Lunch Break: Steve Wynn slams Obama
by LauraLoo
Democrat Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, one of the biggest US companies who also revitalized Las Vegas years ago, explains during a stockholder conference call how Obama and his socialism is the biggest “wet blanket” on American business in his lifetime.
Read more, including a transcript of the conference call, at the Wall Street Journal blog.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvCqvLwp9qI[/youtube]
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: WLS AM]
Jul.21, 2011 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The American people really got conned, it was really about “wealth redistribution, hope, change”, destroying marriage and saying “yes we can” to the Dead Babies R Us crowd.
It will be interesting to see how many other business owners figure out this “change just ain’t working” for any of us!!!
I love listening to rich people tell us why they don’t feel comfortable to spend any of their money to help the country out of the recession they created… Please tell me more about how the big bad black president might take some of your millions to help out starving unemployed Americans. Let’s hear about how the Democrats are hurting big business while republicans vote to kill social security and Medicare as well as take away unemployment benefits from American families…. Literally taking food out of American children’s mouths…
I do not think redistribution of wealth is what Obama is trying to do… That being said, I think it is a good idea. Are we supposed to just let these huge banks and Wall Street thieves steal all our retirement funds and nest eggs making the entire country poorer and wiping out the middle class in the process, but asking for stolen money back is just not polite? There are American families homeless and parents blowing their brains out all over the country because of the financial situations they are in but the rich guys are a little nervous to reinvest their vast wealth they got from the rest of us back into this country…
If Citizens United says that corporations are people then they should be held to a higher moral standard like private citizens are. Start putting these jerks in prison.
I hate it when I do this, but I kinda agree with Biggz.
Ah yes, we have representives of the Party of Envy. Whatever happened to trying to “keep up with the Joneses?” Now we must hate and envy them? And who’s trying to steal from whom?
I do not think redistribution of wealth is what Obama is trying to do
Aside from the fact that he said he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”
Please tell me more about how the big bad black president
Did Steve Wynn say something about Obama being black? I must’ve missed that…
Wynn employs an awful LOT of people in Vegas. And he’s a Harry Reid-supporting Democrat, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Obama is pretty mainstream and pretty non-socialist. I don’t see what anyone is complaining about.
If President Obama is mainstream then we are beyond help. I don’t see any point in complaining about him though; just vote him out of office. Unlike my fellow Michiganders who are Democrats, I don’t believe in removing officeholders just because I don’t like their policies. Our governor in office for 6 months and there is already a recall effort against him – not for corruption, not for immoral character. They’re trying to recall him (and others) because they don’t agree with his policies.
I love listening to rich people tell us why they don’t feel comfortable to spend any of their money to help the country out of the recession they created… Please tell me more about how the big bad black president might take some of your millions to help out starving unemployed Americans. Let’s hear about how the Democrats are hurting big business while republicans vote to kill social security and Medicare as well as take away unemployment benefits from American families…. Literally taking food out of American children’s mouths…
Biggz, I somewhat agree. I’m definitely “economically conservative,” and have long decried deficit spending. Neither Democrats or Republicans have, in my lifetime, ever been the friend of the American people, in general, that I have seen, and I was born in 1959.
The highest-bracket tax rates in the 1950’s and 1960’s were vastly beyond what they are now, in times of great growth, so this talk of “if we raise taxes on the richest, the whole county will suffer,” falls flat, though too many are ready to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Going back a decade or two, or even three, the “middle class” has basically maintained a steady standard of living, while the richest have gained roughly 300%.
I am not saying it is as simple as that, either. Times are different now, and really – nobody knows just how the system that is the US economy will react to a given thing. I have heard, ad infinitum, the mantra that “we can’t penalize those who create the jobs,” referring to taxes on the very rich. Well, hey, who do you think has been sending “American jobs” overseas, in the millions (if not tens of millions) during the past 20 or 30 years? They are not stupid, and ever are sound businessmen and women, and the bottom line is what matters.
I’m surprised how fast this budget deficit stuff has come to a head, and the degree to which Obama is willing to accept spending cuts. Last I heard, he’s willing to go with $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Not a bad deal, IMO.
Yet, I remain totally cynical – I don’t think the US debt will ever “be paid off.” (Snicker.) Nor do I think the yearly budget will even be balanced, in truth. Mayhap it is these green “Tea Partiers” who think they are some crashing wave, but this is after the debt-creating sea has been at work for decades upon decades, Democrat as well as Republican. And, since the Reagan and Bush and Bush Jr. administrations, the Republicans in no way can claim to have been “economic conservatives.” If anything, the opposite is true. Obama has indeed further ramped up federal spending, but it’s a pea in the same pod with that which has gone before.
I credit Obama for the extent of the trillions of Dollars he’s willing to put on the table, but we will see.
Barb: Our governor in office for 6 months and there is already a recall effort against him – not for corruption, not for immoral character. They’re trying to recall him (and others) because they don’t agree with his policies.
What’s wrong with that? My prediction – eventually, there will come enough of a sea-change in national politics as to bring about real change. Don’t know what that will consist of, really, but perhaps it will be draconian cuts in Medicare and Social Security. It sounds good to “balance the budget,” but we are so far beyond that that most people only hear the words, rather than consider the effects. This is not saying that deficit financing is good. Yet the US’ debt is not all that incredible, yet, as far as a percentage of GDP, and what I see happening is the “conservative” change and then a HUGE backlash as people start to really feel it. Next comes Mr. Psycho Politician with promises of “making things better,” and in he goes.
A couple of thoughts:
-Anybody who thinks Obama is a Socialist is simply an idiot, or is uneducated. Do you know who the main people are that say he’s not a Socialist? Socialists.
– Barb – you and I are from the same state. It has more to do than just his political leanings. I’d be willing to let him stay in office if the Dems pick up a few more seats so that the GOP doesn’t continue to hold it’s majority in everything
– I feel more and more confident that Obama will stay in office – the GOP is getting crushed in the debt debate conversations, and the GOP still doesn’t have a candidate who can win.
– It is clear that politicians don’t actually believe that the debt is that big of an issue. Making tough decisions (raising taxes and raising eligibility ages for old people welfare) would easily solve the issue now, but would be politically unpopular. I wish we had politicians that loved America more than their own party.
Doug:
“Next comes Mr. Psycho Politician with promises of “making things better,” and in he goes.”
Been there, done that. He currently resides in the White House.
BTW, millions of jobs have indeed been lost to overseas, something the Dems try to hang entirely on the Republicans, even though it was Clinton that signed NAFTA. Ask big labor what they think of NAFTA and they will tell you it was (and still is) a huge contributor to lost jobs here. Meanwhile, millions of jobs at home are lost to illegal, undocumented aliens but the Dems applaud this (and will not lift a finger to stop it) as they think pandering to Hispanics means future voters for them.
Hal:
Obama is a leftist, redistributionist, collectivist, Alinskyite radical. This is hardly “mainstream”. When he wasn’t voting “present” as both an Illinois and a
U.S. Senator, his votes were rated the most liberal of his peers. Again, hardly “mainstream”.
Z:
Try as you may to make this a racial issue (the “big, black president” drivel) you are wrong. I suppose you could say that when the congressional black caucus routinely rants against Repub policies and presidents then they are “racist”. Not so! Criticism does not equate to racism.
Ex:
“I wish we had politicians that loved America more than their own party.”
Well said. I’m hoping for a Repub sweep next year.
Jerry – my hope was to move beyond shallow conversation – if you feel there is a GOP candidate out there that is more concerned about the USA behind their name than the R, please, make your case.
I think the only people serious about the future of this country right now are the gang of 6…well, them and the country themselves. Everyone else, including Obama, is in a fantasy land where it is all about the power.
Ex-GOP: “It is clear that politicians don’t actually believe that the debt is that big of an issue.”
So that’s how we now say they’re leery of the third rail?
If we discounted as irrelevant everything our pols don’t have the courage to address, we’d be in great shape, is that right?
Biggz, you’re fatuous. Obama and the Dems voted to take half a trillion out of medicare when they voted in Obamacare.
Show me where Republican proposals for the future come close to that recent past action by the Dems.
Rasqual — the Medicare issue is so tiring – the Dems took a small chunk out of Medicare, something that McCain had campaigned on and others had proposed.
The GOP response? Eliminate Medicare with a ration system of vouchers (Paul Ryan’s plan). Simply put, I don’t see how Ryan’s plan (at least the details I’ve seen), achieves the savings it proposes without turning older people homeless and letting them die on the streets. Maybe that’s Ryan’s plan – who knows?
Ex-GOP: How much was that small chunk?
Without apology I’m a fan of small central government, with distributed government as large as local folk wish it to be. Let the fed perform its constitutionally enumerated duties. Let it take two laws off the books for every new one it adds (most people are unwitting felons on account of the bloated USC). Let it cede to the states its ridiculously statist regulation of minutiae better left to states.
We used to be these united states, not the United States.
Ya know how folks like “locally grown” produce? I like local politics. The more local the better. When the leadership that affects the most important aspects of your life — when their offices are within walking distance of a torch and pitchfork mob, and when their home is in your neighborhood — when they’re that close they’re accountable. When they’re 2000 insulated miles away, centrally planning cookie-cutter policies that need to work across vast diversity among the states, it’s a problem. When the knowledge problem makes a mockery of their effort but we’re obliged to accept that they’re doing their best, that’s a problem especially if it’s true.
With a minimalist federal government, the effect of representation beyond your own Congressional district is not noxious. If I live in rural Nevada and some schmuck from New York votes some particular way, the effect is minimal on my life. But with a maximal federal government, the remotest citizen is gravely affected by the politics of those outside their district. The stakes are higher. And because the stakes are higher, the polarization is greater. And because the polarization is greater, the lobbying is more intense and isolated from constituencies. Reps are lobbied by interests outside their districts. Graft. Corruption. Scandal unseen.
It happens in states and locales too — but the rascals are close enough to pillory.
A bit of a digression there. ;-)
But c’mon, knock off the talking points. http://goo.gl/fIcPP What, in that analysis, do you find offensive?
Do you think not addressing the soaring costs will somehow save us? Do you think central planning is superior to market-based solutions that rely on competition to control prices? Do you even know what the knowledge problem is?
Biggz 3PM,
Vladimir Lenin couldn’t have said it better!
Rasqual, when the heck are you going to get a blog? Reading your stuff is addictive…
Mary@11:00 AM: now THAT was funny! :) (Also true!)
–Ex at 9:01:
“Anybody who thinks Obama is a Socialist is simply an idiot, or is uneducated.”
Ex at 10:30:
“Jerry – my hope was to move beyond shallow conversation”
OK. I’ll bite. Now explain to me how your first comment wasn’t exactly what you complained about in your second comment. If you want to be serious and move beyond “shallow conversation” telling people they are idiots is a funny way of doing it. The only people complaining about O from the left are those who think he isn’t moving fast enough towards the collectivist (socialist) utopia. Do not doubt that O is a socialist. It is just that he is enough of a politician that his reelection trumps everything else right now and the impatient leftists are not willing to cut him any slack. His collectivist leanings and writings in his books are clear enough evidence of the underpinning philosophy that he ascribes to.
As for who among the Repub candidates is more concerned about the country than their party–simple. I am comfortable in saying every one of them loves the country more than their party. Obama is a disaster and must be defeated. Harry Reid, Chucky Schumer, and Dicky Durbin have to all become members of the minority party in 2012 as well.
Jerry – if somebody came on and called Bush a communist, I’d say they were an idiot as well. I’m not going to spend 20 posts debating a stupid subject. If Steve Wynn believes, or you for that matter, that Obama is a Socialist, then I believe you have no actual idea what a socialist is. Or fine, you think his books lend to the fact that he was (I have Audacity of Hope and have read it – seemed pretty capitalistic to me) – what books have you read that Obama has written? Where specifically do you feel that he is anti-capitalism?
Bachmann, Newt, Romney – they all are far more concerned of their own political party – when was the last time that Bachmann voted against her party and with any sort of conviction that she has? She’s straight party line through and through. Romney, you could make a stronger case for – but everything he’s once supported with votes, he now says he doesn’t support.
Rasqual – HCR has $455 billion in Medicare spending cuts – most of it has to do with a revamp of the Medicare Advantage part. Those cuts are over a 10 year period. During the 2008 campaign, McCain proposed 1.3 trillion in Medicare/Medicaid cuts (over 10).
I agree with the fundamental concept of local control and advantages over big government, specifically control in Washington. Decisions being made 2000 miles not being as good…I get that.
But you also have to admit there’s some unique aspects to health care. Primarily, it is the one industry (that I can think of), in which you or I could suddenly become a multi-million liability on the balance sheet. Either one of us could go and cancel our health insurance, get in a massive car wreck, and we’ll be treated and costs incurred regardless of our ability to pay. There are also massive gains to be made through standardization around the country. I’m not sure how strongly you feel about dialing back standards of care, EMRs, and other federal type initiatives, so I’m not going to go on at this point unless you’d like to explore further.
You do ask though of Ryan’s plan. Now, maybe their are aspects of the plan that I haven’t seen…hidden documents for instance that were sent out but not published. If that is the case, forgive me and ignore my next sentence. In my opinion, anybody who voted for the plan officially should be thrown out of office immediately. They simply voted for an unfinished plan with too many questions that it is reckless. As much criticism as the Dems took for having a detailed, couple thousand page plan on health care, those criticizing folks should remember that health care is a massive part of the economy. So Ryan takes the other approach – a lot of vague details and unanswered questions – and people actually voted for it.
Now, maybe these hidden papers give us more answers – please enlighten me.
How will pre-existing conditions be dealt with? If a senior has conditions, and they often will – and we’ve left it to the private market to drive ALL the plans, how do we ensure they get coverage?
If an old person can’t afford coverage,which we know will happen, and they get into a bad accident, does Ryan advocate that we let them die? If not, who pays for their care?
What regulation is going to occur to make sure the elderly (some in diminished capacity) will be protected and properly represented? Or do we just thing all big insurance companies are going to live by the golden rule?
Also, is there going to be some federal oversight into state vs state regulations? Or can some state (like in the banking industry) really roll back regulation and what a plan needs to cover – driving down overall benefit coverage.
I think it is more than ironic that the article in support of Ryan’s plan has the line it in: “in effect, Ryan is asking Americans to make a historic leap of faith”. You seem like a smart guy – do you think the health care industry is somewhere we need to make a “historic leap of faith?”
On your other questions – I think we do need to work on soaring costs – I think health care reforms mix of the competition (state exchanges) along with the advisory panel (at the medicare level) will do just that.
I think in health care, yes, central planning has to be a component of it. Look at Texas hospital performance vs the Mayo Clinic – you can find a lot of articles on it – pay for services vs pay for outcome. Some regulation is needed – some central planning is needed. Furthermore, EMRs have massive potential. Some coordination and funding at the federal level will be needed. I don’t think that we’ll ever get there if it is simply an organic process.
Look – there are people smarter than you and I both working on health care, and they debate on the various ways to fix it. Let me say that I’m a much bigger proponent of continual tweaking and working on health care reform than I am of taking “a big leap of faith”. We’re dealing with health care here – the well-being of our citizens.
“Next comes Mr. Psycho Politician with promises of “making things better,” and in he goes.”
Jerry: Been there, done that. He currently resides in the White House.
Obama isn’t much different, at all, than many who have come before. The political environment isn’t yet ready for somebody *really* different, though I think it will be in the coming decades.
____
BTW, millions of jobs have indeed been lost to overseas, something the Dems try to hang entirely on the Republicans, even though it was Clinton that signed NAFTA. Ask big labor what they think of NAFTA and they will tell you it was (and still is) a huge contributor to lost jobs here. Meanwhile, millions of jobs at home are lost to illegal, undocumented aliens but the Dems applaud this (and will not lift a finger to stop it) as they think pandering to Hispanics means future voters for them.
Jerry, I don’t disagree too much, there. In the long run, protectionism isn’t good for a country, and thus I’m not really against NAFTA. On illegal aliens, I do think Democrats are trying to court votes by taking certain positions. Yet many of the workers pay taxes, Social Security, etc., while not being eligible to receive benefits, and many of them are doing jobs that American citizens, in the main, are not willing to do.
Not saying they will never be willing to do them, but here too things haven’t changed enough yet. Our debt isn’t all that crushing of a percentage of GDP, so I don’t think the sky is falling, immediately, though I see no possibility of the debt ever being paid off in meaningful measure.
In the 1930’s wages were allowed to fall, which made it pay to open factories back up, start new ones, etc. This time around, there’s not the political will to accept deflation, and thus we’re not gaining in competitiveness versus the rest of the world, which is a huge problem.