN AND MARGARET…MITT LED THE CHARGE AND DID THE ACTUAL HAIR CUTTING…

Filed under: political musings, Mitt Romney, Margaret and Helen — Peg Britton @ 1:52 pm

HELEN:

Margaret, I just called my friend Patricia to apologize for dipping her hair into that inkwell back in grade school.  I feel bad that I did it and I feel even worse that she no longer remembers who I am or that she one time had hair long enough to put in pig tails.  We’re getting old, Margaret.  And you know what else is getting old?  The parade of schmucks who keep running for political office.

The population of the United States is now over 300 million people.   That means that every four years, one person out of 300 million gets the honor of being President of the greatest country on the planet.  With those odds, you would think the Republican Party could have found someone who wasn’t a dry drunk like George W. Bush… or the bully in high school like Mitt Romney.   I know.  I know.  We all did dumb things when we were young.  Youth.  I miss it like I miss my waistline.  Shit happens… or in this case Mitt happened.  “Back in high school, I did some dumb things,” Romney said. “And if anyone was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that.”   Me too.  I really do feel bad about dipping Patricia’s hair into that ink well.

Mitt went on to say, “There’s going to be some that want to talk about high school. Well, if you really think that’s important, be my guest.”

Thank you Mr. Romney, I think I will.  I think I will talk about this because unfortunately we don’t seem to have solved the problem yet.  Bullying is alive and well today and it is just as inexcusable today as it was 48 years ago.  You can send your wife out to the media to laugh about your “wild and crazy” high school years but I wonder how the two of you would have reacted if one of your sons had done that that had been done to one of your sons.  Wild and crazy?  Yes, actually.  It was.  And it’s even more wild and crazy today that anyone would want to honor you with the highest office in the land. Mitt was the son of a Governor… born into a privileged life.   You can’t tell me he didn’t know any better.

Mitt and a group of his friends threw a younger boy to the ground and hacked off his hair while he cried and screamed for help. The younger student was believed to be a little light in his loafers by the way, but Mitt now claims that he didn’t know he was gay.  As if that really matters.

Mitt led the charge and did the actual hair cutting.  Maybe I am overreacting here, but I think he just might not deserve to be that one person out of 300 million to be President. Believe it or not, lots and lots of people go through their entire school career and never dip another person’s hair in ink or physically abuse another student.

I have said before, I come from a generation that doesn’t really talk much about gay people.  I remember thinking that a perfectly lovely word had been ruined.  Today, however I say, “Gay marriage?”  Why not?  Everyone should be allowed to be with the one they love.  I honestly don’t understand what all the hoopla is about.  If you don’t agree with gay marriage then don’t marry a man who dresses like Rick Santorum or has hair like Mitt Romney.  If you don’t like gay people simply ignore them.  They probably don’t like you either.  If an octogenarian from Georgia can see that, why can’t privileged politicians?

Margaret,  I really don’t think this is about being gay or the sanctity of marriage.  I think this is about common decency and what we should expect from that one person in 300 million who becomes President.  I’ll be the first to admit that I would not make a good president.  If ever an example of who not to elect there was, I certainly fit the bill.  But let’s slow down for just a second here.  He gathered a group of students.  They tackled a younger student and while that student cried and screamed for help, Mitt Romney, the assumed Republican nominee for President, cut off his hair because he didn’t like the way he looked. Does it matter if that student was gay? Would it be worse if he was black? How about if that student were a woman?  I don’t give a rat’s ass if that student were all three.  One in three hundred million.  One.

Maybe I am old school, as they say, but I really don’t think that one is forgettable much less forgivable when you want to become President.

No one is perfect.  But surely we can elect someone more perfect than that.  I mean it really.

MARGARET:

Helen, dear, I think this all has to do with the length of time little Mitt was allowed to breast feed.  Or maybe he’s just a asshat.  Probably the latter, dear.

5/16/2012

WE LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES…

Filed under: political musings, LGBT, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 12:44 pm

Does it matter if Mitt Romney bullied gay students when he was in high school?  Does it matter that he and his friends  bullied one gay student to the ground and cut his long blond hair while the victim cried and yelled for help?

It matters to me on a couple of points.  It mattered to everyone who participated, except for Mitt Romney.
First of all Romey has no recollection of the incident at all.  None.   Romney admitted nothing, confessed to nothing except his youth.  He said he might have gone too far with unspecified “pranks” but maintained he had no recollection of this event.

That is very hard to believe if for no other reason than it’s well-documented that we learn from our mistakes and the more serious are the  mistakes we make the most indelibly they are emblazoned in our memories as unforgettable lessons learned the hard way. We don’t forget those things. Cruel activities are rarely forgotten. This was cruel and ALL the other  high school boys who participated in this shameful act viewed it as such and remembered with clarity and embarrassment their involvement in it.

Pranks are another matter and are easier to forget.  This was no prank.

Those who participated in this cruel act of ridiculing a classmate for being gay and holding him down while Romney forcibly  cut his hair admitted to it, remembered it and stated it had stayed with them all their lives because of  the cruelty involved.  They learned a very hard lesson and owned up to it.  Romey did not.

4/20/2012

MITT ROMNEY’S YEARS AT BAIN REPRESENT EVERYTHING YOU HATE ABOUT CAPITALISM

Filed under: political musings, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 10:39 am

 From the Phoenix New Times News
By Pete Kotz Thursday, Apr 19 2012

James Sanderson had encountered a rare moment of industrial harmony.

It was the early 1990s, and the 750 men and women at Georgetown Steel were pumping out wire rods at peak performance. They had an abiding trust in management’s ability to run a smart company. That allegiance was rewarded with fat profit-sharing checks. In the basement-wage economy of Georgetown, South Carolina, Sanderson and his co-workers were blue-collar aristocracy.

“We were doing very good,” says Sanderson, president of Steelworkers Local 7898.

What he didn’t know was that it was about to end. Hundreds of miles to the north in Boston, a future presidential candidate was sizing up Georgetown’s books.

At the time, Mitt Romney had been running Bain Capital since 1984, minting a reputation as a prince of private investment. A future prospectus by Deutsche Bank would reveal that by the time he left in 1999, Bain had averaged a shimmering 88 percent annual return on investment. Romney would use that success to launch his political career.

His specialty was flipping companies — or what he often called “creative destruction.” It’s the age-old theory that the new must constantly attack the old to bring efficiency to the economy, even if some are destroyed along the way. In other words, people like Romney are the wolves, culling the herd of the weak and infirm.

His formula was simple: Bain would purchase a firm with little money down, then begin extracting huge management fees and paying Romney and his investors enormous dividends.

The result was that previously profitable companies were now burdened with debt. But much like the Enron boys, Romney’s battery of MBAs fancied themselves the smartest guys in the room. It didn’t matter if a company manufactured bicycles or contact lenses; they were certain they could run it better than anyone else.

Bain would slash costs, jettison workers, reposition product lines, and merge its new companies with other firms. With luck, they’d be able to dump a firm in a few years for millions more than they’d paid for it.

But the beauty of Romney’s thesis was that it really didn’t matter whether the company succeeded. Since he was yanking out cash early and often, he would profit even if his targets collapsed. This was the fate awaiting Georgetown Steel.

For more of this story, click here… it’s an eye-opener to the “theft and redistribution” that is Mitt Romney.

4/17/2012

ANN ROMNEY “AT HOME” WITH 20 MILLION A YEAR….

Filed under: political musings, blogs, Mitt Romney — Peg Britton @ 3:58 pm

Here is a pretty good blog by a 75 year old woman… Her daughter posted it on Daily KOS.
From Outfrontpolitics
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Ann Romney “At Home” with $20 Million a Year
It doesn’t matter whether Ann Romney stayed at home to raise her five sons. Nobody cares.

What matters is that she stayed at home to be a full-time mom with millions of dollars of annual income.  Maybe when her sons were young the family income was lots less than the $20 million annually of recent years. Maybe it was only 10%, only $2 million a year.

That’s still an awful lot of money.

I raised five sons and a daughter. Sometimes I was a full-time stay-at-home mom; sometimes I was a  married working mom; and sometimes I was a single parent working mom. In any of these situations I sure would have been glad to have millions of dollars in annual income.

Think how different being a mom is when you’ve got bushels of money! You can hire household help  - lots of it. Someone else can cook, clean up the kitchen, do the laundry, fold the clothes, do the marketing, pick up the kids, wash the dog (when he’s not on the roof of the car). Someone else can go to the dry cleaners, sweep the porch, call the plumber, make the beds, pick up after the kids, pick up after the kids, pick up after the kids. Someone else can bake the birthday cakes, wrap the presents, address the holiday cards, take your various Cadillacs to be serviced, schedule the pediatrician appointments and  the dentist appointments and the barber shop appointments. Someone else can take the kids to get shoes and school clothes. Someone else can make sure teeth are brushed and ears are clean.

You get the picture.

Most of all, you don’t have to worry about money. You don’t have to think about it at all. There’s no budgeting issues, no waiting for the next paycheck to get the kids those shoes. No dismay as the kids’ dental bills pile up on your credit card or winter heating oil doubles in cost. There’s no stricken sense of calamity approaching when one of your Cadillacs starts making a funny noise. There’s no sorrow to endure because you have to tell a kid he can’t go on a school field trip because of the expense. Or can’t play on the soccer team because you can’t afford the equipment.

There’s no agony about wanting to sit next to a sick child in a hospital but not having the money to hire a sitter for the kids at home.

Money doesn’t buy happiness but it sure can provide you a cushion against the anti-happy aspects of most people’s lives.

What money buys is insulation.

Ann Romney has indeed been insulated. There is no way, with millions a year in income, that she can have the slightest idea of any normal mom’s life. She knows nothing of being a stay at home mom except the percs: no nasty boss, no juggling work and home, no terror of leaving infants all day with sitters, no raggedy loss of sleep because of days that start at 5 a.m. and end near midnight.

She got the percs of staying home and paid little of the price. With her millions she could avoid all the mess and work of baking cakes and just enjoy the birthday boy blowing out the candles. She never had to suffer the loss of income of a stay at home mom. Nor did she have to endure (let’s face it) the boredom and loneliness of being home alone all day with small people who are less than stellar conversationalists. If the home drill got a bit tedious, she could boogie on down to her “girls club” for companionship or jump a plane for a week of fun somewhere.

Hers was not the stay at home life of 99.9% of those moms who do stay at home. If ahe chose to do some of the scut work of mommying, she could so choose. But, unlike the rest of us, she had a CHOICE. We had no choice about who cleaned up the vomit when a kid was stricken with flu at 3 a.m.

Mitt Romney boasts that he relies on his wife for information about women and their concerns. If this be true, he’s a very stupid businessman. What chief executive would use a consultant who knows NOTHING about the topic, i.e. nothing about the lives of women other than the lives of very rich women?

Because Romney and his missus are so insulated by their vast income, they don’t even know that they don’t know! This accounts for his “tone deaf” remarks that underscore his wealth, like relating to NASCAR on the basis of being chums with owners of NASCAR teams. Romney isn’t just “tone deaf”. He’s deaf, blind, and so wrapped in wealth he might as well be from Mars. And if he’s from Mars, Ann is from Venus, an even further planet. Neither has a clue about lives of people outside a $20 million a year bubble.

This is probably what that clumsy nobody, Hilary Rosen, meant to say. Let’s hope so. But it’s hard to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman who so ineptly creates a distraction just when Obama had accrued a 20% advantage with women voters. In its thirst for controversy, the media bent over backward NOT to tell the public that Hilary Rosen has absolutely no role in the White House and none in the Obama campaign. Her sole role is getting herself on TV. Given the politically stupid nature of her attack on Ann Romney, it’s pretty obvious why no one at the White House or the election campaign gave her a job. With a Democratic friend like Hilary Rosen, who needs an enemy?

Better yet, to paraphrase that famous political film, “Bambi”:  “If you can’t say something well, don’t say anything at all.”

Will Rosen’s remark change any votes? No. And that points out another instance of how out of touch with women Romney, his missus and his fellow GOPers are. They think we women are a bunch of dumb bunnies who will abandon a candidate who is solidly on our side because some woman we never heard of said something about Romney’s wife.

WE WOMEN ARE NOT STUPID (except for Hilary Rosen).

We do not think as we are told to think. We older ones had a lifetime of men telling us what to think and what to do. “We have been down on the floor!” The younger among us can’t even imagine such goings on and certainly want nothing to do with such a program. SO SHUT UP, ROMNEY, AND YOU GUYS AT THE AUGUSTA GOLF COURSE!

And shut your wives up too, the last women in America who do what their husbands tell them to do. We don’t want mouthpiece Ann Romney telling us about the hard work of being a stay at home mom when she did not have to do one lick of the work of being a stay at home mom.

So just shut up, Ann Romney, and go to your roots-bleaching appointment like a good girl and leave us real women alone.


Home

Powered by WordPress