Socialist Pinheads
Rush has some great examples of why Democrats can't be trusted with the economy in this country any more than they can be trusted with our national defense. First, there's Dennis Kucinich. What a buffoon. He wants to tax "Big Oil" because they're making too much profit. Here's what he had to say to Hannah Storm during an interview:
The info babe, Hannah Storm, said, "How do windfall taxes that you want, how do these taxes bring down the price of gas?"
KUCINICH: No, no, no, it doesn't tax the price of gas.
STORM: No, how do the taxes...?
KUCINICH: It taxes only excess profits. When you start imposing some discipline and the oil company -- a hundred percent tax on excess profits, then the oil companies aren't going to be making $1300 a second like ExxonMobil is, $10 billion in a quarter, their CEO had a $400 million golden parachute, their stock's at an all-time high. I mean, what's going on here? The American people are getting ripped off at the pump and somebody has to stand up for them.
Okay, who gets to determine what "excess profits" are? Kucinich? He's a socialist. As Rush so eloquently points out:
Let's take a look at Big Oil and ExxonMobil. They are not laying off their employees. Their pension plans are not in trouble, their stockholders are doing very well -- and, by the way, some socialists don't like that, either. I've seen the phrase, "Stockholders are unfairly enriched. Profits are out of proportion," whatever that means. Would you rather have in your economy an ExxonMobil, or would you rather have a General Motors, which is trying to buy employees out with exit packages, eliminating the pension plan for retired employees, posting windfall losses every quarter, no prospects for turning this around; would you rather have a GM in your economy and be it the way it is, or an ExxonMobil?
Hard to argue with that. These Democrats who claim they're for the "working people" want to harm the very companies that employ them. When did liberals get to be so stupid? Read the whole review by Rush.
Then, there's Sen. Byron Dorgan, the Wal-Mart hater. Never mind how many Wal-Mart employs. Never mind that the employees are there of their own free will. Why, Byron's just worried about the working folks, right? Some of his words of wisdom:
Last night he [Dorgan] was on the Charlie Rose show on PBS, and was asked bluntly by Charlie Rose, "What's your beef against Wal-Mart?"
It has enormous market power, and -- and it is pushing producers to produce in China where it's least cost production and then sell back on the Wal-Mart store shelf and the [sic] clearly the buyer gets an advantage because you have lower prices. The problem is the loss of jobs as a result of the migration of those jobs elsewhere.
Say it isn't so! Wal-Mart is able to provide lower prices?? The scoundrels!! His pap about the migration of jobs is just laughable. We are at, what, 4.9% unemployment? Again I ask, when did liberals get to be so stupid?
The info babe, Hannah Storm, said, "How do windfall taxes that you want, how do these taxes bring down the price of gas?"
KUCINICH: No, no, no, it doesn't tax the price of gas.
STORM: No, how do the taxes...?
KUCINICH: It taxes only excess profits. When you start imposing some discipline and the oil company -- a hundred percent tax on excess profits, then the oil companies aren't going to be making $1300 a second like ExxonMobil is, $10 billion in a quarter, their CEO had a $400 million golden parachute, their stock's at an all-time high. I mean, what's going on here? The American people are getting ripped off at the pump and somebody has to stand up for them.
Okay, who gets to determine what "excess profits" are? Kucinich? He's a socialist. As Rush so eloquently points out:
Let's take a look at Big Oil and ExxonMobil. They are not laying off their employees. Their pension plans are not in trouble, their stockholders are doing very well -- and, by the way, some socialists don't like that, either. I've seen the phrase, "Stockholders are unfairly enriched. Profits are out of proportion," whatever that means. Would you rather have in your economy an ExxonMobil, or would you rather have a General Motors, which is trying to buy employees out with exit packages, eliminating the pension plan for retired employees, posting windfall losses every quarter, no prospects for turning this around; would you rather have a GM in your economy and be it the way it is, or an ExxonMobil?
Hard to argue with that. These Democrats who claim they're for the "working people" want to harm the very companies that employ them. When did liberals get to be so stupid? Read the whole review by Rush.
Then, there's Sen. Byron Dorgan, the Wal-Mart hater. Never mind how many Wal-Mart employs. Never mind that the employees are there of their own free will. Why, Byron's just worried about the working folks, right? Some of his words of wisdom:
Last night he [Dorgan] was on the Charlie Rose show on PBS, and was asked bluntly by Charlie Rose, "What's your beef against Wal-Mart?"
It has enormous market power, and -- and it is pushing producers to produce in China where it's least cost production and then sell back on the Wal-Mart store shelf and the [sic] clearly the buyer gets an advantage because you have lower prices. The problem is the loss of jobs as a result of the migration of those jobs elsewhere.
Say it isn't so! Wal-Mart is able to provide lower prices?? The scoundrels!! His pap about the migration of jobs is just laughable. We are at, what, 4.9% unemployment? Again I ask, when did liberals get to be so stupid?
posted by Jennifer at 7:22 AM
<<< Home