Governor Dave: Rick’s my man!

Governor Dave Heineman endorsed Rick Sheehy for the 2014 Governor’s race the other day. He also likes Sven Norgensen’s chances in biathlon at the Winter Olympics in Sochi that year as well.

(Ha!)

Sorry, don’t mean to get glib. But while that may seem like some early endorsing, maybe not so much.   Why?

Well, we remember back when President Reagan refused to endorse Vice President Bush during the heated primary?  (You weren’t born yet?  Well, it happened. )  It made everyone all awkward — and that was before cell phones and the Twitters. Imagine the daily Drudge siren for that today.

So by getting out in front, there will be no doubt as to Heineman’s top pick.  There will definitely be other names out there — Pete Ricketts’ comes immediately to mind — but Sheehy gets the BIG nod.

In any case, Don Walton stole our point, which we stole from Nebraska GOP Executive Director Jordan McGrain, that Sheehy also had to start his campaign org, or any cash he raised would go to Heineman-Sheehy instead of just Sheehy. So it’s off to the races.

And Walton also makes the point that we had planned to make here: Sheehy travels Nebraska. A lot. And when you do that you meet lots of people with whom you can make a campaign connection. There’s a point to all of those cut ribbons and rubber chicken dinners.

Oh, and Sheehy is the head of the next National Lieutenant Governors Association? Our reaction (like yours): There is one?  (Ha!)

***

Former State Senator and Douglas County Commissioner Chip Maxwell will, not, repeat NOT be running in a primary against Congressman Lee Terry.

That is the word we received from the very highest authority on the subject.

Wait, what?

Well, yes, there apparently had been some talk of late that Maxwell was interested in the gig. And maybe even in contesting Lee in the primary. But as it turns out, however interested he may be, he won’t.

Of course there are LOTS of local pols who would like to be in Congress — many, many from the Republican party. But until Terry either gets bored or starts schlong-Tweeting, he only solidifies his base. And that would need to be busted in order for a real primary challenge to happen.

And on that note, NE-2 candidate Brett Lindstrom recently found Steve Bartman at the Gretna Days parade:

***

Yikes, on the Dave Nabity front.

The head of the Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector makes the news fairly regularly in the budget wars front, particularly on his battles on the fire fighter and police union matters.

Nabity has been pretty outspoken on the issue of manning of fire trucks — such as when four guys and a ladder show up for a cardiac arrest. We won’t get into the merits or demerits of that point, it has been hashed out both ways by all sides.

But the interesting point is that Nabity took the very opposite stance when he spoke to the union during his run for Governor in 2006. And the fire union has video.

And published it:

We are sure 2011 Nabity has a response on this, but you have to admit that is a pretty straight argument by 2006 Nabity. Ah well.

***

The libs always make us chuckle (or throw up in our mouths), and the Twitter really helps in the funny-bone (/ mouth-vomit) department.

Case in point: the Bold Nebraska gals re-Tweeting, “11 Things The Wealthiest 400 Americans Could Buy Their Country.

We always get a kick out of  the saying that, “No one has better ideas for how to raise your kids, than people who don’t have any.” And no one has better ideas for how to spend your hard earned money than the liberals at MoveOn.org.

(Bold Nebraska, fans of MoveOn.org??? Who’d a thunk it???!!)

Beyond the idiocy of their list (pay off everyone’s credit card debt — gee, because free Starbucks for you!), is just the concept of even writing it. “Oh, these people can AFFORD higher taxes!” So the libs can do WHAT with the money?  Explode their credit cards? Start more new awesome government program? Print some more The White Man Is Evil pamphlets for Omaha Public Schools to give out?

Let us face a few things: Most rich people got rich because they worked their asses off to get there. And while they appreciate art and philosophy, they knew enough that it is difficult to make money and a successful career from those pursuits.  Sorry for the reality-hit there folks.

And what’s the plan? Take all of the money those rich people made? Ransack their houses and dance on their tables while twisting the hula-hoops?

No, they cannot get all of that rich-people money.  So what they’ll try instead is to just go after those rich bastards who make more than a million dollars a year (we are looking your direction, Democrat John Ewing).   Yeah, stick it to them! What do they need that much money for!

But then they’ll find out that by only hitting those people with higher taxes to pay for  cowboy poetry readings, they they won’t raise enough.  So they will have to hit people who make more than $250K a year. But screw them too! Because why do they need to be living so close to large cities, where that kind of income is chump change?

Point being, that this is all about class-warfare.  And the have-nots wanting to stick it to the haves.

Oh, and the haves are anyone who makes a buck more than you.

***

And on that note, Ben Nelson just realized that with his 60th vote to pass ObamaCare, he royally screwed up issues with Medicaid. So now he wants to vote to fix that part that he personally screwed up with his previous vote.

Hmm, wonder if there is anything else that is royally screwed up in ObamaCare that will need to be fixed, and fixed, and fixed until everyone realizes what a black comedy of errors it was.

Hmm, wonder if Ben is the right guy to figure that out…

46 comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Repeat a lie often enough, and people start believing it. SS states: “Most rich people got rich because they worked their asses off to get there. ” Well, let’s look at the real numbers. In 1997 a study was done of the richest 400 individuals on the Forbes 400 list. 42% inherited sufficient wealth to rank in the top 400. 6% inherited wealth in excess of $50 million or a prosperous company that they grew enough to make the top 400. 7% initially inherited a medium sized business or wealth > $1 million or received start-up capital from a family member. 14% had a wealthy or upper class background < $1 million or received start-up money (the study was conservative on assignment, so some here may really belong in the 2 previous categories). Finally, 31% did not start with great wealth.

    Most people I know work very hard, but alone that is not a sure path to wealth. Lots of time luck is involved.

  2. Yeah, and like a great golfer once said,
    “To be successful, you have to be lucky. And the more I practice, the luckier I get.”
    A study of 400 people? Awesome.
    Once again, unless you plan on locking them up and stealing their money, those people alone aren’t fixing the economy.

    It’s awesome how liberals trot out and proclaim that anyone who has made wealth is “lucky”.
    The one who is lucky is YOU. You’re lucky there is someone else to pay for everything you want.

  3. Well, without getting into the esoteric aspects of it — which you can bet are significant — that’s a loaded Q, right?
    What are your expenses? Where do you live? What is your family situation?
    And on and on and on.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Close to home, how many Omahans became rich because they were lucky enough to have the chance to invest in Berkshire in its early days? Dick Holland, one of your whipping boys, comes to mind. What’s really disgusting is that these folks only pay 18% on their investment earnings, while most of us who work for a paycheck pay over 30% on marginal earnings. Would you say that Dick Holland’s fortune was due to his hard work? Why should his tax rate be lower than mine? You’re living in an ideological fantasy world if you can’t see that most people who are rich had an advantage beyond just “working their asses off”.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Great for you, Steve! The problem isn’t graduated tax rates. It’s the byzantine tax code with its various exemptions, deductions and credits.

  6. Dan Brown says:

    Chip Maxwell for anything is a joke. As County Board member his absentee record was attrocious. And when he was there he was the King of Abstain!

  7. Macdaddy says:

    What advantage are you alleging Anon 12:55? Insider trading? Stealing? Armed gangs? Racism? Being the smartest person in the room when the subject of money comes up? (Thank you, Uncle Pat) Courage? Guts? The willingness to go for broke? Being able to spot an opportunity? Blond hair? Good looks? The gift of gab? Height? Being able to act? Write? Sell things?

    I bet you were told by your teachers that you could be anything you wanted to be. Guess what? They were lying. In your disappointment, be careful what you wish for.

  8. Macdaddy says:

    What do you think we should do with Powerball winners? They did zero for their money. Why should they get to keep 37.5% of the money? Don’t you think they could get by with 25%? Don’t they love their country?

  9. RWP says:

    Why was it ‘lucky’ to invest in BRK.A? It was a damn shrewd investment decision. I’m no fan of Dick Holland, but he risked his money when he invested it with Buffett, and if the risk panned out, good for him!

    Too bad Warren has lost it.

  10. SoWhat says:

    I love it when liberal/progressive/communist success envy comes so sharply into view and they are so blinded by that envy they can’t live with themselves except by taking money from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful which somehow makes them feel altruistic. BTW, if Warren Buffet thinks his tax rate is too low, he can easily recalculate his personal taxes at any rate he chooses and then send a check for that amount to the US Treasury. He doesn’t, never has and never will…so just how strongly does he really believe that tripe??? It was hilarious to see him finally get called on that during his last appearance on CNBC. He had no answer and you could plainly see he resented it strongly. Liberal is just another word for “I’m a failure and by failing I have earned the right to claim some/all of any success others have”.

  11. Anonymous says:

    It’s funny that whenever a liberal posts something to the effect that the rich should pay more taxes, righties immediately jump to the conclusion that the poster is a failure. Shouldn’t be a surprise since you have a tendency to fit everything neatly into boxes. Well, I make a 6 figure salary (I’m sure everyone will say I’m just making that up) and would be willing to pay at a higher tax rate. During and after WWII the top tax rate was > 90% because money was needed to pay for the war and no one cried “class warfare”. More money is going to upper income types and the middle class is declining. One doesn’t need to be an economist to see that this road leads to disaster.

    RWP, the luck wasn’t in making the Berkshire investment, it was having the opportunity to make it. Wasn’t like Berkshire was on the NYSE in the early days.

  12. Typical Bedwetting Liberal says:

    Anonymous at 3:18 p.m.

    You make a 6 figure salary? You greedy damn bastard!!! WE HATE YOU! Why should you be able to earn that much money when other people are scraping by on food stamps and unemployment? We oughta take your 401(k) and give it to the poor, that’d teach you a lesson!

  13. RWP says:

    Berkshire Hathaway was publicly listed long before Buffett took it over. In fact, Buffett claimed it was the worst stock buy he ever made.

  14. Lil Mac says:

    Some extremely liberal Democrats are multi-billionaires. And some people who work for the government all their lives with nothing to show for it nevertheless have fiscally conservative views. Having or not having money is only statistically indicatory of one’s probable mindset. But money neither deters political asininity nor guarantees wisdom.

    Buffett likes making money like a fat kid likes cake. Huge numbers of people say they want to be wealthy but find it exhausting collecting dollars. Most people fear insolvency and crave a day off. Yet a few crave the sheer joy of making a killing in the market or outselling a competitor. When most watch TV to relax, these guys look for an edge. And some of them are very liberal.

    No one commits fiscal suicide. All wish to appear altruistic and giving. But all need to guarantee their future. And while the poor obviously are eager to share wealth that isn’t theirs, when we find wealthy people liberally giving, we assume, often correctly, there is something in it for them; their name on a building or on a list of nominees. Everyone is trying to buy something, even if it is only absolution.

    Liberals perhaps deny this too much. Conservatives perhaps embrace it too narrowly. But don’t confuse fiscal prowess with political orientation. You either trust government or you fear it.

  15. Jenn says:

    Sweeper, you’re correct when it comes to millionaires: most (80%) U.S. millionaires did indeed “work their asses off” to get where they are today! Most either did well in school and became well-paid professionals who work long work-hours, or are self-made entrepreneurs. They “deserve” everything they have because they worked, saved, and made good choices about their money.

    However, where you seem to be missing the point is that most of these millionaires aren’t even close to being affected by the tax increases being proposed by some of the moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats! Most of them have annual incomes well below the $250,000 figure that is often tossed around in this tax debate! Most of them live in homes valued at under $500,000, with an average value around $300,000.

    It used to be that conservatives looked out for the interests of people like the above. They wanted to rein in government spending to sensible levels. But nowadays there seems to be no clear rhyme or reason to the fiscal policies of far-right Republicans. They support only the ultra-wealthy or corporations who don’t pay their fair share of taxes. The people who are going to be affected by tax increases on the high end have been enjoying a huge, disproportionate break on their tax rates for almost 2 decades now! They’re paying the smallest proportions ever.

    So, most of the “millionaires” in our country are actually in the same boat with all those other folks who make less than they do. It’s 95% of the people, taking it in the shorts again and again for the benefit of a few. I was raised with conservative values of not spending more than you earn, and investing wisely, and getting the most out of education. But people who pursue these things aren’t being rewarded in the current climate. I’m waiting for some financial sanity about these things to come back to the GOP–some of them seem to “get it”, but most do not.

  16. Macdaddy says:

    Anon 3:18: You’re comparing today’s inability of politicians to deliver terrible, inefficient, ludicrous government at a price tag 40% higher than tax revenue to WWII? Really? We need funding for a $9 million study of gay men’s shlong size or Hitler will win?

    I could see if government could deliver a decent product, you might have a case, but we’re just throwing money down a rat hole here and Democrats keep screaming “More! More!” Surely they can deliver the same lousy service for much, much less.

  17. Macdaddy says:

    Jenn, you say that it won’t hurt the millionaire, but it surely will hurt all the small entrepreneurs who do things like sell siding or new windows, or landscaping, or pools, or boats, or gym memberships to rich people. Or work at vacation spots rich people go to. What do those people do? Eat cake? Go on welfare? Every dollar that goes to Obama cannot go the Ted’s Lawn Service or Mary’s Siding Company. Real people work at those places. Real people who have mortgages. Or rents by now during the second Summer of Recovery. Real people who vote. You think they can’t see what Democrats are trying to do here?

  18. Dennis says:

    Modern history proves that tax cuts for the wealthy don’t create jobs. Can anybody here tell me when low tax rates for the wealthy created a broad based economic expansion in U.S. history?

  19. Anonymostly says:

    Dennis, you Densocrats have been yammering (you like that, Sweeper? I said “yammering”) for the better part of a decade about Bush’s “Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.” That even became a mantra for y’all. “Bush’s Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.” Baaaaaaad. Bad tax cuts for those wealthy peeps. And then last December rolled around and those baaaaaad “Tax Cuts for the Wealthy” were due to expire. And yo President gets on the TV and says, “y’know, given the economy, we should keep those middle-class tax cuts and not let those tax cuts for the middle class expire.”

    And I was like, “MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS? WTF? WHAT MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS? ALL THESE YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN YAMMERING THAT ALL THESE TAX CUTS WERE FOR BUSH’S WEALTHY FRIENDS. WTF IS THIS GUY TALKING ABOUT, TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS? SINCE WHEN WERE THERE EVER ANY MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS?”

    So, anyway, imagine my shock when I found out DEMOCRATS LIED! Holy crap, Batman, there were tax cuts for the middle class. There really were. Yo President even wanted to eexxteeeend them. So, now, come full circle, and you, Dennis, are all worried about Tax Cuts for the Wealthy again, as though those are the only taxes that get cut. (And, Dennis, since only about half of U.S. households PAY any income tax, it’s awful damn difficult to cut taxes without cutting taxes for those damn wealthy people.)

    And while we’re asking questions, Dennis, what percent of the tax burden is shouldered by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers? Hmmm?

  20. Dennis says:

    Anonymostly, We Democrats focus on the tax cuts for the wealthy because the GOP is of the belief that any hope of economic success rests entirely on the shoulders of the “job creators” or top 1% to 2% of income earners. You guys believe that if the so-called “job creators” aren’t adequately appeased, the U.S. economy is sunk. What a nihilistic theory. Obviously the GOP has no faith in the other 98% of income earners. Your non-responsive answer proves my point. According to the 1/9/09, Wall St. Journal, Bush had the worst job creation record in modern history. The top individual tax rate between 1981 and 1986 (Reagan’s morning in America) was 50%. The top rate dropped to 38.5% in 1987 and 28% in 1988. Nevertheless, the economy did fine between 1983 and 1987. How do conservatives explain that? The capital gains tax rate was 20% between 1981 and 1986. (It was reduced to 15% during the Bush Administration.) In 1986, the capital gains rate was increased to 26%. Nevertheless, the stock market did pretty well during most of the Reagan Administration. How do conservatives explain that? The bottom line is that there is no historical evidence that supports the theory that lower tax rates on the wealthy create a better economy. If lower tax rates on the wealthy worked, we would’ve been enjoying an economic boom since 2001! Where are the jobs?

  21. Jenn says:

    Macdaddy, I see your point, but I’m not convinced that we’ll see any economic downside to eliminating some of these big tax breaks that the superwealthy–not even the average millionaire, but the truly superwealthy–have been reaping. My income is enough that if I wanted siding, or a vacation, or to put in a pool, I would just do it. People in my bracket aren’t really feeling a pinch on discretionary spending the way that people who live month-to-month are doubtless feeling it, with higher gas and grocery prices and stagnant wages (or lost jobs). And I’m not even up in that exalted, rare air where the proposed tax increase would affect people. My main gripe is about the limits for a Roth IRA. Let’s put it this way: if you can qualify for a Roth, you shouldn’t be worried about the tax increases. Even if you’re Warren Buffett’s gardener, I think you’ll still be in business.

  22. Macdaddy says:

    Dennis, did you miss the 80s and 90s? Lots of tax cuts. Lots of business expansion, lots of job creation. Clinton lowered the capital gains tax back to 20% and the stock market exploded for years. Unemployment hasn’t been over 7.5% since Reagan cut taxes until now.

    If you want to go back further, from 1900-1930, when income taxes were gloriously low, unemployment was about 5%.

  23. Macdaddy says:

    Jenn, there aren’t enough Warren Buffetts to employ all the gardeners (and BTW, how much do you think he spends on landscaping? If he pays somebody more than $50 a week I’d be surprised). There also aren’t enough billionaires to fix our deficit problem. Take Buffett for example. He doesn’t actually have 40 billion. You can’t go to his house and say, “Give me a billion in cash or write me a check.” Buffett would have to sell assets to cough up a billion. How fast do you think he can do that? And if people know he has to sell, do you think they are going to give him full price? No. So now, he has to sell at a discount and he takes a loss which he then writes off on his taxes and suddenly the billion dollars you want him to pay the government is only $900 million. In the meantime, everyone else’s Berkshire stock is worth less and so you have all these retirees with portfolios worth 10% less. It’s just not that simple to say, “Warren, you are worth a lot, give me some.” I take that back. When it comes to the government, it is that simple. It’s just not very wise.

    The problem with populism is that once you start the fire at the top, it starts burning down until people who are merely “comfortable” start getting torched. Take the AMT for example. It was designed to make sure rich people couldn’t avoid taxes via shelters. Now it is hitting people who make in the $100,000-200,000 range. Are they wealthy? Sure, if you are only making $40,000 a year they are. But if they lose their jobs, they are right back on the street with everyone else. So how wealthy are they really? The other problem with populism is that a society based on class envy, greed, and vindictiveness is not pretty and is one major disaster away from Escape from New York. And this is from people who pride themselves on being socially conscious and tolerant.

  24. Dennis says:

    Macdaddy, We had higher taxes and higher marginal tax rates than we do now under Reagan and the economy did fine between 1983 and 1989. If some Democrat today proposed to raise the top individual rate to 50% and the capital gains rate to 26%, every Republican would call him a socialist and predict another recession. When Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993, EVERY Republican predicted he would ruin the economy and we would end up in a recession. However, ALL of the Republican predictions proved to be wrong. The economy did well. You talk about how great the economy did between 1900 and 1930. How did it end in 1930? Coolidge reduced the top rate to 25% in 1925. Four short years later the economy crashed and didn’t recover for years. Any attempt to correlate good economic performance and lower taxes on the wealthy is a stretch at best.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Government spends too much money!
    Those who don’t pay into the tax base should receive less of a benefit, get a job!
    This whole entitlement mentality is bringing down western civilization, it is right before all of us in Europe, and now we are selling front row tickets for here. All you need to do is look at what happened in Wisconsin when the labor union’s were asked to pay a small part of the bill, RIOTING! Now what will happen when China comes calling for their money? Obama will just bow and hand over the keys. What a dope.

    Something like this played out a few years ago in Rome, eventually the farmers got tired of working, paying, and not being able to hold onto their property. If I recall it didn’t work out to well for ALL of them. Then it happened in the USSR, and in so many other places. Kind of funny how the liberals who are so in love with public education can’t seem to recall any history. They just want to keep spending money that isn’t theirs, live the high life, and then point fingers at those who actually produce. Tsk Tsk, so educated and yet so blind to reality.

  26. Nero says:

    Have to laugh when watching the tv or reading papers these days. So many on the leftand right are coming out and saying how the “Tea Party” folks were at least good for bringing the Debt/Spending issues to the forefront. HA, you just know they, the professional politicians and their followers, HATE the light being focused on them! It’s not unlike turning the light on in the kitchen late at night in some cheap house, and all the roaches scatter. These bobble head politicians and reporters all point their fingers and deny they had anything to do with it being all screwed up. Yet WE THE PEOPLE know just who did it. Nelson is history, along with Obama, and as many others we can throw out of office. Obama is a putrid puss bag of a liberal who is going to lose not only the presidency but any chance of having been at the very least a dismal president. Obama makes Carter and Wilson look like political giants. I guess raising lots of money just doesn’t equate to effective leadership, just ask Pete Ricketts.

    Is that fiddle music iI’m hearing in the background

  27. Vernon J says:

    I caught that eUpdate from Senator Nelson.

    I called his office just today.

    His guy at the desk(who didn’t give his name, amateur), said that he was trying to make the bill perfect since it doesn’t go into effect until MMVI or whatever.

    I informed him that if a Senator doesn’t agree with a bill as it is written, he should abstain from voting or vote against it.

    You can see my take on the bill at my sight.

  28. Dennis says:

    MacDaddy, Just answer the question. When did low tax rates on the wealthy produce sustained economic growth that benefited the middle class? We had low tax rates in the 1920s and they didn’t prevent a Depression. We’ve had the lowest marginal tax rates for the wealthy since the 1920s beginning in 2001 and the economy has largely sucked for the middle class. Please answer the question. Where are the jobs? When will the Bush tax cuts start working?

  29. Anonymous says:

    Are you saying government exists to help people? If so, we had better change the name of €œGovernment€ to €œHelperment€.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I just can’t believe the amount of propaganda most of you on this blog devour unquestioningly. I suppose that if it agrees with your ideology, you don’t bother with fact checking.

    Anonymostly, you’re right that almost half pay no income tax, but they also make little income. According to the Tax Foundation in 2008, the annual income for the bottom 50% was less than $33,000. The income split point for the top 10% is only $113,000, the top 5% is $159,000, the top 1% is $380,000. By this scale I’d only consider 1% rich, so if one cut taxes for the other 49% that pay income tax, one would not be cutting taxes for the rich. And for your info, the top 1% pay 38% of income taxes, but they also take in 20% of all income. (And there are quite a few other taxes that the poor pay, so no one gets a free ride.)

    Respected economists have shown that the stimulus plan worked as far as preventing a much worse economic decline. It just wasn’t big enough. And Obama wanted to only keep the middle class tax cut, but Republicans promised to block an extension if it didn’t also include the upper income brackets.

  31. MacDaddy says:

    Dennis, again, did you miss the 80s, 90s, and up until 2009? Top tax rates got progressively lower and until the bottom fell out of the housing market because of idiotic government interference, i.e., the government set up the conditions for the housing bubble, there were lots and lots of jobs. The unemployment rate was below 5% for 4 out of Bush’s 8 years. Look it up. There are plenty of unemployment rate charts out there. Look at GDP as well. GDP has taken off since the Reagan cuts and started falling off only with this recession. Again, there are plenty of these charts out there. As far as sustained goes, my guess is that your definition of sustained has no basis in reality. Much like the weather, the economy goes through cycles. Pick any economist’s plan you like, there will be cycles. Multiple factors go into that including tax rates. How you react to those cycles determines how bad it’s going to be. Obama clearly reacted wrongly. I guess in that way, he was just like FDR…and Hoover.

    I love how you guys are clinging to this taxing the bejeebus out of millionaires meme, though, because it’s a political loser. People reject the liberal contention that rich people are mean, greedy, lazy, and undeserving. They’re a lot more tolerant than that.

  32. Anonymostly says:

    Kool-aid-drinking anonymous at post #35, you have to be kidding me. Respected ecomomists have “shown” that the stimulus worked? How? Because the fact that it didn’tt work as well as they promised is proof that things were actually worse than they realized, therefore we’d necessarily be worse off had they not stimulated us? You trust the people whose predictions were so far off to begin with? That’s some Kool-Aid-drinking blind faith right there.

    And it’s hilarious that you think a bigger stimulus would have worked even better. I mean, first, Obama’s stimulus was an abject failure in terms of results. And, second, a bigger stimulus plan would just have meant more money for liberals to waste on stupid stuff. Your Obama friend already admitted that “shovel ready” wasn’t as “shovel ready” as they thought. And what the heck kind of stimulative effect in 2009 (when the effect of reducing unemployment was promised to occur) is accomplished by OPS spending $130,000 of stimulus money on “sensitivity” books in 2011? Puh-lease. Granted it’s only $130,000 of the trillion in stimulus money, but it just shows that government can’t efficiently allocate resources. That’s just a helll of a lot of money to waste and waste is exactly what they’ve done with it.

    Shameful. Just shameful. And stupid of you to think that a bigger stimulus would have been even better.

  33. P says:

    If you really think that most wealthy people got there purely because of hard work, you haven’t actually looked at the research on economic mobility.
    I agree that, intuitively, the notion that hard work=more money makes sense. I believed it. I can understand why a lot of people believe it when they are sitting in their armchairs at home, thinking abstractly about how the economy works. But the fact is, the data just doesn’t bear that out at all. I’d strongly recommend the wikipedia entry on Economic Mobility, for starters. But if you really want, browse some economics journals and see for yourself.
    The fact is that the inequality gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S. is out of control, and getting worse. And if you really think the best explanation for that is that wealthy people are working harder every year and poor people are getting lazier every year, and at an increasing pace, then I don’t think facts or reasoning will convince you.

  34. P says:

    Oh, and before someone dismisses my whole post based on one minor error…I meant to say “bare”, not “bear”.

  35. Pingback: Kicking back
  36. RWP says:

    Hard to believe there are people who believe the stimulus failed, when it was spent for things like purchasing 8000 copies of “The Cultural Proficiency Journey: Moving Beyond Ethical Barriers Toward Profound School Change” for every teacher, pencil- and broom-pusher in OPS.

    Word to folks with kids in OPS; when your kids come to UNL expecting As in freshman science courses and get Cs instead, the problem is not that they’re not culturally sensitive enough. The problem is many of them can’t do elementary algebra. And I don’t want to single out Omaha. Lincoln is no better.

  37. Anonymous says:

    P, the ideologues that post here never let facts get in the way of a locked in mindset. It’s a waste of time except that it warns curious viewers that might read their crap.

  38. Anonymostly says:

    Anonymous at post #41, are you talking about the ideologues who claim that the stimulus worked even though it didn’t remotely accomplish what “they” said it would? I know what you mean. Locked into a mindset that the facts don’t support. It’s like the liberal ideologues on here don’t even know what facts are. The other day, one was claiming the facts were some bus metaphor where the driver got lost or something. Anyway, Obama assured us that with his $787 billion stimulus, unemployment would never reach beyond 7.9%, but without it? OMG, without it, he warned that unemployment would skyrocket all the way to 9% by the first quarter of 2010 and remain there for 6 months before falling off to 7.5% by … now.

    So, Congress passed Obama’s stimulus. And unemployment shot all the way to 10.4% and remains higher now than Obama said it would ever get if we didn’t do his stimulus. And, yet, there are liberals who post on here who claim that the stimulus was a success. I know, crazy, huh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.