Newt Is The Being Crucified by The 1%

[Guest]

In a Newsmax article it was reported that Rev Donald E. Wildom founder of the American Family Association strongly endorses Newt Gingrich and is upset with the GOP Establishment (1%) who are crucifying him solely because they want to control who becomes the GOP nominee. Rev Wildom has personally met with Newt Gingrich.

Clearly there is a grab for control of GOP among the Establisment, Evangeical Christians and the Tea Party. Ask yourself which of these groups will best serve your interests. I answered that question and it certainly was not the 1% that don't even know I exist.

[Guest]

Romney made all his money in the private sector by his own diligence and talent - even giving away all the money he inherited from his parents. He's never lived in Washington.

Meanwhile, without the federal government, Newt would be penniless. He has been in Washington, since the '70's, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman.

Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse.

[Guest]

...upset with the GOP Establishment (1%) who are crucifying him solely because they want to control who becomes the GOP nominee....there is a grab for control of GOP among the Establisment, Evangeical Christians and the Tea Party. Ask yourself which of these groups will best serve your interests...That's an excellent question. If those groups really are the heart of "the establishment", then maybe the question might be what have they done to benefit "the 99%" recently?
The operation of the Congress has been brought to a virtual halt. These groups are those who simply will not compromise on anything with their political opponents.

They stalled any negotiations on fiscal reform to the last minute and clearly cost the country a credit-rating downgrade.

Maybe women should be concerned over their pledge to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The party to which these groups are pledged were prinicpal in the runup of the national debt, from virtually nothing in 2000 to over $15 trillion now. Even after that party took control of the House, which holds the country's checkbook, deficit spending and the national debt increased another trillion dollars in less than a year.

And as far as the candidate himself is concerned, have we ever had a candidate for POTUS who was an unapologetic serial philanderer, convicted and fined for ethics violations while serving as Speaker of the House, and finally forced to resign from that position by his peers from both parties?
I'm pretty sure there are a lot more than the 1% who might not want Gingrich as our candidate in the fall.

[Guest]

This 1% stuff is getting really old.

"The 1 Percent" is the Alinsky ridicule and demonize tactic of the Occupiers, and it is the very tactic Obama is going to use to make EITHER Romney or Gingrich the piñata to hang up for the blindfolded SHEEPLE to poke and bust open to disembowel it.

Instead of focusing on how the TAX CODE is a convoluted abyss, or on how it produces a tax return that consists of 550 PAGES (Romney's) that NOBODY can understand nor analyze as a voter, or how throwing out the current tax code and replacing it with a flat tax with the poor and working poor paying a much smaller percentage like 1%....everyone is running toward the straw man argument of Obama's and Pelosi's "One Percent" like this is going to put out the fire you're running into. All it does is FEED the fire.

This is nuts, when conservatives take that bait.

[Guest]

This 1% stuff is getting really old.

"The 1 Percent" is the Alinsky ridicule and demonize tactic of the Occupiers, and it is the very tactic Obama is going to use to make EITHER Romney or Gingrich the piñata to hang up for the blindfolded SHEEPLE to poke and bust open to disembowel it.

Instead of focusing on how the TAX CODE is a convoluted abyss, or on how it produces a tax return that consists of 550 PAGES (Romney's) that NOBODY can understand nor analyze as a voter, or how throwing out the current tax code and replacing it with a flat tax with the poor and working poor paying a much smaller percentage like 1%....everyone is running toward the straw man argument of Obama's and Pelosi's "One Percent" like this is going to put out the fire you're running into. All it does is FEED the fire.

This is nuts, when conservatives take that bait.

I think this "1% stuff" is exciting and refreshing. It is a large and important aspect of the overall state of our economy and a key concept in the decision making affecting our nation's future. It's not pretty to dwell on, for those who are members, or those in the 99% who were victimized in the recession. But it is REAL (and) IMPORTANT.

Nothing is more important than the economy right now, and that underscores the necessity to finally radically revise our horrendous tax code and all of the other revenue streams necessary to reduce the deficit. Our generally prosperous recent history, as well as super talented lobbying, has kept us in denial or just too unmotivated to solve these injustices.

No matter how conservative you are, no one can pretend that we will ever get close to solvency again solely by cutting spending. As long as realities like "the 1%" remain on our collective minds, the easier it is to see the absurdity of some of the economic principles stubbornly adhered to by "job creators" tea partiers and other fiscal arch-conservatives.

[Guest]

No matter how conservative you are, no one can pretend that we will ever get close to solvency again solely by cutting spending.

Nonsense. Cutting spending is the only way to get to solvency. Your avarice for other's money is not the answer. Lower your expectations on what you think the government should be doing for you. That would go a long way to solving the problems of our country.

[Guest]

I use the phrase 1% because to me it represents those individual so removed from my world that continung in power whether Democrat or Republican will be to further their self interests first and foremost. Instead of the 1% put names to it. A big supporter of Romney Goldman Sach (1%) Too big to fail but small enough to render multiple million dollar bonuses speaks volumes.

A poster pushed the "he followed the rules and became rich...." I said in my original post that I didn't care how much money Romney made or how much tax he paid. I am interested as to whether both were done honestly. There are legal and legitimate questions just on the $20million where romney paid 13.9% take under carried interest is questionable because such incomehad to derive from services rendered to Bain. But Romney left Bain in 1999. so how many question remain with the remainder of his wealth.

[Guest]

Nonsense. Cutting spending is the only way to get to solvency. Your avarice for other's money is not the answer. Lower your expectations on what you think the government should be doing for you. That would go a long way to solving the problems of our country.

Your class warfare and dependency on government arguments are hollow and tiresome. Cmon, you know you would not favor the kind of drastic, even dangerous spending cuts which would really make a deficit difference, while standing pat with our current tax code.

I've said it before, I love capitalism and hold no grudge against anyone who's become a billionaire legally. But the economic pendulum has simply swung too far from equilibrium. Yes, we should cut spending; yes we should streamline government; yes we should insure individual and corporate rights; yes we should encourage capitalist incentives, but we just can't get there affectively continuing the abuses which have been perpetuated by dumb and/or conniving forces in and around Washington.

[Guest]

Interesting perspectives on:

The incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington

"Perhaps no one single individual is more representative of the Wall Street-Washington incestuous relationship than Robert Rubin.

Today, Mr. Rubin will provide testimony to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which is charged with investigating the root causes of the economic crisis which emanated on Wall Street. Will the FCIC allow Mr. Rubin to hide behind the veil of platitudes, unnamed consultants, unknown risks, and the like? Will the FCIC finally stand up for American citizens and drill Mr. Rubin to expose the deeply embedded, culturally corrosive nature of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington?

A cursory review of Mr. Rubin’s career highlights the following:

Goldman Sachs and Co.: 1966-1993; variety of roles, culminating as Co-Chairman of the firm.

Clinton Administration: 1993-1999; served as Assistant to President for Economic Policy from ’93-’95,
Secretary of Treasury from Jan. ’95-July ’99

Citigroup: 1999-2008; served as Director, Chairman of the Executive Committee, and Member of the Office of the Chairman of Citigroup.

Also served as an economic adviser to Barack Obama’s campaign.

I am not optimistic that America will learn much from Mr. Rubin today, but if I were on the FCIC I would demand that Mr. Rubin address the following:

1. What was the full extent of your involvement in derailing the initiative of Brooksley Born to mandate that the CFTC (Commodities Future Trading Commission) have oversight of over the counter derivatives? In hindsight, what do you think of allowing these derivatives to trade in an unregulated fashion? How do you reconcile your involvement on this front back in the late ’90s with the developments at AIG?

2. What was the full extent of your involvement in the repeal of Glass-Stegall which allowed for the merger of institutions forming Citigroup? Please address the topic of lobbying dollars and campaign contributions paid specifically by Citigroup to members of Congress to support this legislation. Be specific. Was there a prearranged agreement in place for you to join Citigroup upon your departure from the White House in return for your support of this repeal? That is, was there a quid pro quo? Be specific please. Please provide access to your books and records.

3. What was the full extent of your involvement and relationship with the executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, specifically Leland Brendsel at Freddie Mac and Franklin Raines and James Johnson at Fannie Mae? Please address how you might reconcile the fact that these aforementioned executives walked out with tens of millions of dollars in compensation while having effectively cooked their books.

4. Please address the justification for your compensation in excess of $100 million dollars while at Citigroup, while the firm’s stock sank over 70% during your tenure.....

Robert Rubin, Raise Your Right Hand . . . | Sense on Cents (http://www.senseoncents.com/2010/04/robert-rubin-raise-your-right-hand/#more-18108)

[Guest]

Don't worry about Newt. He is losing the Florida primary big time by around 15 percent. Chances are that he will just go slinking back from under that rock from which he emerged. His endorsement by Herman's Pizza will not do him any good as it just shows two philanderers palling around each other.

[Guest]

Obama's Democrats had complete control of the Government for the first two years of his presidency. They did not pass a budget, help reduce unemployment, or reform the tax code. What they did was ram Obamacare down our throats. They were not the least bit interested in working with the Republicans, in fact BHO said he won, and he would do what ever he wanted, no input from the Republican's in the Legislative Branch. He appointed two extreme Leftist Justices to the Supreme Court, he appointed a separate Government of unapproved Czars.
Only when in 2010, we the people rose up and gained a majority in the House, does he want compromise. We caved too much already. The debt ceiling keeps being raised, instead of the Government being really cut. We are on the road to be another Greece.

The majority of the people in the country are pro-life. Even in the rainy weather last Monday we had close to 500,000 people at the March for Life and the Youth Ralley at the Verizon Center which spilled over to the DC Armory. All the pro-aborts could muster were less than ten half-hearted protestors at the Supreme Court.

I thought Florida was a Republican State, Rush has said so often. Plus anyone who can afford to live in places like the Villages are part of the 1%.

[Guest]

Obama's Democrats had complete control of the Government for the first two years of his presidency. They did not pass a budget, help reduce unemployment, or reform the tax code. What they did was ram Obamacare down our throats. They were not the least bit interested in working with the Republicans, in fact BHO said he won, and he would do what ever he wanted, no input from the Republican's in the Legislative Branch. He appointed two extreme Leftist Justices to the Supreme Court, he appointed a separate Government of unapproved Czars.
Only when in 2010, we the people rose up and gained a majority in the House, does he want compromise. We caved too much already. The debt ceiling keeps being raised, instead of the Government being really cut. We are on the road to be another Greece.

The majority of the people in the country are pro-life. Even in the rainy weather last Monday we had close to 500,000 people at the March for Life and the Youth Ralley at the Verizon Center which spilled over to the DC Armory. All the pro-aborts could muster were less than ten half-hearted protestors at the Supreme Court.

I thought Florida was a Republican State, Rush has said so often. Plus anyone who can afford to live in places like the Villages are part of the 1%.

I take exception to the last paragraph of your post. I don't know what Rush has often said, but Florida has 500,000 more registered democrats than republicans. That's a fact.

[Guest]

1) Republicans blocked many Democrat initiatives in the Senate because they almost immediately lost the all-important 60th vote in the Senate when Kennedy died and Scott Brown was voted in.

2) According to IRS data, you have to be making somewhere north of $380,000/year to be in the 1%. I believe people making a LOT less than that are living in The Villages.

[Guest]

No disrespect to any Villagers, but if you think those that are living in patio villas,CYV's or ranchs are in the 1% you are sadly misinformed. :ohdear:

[Guest]

Interesting perspectives on:

The incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington

"Perhaps no one single individual is more representative of the Wall Street-Washington incestuous relationship than Robert Rubin.

Today, Mr. Rubin will provide testimony to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which is charged with investigating the root causes of the economic crisis which emanated on Wall Street. Will the FCIC allow Mr. Rubin to hide behind the veil of platitudes, unnamed consultants, unknown risks, and the like? Will the FCIC finally stand up for American citizens and drill Mr. Rubin to expose the deeply embedded, culturally corrosive nature of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington?

A cursory review of Mr. Rubin’s career highlights the following:

Goldman Sachs and Co.: 1966-1993; variety of roles, culminating as Co-Chairman of the firm.

Clinton Administration: 1993-1999; served as Assistant to President for Economic Policy from ’93-’95,
Secretary of Treasury from Jan. ’95-July ’99

Citigroup: 1999-2008; served as Director, Chairman of the Executive Committee, and Member of the Office of the Chairman of Citigroup.

Also served as an economic adviser to Barack Obama’s campaign.

I am not optimistic that America will learn much from Mr. Rubin today, but if I were on the FCIC I would demand that Mr. Rubin address the following:

1. What was the full extent of your involvement in derailing the initiative of Brooksley Born to mandate that the CFTC (Commodities Future Trading Commission) have oversight of over the counter derivatives? In hindsight, what do you think of allowing these derivatives to trade in an unregulated fashion? How do you reconcile your involvement on this front back in the late ’90s with the developments at AIG?

2. What was the full extent of your involvement in the repeal of Glass-Stegall which allowed for the merger of institutions forming Citigroup? Please address the topic of lobbying dollars and campaign contributions paid specifically by Citigroup to members of Congress to support this legislation. Be specific. Was there a prearranged agreement in place for you to join Citigroup upon your departure from the White House in return for your support of this repeal? That is, was there a quid pro quo? Be specific please. Please provide access to your books and records.

3. What was the full extent of your involvement and relationship with the executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, specifically Leland Brendsel at Freddie Mac and Franklin Raines and James Johnson at Fannie Mae? Please address how you might reconcile the fact that these aforementioned executives walked out with tens of millions of dollars in compensation while having effectively cooked their books.

4. Please address the justification for your compensation in excess of $100 million dollars while at Citigroup, while the firm’s stock sank over 70% during your tenure.....

Robert Rubin, Raise Your Right Hand . . . | Sense on Cents (http://www.senseoncents.com/2010/04/robert-rubin-raise-your-right-hand/#more-18108)

Thank thank you thank you that's exactly what I am talking about. Its the Goldman Sachs guys, et al that pitch you knowing that your getting bupkus and they gold. I too love capitalism and understand how it operates but come on don't p-- on my leg and tell me its raining and then also expect me to say thank you.

[Guest]

Thank thank you thank you that's exactly what I am talking about. Its the Goldman Sachs guys, et al that pitch you knowing that your getting bupkus and they gold. I too love capitalism and understand how it operates but come on don't p-- on my leg and tell me its raining and then also expect me to say thank you.

"Incestuous Relationship" pretty much sums up everything in Washington and the two political parties.