The panhandler


John de Rosier

15 Responses

  1. mark says:

    With the full power, political and financial, of the Presidency and the White House under his total control, add the democrat liberal machine, throw in all the big unions, the entire entitlement receiving class, the hollywood elite, the Jeffrey Immelt/John Corzine types, topped off with a supportive media, and you draw the cartoon above? Well, you did get one thing right, John. That sad face. To paraphrase Pete Seeger, as sung by The Kingston Trio….
    “Where have all the donors gone, long time passin’….”

  2. Phil says:

    Is John really so obtuse that he does not understand that Citizens United just evened the playing field? Is his reading so insular that he does not know the the contributions from unions dwarf everything else? (He would have had to read the WSJ yesterday.) Also Obama is having problems raising money because no one wants to throw good money after bad.

  3. Albert J says:

    Oh please, poor Barack is probably sitting down because he’s so tired after spending the past 6 months jetting back and forth across this country attending $40,000/person “fund raisers” for all his fat cat friends, so they could get together, ponder and wring their hands about the troubles all the rest of us have to deal with.

    Perhaps there’s a lesson in adopting a strategy of spending the second half of your first term, focusing on raising money for your campaign, rather than doing what you were hired for, and then coming up short.

  4. Mickie Lynn says:

    The influence of money from the wealthiest US individuals and corporations pouring into the candidates’ coffers and influencing our elections is a terrifying threat to our democracy.

    But there is another “money problem” that Mitt Romney brings to his Presidential candidacy.

    Romney’s own financial behavior appears to support greed, use of tax loopholes, overseas investments (some hidden), Swiss bank accounts, continued personal profits from Bain Capital, and refusal to release more than one year of his Federal Tax returns.

    This lack of personal integrity is worrying in someone who wants to lead our nation and who is already surprisingly out of touch with the suffering of the other 98% of the American people to say nothing of those who suffer in the rest of the world.

    It’s not surprising that this behavior would encourage the richest 2% to financially back Mitt Romney’s Presidential bid over that of President Obama.
    Even though President Obama still has disturbingly close ties to Wall Street and the financial industry.

    You can read all about it in this four page article in Vanity Fair [link provided below]

    Where the Money Lives By Nicholas Shaxson


    If you prefer audio, or video or an interview format that asks probing questions, you can listen to an interview with the author, Nicholas Shaxon. There are also many links provided on the DN! Website — to earlier articles on this subject and to investigations of issues of legality versus morality.

  5. PlainGuy says:

    Hey Mickey Lynn,

    Does it matter that Romeny earned his own money, used the available tax laws and Banking laws in a legal manner to deposit the money he earned in a place where it makes the most financial sense to his goals? I mean seriously, lets get get back to what matters in this election, the economy, and in that regard, BO has failed to live up to his own promise, and that is if he doesn’t have the economy in better shape then when he started he deserves to be a one termer.

    Despite all of BO’s fancy economic tricks, including reducing the number of unemployed to reduce the unemployment rate, he has yet to get theunemployment below 8%, and nowhere close to the 5.6% he promised that the trillion dollar stimulous would bring.

    If you take the time to go to the Bureauof Labor Statistics, and at the magic U6 number on the employment table, you will see that the real unemployment is north of 14%. And last month, June, besides the number of temporary workers included in the employed data, you had the number of new people collecting disability exceed thenumber of purported jobs created.

    So the need to change the topic from the economy to what does Mitt do with his own money is a red herring meant to distract voters from what the real question of this election is and that is whether BO continueshis economic destructive policies,or some one who has had a real job in the private sector, knows what it means to produce a product, understands business, and the business climate gets elected.

    thats the real question

  6. Albert J says:

    Will this pure Hypocracy and unadulterated BS ever cease. Mitt Romney’s holdings are handled by a blind trust, which by law, take investment decisions out of his personal hands. This Democrat sniping is disgraceful to the extent that Debbie Wasserman Shultz, The DNC female pit bull, creates all sorts of imaginary speculations about what “MIGHT” be associated with Romney’s holdings, while she has PERSONALLY refused to disclose her own financial holdings to her constituents.

    Being wealthy does not require a person to behave stupidly. Over a very successful business and financial history, should anyone expect Mr. Romney had different investment objectives than ANYONE else investing money? The standard objective is to make as much interest, with the least possible risk. Does that surprise anyone?

    Where were all these Democrats so incensed on personal disclosure, during the last election when nobody was allowed to ask any of the hundreds of valid quwestions about Mr Obama’s personal history? Most of those valid questions are still open, and would likely be very helpful in explaining some of the decisions made during this first term.

    Lets all see those school transcripts, lets get detailed access to full disclosure about Mr. Obams’a admitted “energetic” effots at experimenting with illegal drugs, including which drugs he was talking about. Let’s discuss Mr. Obama’s relationships with Bill Ayres, his college mentors and acknowledged political role models.

    What, specifically, was the reason for tripling the salary Michele Obama commanded at the hospital, for a job that was subsequently abolished when she left for Washington? Perhaps Democrats should focus more on what their leader has done to effect the monry in their pockets, rather than worry and speculate, all sorts of imaginations, about what their neighbors might have in their pockets.

  7. Phil says:

    Vanity Fair – Please Mickie Lynn show some integrity. I am surprised you did not quote something from Mother Jones. All of your allegations are unfounded. You completely disregard the union money and that evil George Soros and other big left wing Foundations. As I said, it just evened the turf!

  8. iknowtruthismine says:

    As reported today, it seems that 10 of the top 11 donors to Romney’s super PACs have stashed BILLIONS, if not trillions, in tax dodging foreign accounts and tax havens. Makes one proud to pay their fair share, while the corporate rich don’t even pay the piddling rate they have awarded themselves, in the corruption of the tax code already. Legal thievery is still thievery.

  9. phil says:

    John, did you note editorial cartoon in USA Today?
    Besides, on this one, MSNBC will find something to destroy Romney, be it his money, his family or his record. The hatred exhibited in O’donnel’s eye shows his disdain for Romney, Why not a cartoon showing our poor and hungry begging for some of money.
    Another funny statistic: Did you know Hitler only got 38% of vote? Money interests put him in power back then.

  10. elmer says:

    Strong supporter of the President, but have a hard time understanding this toon. Obama’s campaing is second to none in fundraising, and it ain’t $20 at a time.

    As for Romney being rich–so what. JFK was rich, Roosevelt was rich, LBJ was rich. And I always understood that tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion) was a right of all Americans. Rail against the tax laws all you want, and deservedly so, but saying that Romney (or any candidate) is precluded from making use of them is just dumb.

  11. PlainGuy says:

    elmer, the Supreme COurt decided the above in 1934, ie that every American has the legal duty to avoid paying as much taxes as possible within the laws available to each person. here is the decision: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    293 U.S. 465; (1934

  12. iknowtruthismine says:

    PlainGuy – Gee, Isn’t it great how the very rich have been able to have the tax laws written so that they benefit to such an extent, that it can only be called legal theft. Give them half a chance in their quest to restructure society to service them, they will probably reintroduce the quaint old custom where the Lord of the estate gets to spend the first night with any new bride in his serfdom, known as Jus Primae Noctis. They can tie it to the inevitable legislative attempt (in the Potemkin Village Congress we will end up with)to reintroduce a revisit of Dred Scott, and it will slip by unnoticed.

  13. Phil says:

    I just got it. You are a Right Wing nutjob posing as a Left Wing nutjob to discredit socialists. Wow, there can’t be any other reason for the IKTM posts besides this.

  14. Troy Taxpayer says:

    Godwin’s Law strikes again…

  15. Albert J says:

    One slight difference being that Mr. Romney isn’t supposed to be running the Country instead of spending most of his waking moments fundraising. When he succeeds Mr. Obama, this November, then it will be his primary responsibility to run the country and if he does a poor a job, as Mr. Obama has done, he would be expected to forego fund raising and spend his time and energy fixing what he failed to accomplish before his reelection campaign started.

    A plumber doesn’t get to solicit new customers while the basement is filling with water from broken pipes, no matter how much he wants new customers..