HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HughBeaumont » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
Number of posts: 24,461

About Me

If anyone's wondering why I haven't been here much lately, it's because I feel no one is learning anything from 2016. Neoliberalism is a thing and it doesn't win elections in the 21st Century. People want a candidate that's going to take strong, non-waffling stands on human rights the rest of the world enjoys. Enough living in the goddamned Reagan 1980s. Enough taking solar panels off the roof. Enough introducing more rightwingedness into American economics. Enough medical bankruptcies. Enough governing by mythology. Enough science denial. Enough of spitting on women, children, veterans and the LGBTQI community. Enough kicking the can. ENOUGH. America needs to move past it's "everything has to be about making a buck" bullshit. I'd prefer a candidate not born during the FDR/Truman administrations. No offense, but you had your time . . . and you got us Trump. Plus, I can't take another one of these still-Capitalist Boomer codgers yap on about "bootstraps" when college now costs a mortgage, necessity costs have been outpacing wage growth for 20 years and automation promises to kill more jobs than it creates. I don't want to hear what is or isn't "politically achievable". Kick-the-Can economics was never asked "How is it going to be paid for?". Tax Cuts for the rich were never given a spending limit. Folly wars were never asked "Why is this necessary?". Corporate Pork by the billions was and is always approved. America's safety net needs to be greatly expanded and retirement age needs to be drastically lowered. This country throws out far too many people that still have a decade or two of prime contribution left. If life doesn't get fairer for you or I pretty goddamned quickly, we aren't going to have much of one.

Journal Archives

It's Marine Week in Cleveland!


Lots and lots of high-tech expensive weaponry on display in one of the poorest and economically declining major cities in the country. Bring the kids!

"Trust us, children . . . using one of these to blow the beJAYsus out of sovereign nations that never threatened one American citizen is a noble and just sacrifice your country's willing to make for your educations and futures."

"You just shut the HELL up, you pansy-ass, troop-hatin' liberals and demonstrators. Freedom isn't Free and we got enemies EVERYwhere! WELL WORTH THE COST!!! Occupy a jawb or a shower or somefin . . . haw haw haw."

Why am I not a Republican?

I think it boils down to the fact that you cannot logically justify a taxophobic political acumen that scorches social services while building up the military to Cold War levels, puts less money in the hands of the poor while putting even more money in the hands of the obscenely wealthy, sees the middle class as expendable and easily-replaced “perpetual victims”, writes off blue-collar labor as uneducated complacent relics who refuse to “compete”, demonizes minorities as "system gaming useless eaters", eliminates unions, strips L/G/B/T/Q/I people of their human rights, wants to control everything about women, shifts risk to the people that are least equipped to deal with it and is perfectly all right with the installation of a plutonomy without sounding like a completely selfish and hateful asshole.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Thu Jun 7, 2012, 11:04 AM (6 replies)

Was in Milwaukee this weekend . . . .

. . . there was a teacher's convention/conference at the hotel I was staying at.

I rode up the many-floored elevator . .. crowded . . . I noticed a female teacher (as indicated by her badge/pass) who sported a sticker stating "I Stand With Scott Walker".


Who the hell can figure why supposedly educated people buy into whackjob bullshit and vote against their best interests? Is it a mean streak? Is it misanthropy? Is it a superiority complex?

Posted by HughBeaumont | Mon Jun 4, 2012, 12:38 PM (8 replies)

Romney on CNBC . . . "Putting Jobs First". No seriously, THAT'S his slogan.

Yes, it's CNBC and yes, it's RMoney, but come on. COME on. How believable is a guy who thought as much of firing a few thousand workers as he did brushing his teeth every morning? How believeable is a guy who salivates at the thought of a 28% Loophole-included TMTR?

Mitt, today's jobs numbers are far more an indictment of your buddies in corporate America and the Republican Controlled Congress, both holding America hostage by conducting a partisan-fueled obstruction campaign on the President and the American people.

Failing America to gain control of America.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

"Putting Partisan Politics First"
Posted by HughBeaumont | Fri Jun 1, 2012, 12:53 PM (7 replies)

Walt Shapiro (New Republic) asks - "Does Romney's Bain Record Matter?"


The issue will be the bane of our existence until November. Here it is only May – and the back-and-forth over Mitt Romney’s career in private equity at Bain Capital is already as confused as Facebook’s initial stock offering. Buffeted by TV ads, web videos, feigned outraged and zigzagging Democrats, voters undoubtedly are stunned by the sudden outbreak of high-decibel arguments over Romney’s business career.

But do these even matter? Amongst the background noise emerges the real question: What parts of Romney’s business experience would influence his actions in the Oval office? That is a central question that voters should evaluate, although finding the answers will not be easy given the frenzied spin from both sides.


This is who Romney is -- a portrait in business success rather than selfless altruism. Coming out of that experience, Romney’s underlying problem with voters appears to be his inability to make the imaginative leap to grasp how other people live. In late April, Romney urged Ohio college students to follow their dreams: “Take a shot, go for it, take a risk. Get the education. Borrow money, if you have to, from your parents. Start a business.” These are laudable sentiments, except for one tin-ear detail: Most American families do not have a bankroll of, say, $50,000 or $100,000 sitting on the sidelines waiting to be loaned to the first child ready to launch a new business.


This process of elimination inevitably leads back to Bain Capital. What matters is not Bain’s job-creation record but the values that Romney absorbed on the job. Romney’s belief in the creative destruction of capitalism, his conviction that a dynamic economy produces winners and, yes, losers would undoubtedly shape his presidency. That is his economic vision – and it is directly linked to his years at Bain.

Oh fuck off, Walt . . . it does SO matter. Government is not a business nor should it be run as such. Two different animals entirely despite every GOP idiot from here to K Street thinking America would be so much better off. We've seen this tragedy before for eight years and look what ruin it caused. An insincere and tone-deaf joker like Rmoney would be no different since at Bain, he won whether the company won OR lost. The loads of corporate-fattened cronies he'd stack his cabinet with, as Bewsh 43 did, would profit handsomely while social programs get gutted.

Colossally Stupid Letters to the Plain Dealer, Volume F: "HE EARNT IT!"

Dumb from stem to stern, this one is . . .


I am in California today, looking for work, since I cannot find work in Ohio.

President Barack Obama's attempt to copy FDR has been a colossal failure. [font size="4"]That's not surprising, since Obama has never had a real job in his entire life. [/font]

Mitt Romney is a successful business executive. He is our only hope of ending the miserable economic doldrums we suffer from. He made his fortune the old-fashioned way: He earned it.

Jim Hilbe, Cleveland

a. Your work situation . . . that's Obama's fault? Both state's incredible financial mismanagement (Ohio's legislature is Republican controlled, BTW), Greedbag Corporations and Bewsh 43's shite economic policies are perfectly innocent?

b. Obama taught constitutional law for 14 years, was a community organizer and a Senator. I'm curious to know why those aren't "real jobs" in your eyes?

c. Earned WHAT? Mitt Romney never had to struggle for even one minute in his life, he lived off of his rich daddy, he made his living as a parasite capitalist who fired workers (like you), infused companies with tons of debt and pocketed the profits.

If elected, Willard would institute insane Bewsh 43 economics and torch the safety net. I'm curious to understand how this austerity-based looney tunes, which is currently destroying a few European nations, is what's going to get America back on track. I'm also weirded out by the fact that you identify more with a man who would fire you with the same care as his morning bathroom trip rather than your fellow struggling workers.

If Jim were to get a skull fracture, Pixie Stix contents would probably fall out. People like this are allowed to vote and they can't even successfully walk upright.

Fun with Photoshop . . . Introducing Free Market Defense Bingo!

I had to do it.

My suspicions tell me that some will look at this and go "Absolutely right! Wait . . . . is this sarcasm?"

Spread at will.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Mon May 7, 2012, 07:56 PM (8 replies)

Meet the Planet's Current Biggest Asshole Next To His Former Boss Romney: Edward Conard.


I think guys like this are the reason they invented guillotines.

Unlike his former colleagues, Conard wants to have an open conversation about wealth. He has spent the last four years writing a book that he hopes will forever change the way we view the superrich’s role in our society. “Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,” to be published in hardcover next month by Portfolio, aggressively argues that the enormous and growing income inequality in the United States is not a sign that the system is rigged. On the contrary, Conard writes, it is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off. This could be the most hated book of the year.

Oh . . . . it gets better. And by "better", I mean much . . . MUCH more shameless . . .

The financial crisis, he writes, was not the result of corrupt bankers selling dodgy financial products. It was a simple, old-fashioned run on the banks, which, he says, were just doing their job. There are a huge number of people in our economy who want ready access to their savings — pension-fund managers, insurance companies and you and me with our bank accounts. And because economic growth comes from long-term investments in things like housing, factories and research, the central role of banks, Conard says, is to turn the short-term assets of nervous savers into risky long-term loans that help the economy grow.


Conard concedes that the banks made some mistakes, but the important thing now, he says, is to provide them even stronger government support. He advocates creating a new government program that guarantees to bail out the banks if they ever face another run. As for exotic derivatives, Conard doesn’t see a problem. He argues that collateralized-debt obligations, credit-default swaps, mortgage-backed securities and other (now deemed toxic) financial products were fundamentally sound. They were new tools that served a market need for the world’s most sophisticated investors, who bought them in droves. And they didn’t cause the panic anyway, he says; the withdrawals did.

Seriously, the more you read what this guy's about, the more dumbfounded you become that anyone can truly be this big of an asshole, as if a stratospheric bar has now been set.

A central problem with the U.S. economy, he told me, is finding a way to get more people to look for solutions despite these terrible odds of success. Conard’s solution is simple. Society benefits if the successful risk takers get a lot of money. For proof, he looks to the market. At a nearby table we saw three young people with plaid shirts and floppy hair. For all we know, they may have been plotting the next generation’s Twitter, but Conard felt sure they were merely lounging on the sidelines. “What are they doing, sitting here, having a coffee at 2:30?” he asked. “I’m sure those guys are college-educated.” Conard, who occasionally flashed a mean streak during our talks, started calling the group “art-history majors,” his derisive term for pretty much anyone who was lucky enough to be born with the talent and opportunity to join the risk-taking, innovation-hunting mechanism but who chose instead a less competitive life. In Conard’s mind, this includes, surprisingly, people like lawyers, who opt for stable professions that don’t maximize their wealth-creating potential. He said the only way to persuade these “art-history majors” to join the fiercely competitive economic mechanism is to tempt them with extraordinary payoffs.

"It’s not like the current payoff is motivating everybody to take risks,” he said. “We need twice as many people. When I look around, I see a world of unrealized opportunities for improvements, an abundance of talented people able to take the risks necessary to make improvements but a shortage of people and investors willing to take those risks. That doesn’t indicate to me that risk takers, as a whole, are overpaid. Quite the opposite.” The wealth concentrated at the top should be twice as large, he said. That way, the art-history majors would feel compelled to try to join them.

Eddie . . . in my world, I would put a double secret probation tax on your insular sanctimonious ass for your idiocy.

You would never have made it to where you are at all if it weren't for public wealth and governmental services. You think all of this money is made out of a vacuum, as if we, us know-nothing peons are merely meant to just spend, fill your pockets and shut the hell up while doing so?

A run on banks didn't put millions out of work, profiteering did.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs aren't outsourced because of risk taking, it's because of GREED.

You're "extremely productive" class doesn't think that "life is unfair" . . . it's just that they think it shouldn't be fair for anyone except Y'ALL.

My God . . . THIS is what America worships? THIS is who we give all the money to and it STILL isn't enough for them??

Yeah, give the future of America to THESE guys and watch it drown in the Atlantic Ocean.

FB post: "It's called 'Right' for a Reason!" Yes, and here's mine . . .

. . . America is like a Winston Cup vehicle; turning left, it will stay on course with a few bumps here and there. What happens when it's forced into (or makes) a hard turn to the right?


Derp Letters to the Plain Dealer, Volume 6,000 . . . is this REALLY Northeast Ohio?


Sadly, yes it is . . . the less people learn . . .

The "Buffett rule" is a political scheme aimed at raising taxes on the rich. President Barack Obama tells us it's time they started paying their fair share. Here are a couple of facts he fails to mention:

This rule would collect an additional $47 billion over the next 10 years. That amount would pay for 17 days of the Obama 10-year deficit. And if the president insists on talking about fairness, how does he explain the fact that the top 10 percent of American earners pay 71 percent of the federal income tax, while 49 percent of American households pay no federal income tax at all?

Obama's behavior has been shameless, and it's designed to deceive the voters and divert attention from his failed presidency. He continues to prove he lacks the character needed for his current job.

This November, Americans have an important decision to make: Do we allow this president another four years to complete his destructive transformation of America, or do we reclaim our country and begin healing the wounds inflicted over the last three years?

Liberals have never learned that it's not the government that makes America exceptional, it's the people.

Jeff Longo, North Royalton

Jeff, by the way, is one of those writers who should really have his own column, since his letters seem to make it in at least bi-weekly . . . for some reason . . .

I mean, never mind, Jeff, that your 47 billion figure is bullshit, or that the wealthiest 10% of Americans own 71% of the WEALTH in this country and never mind your "49%" talking point's been debunked from here to Madagascar. The Bewsh tax cuts to the rich have already cost this country 2 TRILLION dollars and there wouldn't have BEEN a huge debt had your asswipe president not DOUBLED it. Dumbass.

It's about making them pay their fair share, which they arguably have not been doing for the past 30 years, and you see what giving the wealthy free money has done for this country's prosperity . . . oh wait, sorry, you don't. Put the blindfold back on and continue to watch Eric Bolling, smart guy.

Here's yet another pearl of wisdom . . . Jesus . . .

When are people going to start looking beyond the sound bites? This president loves to pit classes of people against each other.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay approximately 36 percent of all taxes, and the top 10 percent pay 70 percent. Nearly half of Americans pay no income taxes. Everyone pays payroll taxes, but those taxes go toward Medicare and Social Security. Those are not income taxes.

The so-called rich (millionaires and billionaires) are taxed at a low 15 percent on their capital gains, but they already paid an approximate 28 percent tax rate on that money when it was initially earned. This is the part that your president fails to explain to Americans.

This is a smoke screen, people. Everyone in this country has the same opportunity to be successful -- and to be a millionaire. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not to do the hard work of becoming one. Ask yourself why President Obama wants you to hate millionaires and billionaires.

Vincent Picone, Ravenna

Wow . . . the TeaHad is conditioned well . . . "Everyone in this country has the same opportunity to be successful" . . . PFFFFFFFFFFT. If anyone still believes that line of horse manure, someone needs to get out of Ravenna and into a Cleveland tenement for a day, and it's not me.

Vince, Mittens and the rest of his wealthy buddies are taxed at 15% ONLY. Where the shit did you get this 28% figure? Mitt is RETIRED. He only pays tax on what his income from his wealth generates, which is a flat 15%. NO more. And Mitt is worth a quarter billion dollars, which he made by firing people, torching and indebting companies and pocketing the profits. So the amount of tax dollars he took OUT of the economy by firing those workers and bankrupting those companies negates his past . . . "fair share" .

DUMBasses. GOD almighty, I'm sick of this crap. We need to restore the Fairness Doctrine; then and only then will this country not have the bunch of drooling morons that pick up a set of crayons without thinking.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »