Print
Email
From: Daniel Loeb
Subject: Holiday Gift
Dear Friends/battered wives:
It is that time of year and I just thought of the perfect gift in light of some of you. In case the President’s hostage rant wasn’t enough to turn you off, I thought I’d buy any of you a great book for gals who just keep on pursuing the wrong guy. Made popular on Oprah a few years back, “He’s Just Not That Into You” seems like the perfect holiday stocking stuffer for true blue Democrats who just can’t get enough of our President’s smack downs on hard working successful Americans known as “the 2%”
http://www.amazon.com/Hes-Just-That-Into-Understanding/dp/068987474X
I am sure, if we are really nice and stay quiet, everything will be alright and the President will become more centrist and that all his tough talk is just words; I mean he really loves us and when he beats us, he doesn’t mean it; he just gets a little angry….i mean when I am alone with him —at $30,000 a plate fund raisers—he’s really nice and once I got invited to the White House! It was so cool, because I could tell all my friends…and when he gives speeches, I mean i get to sit in the front row and my friends see me on TV…..and he usually doesn’t hit me in the face to it doesn’t show except for that one time…he’s not that bad really, unless he gets drunk (from power) and…..well, he really does love me or he wouldn’t invite me to all those $30,000 a plate fund raisers and ask my opinion all the time, right?
Henninger said it best in case you haven’t read his article:http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html (an excerpt below):
He lashed “the wealthiest Americans” three times, not to mention “the wealthiest 2% of Americans,” “tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires,” “wealthy people” and—channeling the French revolution—”the wealthiest estates.” (Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, answering the party’s casting call for the role of Madame Defarge, denounced the deal as “morally corrupt.” Keep her away from knitting needles.)
I don’t buy that all this was said as a sop to the angry left. One month into his presidency, the Obama budget message repeatedly ripped into “those at the commanding heights of our economy.” When at the White House Monday Mr. Obama suggested his next campaign will be “a conversation with the American people” about ending those rates (35%!) for “wealthy people,” I take him at his word. He won’t be at peace until this violation is erased.
Franklin Roosevelt in his speech to the 1936 Democratic Convention attacked what he called “economic royalists.” Nearly 75 years later, Barack Obama, everyone around him in the White House and the kind of Democrats who migrate to Washington seem stuck in some sort of Ma Joad idea of the American economy.
But they’ve gone FDR and John Steinbeck one better. In the world of the Grapes of Wrath Democrats now gagging over Barack Obama’s “sell-out” to the rich, the new economic royalists aren’t limited to “the Ishmael or Insull.” Now it’s any single person or married couple in America with a pre-tax income at $200,000 or $250,000.
DL
Daniel Loeb Letter to Obama Supporters
The following is a letter sent yesterday to a small group of Obama supporters by Thirdpoint's Daniel Loeb:
Track Gurus’ Stock Purchases Daily – Real Time Guru Picks
GuruFocus "Real Time Picks" reports the stock purchases and sales that Gurus have made within the prior 2 weeks. The report time lag can be as short as 3 days after the date of the transaction. This is just one of the features provided with GuruFocus Premium Membership.Rate this article:
Subscribe RSSComments
Davethebooker - Dec 11, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Run for president Mr. Loeb and see how you do , I suspect you would see it is a rather difficult job being president. After all when your beholding to all the interest groups who supported you , there will be a tendancy to wobble a bit. So Obama is wobbleing a bit who wouldn't. Weebles wobble but they dont fall down.
Paulwitt 
- Dec 11, 2010 at 3:37 PM
- Dec 11, 2010 at 3:37 PM Many politicians are idealogues, have no common sense, and are inflexible. The only hostages are the American people. You certainly don't want them managing your money, which unfortunately, they are.
250k is rich? How about 5 million instead. 55% tax rate on estates? How about 35%. How about an energy policy? I don't know if they know this but energy is a very large input cost in everything we do.
250k is rich? How about 5 million instead. 55% tax rate on estates? How about 35%. How about an energy policy? I don't know if they know this but energy is a very large input cost in everything we do.
Paulwitt - Dec 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM
- Dec 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM And we have another guy who writes tax laws, but just doesn't understand them.
Or a major piece of legislation is passed and the person in charge says we will have to figure out what's in it after it passes.
People in the private sector get fired for this stuff.
Or a major piece of legislation is passed and the person in charge says we will have to figure out what's in it after it passes.
People in the private sector get fired for this stuff.
Hester1 - Dec 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM
Finally, someone finally sticking up for the unfortunate and persecuted richest 2%. It's about time Obama and the middle class get their boot off of the throat of millionaires and billionaires. (sarcasm)
Finally, someone finally sticking up for the unfortunate and persecuted richest 2%. It's about time Obama and the middle class get their boot off of the throat of millionaires and billionaires. (sarcasm)
Paulwitt - Dec 11, 2010 at 8:31 PM
- Dec 11, 2010 at 8:31 PM Another thing that wasn't done - a war tax. How can someone think about fighting wars without paying for them?
Lmontgom - Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM
I wonder what kind of Kool-Aid this fool is drinking! The criminal class most responsible for the worldwide financial meltdown -- people like this ostensible writer -- keep drawing down the treasury for their "creative" instruments made of smoke, mirror but mainly thin air while millions of folks they think are too dirty to even acknowledge live in horror of losing their tenuous grasp on a foothold. Wake up, Wall Street. We're fed up with your shenanigans. Yes, the wealthy should pay higher taxes, and all -- make that ALL -- should pay the full percentage on Social Security (both the employers' and the individuals') on all their holdings. They don't invest in American industry, so let's make sure they help take care of "ordinary" Americans whom they've sold down the river. Go Sen. Bernie Sanders; filibuster the "deal" on taxes and let's tax the top 2% to the hilt.
BigBlue720 - Dec 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM
And I thought an American president was supposed to represent ALL of us and lead. Instead we have a doctrinaire socialist who is a proponent of class warfare. Thank goodness the bulk of Americans are still middle of the road and took back one part of Congress in the election from these nut job radicals.
Chris Christie for president!
Chris Christie for president!
Brianbook - Dec 14, 2010 at 4:39 PM
- Dec 14, 2010 at 4:39 PM Bush said that the war he chose (many think unjustly) would cost $200 billion or less. In fact, Bush was so confident in this estimate that he fired those that disagreed. The Iraq war has now cost American taxpayers $1 trillion & the number is increasing. Despite this cost, Bush refused to raise taxes.
As a matter of justice, maybe those making more than $1 million/year (especially those that elected Bush), should now pay higher taxes. It is my understanding their sons & daughters did not contribute military duty, & they can now best afford higher taxes while our economy struggles with > 10% unemployment. Our goal should be a just & peaceful society, in which all contribute & flourish.
As a matter of justice, maybe those making more than $1 million/year (especially those that elected Bush), should now pay higher taxes. It is my understanding their sons & daughters did not contribute military duty, & they can now best afford higher taxes while our economy struggles with > 10% unemployment. Our goal should be a just & peaceful society, in which all contribute & flourish.
Mick - Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 PM
- Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 PM Dear Mr DL,
I recommend Robert Reich's recent 'aftershock' to your kind attention. In this Financial Crisis we are re-tracing the Great Depression in cause and in effect.
Unless you've been living under a rock you know first-hand that we have arrived here after 30 or so years of systematically undoing the New Deal and concentrating more and more wealth at the upper end of the income spectrum.
According to Reich, in 1970 the richest 1% of the people took home 9% of the national income. By 2007 that same 1% took in 23.5% of US national income. He goes on to say that it isn't a mere coincidence that the last time income was that concentrated was 1928. The book has a lot more detail on this than I can repeat here.
It saddens me to tell you, Mr DL, that views like the one in your letter are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.
I agree with Reich that people like you have a choice to make:
You can either continue to take a disproportionate share of the nations income and de-facto remove it from the economic cycle for your private use. There is no stopping you: People like you control the wheels and the switches in D.C. well enough - until, perhaps, an unemployed, hungry and raging mob takes things in its own hands.
Or you can begin to see the wisdom in sharing more of the earnings that this society makes as a whole. And thus make life live-able again for the individuals that would otherwise end up being in that angry mob.
The choice is yours alone to make. I pray you chose wisely. And soon.
I recommend Robert Reich's recent 'aftershock' to your kind attention. In this Financial Crisis we are re-tracing the Great Depression in cause and in effect.
Unless you've been living under a rock you know first-hand that we have arrived here after 30 or so years of systematically undoing the New Deal and concentrating more and more wealth at the upper end of the income spectrum.
According to Reich, in 1970 the richest 1% of the people took home 9% of the national income. By 2007 that same 1% took in 23.5% of US national income. He goes on to say that it isn't a mere coincidence that the last time income was that concentrated was 1928. The book has a lot more detail on this than I can repeat here.
It saddens me to tell you, Mr DL, that views like the one in your letter are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.
I agree with Reich that people like you have a choice to make:
You can either continue to take a disproportionate share of the nations income and de-facto remove it from the economic cycle for your private use. There is no stopping you: People like you control the wheels and the switches in D.C. well enough - until, perhaps, an unemployed, hungry and raging mob takes things in its own hands.
Or you can begin to see the wisdom in sharing more of the earnings that this society makes as a whole. And thus make life live-able again for the individuals that would otherwise end up being in that angry mob.
The choice is yours alone to make. I pray you chose wisely. And soon.
