Democratic Convention 2012

Only Democrats Get to Decide Who Is Patriotic

|

I do not like the words this man says

During the Democratic National Convention of 2008, multiple speakers criticized Republicans for questioning Democrats' patriotism. For instance, John Kerry:

This election is a chance for America to tell the merchants of fear and division: You don't decide who loves this country. You don't decide who is a patriot.

Well, unless you are a Democrat in 2012. Here's former Ohio gov. Ted Strickland last night:

Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport. It summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps. In Matthew, chapter 6, verse 21, the scriptures teach us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. My friends, any man who aspires to be our president should keep both his treasure and his heart in the United States of America. […]

Barack Obama is an economic patriot. Mitt Romney is an outsourcing pioneer.

And here's Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley:

Instead of investing in America, they hide their money in Swiss bank accounts and ship our jobs to China!

Swiss bank accounts never built an American bridge. Swiss bank accounts don't put cops on the beat or teachers in our classrooms. Swiss bank accounts never created American jobs!

We are Americans. We must act like Americans.

NEXT: 1 in 5 Say Clint Eastwood "Highlight" of RNC Convention, More than Romney

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What could be more American than not wanting to pay taxes? Doesn’t anyone remember what the Boston Tea Party was about?

    1. I do. It was not about having to pay taxes or that taxes were too high. In fact it was about taxes that were too low on imported tea. The fundamental issue was not taxes, but self-representation. The colonists wanted to decide for themselves the taxes they would pay so they they could call their own shots.

      The real story behind the BTP involved an economic crisis based on speculative banking and, as a result, a large company that was deemed too big to fail. It was far more a precursor to the Occupy movement than the antigovernment Tea Party movement.

      1. The fundamental issue was not taxes, but self-representation.

        So you’re saying that you feel adequately represented by your government at this point?

        1. No, mostly because unlimited corporate bribery of politicians has been deemed free speech.

          1. Spoken like someone who completely misunderstands Citizens United.

            1. You don’t get it Brutus.

              The problem is that the evil corporations use their wealth to influence the politicians.
              The solution to this problem is to give more power to the politicians so they can control the evil corporations that control them.
              If this doesn’t work, and this increased power is again co opted by the evil corporations, then the solution is to give the government more power.
              If that doesn’t work, then the solution is even more power to the government.

              Eventually the government will be so powerful that the evil corporations will no longer be able to influence it. Well, in theory anyway.

              What could possibly go wrong?

              1. We won’t be free until the omnipotent State strangles all corporations to death. Then the port-side rapture will take us.

              2. if money is speech, then why cant politicans stand outside the polls and buy votes?

                1. With a secret ballot, I would be fine with this. Take their money and vote any way you want. Suckers.

                2. Well, no speech is allowed within 100 yards of a polling place anyways. But it should be noted that buying votes is more or less essentially what the entitlement state is.

                  1. ^^ Boom. This.

                  2. Which someone is not the case when you get favorable tax treatment for being a wealthy investor.

          2. No, mostly because unlimited corporate bribery of politicians has been deemed free speech.

            Again, a dishonest and purposeful redefining of the Supreme Court’s ruling. To say that any group of people who pool their money to broadcast their message is bribery of politicians is just fucking deceitful.

            1. Those who rant about the Citizens United forget that it was about a DOCUMENTARY! They forget that the corporation behind it was NON-PROFIT!

              The only reason the left has its tits in a wringer over this issue was because Hillary Clinton was its target. If George Soros and Warren Buffet set up a for-profit multinational corporation to air a film depicting John McCain as a kitten rapist, NOT ONE DEMOCRAT WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED!

      2. The colonists wanted to decide for themselves the taxes they would pay so they they could call their own shots.

        It was far more a precursor to the Occupy movement than the antigovernment Tea Party movement.

        Am I the only one who finds these two statements contradictory?

        Additionally, calling the tea party anti-government is a dishonest and purposeful redefinition of the movement. They are not anti-government; that would be anarchy. They are anti-big-government. There is a difference.

        1. They’re not anti-Medicare or anti-defense spending, the two biggest government expenses there are.

          I don’t think they were about anything but hating Obama.

          1. They’re not anti-Medicare or anti-defense spending, the two biggest government expenses there are.

            I don’t think they were about anything but hating Obama. monolithic, Dipshit.

          2. That may be what the GOP has turned it into, which disgusts me, but that is not what the movement is about. As far as the GOP bastardization of the tea party is concerned, you’re right; they are only about hating Obama.

          3. The vast majority of those I met at tea party rally’s were anti-bug government, including medicare and the type of defense spending that involves mostly offense.

            1. The vast majority of those I met at tea party rally’s were anti-bug government

              “We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*! “

            2. Reason Magazine cited a poll from 2010 that 80% of the TP did not want elderly entitlements cut.

              1. Then there’s a definite disconnect. Assuming you’re telling the truth, always a dodgy proposition.

              2. Quite possibly true, and carries more weight than my small sample size, but still not absolute. I’d bet that if you did poll of various political groups, that the tea party has the largest percentage that would be willing to cut elderly entitlements, excepting of course, libertarians.

                1. Reason Magazine cited a poll from 2010 that 80% of the TP did not want elderly entitlements cut.

                  No shit? Gosh, that’s amazing. Except when you consider that not even Paul Ryan wants to do that, in spite of his hobby of pushing grandmas over the cliff.

                  Not a lot of people want to cut entitlements for current recipients, or people who will be soon.

      3. It was about the lack of equality before the law with regard to the levying of taxes.

        The imports of the East India Company were to be given preferential tax treatment, to enable them to profit at the colonists’ expense. This had always been the case, but the Indemnity Act restructured the mechanism by which this would be done in order to combat ubiquitous smuggling; the net effect was that the colonists were to be subjected (in practice for the first time) to a tax they had previously evaded by smuggling tea from Holland.

        The colonists reasoned, probably quite rightly, that their lack of representation was the root cause of their inequality before the law, since Parliament had to worry about British-based interests but could safely tell the colonists to fuck themselves. But the triggering issue was definitely taxes, dude.

    2. “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.

      Learned Hand – Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)

      And

      Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.

    3. The Boston TP was to protest tax CUTS for the East India Company.

      Colonists liked duty-free black market tea more.

      1. By cutting the East India Company tax collected in London and replacing it with a tax collected directly in colonial ports, the Indemnity Act made it more difficult for the colonists to evade the tax by (illegally) importing Dutch carry trade tea.

        The nominal tax may have been lower than the old one, but the old tax was the East India Company’s problem in London, and the new tax was the colonists’ problem in Boston.

        If you raise my taxes while cutting someone else’s, even if the net amount of the new tax is lower in the aggregate, I’m still going to be pissed off that you raised my taxes.

  2. I don’t know about Swiss bank accounts, but several of the biggest infrastructure projects in our early history were financed by foreign banks. The Louisiana Purchase was made using a loan from Barings (while the UK was about to go to war with France, natch).

    1. Thanks, Tulpa.

      I was dealing with the login situation yet again specifically to point out that virtually all 19th century US infrastructure was built using loans from overseas.

      You know how JP Morgan got so big? Because Morgan was the only person British investors trusted not to take their money and skip town. So he got a piece of the underwriting on just about every bond that any state or railroad company issued that was sold in British markets, and commanded a huge trust premium.

      1. I was dealing with the login situation yet again

        Funny, that same login problem was pissing me off this morning, but I haven’t had a problem with it for the past couple of hours.

      2. Wait a minute! I was taught that all infrastructure was built by the government!
        There were no roads, bridges, or anything that wasn’t created by government!
        How can this be?!?!

        You lie, Fluffy! You evil corporate shill!

  3. The Democrats are sounding more like fascists and communists every day. Be a real American, give us MOARRRR of your money, we need MOAARRR, MOARRR!!! Everything belongs to us, the government owns you!

    1. Well, this is just protectionism and nativism, which TEAM BLUE has always engaged in. It goes hand in hand with being the party of unions.

      1. No way jose.

        It’s going way past protectionism and nativism all the way to fascism and national socialism.

      2. We’ve known since Von Mises that socialism almost always degenerates into nationalism, so this shouldn’t surprise anyone.

  4. And of course, Obama’s stimulus spending was mostly funded by foreign banks buying Treasury bills.

  5. I see they refuse to disown and bury the “you didn’t build that” meme.

    1. Denials followed by embracing the thing denied. The Democratic way.

    2. TEAM BLUE, once it gets its teeth in a meme it likes, can’t shake it. No matter how stupid or unpopular it is, they will bitterly cling to it. It’s amazingly dumb, but hey, what else are partisans good at besides being morons?

      1. The partisans know the proles don’t believe it and don’t like it, but they can’t let go because then they’d be as nekulturny as the proles they are desperately trying to prove they are different from.

    3. Why would they? Regardless of how stupid, many leftists have latched on to it with iron jaws.

      1. They actually can’t.

        It’s the central premise of all economic collectivism. If they let it go, they turn into us.

        They don’t want to turn into us.

  6. “Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport.”

    *snickers*

  7. Maybe if our tax policy wasn’t so fucked up, he wouldn’t have foreign accounts?

    1. If he was trying to avoid American taxes with offshore accounts, why did he report them on his tax return.

      1. Don’t confuse them with logic.

        1. So holding offshore accounts, and reporting them provides no tax benefit?

          1. Actually, in Mitt’s case, the entities he invested in through Bain were set up to allow other Bain investors (especially Europeans) the opportunity to engage in tax avoidance and evasion if they so chose.

            Mitt just didn’t take advantage of that opportunity.

            So the benefit the accounts were providing Mitt was that setting Bain stuff up overseas helped Bain raise capital. That’s a pretty big benefit.

            1. “Actually, in Mitt’s case, the entities he invested in through Bain were set up to allow other Bain investors (especially Europeans) the opportunity to engage in tax avoidance and evasion if they so chose.”

              You should have joined the thread on determining motives earlier. You have a citation to back this claim?

              1. Here we go again.

                Fluffy, please keep in mind that any interpretation of motives is, in Camping’s opinion, “mind reading”.

                Just so you know the premises of this silly little line of “argumentation”.

                1. “Fluffy, please keep in mind that any interpretation of motives is, in Camping’s opinion, ‘mind reading’.”

                  I asked for a citation, not an interpretation of motives. If you care to interpret them, carry on. It’s your specialty not mine.

            2. So what? Was it illegal? Then the IRS should charge him. If it was legal, then how is it different from Obama taking a mortgage interest deduction?

          2. You know, I’m not a tax attorney so I can’t say for sure. I’m guessing that applies equally to you.

            What I do know, is that Romney reported those accounts in accordance with the law. So that even if it did provide a tax benefit that benefit is part of democratically enacted legislation. Meaning that Romney was just following the will of Congress.

            Why do hate democracy?

          3. I believe that there are no tax benefits these days – since the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) was passed. But it’s been a long time since I earned any foreign income.

      2. Considering the fact that I’m neither rich, nor a tax expert, I tend to assume that his having money overseas, provides some tax benefit. He’s fairly clearly someone that holds himself to high moral standards, and is not likely trying to cheat, just not pay more than required.

        1. They did provide a tax benefit. Just not to Mitt.

          Assuming his returns are truthful, of course.

          1. So, then what are they bitching about (they being democrats)?

        2. “I tend to assume that his having money overseas, provides some tax benefit.”

          There is no tax benefit. You are required as a US citizen to pay taxes on income earned anywhere in the world. More likely, this account was more for the purpose of hedging against bank failures in the US.

  8. Didn’t they just get through lauding the sainted Ted Kennedy? Didn’t he get much of his loot from a Fiji trust set up by his father?

    1. I loved how the tribute to Teddy started with how he was always there to help the womens except of course the one trapped under water in his car. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that the reason he crashed was because Mary Jo was fighting off his groping.

      Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Edwards. What’s the matter with Dem chicks?

      1. “Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment”

    2. Yep – the Kennedy set-up in Fiji is worth $billions – and they pay no taxes on it.

    3. Maybe if Romney was doing his patriotic duty and paying taxes, the bridge at Chappaquiddick would have been built to be safer.

  9. Swiss bank accounts never built an American bridge. Swiss bank accounts don’t put cops on the beat or teachers in our classrooms. Swiss bank accounts never created American jobs!

    Utterly incapable of imagining anything being built or done unless the government pays for it.

    1. Well, technically that’s true. The money in those accounts probably did, but bank accounts themselves are lazy bastards, much like my dog. She just lays around on the couch. Likewise, bank accounts just sit there in a computer.

    2. Did American banks build bridges? Did they have clerks and accountants out there pouring concrete? It would be fun to watch although I might chose a different route.

      1. Did American banks build bridges?

        Yes.

        Did they have clerks and accountants out there pouring concrete?

        That is not necessary to say the bank built a bridge.

        1. That is just stupid. I work in finance. To repeat, that is just stupid. When my company borrows $2B for a capital project, I can assure you the bank didn’t build shit.

          1. It’s a matter of definitions.

            I have worked private equity, and we took pride in what our investment built. If you think that pride is misplaced somehow, I would be happy to hear why, but right now, all you are doing is asserting.

            1. I don’t give two fucks about your pride.

              Say my brother loans me two grand, uncollateralized, and I buy a two thousand dollar bottle of wine and guzzle it down. He did not in any way shape or form drink that wine.

              1. Whatever you say, buddy. This is obviously a sore subject for you.

                I guess Peter Thiel didn’t “build” Facebook either.

        2. So, did a Swiss bank ever lend the cash to build an American bridge? – probably.

          I guarantee that many an American construction project was insured directly or through re-insurance with Swiss firms like SwissRe.

          So what?

          1. Hey, don’t leave Zurich Insurance Group out!!! I’ve got a family to support!

            1. Are they the ones who own Farmer’s?

  10. “the scriptures teach us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. My friends, …”

    Uh that was Harry Potter book 7?

    1. Then he pointed his wand at the audience and shouted; “Votibus Barackus!”

      1. And the dead rose from their tombs, ballots duly marked, and deposited them in the proper receptacles. Amen.

  11. “Economic patriotism” pretty funny. Was Timothy Geithner the next speaker?

  12. Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport.

    All your money belongs to us.

  13. The Scrooge McDuck moneybin theory of capital accumulation strikes yet again.

    1. How do you think Paul Ryan really stays in shape? He swims around in a giant vault of gold he plundered after raping the corpses of the dead wives of men Romney laid off.

      1. Clad only in a monocle and top hat, yes?

  14. America! Love it or leave it, girlfriend. Do all Reason writers have Swiss bank accounts, or just the grouchy ones?

    1. Who you calling grouchy you fucking asshole?

    2. America! Love it or leave it, girlfriend.

      That didn’t take long.

      Can we have “protest is the highest form of patriotism” now that it’s inconvenient for your side?

      1. Personally I liked it when “I won” and “elections have consequences” shifted to “Tea Party Taliban hostage-taking terrorists with suicide vests holding a gun against the head of the American people”.

      1. The Doyle Estate must be broke to let this be published…, June 23, 2004
        By A Customer
        This review is from: Sherlock Holmes and the Hapsburg Tiara (Otto Penzler Books) (Hardcover)
        Alan Vanneman’s first Sherlock Holmes novel was a weak try at suspence and mystery. I was disappointed by his unrealistic view of what a Holmes mystery should be. But, that book could win awards compare to the trash that this one turned out to be. A seven year chase from here to there in Paris, Austria, Turkey and England with Watson and his adopted daughter in tow, never solving anything and bad mouthing Winston Churchill throughout the story. Watson spends more time in an intimate affair with a countess (a suspected murderess) than being the wise old companion that Holmes needs. Holmes puts Watson’s daughter into danger every chance he get and those are too many. Keep your money or buy an Nero Wolf Novel instead.

        1. What did they say about your book, Pip?

          1. If you didn’t make this personal to the reason writers every time you commented, you wouldn’t receive this kind of abuse in turn.

            Something to keep in mind.

            1. God forbid that anyone should insult the hallowed writers of “Reason.”

          2. Unlike you, I’m smart enough to understand I have no talent. Maybe this will help you see the light.

            Acute Observer says:
            The copyright to the ‘Sherlock’ character expires around 1971. This means ANYONE can create a story using the ‘Sherlock Holmes’ character w/o permission from the estate.
            Those who do this seem to be at best second-rate authors trying to trade on the original characters of Arthur Conan Doyle.
            I shudder to think what will happen when the copyright expires to “Perry Mason”!!! Or the characters created by Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler.

      2. “Any muttonhead can write a book.”

    3. STOP SPELLING MY NAME WRONG.

      *returns to writing The Sound and the Furries*

  15. Dear assbag – anyone invested in any major company or mutual fund has their money traveling the globe. Fuck, this is so retarded it’s hard to limit a reply to one or two aspects of this. How many people in the audience are doing the exact same shit?

    1. I had a few bank accounts when I lived in Brazil. Maybe I’m now disqualified from being President.

  16. Ohio fired Strickland and its economy improved. Coincidence? Perhaps. Not a very compelling argument for keeping Obama around, though.

  17. Is it me or does Strickland look like an Ayn Rand villain? Not just saying that because of his rhetoric; Chuck Shumer and Tony Weiner certainly don’t look like villains. But he really looks the part.

    1. That’s probably the best picture of him ever taken.

      In every other media, he looks like Howdy-Doody.

      1. But he’s very loud. So he has that goin’ for him.

    2. What do you mean Schumer doesn’t look like a villian? You could cut glass with that nose …

  18. Strickland is an old union pinko scumfuck from way back. Ignore whatever the fuck he says.

  19. Strickland is an old union pinko scumfuck from way back. Ignore whatever the fuck he says.

    1. The fuck is this? Fuck you, server.

      1. It liked your comment so much, it posted it twice.

    2. I refuse to believe that Buck Strickland owner and operator of Stickland Propane is an old union pinko scumfuck. For starters, none of his employees were unionized and he inspired true devotion from Hank Hill by virtue of his entrpreneurial spirit.

      1. So it’s unionism for you but not for me?

  20. It seems that Democrats are all economically illiterate. It was demonstrated centuries ago that global trade lowers the price of goods all round for everybody. And the evidence continues to prove it still does so today…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.