Bloomberg Getting In?
January 11th, 2008 at 07:03pm Mark Noonan
Looks more and more like he might:
NEW YORK - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has quietly been polling and conducting a highly sophisticated voter analysis in all 50 states as he decides whether to launch an independent presidential bid, associates said Wednesday.
The exhaustive data collection started months ago, and when the review begins shortly, it will provide the data-obsessed billionaire businessman with the information he will use to decide whether to make a third-party run for the White House.
The scope of the research, details of which were revealed to The Associated Press, demonstrates how seriously Bloomberg is considering running for president despite his almost-daily denials that he isn’t entering the race. The extensive coast-to-coast research effort shows that Bloomberg is willing to dig deep into his wallet simply to gauge his chances of winning and lining up the proper support network.
So, we know right off the bat that Bloomberg is a liar - if he’s been denying any intention of running, then any move to gauge the prospects of success is an indicator that he has, indeed, been planning on running and just issuing denials to try and throw dust in everyone’s eyes. We also know that Bloomberg is dishonorable - he ratted out the Democrats to become a Republican so he could become Mayor of New York City, and then he ratted out the Republicans so that he can gain independent bona fides for a 2008 presidential campaign. So, a very rich, dishonorable liar wants to be President on an independent ticket. What are his prospects?
Absolutely no chance at all. There is a very hard core of support for both political parties. Democrats rubbed up against theirs in 1972, Republicans against theirs in 1992. McGovern got 37.5% in 1972, George H W Bush got 37.4% in 1992. Realistically, neither major party candidate is going to drop much below that figure in any given election year. That is about 75%, which leaves about 25% for an independent to pick up…but even saying that Bloomberg does fantastically well, can anyone really see him getting to the 40% he’d need to even have a shot at winning 270 electoral votes? And winning those electoral votes in the face of an absolutely determined effort on the part of both the GOP and the Democrats to prevent such a thing from happening? Not a chance - at best, Bloomberg could possibly throw the election to the House, and the House will vote along party lines, thus ensuring that one of the two major party candidates emerges on top. Given the impossibility of Bloomberg winning, what would be the meaning of his running, should he decide to do so? That is where it would get interesting.
Bloomberg is a northeastern liberal - a very rich man who is the definition of urban elitist. When Perot ran in 1992 and 1996, there was a semblance of the populist about him, even though he was a billionaire…there is no such thing around Bloomberg. Bloomberg is also a fanatic defender of abortion, gun control, amnesty for illegals and same-sex marriage. This probably works well in Manhattan, and will make Bloomberg a bit popular in such places as San Francisco, Malibu and Martha’s Vineyard - not exactly the bastions of core American values. His appeal in “red” America won’t be merely limited - it will be non-existent. So, I’m thinking…
1. He thinks he’s a centrist independent who can appeal to such - forgetting that while to the MSM “centrist” means “pro-abortion fanatic”, what it really means is “at most, moderately pro-choice”, for example. But in thinking he’s got appeal to centrist independents, Bloomberg might think he can garner enough votes from them to win - additionally forgetting that such don’t make up even 30% of the American electorate.
2. He’s just a self-absorbed rich guy who doesn’t understand anything outside of rich, liberal enclaves.
3. He’s a center-left Trojan horse for Giuliani designed to tip New York and Pennsylvania into the GOP collumn in November.
What do you think?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008
59 Comments
1. liberalT | January 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
one thing I am confused of Mark. You keep trying to make this connection with being wealthy and being liberal. But all the Republican candidates are multi-millionaires - some of them have hundreds of millions of dollars of personal money. In general politicians are wealthy and not very populist - unfortunately - but that is hardly something that is just true of democrats. In fact if anything its the Republicans who have the grip on being super rich and out of touch with middle america.
2. Kahn | January 11th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Perot gave the White House to Clinton. Nader gave it to G.W. Bush. Who would Bloomberg throw it too?
Am I, a NRA Life member supposed to vote for HIM? What party would he steal more votes from?
3. LiberalMind | January 11th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Bloomberg would be 100 times better than any of the clowns in the Republican circle, er circus rather.
But please, please nominate Romney or Huckubee…..
4. Gozer the Carpathian | January 11th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Well remember I said I’m not much of a single issue voter, but there is one issue I’m very vocal and concerned about? Well if Bloomburg had a chance in hell I’d fight tooth and nail against him because his is so Anti-Gun it’s not even funny.
5. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
liberalT,
Great wealth and liberalism go naturally together - because only the wealthy can afford the fads of liberalism and only the very wealthy are immune to the class-warfare actions of liberalism.
You see, while the liberal mythology has been of a selfless liberal battling against the reactionary aristocracy (be it purely of money or of money and birth combined), the truth of the matter is that the aristocracy (be it of money and birth or just plain money) has been in the vanguard of all liberal change.
Ages ago, it was the rich aristocracy which decided to enclose the common fields - in the name of progress, it goes without saying, but the common people lost access to lands they had used in common since time immemorial…and they also, at the same time, lost a lot of their ability to viably farm…
Ages ago, it was the rich aristocracy which decided that the people needed to be freed from the oppression of the priests and monks…so, the monks were turned out of their monasteries, and the priests were hung, and religion was attacked…and all that property of the Church, which used to be for the corporate use of the common people…into the coffers of the rich it went. But at least the people were freed from the fear of believing in the Real Presence.
Ages ago, it was the rich aristocracy which decided that it was much better for people to live crammed together in massive cities where they could be easily swayed by advertising and turned into people who desire and endlessly richer material life…so the people became “consumers” and “clients”…but at least they were freed from the drudgery of farm life…
And when the people grew restive under this new dispensation of 12 hour days in a factory followed by a night in a noisome slum, it was the rich aristocracy, not all that long ago, which told them that they had an enemy - “the rich”. No, not the rich aristocracy…but those other “rich”, who need to be punished with high taxes to pay for the welfare programs designed to buy peace for the rich aristocracy.
And then, a generation ago, it was the rich aristocracy which decided that the old morality was no longer needed - it had kept body and soul together even in the worst of the slums during the worst of times, but the old morality was irksome for the very rich. It prevented them from having free play for sexuality, and for free play in extravagant expenditure…and the rich wanted to play! And so, it was the rich aristocracy which decided on abortion and birth control; on pornography and coarsened popular culture. There was no demand from the people for these things - but the people were going to have them, so that they, too, could become degraded and not presume to judge the very rich in their degeneracy.
Athwart these now stand the people - the real people. Those who have either held fast to the truth, or have discovered it as time went on - and we’re not about to have the rich aristocracy lead us into the final degradations of gay marriage, euthansia and infanticide. And it is not just, “thus far and no further”, but we’re going to take it all back.
Bloomberg, liberalT, is your natural leader - put a beret on his head and call him the head of the “American Liberation Front”, and he’s no different from Che - another scion of the rich who presumed to know what is best for the people. He’s rich, he’s profligate, he’s dishonest and he’s dishonorable…and he thinks he can be President.
6. liberalT | January 11th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
but you ignore the fact that all of the republican candidates are rich - many multi-millionaires.
you are a strange strange person Mark Noonan. I love the bit about how “liberals” created cities and made everyone move to them. That was classic and total insanity from yours truly…
I don’t have anything to say to that because it is so absolutely and totally insane I can’t even fathom what an appropriate response would be - except that perhaps you should contact your doctor…
7. Michael White | January 11th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
It is not true that he is a typical Northeastern liberal. He is very pro-business, and he is a staunch supporter of free trade and opponent of protectionism. He has conservative foreign policy leanings - initially, at least, he strongly supported the Iraq War, and he has criticized Democrats’ calls for a timeline for withdrawal as “irresponsible.” And he supports the PATRIOT Act.
The bottom line is, if you can stomach the socially liberal stances, he’s a good economic and foreign policy moderate, who would be great for our economy and be an effective leader.
A full coverage of his issue positions can be found here: http://citizens.uniteformike.com/index.php?title=Issues
–Mike
8. Eric T | January 11th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
LiberalT- take a look at the Hillary campaign contributions. It is huge, bigger than the Republicans. I think bloomberg is just trying to slant the race to make a democrat advantage. If he does I hope the democrats redistribute his wealth for him. It is too late for any newcomers in the race. It is going to make the country look terrible. The whole world is watching and right at the last minute some “money man” comes in a buys the election. All these countries that look to the U.S for inspiration, will see that and it will discredit the idea democracy. Bloomberg should just pick out the candidate he likes, like everyone else and support that candidate. I think Huckabee and Mitt Romney are the two best Republicans and he should support them. The democrats will find a way to tax bloomberg to death. And redistribute all that wealth. The Republicans will keep the market exciting and taxes low.
Kahn- I’m a NRA guy myself. And Huckabee has the best record on guns out of any of the candidates running. Hillary is the AntiChrist of gunowners in America, Obamination, and Edwards are the kind of people that don’t think you should be allowed freedom. They will try and pass Clinton gun ban 2, or things like Ted Kennedy’s H.R 1022 to ban all centerfire ammo and destroy deer hunting, competition, and recreational shooting forever. Think of all the sporting goods stores and gun stores closing down forever. Because some leftist puke likes golf or bowling and don’t understand the joy and happiness it brings to millions of hobbiests around the country. We need a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment in the White House. The democrats can’t be trusted with that kind of power. Huckabee is a CCW holder, on record against the Clinton Gun Ban. Mitt may be the guy that will keep the market exciting for the Wall St. guys, but his anti-semiautomatic statements will keep me wanting to make sure he is in 2nd place not 1st. Freedom is the most important issue and the democrats are all about enslaving the country with gun bans and high taxes. If you listen to the news since CCW have been issued crime has dropped quite a bit!!!
9. Doug | January 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Bloomberg doesn’t like Rudy, much like Perot didn’t like Bush. If Rudy does well on Super Tuesday, Bloomberg gets in. He will only put money in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, that’s all he would have to do to give Hillary the Presidency. He wouldn’t run to win, just like Perot, he would run to keep Rudy from being President.
10. liberalT | January 11th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
oh sure Eric - i don’t think there ever has been a non rich president. Its just the reality -( sadly so) of our society. My point is that its true in general. Just count the Bush millions, the Romney millions, the Clinton millions, the Kerry millions.
Its not a democrat or a republican thing - its a politician thing
11. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
LiberalT,
When did we vote to become large-scale farmers rather than smallholders? When did we vote to industrialise? When did we vote for easy access to pornography? Were the common people consulted about these things? Who led the way?
Once you’ve figured that out, you’ll figure out the truth about society and what needs to be done.
12. liberalT | January 11th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
(1) Mark - you are still not answering my question - do you just ignore the fact that all of the Republican candidates are wealthy many multi-millionaires.
(2) so now you are seriously arguing that liberals changed our society from large to small scale farming, industrialized the country (thats a bad thing?), and gave us access to pornography?
Seriously Mark - I know a few good doctor’s. You give us way to much credit - these were all things that were done by both liberals and conservatives. I just don’t understand how one person can get so many crazy ideas in their head
13. js | January 11th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
The danger with Bloomburg is he literally owns many many media outlets, and if he comes up with a good hook, he really can fool alot of people into voting for him on the independent party.
Even Republicans and quasi Democrats. What he really wants is to trumph Obama’s youth vote, and steal away. That would do it.
14. Xango Annie | January 11th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
All the other issues put aside..the man is a midget, nanny billionaire with an unlikeable demeanor and an awful voice……ain’t gonna fly!!!
15. Kahn | January 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
libT - never been a non rich president? Read.
Rich Republicans don’t foster the class warfare that rich Democrats do. That’s the difference. They call for wealth redistribution - but be sure to leave themselves loopholes to exploit. Examples: John Edwards, John Kerry, etc.
It’s the hypocrisy that makes the difference.
Liberal leaders and celebrities are the same on other issues. For example, anti-gun Rosie O’Donnell was angry when her child’s school refused their bodyguards permission to pack firearms into their elementary school. Senator Byrd demands 24 hour protection by Capital Police, it goes on.
Or how about when Congresswoman Pelosi specifically left out American Samoa from minimum wage increases, because her and her husband own a large stake in business with factories there?
Or how about the enormous mansions, fleets of SUV’s, and private planes that nearly every member of the liberal elite owns or uses? Ya see, these are the same people who want to outlaw light bulbs. I guess the newest Learjets use L.E.D. lighting.
Look Diana - no cut-n-pastes, just me.
16. Mark Noonan | January 12th, 2008 at 2:15 am
liberalT,
And you’re not grasping the fact that your much-vaunted liberalism is really nothing more than a function of rich people who want to play god…with the common people as the blocks of wood for their continuing experiments. Not all rich people are liberals, but all liberal leaders are rich. Ever come across a poor man who’s preoccupation is whether or not we should legalise euthanasia?
Your whole worldview is built on a series of lies and misunderstandings - you’ve got the world backwards.
17. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 8:23 am
>>1) Mark - you are still not answering my question - do you just ignore the fact that all of the Republican candidates are wealthy many multi-millionaires. - libT<<
We might answer your diatribe libT if you just didn’t make shit up. Huckabee and Paul are hardly multi-millionaires. Yet you just stated that ALL republicans are. That’s just ignorant and false.
Once you become a little more grounded in reality, we may be able to have a conversation.
18. Eric T | January 12th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Neacon
That is great point in #17 it shoots a bowlingball size hole in LibT’s attempt to say Hillary is for the working class, or try to invoke class warfare. When Hillary really is one of the wealthiest in the country.
19. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Mark - I never said anything of the sort. Indeed I have repeatedly said on this thread that it IS a problem that the main stream democratic candidates are not very populist. My point - however - is that it is absolutely laughable that you would claim that this is any different from the mainstream Republican candidates. It is a problem I grasp very well indeed. If you look above you can see that I think it is a major problem that Kerry and Clinton are multimillionairs and out of touch…
Now - are you going to answer my question or avoid it like the scared little boy you are? If Republicanism is not associated as well with interests of the very wealthy than why are all the mainstream Republican candidates mutlimillionairs some of them having hundreds of millions of dollars. Explain to me how you can sit there and claim this while you ignore this fact now that I have posted it 5 times. It reeks of someone who knows that they can’t answer it so rather than admit they are wrong they just try to change the subject…
20. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am
libT,
HOW F*&%CKING STUPID ARE YOU?
Huckabee is one of the leading GOP candidates and not wealthy at all.
Furthering your ignorance is your assertion that a multi-millionaire by definition, only panders to the interests of the wealthy. Do you think that George Soros has the interests of the common man at heart? How about Warren Buffet?
I can’t believe you even know how to brush your teeth in the morning. The fact that you’re not embarrassed by you’re astoundingly juvenile viewpoints demonstrates the level of your indoctrination. And the fact that you are able to vote is frightening.
21. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am
hmm the Republicans really must be the party of the rich. Huckabee reported approximately 600,000 dollars of income in 2006. While not putting him in the hundred million dollar club with Romney that to me is a rich man.
22. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 10:04 am
–
Furthering your ignorance is your assertion that a multi-millionaire by definition, only panders to the interests of the wealthy.
–
i am confused - just a second ago Mark was arguing that because the democrats were so rich they were the party of the wealthy. Now you are arguing that the Republicans who are rich only care about the poor.
God - who is the naive one…
23. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am
$600,000 does not qualify as being even a millionaire. And I would think that the person running the night shift at 7-11 would be considered rich when compared to your income.
Also, please back up your assertion that wealthy people can only have the interests of other wealthy people at heart. It seems to me that some of most benevolent things done for the poor have been done by the rich.
Secondly, take a look at the electoral map. The blue states (democrat) are NY and California, just to name a couple. The red states (republican) are Oklahoma and Montana, just to name a couple. Where do you suppose the rich reside?
Your continued meme of “the party of the rich” is again a testament to your indoctrination and ignorance.
24. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am
>>Now you are arguing that the Republicans who are rich only care about the poor. - libT<<
That’s not what I said AT ALL. You are like having a conversation with my 8 year old grandson.
I said, why do you think the rich “only pander to the interests of the wealthy”
That can hardly be construed as saying they only pander to the poor. For once, will you please set aside your undying allegiance to the liberal agenda?
25. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am
>>i am confused - libT<<
We all know that hun.
26. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am
that was a joke obviously. Look my point is simple and obvious - all of the presidential candidates are rich by the standards of average americans. Averages Americans have a median income of about 40,000 dollars and a net worth of about 100,000. Even the “poorest” of the candidates Denis K. and Mike H. have incomes and net worths on the order of 5-10 times larger than the average American.
I never said that the wealthy ONLY care about the needs of the wealthy. Some wealthy people have given millions even billions to the poor. But you will have to excuse me while I barf if you are trying to argue with me that any of the presidential candidates from either side really care about poor americans all that much…
27. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Well, aside from entitlement programs that amount to $350 billion plus aimed directly at the poor; ie: food stamps, WIC, unemployment, SSI, etc, etc., do you think the government should do more?
Should “poor” people be the foremost item on a Presidents agenda? What programs would you institute to move people out of poverty? At what level of income do you consider someone poor? What responsibility do poor people have for their own predicament?
These are just a few questions that adults consider before making claims that you just did.
28. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
LibT,
I honestly think that you want a better future for our country and our citizens. That being said, I encourage you to take off your liberal blinders and look more objectively at conservative policies.
29. Eric | January 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Mark - How are the Dems the ones who play god when it is the repubs who are typically the ones who are trying to destroy the separation of Church and State in this country?
Neocon - If i were in Lib’s position, I would feel like I am having a conversation with my senile old grandfather. Mark was the one who put forth the ridiculous premise that Dems don’t care about the poor because they are rich. Can’t make that argument without saying the same thing about Giuliani/McCain/Thompson/Romney on the GOP side all have net worths upwards of $1 million.
30. Eric T | January 12th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Eric-
Destroy the separation of church and state? where do you see this?
31. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Eric,
Tell me how the 40 year old war against poverty that the Democrats have been waging is coming along?
If you knew, or understood anything, you would realize that their motives are to keep the poor poor so they are dependent on their programs for them, thus retaining the power. That’s their goal, and anyone who thinks objectively, understands that.
32. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
–
Should “poor” people be the foremost item on a Presidents agenda? What programs would you institute to move people out of poverty? At what level of income do you consider someone poor? What responsibility do poor people have for their own predicament?
–
I think it should be a very important item - of course there are many things that are important and i don’t think its possible to rank them - there are many extremely important things on the President’s agenda.
What income level do I consider poor? Obviously its not something where its possible to draw a hard line in the sand - any attempt to do so would be flawed. None the less - the their are standards that the US government use to define this and roughly speaking that can be taken as a working definition.
The question of responsibility is an interesting one and again impossible to define in a general standard - one would have to look on a case by case basis. But by far and wide people are not poor because they “choose to be” or because they are lazy. Although there may be obvious exceptions the majority of people who are poor are poor because they are caught in a poverty trap. Typically beyond circumstances they directly control - take for example the poor in 3rd world countries. They are born into poor families - do not get proper nutrition or education and often are forced to leave school very early if they do get any education because their families need them to work to get income to feed the family. They would love to give their children proper educations - but when faced with the choice of starving today it has a tendency to make lofty goals of higher education somewhat bankrupt. So they end up poorly educated just scraping by and get no help from their parents because of the simple fact that their parents have nothing to give.
Now often poverty in the US is not as extreme as you see in 3rd world countries - but the reasons are much the same. So on the whole the majority of the poor are very hard working and struggling as hard as they can to get out of it but simply cannot due to how unfair life is.
There is no simple answer to how to end poverty - if there was then it would have been done. However, you certainly need a variety of methods
(1) government programs to feed, cloth, and house the poor
(2) government education programs to help people become skilled workers
(3) There has been huge success in many parts of the world and more promise for microloans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit
if i had a fully functional and realistic plan i would obviously love to tell you about it but I don’t of course. But everything we can do to help the better…
33. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Eric T,
Re: church and state, Eric is simply regurgitating what he’s read on other lefty sites. To obtain an answer, would require critical thinking on his part. Ain’t gonna happen.
34. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
neocon - you have to be kidding me if you honestly think that “liberals want to keep the poor poor to stay in power”. Nobody wants to keep the poor poor - people just have different ways of approaching the problem. Come to the table without your baseless insults please…this is grown up talk now
35. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
libT,
The concept of microloans is a big factor of the current mortgage crisis. Loans made to otherwise unqualified people.
Do you consider $350 billion spent on entitlement programs enough?
I agree society has a responsibility to help others, but along with that comes their responsibility to help themselves. Secondly, government can not govern on a case-by-case basis. Government can only establish and enforce policies for the aggregate.
36. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 11:36 am
40 years of the “war” on poverty and nothing has changed. libT, this is what I mean by taking off your blinders.
37. Eric T | January 12th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Dailykos and Think progress are some pretty far left sites. When you go on the site, It is like reading the stuff wrote on a bathroom stall at a truckstop. No substance at all kinda just like the libs.
38. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am
oh I would disagree that nothing has changed
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png
poverty has decreased by 1/2 since 1959 and is down from 20% to 12.5% since Johnson declared the war on poverty.
as for microloans you have to be insane to believe that has anything to do with the current mortgage crisis. Microloans are mostly offered for a dollar or two to poor people in 3rd world nations. No - the mortage crisis has more to do with corporate america screwing over the middle class
39. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Do you know what stated income loans are libT? Many people that would otherwise be unqualified because of insufficient income or lack of downpayment were given loans, that resulted in those people losing their homes because of their inability to keep up. The far majority of those people obtained stated income loans, and NO ONE or NO “CORPORATE AMERICA” forced them to take those loans.
And you’re link shows that in 50 years we’ve taken 3 million people out of poverty. Impressive.
It’s called personal responsibility, of which you have just dismissed and instead blamed someone else. Again, that’s what I mean by taking off the liberal blinders.
40. Mark Noonan | January 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
liberalT,
The question we are debating - off topic, naturally - is not whether a rich politician might pander to the interests of wealth, but whether or not the liberal leadership - which shouts endlessly of their concern for the poor - are really so much interested in the poor or in advancing a agenda which makes the world safe for rich liberals? As I’ve asked - who was it who asked for abortion on demand; poor people? Who was it who asked for easy access to pornography; poor people? Who was it who asked for illicit drugs to be mainstreamed into society; poor people? Who was who asked for gross sexual immorality; poor people?
That all, of course, is very modern - but I go back to the beginning and I find the same thing - it was almost always rich people with a “progressive” mindset who set afoot the big changes in society (the big exception was the end of slavery - that was set afoot by the most rock-ribbed of orthodox Christians); good or bad, the changes are forced through by a small, rich, liberal elite…with little or no consultation from the average Joe about how he feels.
In very simplified terms, what conservatism says, liberalT, is not “don’t move”, but “don’t move without asking”. Who are the liberals to tell us that we must have gay marriage? They must ask our permission, and if we wish it, we will have it…no ramming it through the courts. Who are the liberals to tell us that we must have open borders? They must ask our permission, and if we wish it, we will have it…no “sanctuary cities” or other such nonsense which makes a mockery of our immigration laws. Who are the liberals to tell us that our property ownership is contingent upon a liberal’s definition of good use? If we wish you to have our property, we’ll sell it to you.
On and on it goes - liberal leadership trying to force through changes, preferrably through judicial or regulatory fiat because they don’t want to be bothered with annoying opposition from those very same common people they say they are working for. As I’ve said, you’ve got your worldview backwards…if you want to be of “the people”, liberalT, then to conservatism you must turn.
41. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
neocon - the link shows that since 1959 the total percentage of those in poverty has decreased by 50% While I wish it were more - yes even just “3 million people” out of poverty is a GREAT accomplishment. Finally you are confusing the issue of microloans which are predominantly given in the 3rd world with subprime loans. Totally different.
Mark - I give up. You are just looking for someone to blame for all the ills of America. You find a target in liberalism because you don’t like the supposed imorailty of it and then proceed with absolutely no facts to blame everything that is wrong in America with liberalism. You have yet to produce a single fact - just more ranting and raving. when you do so - i will respond. there is no point in responding to mindless ranting…
42. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
So libT,
So you consider spending over $1 trillion in programs to move 3 million people out of poverty over the course of 50 years a great success?
Really?
43. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
absolutely - and you are neglecting the increase in the population since then. In total it is a 50% total reduction in the percentage of population. So its not “just 3 million” its also all those people kept above the poverty line that would have been there without it.
Bush has spent almost 0.5 trillion dollars in 5 years on the war on Iraq. The 1 trillion was over 50 years which makes the annual spending on the Iraq war about 10 times the cost of the war in poverty. So absolutely and without any regrets.
44. neocon | January 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The money spent in Iraq is helping 27,000,000 people enjoy liberty and freedom. I am sorry you don’t support that.
And percentages don’t mean (expletive deleted). The chart shows 40 million in poverty in 1959 and 37 million in poverty today. Those are presumably the real numbers. That’s just a reduction of 3 million.
And you are saying that the increased population was kept out of poverty because of those programs, which again is completely ridiculous. If those people were never in poverty, they would have never taken part of those programs, which you claim kept them out of poverty.
And the $1 trillion is a completely low figure considering $350 billion was spent just last year. So let’s consider that an average of $100 billion was spent over a 30 year period (still pretty conservative estimates), that would total $3 trillion, which would equate to $1 billion per person. Success, indeed. We could have easily just given each person $1 million and saved a lot of money.
>>…its also all those people kept above the poverty line that would have been there without it. - libT<<<<
I just love that line. Without entitlement programs, people would be in poverty, having no means by themselves to avoid it. That’s the liberal mindset.
45. Jeremiah | January 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
LiberalT,
You don’t know the immorality of the Democrat party because you choose to ignore it. Why? Because you want it to continue.
And that’s what really upsets me about people like you Democrats.
You choose to ignore REALITY, You can’t understand anything, because you’re willing to step outside of the box. You choose to live in your own universe, and shut reality out.
What’s the problem, Dude?
Well, the first problem is that you don’t believe in the Creator. That is your main problem.
And well, that makes you a fool.
And so, until you break free from that world of sin that you’ve enslaved yourself too. There’s not much hope for you.
And another thing, you talk like you own this blog…feelin’ a little big for your britche aren’t ya?
I think you need to be brought back to size. Until then, your not helpin’ this world or the people on this blog. No, your misleading and destroying people who don’t know any better.
~ Jeremiah
46. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
percentages don’t mean (Expletive Deleted - PG13, boys and girls)?
Sigh - i don’t know how to reply to that. Umm YES THEY DO.
I don’t even know what that is suppose to mean .
47. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
my favorite bit is the “calculation” that leads you to believe it it cost 1 billion dollars a person for the war on poverty. Now I could mock you for your endless and total stupidity but instead I will just let that go into the void and forgive you for not understanding anything…
48. Eric T | January 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The bloomberg getting in at the last minute, because he don’t like the candidates the people chose, does to democracy what Pakistan did in their recent election.
49. Mark Noonan | January 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
liberalT,
You might want to look up the definition of ranting - I may, indeed, be wrong, but I’m certainly not ranting my views out to you…
To try again - there is an old joke to illustrate:
That nutshells it - rich liberals proposing what the people want, and if the people don’t agree, the rich liberals just insist that the people don’t know what they really want. I’ve offered you plenty of facts easily ascertainable by a quick check of historical documents - you refuse to even consider them, because you don’t want to have your worldview disturbed…but I’ll get more specific for you:
Robespierre: Son of a lawyer, was a lawyer.
Lenin: Son of a Russian nobleman, was a lawyer.
Rosa Luxemburg: Daugher of a timber trader, became a professional politician.
Betty Friedan: Daughter of a jewelry store owner, became a professional leftwing activist.
Karl Liebknecht: Son of a politician, became a professional politician.
Noam Chomsky: Son of a Hebrew scholar and leftist agitator, became a linguist.
Bertand Russell: Full Name - “Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell”
Hubert H Humphrey: Son of a pharmacist, became a professional politician.
Al Gore: Son of a Senator, became a professional politician.
Howard Dean: Son of a wealthy investment banker, became a professional politician.
Jerry Brown: Son of a govenror, became a professional politician.
John Kenneth Galbraith: Son of a teacher, became an economist.
John Kerry: Son of a diplomat, became a professional politician.
Hillary Clinton: Daughter of a textile business owner, became a professional politician.
Barack Obama: Grandson of a furniture salesman who could afford to send his daughter to college in Hawaii, became a professional politician.
Nancy Pelosi: Daughter of a congressman/mayor, became a professional politician.
Jay Rockefeller: Son of John D Rockefeller III, became a professional politician.
And by “professional politician”, I mean that they didn’t do anything significant in their adult life other than work for government, or be an elected government official.
Now, you do have some people of humble background in the ranks of liberal leadership - but the commonality of them is a liberal college education and current wealthy status earned not in the private sector, but in the public sector (by one means or another). It is very uncommon for an actual liberal leader to be, say, a plumber, electrician, home maker or some such…in other words, it is rare for a liberal leader to be a member of the class liberal leaders allegedly fight for.
Here are some of the bios of conservatives:
Ronald Reagan: Son of a working class boozer, became a successful radio and film personality prior to entering politics.
Tom DeLay: Son of an oil industry worker who worked in the chemical industry prior to entering politics.
Newt Gingrich: Son of rather disruptable, lower class people who worked as a college professor before entering politics.
Barry Goldwater: Son of a small department store owner who then ran the family business prior to entering politics.
Condi Rice: Grew up in the segregated south, daughter of a preacher; worked as a professor and administrator in higher education prior to entering politics.
John McCain; Son and grandson of naval officers, who served as a naval officer for many years before entering politics.
Rudy Giuliani: Son of working-class, Italian parents who became a career politician via the DA’s office.
Mitt Romney: Son of a very wealthy family, but worked in the private sector for nearly 20 years before entering politics.
And on and on it goes, just like that. “The People” have next to nothing in common with those supposed tribunes of the people, liberals…
50. liberalT | January 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
right - but you are just proving my point Mark. POLITIICANS are generally wealthy. Do I need to make the same stupid list including Bush, Romney, Regan, blah blah blah
51. neocon | January 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am
libT,
You are losing badly in this debate. And the fact that you don’t grasp my assertion of meaningless percentages, clearly reveals that you have never run a business or had responsibility over P&L’s or budgets.
52. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
oh neocon. I love how you think that you are doing me a favor. All I am saying is that the mainstream Republicans candidates are as well rich and out of touch with middle America. I find it further hilarious that you think there is something “i don’t grasp” because i think “percentages” mean something. I think you should go take a remedial math course. That is like saying “division” doesn’t mean anything. God - no wonder you guys elected Bush - you didn’t want someone smarter than you as President
53. Jones | January 13th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
LiberalT,
You may need to re-read Mark’s post (# 49). Read carefully the background of everyone listed. Many of those “out-of-touch” republican candidates that he included came from humble beginnings (Mitt Romney an obvious exception). Several came from working class families. Also, be sure to contrast it with the liberal elites that want us to think they care more for the little guy than those evil republicans.
With that in mind, who is more likely to be out-of-touch with middle America? A rich republican who came from a working class family or a rich democrat who came from either a wealthy family or from a family of career politicians?
54. Schoolgirl Spanking Schoo&hellip | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Schoolgirl Spanking Schoolgirls Schoolgirl Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
55. Capital Investment Bonds&hellip | February 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Ten Common Investment Errors: Stocks, Bonds, & Management
Investment mistakes happen for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty that are irresponsibly downplayed by market gurus and institutional spokespersons. Losing money on an investment may not b…
56. Weight Loss Pill Identifi&hellip | March 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Weight Loss Pill Identifier Pills
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
57. Nude Pam Anderson Nude Pr&hellip | March 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Nude Pam Anderson Nude Preteen Nudists
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
58. Factory Built Home Mortga&hellip | March 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Factory Built Home Mortgage
I found this very true, “We’ve made great medical progress in the
59. free web site for governm&hellip | April 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
free government loan and grant
Hey there. Just read your info. Gotta say - you have great info on your site. Come check out my us federal government grants webpage.