on 11.16.12 @ 06:49 PM
The wealthy will not suffer Henry. That is the saddest part of the joke Obama and the DNC played on those they suckered. The wealthy never pay. They didn’t get wealthy being stupid with money and they sure the hell aren’t about to let Obama take it. You can hear the sucking sound already; it started Wednesday morning after the election as smart investors started pulling out.
They did it 4 years ago when $2 trillion in wealth left the economy and parked off shore. I don’t know how much more there is to pull out but what it means is the middle class will get stuck with the bill again. And what a bill it will be. Obama care is just the tip. You then have all these carbon initiatives and the crème de la crème, the huge inflationary bomb from Obama’s printing press. Even those wealthy who decide to stay in the game will pass the costs on through higher cost goods and lower wages. The left just never seems to get it.
But Henry we on the right goad them into this stupid leftist parlor trick. We do it by embracing the worst behavior in the name of capitalism, the looting, pirating, gambling, pillaging and speculating on Wall Street. We need to remember that Wall Street doesn’t make wealth Henry, it just collects it and manages it for those who do. A bank doesn’t build a factory, it does not make its products, nor does it drill for oil, pump it or produce petroleum products, it doesn’t farm or grow food. Investors don’t either, nor do hedge fund managers or capital managers. The more we prop up these wealth sucking services the more we sound like Washington and its voracious appetite for other people’s money and the more we drive our ignoramus public over to the biggest parasite of all the US federal government.
We didn’t lose this election because we ran a decent honest capable candidate, like Mitt Romney, we lost it because we ran a Wall Street fat cat and the DNC beat us over the head with it. Hell Henry even dopy socialists in Europe understand you can’t run an economy like a friggen gambling casino. Why the hell do you think it’s so hard to do business there? They covet those very basic three economic sectors that build intrinsic value and protect them from outsiders, while we do everything to hawk them for quick money.
Personally I’m tired of right wing pundits telling me we’re about principles and then throwing them out the window when it comes to pillaging our economy’s long term health for quick cash now. That’s not how this country was built, its not how the worst of the robber barons acted. Why is it ok now?
No Henry the poor and middle class will pay through the nose, and those insufferable elites, those idle Hollywood wealthy will just tell them to eat cake, while the smart money continues to drain away.
If we want things to turn around, want a prosperous future for our offspring then we on the right have to live the principles we preach and recognize that if its wrong for a government to be a big useless parasite then its equally wrong for anyone else to do the same and that goes for the finance and legal industries and all those who do the same.
on 11.16.12 @ 07:11 PM
You hit the political nail on the head!
on 11.16.12 @ 10:04 PM
As the election results came in my husband made a new term to describe the next four years: Deja Voodoo…..the same old crap, only scarier!
on 11.17.12 @ 12:16 PM
In addition to the two clichés that you quoted, there is another one that applies - fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
The country drank this cool-aid four years ago and the results have been abysmal. But yet we (the majority) bought the same guarantee of hope and change once again. Like you said, you can’t fix stupid.
And then there is that other cliché, may we live in interesting times…......
on 11.17.12 @ 12:31 PM
Wow, I’m really convinced by a guy who calls me stupid, ignorant and ideologically blind - really effective arguments. Almost as effective as blaming the loss of the presidential election on giveaways to certain demographic groups. Amazing how someone can be an expert on so many subjects - and to shed light on them all in one opinion piece!
I hope you’re wrong too, Mr. Schulte. However, folks that voted for Capps and Obama didn’t do it because of the smooth talk - they would have voted for Maldonado, with his slick TV ads and mailers, or for Romney (remember his post-debate jump in the polls). The majority of voters refused to fall for the mendacious smooth talk, and voted for the candidates that best embodied their views on how things should be run, who they thought were more honest, who - despite Republican opposition at every turn - guided the country through the worst economic crash since the Great Depression (thanks to the Bush Administration), who preserved auto industry jobs, who were the lesser of evils, etc., etc. - lots of reasons. Class warfare? Look in the mirror, and then look at the statistics regarding the ever-growing gap in income between rich and poor. http://www.economist.com/node/7055911.
on 11.17.12 @ 12:54 PM
JohnDog, While it’s true that the recession started under the Bush administration, it was also under the Democrat congress.
Go back and review the tapes of the House and Senate hearings when the administration practically begged for putting controls on the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac lending policies - correctly forecasting serious problems if there warnings were ignored. Barney Frank (House) and Chris Dodd (Senate) were totally dismissive.
And look what happened….... The sick irony of this situation was that Dodd & Frank are given credit for “fixing” the problem that they created.
History and facts are easy for many to ignore.
on 11.17.12 @ 01:47 PM
Art: maybe so, but the fundamentals that drove the economy into the ground were tax cuts for the wealthy combined with lack of oversight and regulation of Wall Street, and vast increases in military spending due to wars of aggression - no doubt, lots of other factors too. Normally I don’t see that much of a distinction between Dems and Repubs on these issues, but Clinton did leave Bush with a balanced account sheet. Of course, he balanced the budget on the backs of the poor, but that’s another story. (A story, of course, people like Mr. Schulte would like to see happen, if the government were to follow his recommendations.)
on 11.17.12 @ 02:36 PM
Well, Henry, you feel pretty enlightened in your political opinions, but I suspect most of your stuff is just regurgitated right-wing blog rant.
If you think Clinton succeeded by doing nothing, then you are among the most ignorant and stupid of Californians. Compare the U.S. economy under Clinton to the economy under Reagan, or Bush Sr., or Bush Jr. Elevate your reading standards just a little before you treat us to your next letter.
Having said that, I do know how you feel. I felt this way when Bush was allowed to take office the first time, even when the majority of Americans had voted against him, and he had likely lost the electoral vote. I felt even worse when he was actually elected to a second term. Quit your crying and get over it.
on 11.17.12 @ 03:04 PM
I guess a little bit more than 50% of the voting population is just .... stupid? Or is anyone who sees things differently from the self-serving claptrap this guy sees as gospel stupid?
on 11.17.12 @ 04:30 PM
John Douglas, your post is really quite laughable.
“they would have voted for Maldonado, with his slick TV ads and mailers”
Are you kidding me, did you see any of Capps ads. Some Democratic operative in Washington DC decided to bombard the airways with the most vile, negative attack ads I have ever seen. All paid for by special interests (particularly public employee unions) outside of Santa Barbara.
“The majority of voters refused to fall for the mendacious smooth talk”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The quintessential mendacious smooth talker is your candidate. You must be talking about the “audacity of hope” or the “hope or change” candidate, who is an expert in saying nothing but tired and worn out campaign gibberish.
“Look in the mirror, and then look at the statistics regarding the ever-growing gap in income between rich and poor”
Interesting how you selected an article from 2006 to prove your point. Can’t find anything more contemporary to back up your assertion? Maybe I can help you. According to the Census Bureau, the gap between the rich and poor has grown every year of the Obama Presidency, with the poverty rate now at 40 year high. I could bore you with more statistics about food stamps and the falling median income levels during the Obama Presidency, but I am sure you would find some Democratic talking point to rationalize this dismal performance.
You have drunk the Kool Aid and now I am sure you are quite content with your rigid, simplistic world view. How nice it must be for you to have all the answers.
on 11.17.12 @ 05:06 PM
I’m hoping that you actually can fix stupid. Otherwise our two-party system will degenerate into a one-party system (many say it already has) because the Republicans will take themselves out of every serious debate by clinging to tin-hat conspiracies and ultra-rigid ideological purity. We need to have well-grounded arguments about the big problems, put forth by serious problem solvers. We’ve been missing that on the right for a couple of years now.
on 11.17.12 @ 06:44 PM
That our economy went into the toilet was inevitable. Nine decades of leftward creep, drumming the self reliance out of our population and creating government dependency was bad enough. But couple that with waning natural resources 4 decades ago and a paradigm shift in economics of production to that of services and then gambling 2 decades ago and we had all the cards in play. I remember well in my senior year of high school the red flags being raised then. Deficit spending by government and ever increasing trade deficits. Nobody seemed to care, no body minded the store.
So we poo pooed that and soldiered on, becoming more dependent on government, hawking our ability to earn what we demanded in pay and benefit, while telling our children that they should seek high paying jobs regardless whether they added to our economy or not. The last ponzi scheme was the mortgage bubble. As China continued to slake her thirst for oil driving global prices through the roof, the bubble met its match.
The bottom end of the socio-economic ladder could no longer keep up. The poor and lower middle class never had the disposable income to cushion them from energy spikes like most bloviators writing here and so the melt down began.
But all it did was expose for all to see, decades of sociopathic gambling by investors and financiers. The wholesale looting of the worlds largest manufacturing base so junk bond pirates could line their pockets was bad enough, that the right in this country embraced this greedy selfish and self destructive pillaging as a prime example of “capitalism” was the icing on the cake. Where were our principles? Sold to the highest bidder for short term gain.
The left, rather than tackle the moral issue of whether our gambling addicted materialist culture should step back, instead, to this day, use our rotten loathsome behavior to besmirch the capitalist free enterprise system as though any other system is immune from selfish, greedy, short sighted shallow behavior. Sorry, but Marx already made that mistake as did Lenin, Mao, Castro and every other leftist who used the excesses of human nature to usher in the new world order. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.
So we sit here and point our crooked little fingers and blame the other side while all the while the real culprit stares back at us in the mirror. Until we get back to those basic values and principles that built the most powerful successful culture, economy and country the world has ever known, we will continue to decay, crumble and fall. That 50% of the population thinks that’s baloney, doesn’t leave me with much hope.
on 11.17.12 @ 07:13 PM
Lou: I disagree. But, thanks for at least putting a name to your comment, unlike many others. What’s the big fear about folks identifying themselves?
An50: no time to get in another debate with you, and I’m not sure how useful it would be, given that our assumptions about underlying facts and causes and effects are so different.
on 11.17.12 @ 07:30 PM
All those folks who didn’t vote for you Lou (forth place finish); they all simply stupid too?
on 11.17.12 @ 11:39 PM
EVERYBODY STOP !
Go back and re-read Schulte’s opening paragraph.
” The election for Obama supporters was about amnesty for Hispanics.” Not sure where to start with that , but lets start with Dos Pueblos Ranch. Henry should know better than to degrade the very ethnic group whose hard work and sweat has kept his daddy’s ranch going for all these years.Maybe Henry would welcome a visit from ICE to check the legal status of his daddy’s workforce?
Fact - Hispanics account for only about 50 million U.S. residents of whom only about 10 million are illegal (and decreasing). 1O million illegals out of a total of 311 million U.S. residents make for a convenient scapegoat only for the most bigoted among us. Think about it .
“The election for Obama supporters was about ... free contraceptives for women.’
Obamacare doesnt take away anyones current coverage , you dolts.Like your coverage? Keep it. Cover womens health care needs with a co-pay? Yup! Free contraceptives? Only in twisted minds of Schulte/AN50(IKE)/Hannity/Limbaugh. Only in their mindwarp is Viagra covered (currently) , but womens contraceptives not. Jeesh ... and they wonder why they lost ?
Hey Henry , keep an eye out for the white vans rolling up to the ranch .
on 11.18.12 @ 01:42 AM
OK, Obama won. Not by a mandate, as he would like to claim, but by 3% of the public vote. Guess it’s the Reps turn to try to kill off the Electoral College.
And what was Obama’s first move? To meet with Big Labor. That’s all you need to know. Hold on to your wallets, folks, Obama the neo-Socialist, as self-describe in his book The Audacity of Hope, will now reveal himself.
For those of you that still think “a little bit more” from the rich will solve this nation’s gargantuan financial problems, I would have to agree with Schulte that stupid can’t be fixed. Obama said it himself - “it’s arithmetic” - and not even advanced arithmetic. With 47% living off the gov one way or another (anywhere from welfare to public school employees and first responders) and thus being net consumers of tax revenue, does anyone that can add numbers really think that the hated “1%” has enough money to support the problem. Back to elementary school arithmetic for you.
on 11.18.12 @ 01:43 AM
“Obamacare doesnt take away anyones current coverage , you dolts.Like your coverage? Keep it.”
Like everything else regarding Obamacare, this assertion is basically untrue. Yes, plans in existence before March of 2010 are “grandfathered”, but in reality this is in name only. Most subscribers have changed plans since then because of changes in premiums, benefits or personal circumstances. Also, most insurance companies have the unilateral right to change these plans to conform to non-grandfathered plans. Most of the plans have done this.
“Hispanics account for only about 50 million U.S. residents of whom only about 10 million are illegal (and decreasing)”
Yes, but the US born children of illegals are increasing at a much greater rate than children of the legal population because of the much higher birth rates.
According to a Pew Center Study, children of illegal immigrants now account for about one in 15 elementary and secondary school students nationwide and more than one in 10 students in five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Texas. The vast majority of these children were born in the United States. “In 2007, the poverty rate for such children was almost twice as high as for those born to either legal immigrants or U.S.-born parents. Similarly, U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants were about twice as likely not to have health insurance in 2008 as those born to legal immigrants and three times as likely as those born to U.S.-born parents.”
GWW, at least get your facts somewhat accurate before committing anyone to a mental institution.
on 11.18.12 @ 02:03 AM
John Locke is right, it’s arithmetic.
As Duquesne University professor Antony Davies explains:
“Want to balance the budget on the backs of the top 1 percent? According to CBO figures, the government would need to tax them at a rate of almost 100 percent. But doing so would make the top 1 percent poor — so, next year, the government would have to tax the top 2 percent.
This is where the middle class comes in. Politicians know the real potential for tax revenue lies with the middle class. Middle-income Americans far outnumber the rich and, at least for now, are taxed at relatively low rates. But even if we tapped the middle class, we’d have to raise tax rates by a staggering amount.
To balance the budget, we’d have to triple tax rates on every household earning over $100,000. Alternatively, we could merely double tax rates, but we’d have to do it on every household earning over $75,000. Not only are there not enough rich households to tax, there are barely enough middle-income households.
With the top 2 percent taxed into poverty, the year after that, politicians would need to go after the top 3 percent. Keep going down that path and, eventually, they’ll come for you.”
on 11.18.12 @ 08:02 AM
So Obamacare is bad law. Maybe , according to the non-stop attacks by Fox News and its fan base. Maybe not according to the CBO , whose projections show it to actually decrease the defict over the next decade. Who really knows? LastPlaceLou, Schulte, IKE and all the other Noozhawk rightwing extremists never stop to ask themselves about their part in how we got here. At a time when affordable health care was known to be a national crisis for decades , they elect a president who does what about it? They elect a president who comes into office with a PNAC pre-concieved plan to invade Iraq. With 8 years to address the domestic crisis of affordable healthcare , W and his Congressional cronies pull off a coercive vote resulting in a huge expansion of Medicare prescription entitlements. Invade Iraq? Hell ya! Take care of a nagging domestic crisis , nah. Doesn’t anyone think Obamacare could have been avoided if the prior administration had addressed healthcare reform properly?
Oh ... and you Fox News trolls are o.k. with Viagra being covered but not female contraceptives and then you wonder why the GOP lost?
on 11.18.12 @ 12:39 PM
I think this issue was addressed unsuccessfully well before W. Actually there was an attempt to address a health care plan under Clinton - under the leadership of Mrs. Clinton.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Clinton campaigned heavily on the healthcare issue in 1992 but the backlash against Mrs. Clinton leading the task force, the secret proceedings and the mandatory coverage requirement caused the entire plan to be abandoned in 1994.
on 11.19.12 @ 04:25 PM
Thank you for letting Mr. Schulte express himself.
He’s a bright, energetic, passionate fellow, with a lot to say on many topics.
He also exemplifies why so much of the “conservative movement” is heading in the wrong direction, often at high speed.
Can’t forget when he helped turn a safe Republican congressional seat over to the Capps dynasty, when he hosted events at his family ranch to boost Mike Huffington into Bob Lagomarsino’s seat. What a brainstorm that was, huh?
Editing this article, did anyone remind Mr. Schulte that he has 38 negative, or attack, phrases in just 12 paragraphs?
If Republicans keep losing, here in the county, across the state, and nationally,
now, because the base keeps narrowing, how does Schulte’s insulting everyone
he either doesn’t understand, or agree with, help broaden the big-tent?
Had Henry’s dad spoken or worked that way in public venues, it’s hard to believe
their company would have prospered as much as it did, before they cashed out.
There is a time or place for sarcasm, doubt, anger in family or civic enterprise,
but a menu that consists of nothing else will quickly turn off many people.
Schulte has so much he wants to communicate that going down the Michelle
Malkin route undercuts his message. That’s too bad. He’s a thoughtful guy.
on 11.19.12 @ 09:47 PM
Thanks publius for reminding us of Bob Lagomarsino. Anyone who was around then will remember him as a fine example of what a Representative should be. There are very few Robert Lagomarsino type Republicans left in Congress and the country is poorer for it. Now I dislike Schulte even more, knowing that he helped unseat Congressman Lagomarsino.
My personal experiences with Schulte have confirmed him to be a “me firster” all the way. Not sure where he gets off denigrating Hispanics(vs. illegals) considering their contributions to the success of Dos Pueblos Ranch.
on 11.20.12 @ 07:10 PM
John, some of us have been burned badly by publishing our identities on hostile political web sites, never again. If you think you are immune you will learn a tragic lesson.
Please don’t dismiss what I said out of ideological difference. The last response I wrote was fairly non partisan. If you disagree with elements of what I said identify your disagreement. I couldn’t hurt.
I have done a lot of research on the decay of manufacturing in this country and what I have found is we are in a heap of trouble. To make matters worse we our now, out of the same gambling addicted blindness and ideologically driven madness, doing the same to our agricultural base. Its one thing to reduce your standard of living to third world status by scuttling your ability to make what you use, but when you do the same thing to your source of food and fiber, now you threaten the very core of your ability to stay alive.
It may not be possible for someone in the legal industry, someone with plenty of disposable income, investments and assets, but it is quite different down at the bottom where the other 90% live. No amount of redistribution of income, government regulation or ideologically driven policy can avert the disaster we have been making the last 5 decades.
If you disagree then state why and what you see are the reasons.
on 11.29.12 @ 01:01 PM
Not stupid or ignorance in the case of Obama being reelected- outright bribery by contributors expecting returns who knew that millions of left-over campaign “contributions” would go into Obama’s personal accounts as it happened the last time. They saw Obama appoint many of those “contributors” to little or no work positions to be paid by federal taxpayers.
I remember Barack Obama,Sr, with Jr listening, offer me a bribe to give food to him to feed his slaves- food that I found donated extras here and there to send to starving people around the world. Like his father, Barack Obama, Jr, President Of The United States, is corrupt. Bribery is bribery. Like father, like son.