Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Two interesting choices for Republicans

Well this will be an interesting challenge for Republican voters to sort out. Do they want a creepy guy who cheats with women which is clearly Gingrich whose ex-wife is evidently about to blow the lid off how he treated her.


Or do they want a creepy guy who manipulates their finances to enrich themselves regardless of whether it has basically taken tax revenues from the US government?


So it comes down to a choice between creep who screws women or screws the rest of us again! Good luck Republican voters with that choice. And I use the word creep because of all the rest of the things these guys say-- as in anything to win over those voters.

Listening to a Republican debate is to be more shocked at the people in their audiences and what they will cheer than it even is the candidates. All I want to know is how big a percentage is that kind of thinking? A clue is Mark Levin, a major creep who will say anything to get listeners and book buyers, has his book at the top of the charts for sales. Of course, some of that is manipulated by give aways but still the question always arises-- who are these people who buy into that thinking? And what kind of country do they want this to be? I am afraid of the answer...

11 comments:

Ingineer66 said...

So is Romney not supposed to follow the tax laws passed by Congress? It is Democrats that supposedly want higher taxes. How is Romney a bad guy because he puts his money where taxes are lower?

He is still a better choice than Obama who now has blocked the Keystone Pipeline and the 20,000 jobs it would bring. And also shows that he would rather get oil from our enemies instead of our friend Canada. And Canada will sell the oil to China since we don't want it. That way he can keep George Soros making money since he is heavily invested in Venezuelan oil.

Rain said...

First on Romney, he is part of why the tax laws favor people like him and he wants more of it. I guess you see yourself relating to him. Kid yourself on it if you will but you are not anybody who will ever be his friend other than when he wants your vote. Those laws are there because of lobbyists. The things Romney would do are damaging to everybody but hey you believe what you want. YOu did about Bush too and nobody could convince you then either.

On the Keystone that was going to go through the Ogallala Aquifer. Do you understand that that could have meant with a leak? Did you pay attention to the leak into the Yellowstone River last year? Imagine what happens when the largest aquifer in the middle of our country becomes contaminated? Really it couldn't happen? There are a few things worth more than money and water is one of them. Oh they promised it wouldn't? They always promise it wouldn't...

You put up Romney. He'll be swamped because only hard core righties will vote for him. And it might yet be Gingrich anyway. He might even be better. Both men are corrupt in different ways. One just manipulated the laws to make his corruption legal. Doesn't make it moral

Rain said...

And quit going to people like Levin for your facts. This is what Forbes (not known to be liberal says about the number of temporary jobs)-- Keystone pipeline winners and losers. I know it's hard for a Republican to get it but there are things that matter more than short term values like jobs that end but leave long term problems like potential environmental damage that destroys whole regions. Not just liberals didn't like this idea.

Ingineer66 said...

You are correct on that one. I did not make $15 million last year or even $200,000 so I am not in top 1% like Romney and Obama.

There are already petroleum pipelines through Nebraska. The aquifer is not going to be poisoned by the Keystone line. It is hype to say that it is. One of the worst pipeline spills in US history happened a couple of years ago in the delta region of the San Francisco Bay area. There have been no environmental impacts from that spill which went on for months in a "sensitive" environment.

I did read about the Yellowstone spill. It said there were no reports of fish or birds killed. I am not saying there was no impact, but it was not the end of the world.

Rain said...

Ingineer, you believe the pundits from your side. You put your faith in oil company studies and scientists. In this case you lost but your point it'd lead to 20,000 jobs was wrong and even the jobs it'd yield would be short term. But it's no surprise you see it as you do as you seem to see everything humans do to the earth to be unrelated to consequences later. Big money wants it. Scientists, who aren't paid off are less enthusiastic. Where do you think those refineries on the Gulf would ship the oil. The whole thing is a right left issue and as usual you see it as you are told.

And the people who lived along that stretch of the Yellowstone River said different. But who are they since only the oil scientists count, right?

I am glad he is blocking it and let Canada either come up with a better route or send it wherever they want. Maybe some of the oil we ship from Alaska can stay in our country that way...

Ingineer66 said...

I read an article from the Montana Environmental Department not an Exxon press release. Of course the people that live along the river are going to sue. They see a deep pocket. And they are probably due some compensation, but probably not hundreds of millions of dollars.

The oil that we export from Alaska to Japan makes economic and environmental sense. Japan pays for us to get oil from other sources and then gets Alaskan oil since it is the closest to them. Would you rather have the carbon footprint of them shipping oil from the Middle East all the way to Japan? Instead we ship it from the Middle East to Texas which is much shorter.

Rain said...

And I'd rather not risk an aquifer on the word of oil scientists and speculators even when they are someone like Warren Buffett who will profit much from this kind of thing. Water is supposed to be the new oil of the future-- but not if it's polluted. We don't understand totally how aquifers work or how we can destroy them. Why take the risk? Oh I know dollars. This time my side won but never fear if you get in your right wing types, environmental regs will be out the window and they will call it clean air and clean water... just like bush did.

One other thing on an earlier comment. Solyndra could be a mistake more than a scandal. There is not yet proof that it was more than favoring a company that showed poor judgment in how they managed their money. I am VERY familiar with how these grants go out and it can drive you nuts-- whether it's left or right. Scandals are more like tea pot dome.

One more thing on Romney. Has it occurred to you that with his offshore shelters, he might not even have been paying 15% on his $27 million a year payoff. Suppose he got by some years with no taxes? Still okay with you? He has a reason for wanting to wait for April which he can be sure last year's taxes look better. He did say-- around 15% if you recall. When a politician says that, you know what it means.

Ingineer66 said...

I would like to see hedge fund and other "money" managers pay ordinary income tax rates for what they make since that is basically their salary. They should not get to pay the capital gains rate like it is a straight investment. It is their job, not a casual investment that you or I might make and pay the capital gains rate on since we have other real jobs not just managing money.

Rain said...

There are a lot of things this is revealing which Americans maybe didn't know but should pay attention to. Not everybody making a lot of money is getting that advantage. Gingrich paid a million dollars in taxes last year-- the full 30% or so. The sneaky part for Romney is this really was payoff from income he earned, not money he invested from the sounds of it. We should have laws that capital gains are only for things that are real investments that are creating jobs and better ways of doing things. Unfortunately the left and right get too much benefit from donations to their campaigns for many of them to care about it.

It's funny as right now it appears Obama has irritated the Hollywood elites by favoring blocking that law they want that would enable them to block sharing on the internet even to the extent of putting up links like I do if they go to a site they disapprove. Good for him is what I say but I know he had to choose between infuriating one or the other part of his base.

As it looks right now, it is beginning to seem Gingrich has more chance of getting the nomination than Romney. If Romney had finagled (legally of course) his taxes in the last 5 years or so down below 15% and that comes out, he's probably lost his chance for it.

Rain said...

Looks like South Carolina decided and frankly given the choices, and the more i learn about Romney's business practices, I gotta say Gignrich was probably the lesser of evils. I keep thinking though-- really? there's nobody else???

Ingineer66 said...

Jeb Bush needs to jump in and energize the race.