Pages

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

With Talents on Loan from God

"We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] [...]

We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. [Applause]

We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - -[Applause]

[...] We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.

Well. Take a look [...] at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us. [Applause]"

~ excerpted from the keynote CPAC speech by Rush Limbaugh [emphasis added]
Growing up, I quickly learned to hate one person: Rush Limbaugh. My father used to work out of our house, and that meant that he would walk around with an annoying little hand-held radio, listening to Rush. I hated it. I would tell my father that this guy is pompous (his intro states the title of this post), he's loud, and his 3-hour show could be shortened to two if he'd talk a little faster. 15 years or so later, I still think all of those are true, and never listen to his radio show (if I listen to anyone, it's typically Michael Medved) - but he is also absolutely brilliant, speaking with a level of clarity most of us could only dream of.

The speech he gave recently to the Conservative Political Action Committee lays out beautifully just what conservatives believe, don't believe, and why - something which unfortunately has not been done in a long time. I had the radio on for a few minutes while I was driving yesterday, and Michael Medved noted that one of President Bush's greatest failings was his inability to communicate just what it was conservatism was and why people believe in it.

After a hilarious joke about his own arrogance at 2:45, at about 4:50 in this first part Limbaugh starts to lay out just what conservatism is. One of the most interesting things about this speech (and what adds to its impressiveness), mentioned at one point by Limbaugh himself, is that Limbaugh uses no teleprompters, and almost no notes (he seems to have a single piece of paper in front of him). He is simply stating his beliefs, and does so better than many politicians do with every word set out in front of them. I highly recommend watching this speech (whatever your political beliefs are or are not), and I'm posting the first two parts below. Enjoy!


31 comments:

  1. I watched the speech and it was very good. I think people need to wake up and stat listening to the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush. I am personally a huge Michael Savage fan and I am very afraid that it is too late for this country. I think that in the next 2 years with the Dems in charge of everything, they are going to so fundamentally reshape the face of this country with no checks and balances that we are not going to recognize the country by the time it was done. I got an e-mail from the RNC yesterday looking for money for something and I responded and told them that until they shape up and start to stand for something they should not look to me for money. Be afraid, be very afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not as bad as usual, because he doesn't spell out the fact that he think Democrats are pure evil. He just insinuates. If you spell out his implications, it's just as mean-spirited, divisive, and unfair as his usual fare. It seems he can't stop himself from using "Democrat" as an adjective, though. Very mature.

    When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit.

    But the Democrats see only groups and victims, and want to exploit them.

    We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt.

    But the Democrats see him with contempt.

    We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

    No, you'll just pretend that the average American could be a rocket scientists if it weren't for that pesky federal government holding him down. Everybody can be above average!

    We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    LOLOLOLOL. Where the hell was this guy over the last 8 years?

    We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness.

    ...except for gay people. And suspected terrorists. And illegal drug users not named Rush Limbaugh. (And that's the Declaration of Independence.)

    We don't want to tell anybody how to live.

    LOL. Except for gay people. And people who don't want Christianity shoved down their throats in public schools.

    We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty.

    Riiight. Nobody's ever been helped by welfare or Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security or public schools. People are poorer now than they were 50 years ago.

    We love the people of this country.

    "We love the right-wing people of this country."

    Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.

    No Democrat has ever said or implied such a ridiculous thing.

    Well. Take a look [...] at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any.

    Blacks have not seen their lot improve at all in the last 50 years?? 50 years ago, Obama's parents wouldn't have been allowed to get married in some states. Now he's president.

    In summary, it's the typical slander of the Democratic party and their motives, complete denial that any discrimination or racism exists, complete denial that the "welfare state" has lifted millions of people out of poverty, etc. etc. etc.

    Rush Limbaugh is scum. Not because of his beliefs, although they are wrong, but because he uses his influence to instill hate and divisiveness. He not only doesn't look for the good results of the Democratic party, he can't even admit the good intentions.

    If someone went on a 3 hour rant every day against the Republic [sic] Party, how they're all racists and hate the poor and Muslims and non-Christians etc. etc. etc. you'd think that person was an evil idiot. But Rush does the same thing in the other direction, and you post him to your blog. What a crock.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HF - Not a fan of Savage whatsoever. He's over the top in a distasteful way. Agree on the RNC.

    JA - LOL. I love how you create your own interpretations of what he says, then complain about his "divisiveness". It's one of the most incredible cases of creating strawmen I've ever seen, and that's saying a lot, since I used to (and sometimes still do) read some pretty nutty leftist blogs.

    Re: gays, not at all. He specifically says at 2 or 3 points in the speech that we should not be involved in what people do behind closed doors.

    Where the hell does he ever say anything about shoving Christianity down people's throats?

    I love how not being for "gay marriage" is somehow equated to taking away their right to pursue happiness. Meanwhile, taking away people's guns, as protected by the 2nd amendment, is perfectly fine. Or, ya know, their money.

    The question is not whether *anyone* has been helped by welfare and the like, but whether more people are helped or held back by the country having it. And the answer is rather clear that the War on Poverty has been in a quagmire for 50 years thanks to those programs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But what REALLY gets me is this:

    We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

    No, you'll just pretend that the average American could be a rocket scientists if it weren't for that pesky federal government holding him down. Everybody can be above average!


    Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.

    No Democrat has ever said or implied such a ridiculous thing.


    Don't you realize YOU just did? Don't you realize how disgusting the attitudes and subsequent policies you have are?

    There will always - by definition! - be half a country that is below average. The question is not how to best bring everyone closer to a static average, which simply means dragging back those who are successful and discouraging innovation and ideas that can create success, but how to raise the average.

    No, not everyone can be or will be a rocket scientist or brain surgeon. But those that *can* be are discouraged from ever pursuing it in the first place, or discouraged along the way, or limited by ridiculous taxes and regulations which make pursuing lofty goals completely not worthwhile. Those who choose to help and invest in others are punished, rather being allowed to collect their share of the reward when the investment becomes successful.

    But it is the attitude that is so gross. Because in the end not everyone can be on top, the left will go out of their way to make sure nobody can. It is why I highlighted one of the most important concepts from the piece: There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes.

    The US government should be concerned not with how people end up, but with ensuring that nothing is being done to block their path from succeeding should they attempt to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JA - LOL. I love how you create your own interpretations of what he says, then complain about his "divisiveness".

    Oh please. You're telling me when he says things like "We don't see people we want to exploit," he's not implying that Democrats see only people they want to exploit?

    Re: gays, not at all. He specifically says at 2 or 3 points in the speech that we should not be involved in what people do behind closed doors.

    Oh please. He opposes gay marriage, yet has broken up 3 more straight marriages HIMSELF than gay marriage ever could.

    Where the hell does he ever say anything about shoving Christianity down people's throats?

    Okay, maybe that's not his bag. He leaves that to his brother.

    I love how not being for "gay marriage" is somehow equated to taking away their right to pursue happiness.

    !? Can you think of a more perfect example of being denied the right to pursue happiness?

    Meanwhile, taking away people's guns, as protected by the 2nd amendment, is perfectly fine.

    Never said that.

    Or, ya know, their money.

    Let me introduce you to this little thing called the 16th Amendment. Oh, what's that? You only like Amendments you agree with, huh?

    The question is not whether *anyone* has been helped by welfare and the like, but whether more people are helped or held back by the country having it. And the answer is rather clear that the War on Poverty has been in a quagmire for 50 years thanks to those programs.

    You can't just state ridiculous propositions as fact.

    Don't you realize YOU just did? Don't you realize how disgusting the attitudes and subsequent policies you have are?

    What, it's disgusting to recognize that people are born with vastly different abilities? Didn't Rush say the same thing?

    There will always - by definition! - be half a country that is below average. The question is not how to best bring everyone closer to a static average, which simply means dragging back those who are successful and discouraging innovation and ideas that can create success, but how to raise the average.

    Right. Which is what liberals and the Democratic Party try to do, by supporting welfare, education, affirmative action, etc. etc. etc.

    No, not everyone can be or will be a rocket scientist or brain surgeon. But those that *can* be are discouraged from ever pursuing it in the first place, or discouraged along the way, or limited by ridiculous taxes and regulations which make pursuing lofty goals completely not worthwhile. Those who choose to help and invest in others are punished, rather being allowed to collect their share of the reward when the investment becomes successful.

    This reframing of progressive income taxes as "punishment" is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's not punishment, it's how civilized societies function. Brain surgeons still make something like half a million dollars a year.

    Why is it the Republicans have tears only for those making "only" around $500,000 or more?

    But it is the attitude that is so gross. Because in the end not everyone can be on top, the left will go out of their way to make sure nobody can.

    That is 100% bullshit. The left does everything it can to HELP people climb up. The right pretends that reality is an Ayn Rand novel and everyone who's poor deserves to be.

    The US government should be concerned not with how people end up, but with ensuring that nothing is being done to block their path from succeeding should they attempt to.

    And it is, under the left. Under the right, the government does everything in its power to enable big corporations to block the little guy's path to success and to remove any help for the little guy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >The left does everything it can to HELP people climb up.

    With all due seriousness, I believe this is the noble cause, I really do, but I think the approach, and, the reality is the opposite. I think in order to do this, the left first has to overly preach victimhood and that without disgusting laws like AA, blacks, for example would not be able to rise up. "Not by their character, not by their talents will they be successful, but because we (the left) will emphasize your color and artificially lift you up whether you worked hard for it or not. It amazes me that minorities still vote democratic. I mean, I know why. Democrats are the ones that welcome them into the country and promise them every single thing under the sun whether they are deserved or not. But the horrible downside of all this, is that you get a society of entitlement. I mean, every parent when raising children knows this is the worse thing possible.

    In the end, with all the compassion, you end up creating an even worse society. I look at LA and see blocks upon blocks of neighborhoods that have just been on welfare and not moved up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >And it is, under the left. Under the right, the government does everything in its power to enable big corporations to block the little guy's path to success and to remove any help for the little guy.

    This is the usual slogan by the left. Never made sense to me, how the right with its magical powers is able to block the "little guy's" path to success (another example of the left always looking at this through the prism of David vs Goliath).

    LOL, by definition, most people that sit on boards, or even your average joe that invests in a corporation was a "little guy" once.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Firstly, JA, you've missed the entire point. A friend said it very well to me earlier.

    The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the purpose of this country, is not to provide certain "ends" to people. It is meant to provide people with the Freedom to determine their own fates. We do not guarantee happiness, but we do guarantee the unalienable right to Life, *Liberty*, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    The reason, my friend says, quoting from English Lit class, that it starts with "We hold these truths to be self-evident" as opposed to "these truths are self-evident" is because that is the definition of democracy.

    These truths are NOT self-evident. They are only self-evident because WE hold them to be so. WE choose that all people are created equal, no matter what. From there on, it is up to them to make the best of the cards that were handed them.

    As my friend said, "In the declaration of independence, it gives you the freedom to be independent. To be democratic. To make choices and mess up and yet still have that be American because the point is not that you messed up or made a mistake or were wrong, even. The point is that you acted according to your beliefs and were allowed to."

    ReplyDelete
  9. HH:

    With all due seriousness, I believe this is the noble cause, I really do

    Thank you! That's the huge problem I have with Limbaugh and his ilk. They pretend that liberals are not just wrong, but evil.

    I think in order to do this, the left first has to overly preach victimhood and that without disgusting laws like AA, blacks, for example would not be able to rise up.

    Not remotely true. The reason for AA is to level the playing field, not because blacks are less qualified, but because they were starting with fewer advantages. You think if George Bush were born a poor black boy with the exact same natural potential, he'd have gotten into Harvard or Yale, let alone become president? No way.

    Not by their character, not by their talents will they be successful, but because we (the left) will emphasize your color and artificially lift you up whether you worked hard for it or not.

    Again, not at all true. The left doesn't lift, the left helps people lift themselves. Nobody gets rich on welfare -- but tens of thousands get through the hard times with it and then get back on their feet again.


    It amazes me that minorities still vote democratic. I mean, I know why. Democrats are the ones that welcome them into the country and promise them every single thing under the sun whether they are deserved or not. But the horrible downside of all this, is that you get a society of entitlement. I mean, every parent when raising children knows this is the worse thing possible.

    Oh please. The left isn't handing out Hummers and ipods. It's making sure that everybody gets the bare minimum and those who want to climb up have the tools and the access to do so.

    In the end, with all the compassion, you end up creating an even worse society. I look at LA and see blocks upon blocks of neighborhoods that have just been on welfare and not moved up.

    And your hypothesis is that without welfare, they would have moved up? What do you base that on, other than cartoon logic?

    This is the usual slogan by the left. Never made sense to me, how the right with its magical powers is able to block the "little guy's" path to success (another example of the left always looking at this through the prism of David vs Goliath).

    It's not magic. It's real-life issues. Corporations, naturally, want to exploit those without leverage. For example, back in the day, they used child labor, paid a fraction of labor's actual worth, didn't ensure their worker's safety, etc. Why? Because they had the power and that made them more profit. The left came along and fixed all of those things.

    And yes, I know the conservative arguments that corporations won't be able to hire people at those wages and conditions etc., and there's some truth to that especially in the age of globalization, but it's just a matter of finding the right equilibrium.

    LOL, by definition, most people that sit on boards, or even your average joe that invests in a corporation was a "little guy" once.

    Not true. There's very little upward income mobility in America, despite right-wing mythology.

    "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ezzie:

    The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the purpose of this country, is not to provide certain "ends" to people. It is meant to provide people with the Freedom to determine their own fates. We do not guarantee happiness, but we do guarantee the unalienable right to Life, *Liberty*, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    Obviously. Agree 100%.

    These truths are NOT self-evident. They are only self-evident because WE hold them to be so. WE choose that all people are created equal, no matter what. From there on, it is up to them to make the best of the cards that were handed them.

    Yes, the Republican ethos. "You're on your own." George Bush was born on third base, and you were born to an addict mom living on the streets. And you're only 12. So what? Man up and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You don't see George Bush going to school on the government's dime or getting free health care or school lunches. Quit being so lazy -- if you were a worthy human being, you'd be rich already.

    What's wrong with providing some help, especially since it's in our self-interest as a nation?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Then there's the actual content of your remarks; kind of pointless to argue, since you've missed the point, but for kicks:

    Oh please. You're telling me when he says things like "We don't see people we want to exploit," he's not implying that Democrats see only people they want to exploit?

    No. He's saying that that is what ends up happening all too often.

    "He specifically says at 2 or 3 points in the speech that we should not be involved in what people do behind closed doors."

    Oh please. He opposes gay marriage, yet has broken up 3 more straight marriages HIMSELF than gay marriage ever could.


    Explain how that is relevant at all.

    !? Can you think of a more perfect example of being denied the right to pursue happiness?

    Sure. 20-year olds being denied the right to purchase alcohol.

    Just in case you misunderstand, I do NOT think that that 20-year olds being denied alcohol is a denial of their right to pursue happiness.

    Let me introduce you to this little thing called the 16th Amendment. Oh, what's that? You only like Amendments you agree with, huh?

    I have no problem with the 16th Amendment, especially considering it just explains how taxes have to work, not whether taxes can be collected. :)

    And I have no problem with the idea of taxes being raised for worthy, moral, fair causes. I just fail to see how almost any welfare programs are either just or wise.

    You can't just state ridiculous propositions as fact.

    You yourself comment just a few minutes later that there is little upward mobility in this country. Yet when I say that the war on poverty has done little to get the poor out of their status, you call it a ridiculous proposition. Which is it?

    What, it's disgusting to recognize that people are born with vastly different abilities? Didn't Rush say the same thing?

    No, it's disgusting to imply that people cannot succeed without "help"!

    Right. Which is what liberals and the Democratic Party try to do, by supporting welfare, education, affirmative action, etc. etc. etc.

    ...which have done little to nothing, if not had a negative impact, on bringing people to the middle. It simply forces a bottom line that people are guaranteed if they fit certain criteria and discourages people from trying to move too far above that line, lest they risk falling below it.

    Moreover, it does so by taking heavily from anyone who IS trying to move upwards, which is arguably immoral and certainly takes away from creation.

    This reframing of progressive income taxes as "punishment" is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's not punishment, it's how civilized societies function.

    Progressive taxes is how "civilized societies" function? Really? So what were we until the early 20th century? More importantly, flat taxes over a threshold are far more moral and far less wasteful. The only reason people favor "progressive" taxes is because it's excused as taking from people who don't need it.

    Brain surgeons still make something like half a million dollars a year.

    Why is it the Republicans have tears only for those making "only" around $500,000 or more?


    !? That's disgusting.

    Moreover, you missed that point as well. Why would someone become a brain surgeon, spending over a dozen years in post-high school education, just to have the chance at earning about $250,000 in post-tax money, which would then be reduced by another $50k because of malpractice insurance and would require him to pay back about $300,000 in student loans when he could instead just sit, relax, and work some 9-5 job starting 12 years earlier and quickly work his way to a cool $90k or so because he's obviously got the brains for it?

    You've created a huge disincentive for skilled people to utilize their talents.

    That is 100% bullshit. The left does everything it can to HELP people climb up.

    No, it really doesn't. It does everything it can to make sure there's nobody in the gutter*, consequences be damned - and yet it still doesn't get those people out of the gutter. (* I assume noble intentions.)

    The right pretends that reality is an Ayn Rand novel and everyone who's poor deserves to be.

    No, the right understands that government control has negative effects, and that freedom is completely different from what the left thinks. (Freedom = guaranteed housing, medical care, et al.)

    And it is, under the left. Under the right, the government does everything in its power to enable big corporations to block the little guy's path to success and to remove any help for the little guy.

    LOLOL. Really? It's the left that feels a need to "protect" companies that are "too big to fail". It is the right which promotes small businesses. It is the left which wants to tax them out of business. It is the corporations which are successful which rise to the top - because they provide all of us with better, cheaper products. Companies which almost always sell shares of themselves to the public to invest in - if any "little guy" wishes to invest in any company, he can. Etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, the Republican ethos. "You're on your own...Quit being so lazy -- if you were a worthy human being, you'd be rich already.

    You're missing the point. It's not, "you're on your own, stop being so lazy." It's, "we're giving you the freedom to make your own choices." Because of that, anyone is able to find opportunities to succeed and achieve if they so choose. You're right, things are not necessarily handed over on a silver platter. But just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it's impossible, and the only person who will tell you it's impossible is yourself. If you want to achieve something, find a way. In America, you have that freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >Not remotely true. The reason for AA is to level the playing field, not because blacks are less qualified, but because they were starting with fewer advantages. You think if George Bush were born a poor black boy with the exact same natural potential, he'd have gotten into Harvard or Yale, let alone become president? No way.

    Thats the problem, it tries to level the playing field at a time with kids are no longer living with institutional racism by a reverse racism to actually LOOK at someones color rather than their character to see if they qualify for something they might not be. Now why are there so many poor black boys? Is it racism? Perhaps the problem is something that pumping their communities with welfare check and creating more entitlement is not the answer. I am proud that Obama last year said that black fathers need to start BEING fathers. Of course there are problems that lead to more poor black boys. But I believe the left in their wanting to help is making things worse.

    I am not against helping people with money. But what is going on now is even worse. Now people are deciding to live off on this and giving no incentive to go out and be responsible. So clearly you will have more poor black boys that you claim need help by reverse discrimination. Its a never ending cycle.

    >Again, not at all true. The left doesn't lift, the left helps people lift themselves. Nobody gets rich on welfare -- but tens of thousands get through the hard times with it and then get back on their feet again.

    The left tries to help, but sometimes what is needed is perhaps a bit of tough love. Not more welfare. Its just normal human nature. The more you give, the more they will want. Look at the rioting in Europe countries that are so heavily socialized. The second you take away something, the people fall apart, unable to be on their own two legs.

    >Oh please. The left isn't handing out Hummers and ipods. It's making sure that everybody gets the bare minimum and those who want to climb up have the tools and the access to do so.

    It doesn't need to get to the level of hummers and ipods to create a society of entitlement. All you have to do is make it more and more easy to pick up a larger and larger check. And then, have the government lift you by the hands and escort you to college because you are black.

    >And your hypothesis is that without welfare, they would have moved up? What do you base that on, other than cartoon logic?

    And your hypothesis is with welfare it will help them move up. Clearly, it doesn't work. More and more kids drop out of even high school. A problem LA is trying to deal with. Clearly, making it harder to get welfare is only a component to to a bigger picture. Another thing is exactly what Obama said.

    >Because they had the power and that made them more profit. The left came along and fixed all of those things.

    Not everything today is it was regarding people being exploited. Your assessment is that there is some pan conspiracy to block everyone that is not a corporate elite

    >Not true. There's very little upward income mobility in America, despite right-wing mythology.

    So then how narrowly are you defining the "little guy?" And how are corporations blocking the the little guy to succeed? I would think I am a little guy in this country as well (if I told you how much I make, you would agree). Yet the right or corporations don't block me from going to college or making investments.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Erachet

    JA would agree with you, but he would counter that, for example, black people are disenfranchised today and CAN'T do it on their own. It's a sentiment you hear over and over and over again. Clearly, there is disenfranchisement, but the question is why? You know what JA would say.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you! That's the huge problem I have with Limbaugh and his ilk. They pretend that liberals are not just wrong, but evil.

    That's misunderstanding their points. While I personally am not a fan of demonizing, their objection is that the policies themselves are evil, and any sane person who would institute them is carrying out an evil act.

    Also, ironic coming from a world where Bush = Hitler. Whether you believe it or not, there's a huge minority in this country which thinks Bush and Cheney are absolutely evil beings, rather than people whose policies they disagreed with.

    The reason for AA is to level the playing field, not because blacks are less qualified, but because they were starting with fewer advantages.

    Really!?!?! That's such bull. If that were true, it would be based solely on socioeconomic criteria, not quotas as to how many black slots must be filled.

    You think if George Bush were born a poor black boy with the exact same natural potential, he'd have gotten into Harvard or Yale, let alone become president? No way.

    Why not? Barack Obama did.

    Plus, I think we should restrict natural potential to make it fair. After all, I was born a poor kid in a poor, black neighborhood, plus I'm an Orthodox Jew who has a hard time being able to work in certain fields or move up by working extra hours. Yet I continually outperformed all of my peers, despite many of them being well-to-do doctors' kids with all the amenities that come with it - and all because of my natural abilities. How fair is that?! It's horrible. I should have been made to wear a headpiece that would keep me in line with everyone else.

    There's a movie about this, and for the life of me, I can't think of the name...

    Again, not at all true. The left doesn't lift, the left helps people lift themselves. Nobody gets rich on welfare -- but tens of thousands get through the hard times with it and then get back on their feet again.

    LOL you missed the point again. Nobody argues that welfare "gets people rich". The argument, clearly shown over the last 50 years, is that welfare and the like do little to help the people it's designed to help, it encourages those same people to stay in a lower socioeconomic realm because they'd lose the benefits they are getting should they attempt to be successful, and in the process, it also unfairly takes from those who ARE trying to be successful.

    Oh please. The left isn't handing out Hummers and ipods. It's making sure that everybody gets the bare minimum and those who want to climb up have the tools and the access to do so.

    Yet it actively discourages them from using those tools.

    And yes, I know the conservative arguments that corporations won't be able to hire people at those wages and conditions etc., and there's some truth to that especially in the age of globalization, but it's just a matter of finding the right equilibrium.

    And do you honestly think that that equilibrium is more to the left than where we are now? Really? How?!

    Not true. There's very little upward income mobility in America, despite right-wing mythology.

    Duh! That's the point! The "war on poverty" has simply entrenched the poor at a slightly better level of poor, but that's it - they are forced to make the *rational* decision to NOT try and move up because the disincentives against are too high. Everyone else, meanwhile, is pretty much kept where they are, instead of continuing to expand and progress.

    Finally, around 80% of millionaires are first-generation millionaires, yet that hasn't changed the mobility stats much. Think about that. BTW, I think you really need to read that book.

    Yes, the Republican ethos. "You're on your own." George Bush was born on third base, and you were born to an addict mom living on the streets. And you're only 12. So what? Man up and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You don't see George Bush going to school on the government's dime or getting free health care or school lunches. Quit being so lazy -- if you were a worthy human being, you'd be rich already.

    What's wrong with providing some help, especially since it's in our self-interest as a nation?


    See Erachet's response.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ezzie:

    You yourself comment just a few minutes later that there is little upward mobility in this country. Yet when I say that the war on poverty has done little to get the poor out of their status, you call it a ridiculous proposition. Which is it?

    The war on poverty hasn't increased mobility (largely because of Reagan and his followers) but it has provided food, shelter, medical care, education, etc. to tons of people.

    No, it's disgusting to imply that people cannot succeed without "help"!

    EVERYBODY needs help.

    ...which have done little to nothing, if not had a negative impact, on bringing people to the middle. It simply forces a bottom line that people are guaranteed if they fit certain criteria and discourages people from trying to move too far above that line, lest they risk falling below it.

    Yes, there are some negative consequences of every action. Personally, I think the utility of welfare and health care for those who NEED it is well worth the costs. There aren't too many people who are happy living on welfare, etc., especially post welfare-reform.

    Moreover, it does so by taking heavily from anyone who IS trying to move upwards, which is arguably immoral and certainly takes away from creation.

    No. Not true. Just flat out false. It takes money from those who have it in scads.

    More importantly, flat taxes over a threshold are far more moral and far less wasteful.

    "More moral" is your opinion. "Less wasteful" is just untrue.

    The only reason people favor "progressive" taxes is because it's excused as taking from people who don't need it.

    That's not an excuse, it's the truth. Warren Buffet really can afford to pay a much higher percentage than Joe the Plumber can.

    Moreover, you missed that point as well. Why would someone become a brain surgeon, spending over a dozen years in post-high school education, just to have the chance at earning about $250,000 in post-tax money, which would then be reduced by another $50k because of malpractice insurance and would require him to pay back about $300,000 in student loans when he could instead just sit, relax, and work some 9-5 job starting 12 years earlier and quickly work his way to a cool $90k or so because he's obviously got the brains for it?

    The problem there is with the health care and insurance agencies, not with progressive taxation.

    LOLOL. Really? It's the left that feels a need to "protect" companies that are "too big to fail".

    Because "too big to fail" means that if they fail, the rest of us are screwed.

    It is the right which promotes small businesses.

    LOL. Seriously. LOLOLOLOLOL. Rhetoric ain't reality, Ezzie.

    It is the corporations which are successful which rise to the top - because they provide all of us with better, cheaper products.

    Life is not an Ayn Rand novel. Microsoft rose to the top with worse, more expensive products. I'm not saying that's necessarily an awful thing, just pointing out how ridiculous right-wing mythology is.

    Companies which almost always sell shares of themselves to the public to invest in - if any "little guy" wishes to invest in any company, he can. Etc. etc.

    Yeah, he can buy 10 shares and George Bush can buy a controlling interest. Same thing.


    Erachet:

    You're missing the point. It's not, "you're on your own, stop being so lazy." It's, "we're giving you the freedom to make your own choices." Because of that, anyone is able to find opportunities to succeed and achieve if they so choose. You're right, things are not necessarily handed over on a silver platter. But just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it's impossible, and the only person who will tell you it's impossible is yourself. If you want to achieve something, find a way. In America, you have that freedom.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's much, much more difficult than Republicans like to pretend. See my link above regarding income mobility.


    HH:

    Thats the problem, it tries to level the playing field at a time with kids are no longer living with institutional racism

    Whether AA has outlived its usefulness is a different debate. I'm talking about its origins.

    Now why are there so many poor black boys? Is it racism? Perhaps the problem is something that pumping their communities with welfare check and creating more entitlement is not the answer.

    I never said it's the answer. I'm saying it's our duty as a society.

    I am proud that Obama last year said that black fathers need to start BEING fathers. Of course there are problems that lead to more poor black boys. But I believe the left in their wanting to help is making things worse.

    Obviously more black fathers need to start being fathers. But that's not under our control. Your belief that the left is making things worse is just your belief. It's not a fact.

    I am not against helping people with money. But what is going on now is even worse. Now people are deciding to live off on this and giving no incentive to go out and be responsible.

    Oh come on. Who consciously decides to be irresponsible so they can live on welfare? How long do they get away with it?

    So clearly you will have more poor black boys that you claim need help by reverse discrimination. Its a never ending cycle.

    Maybe it is never-ending. I don't see why helping kids brought up in horrible environments is a bad thing, though.

    The left tries to help, but sometimes what is needed is perhaps a bit of tough love. Not more welfare. Its just normal human nature. The more you give, the more they will want. Look at the rioting in Europe countries that are so heavily socialized. The second you take away something, the people fall apart, unable to be on their own two legs.

    More Randian nonsense. Again, the left isn't handing out Hummers and Blockbuster cards.

    It doesn't need to get to the level of hummers and ipods to create a society of entitlement. All you have to do is make it more and more easy to pick up a larger and larger check. And then, have the government lift you by the hands and escort you to college because you are black.

    The checks don't get larger and larger (in real dollars.)

    And your hypothesis is with welfare it will help them move up.

    No. My hypothesis is that welfare will let them keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Prerequisites for moving up, probably, but not sufficient by itself.

    Your assessment is that there is some pan conspiracy to block everyone that is not a corporate elite

    It's not a conspiracy, it's capitalism. That's just how it works, and it's the reason it has to be regulated.

    So then how narrowly are you defining the "little guy?" And how are corporations blocking the the little guy to succeed? I would think I am a little guy in this country as well (if I told you how much I make, you would agree). Yet the right or corporations don't block me from going to college or making investments.

    I'm not saying they're blocking you. But they're sure going to try to hoard the profits and externalize the costs.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's misunderstanding their points. While I personally am not a fan of demonizing, their objection is that the policies themselves are evil, and any sane person who would institute them is carrying out an evil act.

    That's not how he talks though. His show is three hours of hate.

    Also, ironic coming from a world where Bush = Hitler. Whether you believe it or not, there's a huge minority in this country which thinks Bush and Cheney are absolutely evil beings, rather than people whose policies they disagreed with.

    Yes, but we don't have highly venerated people that the leaders of the Democratic party have to kowtow to the way Steele just groveled to Limbaugh. People are always going to think evil of their opponents. It's different to have a guy ranting about it for three hours every day on nationally syndicated radio.

    Really!?!?! That's such bull. If that were true, it would be based solely on socioeconomic criteria, not quotas as to how many black slots must be filled.

    Not a bad idea.

    Why not? Barack Obama did.

    LOL. Barack Obama's got more talent in his little finger than Bush has in his whole body. The Obamas of the world are going to climb out of the ghettos with or without help. It's the normal people we need to help.

    Plus, I think we should restrict natural potential to make it fair. After all, I was born a poor kid in a poor, black neighborhood, plus I'm an Orthodox Jew who has a hard time being able to work in certain fields or move up by working extra hours. Yet I continually outperformed all of my peers, despite many of them being well-to-do doctors' kids with all the amenities that come with it - and all because of my natural abilities. How fair is that?! It's horrible. I should have been made to wear a headpiece that would keep me in line with everyone else.

    Vonnegut would be horrified to hear you using his story like that. Nobody on the left tries to keep talent down. We're trying to raise everybody's level, not lower the top's.

    LOL you missed the point again. Nobody argues that welfare "gets people rich". The argument, clearly shown over the last 50 years, is that welfare and the like do little to help the people it's designed to help, it encourages those same people to stay in a lower socioeconomic realm because they'd lose the benefits they are getting should they attempt to be successful, and in the process, it also unfairly takes from those who ARE trying to be successful.

    Just because the poor stay poor doesn't mean that welfare keeps them that way.

    Yet it actively discourages them from using those tools.

    What tools?
    ibrium.

    And do you honestly think that that equilibrium is more to the left than where we are now? Really? How?!

    I didn't say that.

    Duh! That's the point! The "war on poverty" has simply entrenched the poor at a slightly better level of poor, but that's it - they are forced to make the *rational* decision to NOT try and move up because the disincentives against are too high. Everyone else, meanwhile, is pretty much kept where they are, instead of continuing to expand and progress.

    People aren't choosing not to become middle class because they love living on welfare, Ezzie.

    Finally, around 80% of millionaires are first-generation millionaires, yet that hasn't changed the mobility stats much. Think about that. BTW, I think you really need to read that book.

    Inflation. I doubt too many of them are coming up out of the ghettos.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >I'm saying it's our duty as a society.

    Clearly. I am not against helping poor people. But if you see trends that more people file for welfare checks and other gov't assitance programs (as well as plenty of lies and forgeries) you are giving no incentives for them to be on their own. So you will respond that its minimum to put food on the table. Well, that seems to be the problem. Where do you draw the line. In the end, I believe through a welfare state you end up with more poor black boys, not less.


    >Oh come on. Who consciously decides to be irresponsible so they can live on welfare? How long do they get away with it?

    Oh come now. Lets at least be serious. Too many people are getting away with it. You think huge government agencies can start checking at if people are lying or not? You don't even know how easy it is to get these checks. My wife and I were on WICK for a bit. There is NO checking of income. All you need is a signed letter. And when we called to cancel our checks, they told us not to, because if people stop taking checks, the fed. govt. will stop funding them.

    >More Randian nonsense. Again, the left isn't handing out Hummers and Blockbuster cards.

    Didn't say they were. But there is unintended consequences to everything

    >The checks don't get larger and larger (in real dollars.)

    then in fake ones?

    >It's not a conspiracy, it's capitalism. That's just how it works, and it's the reason it has to be regulated.

    Sure, some things can be regulated, but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. I mean, regulation used improperly is exactly what brought us the community reinvestment act.

    >I'm not saying they're blocking you. But they're sure going to try to hoard the profits and externalize the costs.

    Then:

    A) Dont say: "Under the right, the government does everything in its power to enable big corporations to block the little guy's path to success and to remove any help for the little guy."

    B) Its a company, they have a right to hoard the profits. If you had a company, you would hoard the profits as well. Its how companies become profitable for the investors, which are regular Americans as well. As long as nothing illegal is happening

    ReplyDelete
  19. The war on poverty hasn't increased mobility (largely because of Reagan and his followers) but it has provided food, shelter, medical care, education, etc. to tons of people.

    Largely because of Reagan?! Are you serious?

    Sure it has - and it also kept them and the rest of the country down in the process.

    EVERYBODY needs help.

    DINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner! Except you don't really believe it - rich people don't need help, they need to share. White people don't need help, they have an inherent advantage. Same goes for men. Etc. etc. But that you even wish to make the claim is where the left is killing the country - the idea that only government can really help them get where they need to be (and that location as well is decided by government).

    Yes, there are some negative consequences of every action. Personally, I think the utility of welfare and health care for those who NEED it is well worth the costs.

    But that's laughable. The numbers simply don't show that to be true, and more importantly, the more we move toward a welfare state the more laughable it would be - if it weren't so destructive. When we're about to change to a society where over HALF the people get more than they give into government, it's mind-boggling to claim that it's for those who "need" it. The only way that can be true is if you've successfully destroyed the ability or desire of a sizable portion of the population to get out of that state.

    There aren't too many people who are happy living on welfare, etc., especially post welfare-reform.

    A - Welfare reform came from...? :)
    B - Not even true. There are plenty of people who are perhaps not thrilled, but they certainly have little impetus to move up. If they work, they lose their benefits. I have a feeling I know far more people who are receiving some type of government benefit than you do, and I can assure you that this is the mentality: Keep everything low until it's all perfectly in place to jump to being well-off, when you can handle the loss of the benefits and the taxes that will be coming. It's not selfish, it's rational.

    No. Not true. Just flat out false. It takes money from those who have it in scads.

    BS. It takes it from people who earn it, at all levels - and a good chunk of those are small businesses. When small businesses suffer, a huge chunk of the country does, because that's where they work.

    "More moral" is your opinion. "Less wasteful" is just untrue.

    More moral is obvious. Less wasteful is clear. Do you know how much money is wasted on unnecessary accounting maneuvers and the like, and how much is lost to tax shelters and the incredible amount of tax breaks for various loopholes?

    That's not an excuse, it's the truth. Warren Buffet really can afford to pay a much higher percentage than Joe the Plumber can.

    That doesn't mean it's moral!

    WB creates far more than Joe. Even with a flat tax, he'd be paying billions more than Joe. Instead, what ends up happening is that we try to punish him for being successful by putting him in a higher bracket, but his accountants shield his money such that he pays a tiny fraction of it.

    John Kerry in 2004 paid about 13% in taxes, despite having a chunk of the Heinz fortune. How does that make sense?! The people who pay the highest percentage end up being those who are moderately successful but haven't hit that level where they can hire top-notch service. It's a nice way to consistently hold back small businesses and the like.

    The problem there is with the health care and insurance agencies, not with progressive taxation.

    LOL! Really?! It's actually both, and the reason health care and insurance have gotten so high is because of lawsuits and the onerous regulations that make it impossible to do what a doctor thinks is necessary without fear of such a lawsuit. It's insanity, and we can blame John Edwards and his ilk for a lot of it.

    Because "too big to fail" means that if they fail, the rest of us are screwed.

    LOL. That primarily happens because of costly regulations making it extremely difficult for other companies to get off the ground! And supporting them means we're more screwed, unless they suddenly become paragons of efficiency and success. Instead, we have three car companies just soaking all our money. (For example.)

    LOL. Seriously. LOLOLOLOLOL. Rhetoric ain't reality, Ezzie.

    !? How does the left encourage small business?

    Life is not an Ayn Rand novel. Microsoft rose to the top with worse, more expensive products. I'm not saying that's necessarily an awful thing, just pointing out how ridiculous right-wing mythology is.

    Not only was that a rarity, but they still provided tremendous growth for the country. Then, other companies figured out ways to show their stuff was better and drove prices down hard. RW "mythology" in action.

    Yeah, he can buy 10 shares and George Bush can buy a controlling interest. Same thing.

    LOL. That's moronic. Do you suggest allowing the poor guy to buy the same controlling interest because they weren't given the same benefits at birth?

    I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's much, much more difficult than Republicans like to pretend.

    Yes, thanks to liberal policies that hold people back!

    See my link above regarding income mobility.

    See above.

    Whether AA has outlived its usefulness is a different debate. I'm talking about its origins.

    LOL. Really? Try getting rid of it. See which side fights it tooth and nail.

    Two major problems with government: 1) No program is ever repealed. 2) Programs create by definition special interest groups who will always ensure that their interests are protected at the expense of everyone else.

    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  20. HH:

    Where do you draw the line. In the end, I believe through a welfare state you end up with more poor black boys, not less.

    I just don't see how that could be true. And it's not just black people who are on welfare, of course.

    Oh come now. Lets at least be serious. Too many people are getting away with it.

    If that's true, we should do something about it. But the answer can't be to get rid of the whole program.

    then in fake ones?

    "Real dollars" means adjusted for inflation.

    A) Dont say: "Under the right, the government does everything in its power to enable big corporations to block the little guy's path to success and to remove any help for the little guy."

    But they are. They constantly kill the small businesses Republicans pretend to be for.

    B) Its a company, they have a right to hoard the profits. If you had a company, you would hoard the profits as well. Its how companies become profitable for the investors, which are regular Americans as well. As long as nothing illegal is happening

    Exactly. Which is why we need to regulate them.


    Ezzie:

    Largely because of Reagan?! Are you serious?

    Do I need to pull out my chart of income growth under Republicans vs. Democrats again? Short version is nobody but the richest quintile does well under Republicans.

    DINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner! Except you don't really believe it - rich people don't need help, they need to share. White people don't need help, they have an inherent advantage. Same goes for men. Etc. etc. But that you even wish to make the claim is where the left is killing the country - the idea that only government can really help them get where they need to be (and that location as well is decided by government).

    Please don't straw man me or the left.

    But that's laughable. The numbers simply don't show that to be true

    It's a moral argument.

    When we're about to change to a society where over HALF the people get more than they give into government, it's mind-boggling to claim that it's for those who "need" it.

    I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but you're clearly combining various aspects of government spending here.

    A - Welfare reform came from...? :)

    Clinton, who promised to "end welfare as we know it" when he was running. Revisionist Republicans like to take credit for it, but unless they were running his campaign, I can't see how that's fair. Even if it were true, though, that is a good thing for the opposition party -- trim the excess of the party in power, not to stonewall the whole damn thing like the current Republicans are doing. For example, the Republicans could have negotiated a better (according to them) stimulus. However, they preferred to get zero votes in the Senate so they can claim some sort of victory and hope to hell the economy keeps tanking and they can say I told you so.

    BS. It takes it from people who earn it, at all levels - and a good chunk of those are small businesses. When small businesses suffer, a huge chunk of the country does, because that's where they work.

    The left does nothing significant to hurt small businesses. It's all rhetoric. Maybe 1% of small businesses would be negatively affected by repealing Bush's tax cuts.

    More moral is obvious.

    Obvious to you, not me.

    Do you know how much money is wasted on unnecessary accounting maneuvers and the like, and how much is lost to tax shelters and the incredible amount of tax breaks for various loopholes?

    LOL. Only a Republican could blame that on taxes rather than on the corporations gaming the system. We should outlaw that kind of manipulation -- especially tax shelters.

    That's not an excuse, it's the truth. Warren Buffet really can afford to pay a much higher percentage than Joe the Plumber can.

    That doesn't mean it's moral!


    It does in my opinion and in most Americans' opinions. Including Warren Buffet and many others in the top brackets.

    WB creates far more than Joe. Even with a flat tax, he'd be paying billions more than Joe. Instead, what ends up happening is that we try to punish him for being successful by putting him in a higher bracket, but his accountants shield his money such that he pays a tiny fraction of it.

    It's not punishment. It's part of being a citizen of this country. And again, such shielding should be illegal.

    LOL! Really?! It's actually both, and the reason health care and insurance have gotten so high is because of lawsuits and the onerous regulations that make it impossible to do what a doctor thinks is necessary without fear of such a lawsuit. It's insanity, and we can blame John Edwards and his ilk for a lot of it.

    I agree with the lawsuits part, not sure about the regulations or John Edwards.

    LOL. That primarily happens because of costly regulations making it extremely difficult for other companies to get off the ground!

    What, Mom and Pop are going to replace AIG?

    And supporting them means we're more screwed, unless they suddenly become paragons of efficiency and success. Instead, we have three car companies just soaking all our money. (For example.)

    Could be.

    !? How does the left encourage small business?

    How about by pushing universal health care, for example? That way people can start their own businesses without worrying about going without health care. How about trust busting? How about infrastructure? Education? Etc.

    Not only was that a rarity, but they still provided tremendous growth for the country. Then, other companies figured out ways to show their stuff was better and drove prices down hard. RW "mythology" in action.

    It's not a rarity. The best product rarely wins. And other companies were only able to step up after the "liberal" anti-trust actions.

    LOL. That's moronic. Do you suggest allowing the poor guy to buy the same controlling interest because they weren't given the same benefits at birth?

    I didn't say that. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to argue that the stock market helps the little guy as much as it does the big guy.

    LOL. Really? Try getting rid of it. See which side fights it tooth and nail.

    Well, gee, let me think. The party who wins no demographic except white males would throw a party. Shocking.

    Try repealing AA for legacies. See which party fights that.

    Programs create by definition special interest groups who will always ensure that their interests are protected at the expense of everyone else.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. That's the foundation of (small d) democratic politics.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Obviously more black fathers need to start being fathers. But that's not under our control. Your belief that the left is making things worse is just your belief. It's not a fact.

    No, it's pretty clear. The more people can "get by fine" without fathers the less backlash people get for abandoning mothers. As Chris Rock said so well about those who pride themselves on "I take care of my kids!" - "Yeah, MFer?! Big deal! You're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids!!"

    Maybe it is never-ending. I don't see why helping kids brought up in horrible environments is a bad thing, though.

    It's not. It's the way it's done that is.

    More Randian nonsense. Again, the left isn't handing out Hummers and Blockbuster cards.

    So what!? How is that nonsense? If you've been telling a person their entire life "you can't do it, you didn't grow up rich" and you keep giving them more than enough to get by fine, why would they try to move up out of that? Honestly?

    No. My hypothesis is that welfare will let them keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Prerequisites for moving up, probably, but not sufficient by itself.

    And if it gives them all their basic needs, why *should* they move up? If they think they can't make it far, no point. If they can, they know that it'll just end up right back with government anyway, after years and years of hard work and tough times.

    It's not a conspiracy, it's capitalism. That's just how it works, and it's the reason it has to be regulated.

    That's just dumb. PLEASE LEARN ECONOMICS. Show me ONE example in the past 75 years where the people were negatively impacted by too free of a market where they had no choice but to bend to the dictates of the corporate world. (I can think of only one, and that's solely foreign-based.)

    I'm not saying they're blocking you. But they're sure going to try to hoard the profits and externalize the costs.

    LOL. So instead, let's tax them! That'll cut their profits! Until of course they raise prices and fire more workers to retain those profits. Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  22. >But the answer can't be to get rid of the whole program.

    I never said get rid of it. I think it should be harder to get on it. It shouldn't be just walk through the doors and be handed a check.

    >But they are. They constantly kill the small businesses Republicans pretend to be for.

    First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "constantly." Second, how does that, equal, not allowing the little guy to succeed? Its called competition. Everyone in the game does it. Even two small businesses try to out compete each other till the other closes. I'm curious if you do your shopping at Walmart. Do you also buy books on Amazon? If you do, do you realize you are killing off small time book stores.

    >Exactly. Which is why we need to regulate them.

    I don't follow. Your gripe with them is not that they are doing anything illegal, but that they "hoarding" (whatever that means) or externalize costs, which are legal. I mean, the ugly secret here is that as average americans that invest in these companies, you WANT these companies to do all they can to be profitable as long as its legal. So I don't follow what regulating does. Should we regulate how much they charge for their product in the mean time?

    ReplyDelete
  23. >The left does nothing significant to hurt small businesses.

    Significant is subjective. I am sure some business would have words with you. Things that hurt small business are mandatory remodeling for handicapped (such as ramps and bathrooms), minimum wage increases, excessive taxes on just about anything for some city project, rate hikes in such things as city parking meters and environmental rules, etc etc etc all hurt small businesses where as larger ones can move past it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. >Until of course they raise prices and fire more workers to retain those profits. Brilliant.

    And then the unions will complain about the cutbacks not realizing their fellow democrats don't really help when they tax the companies too much.

    I have a co worker, that is an admitted socialist (she is from a kibbutz) (Ezzie, she is on my facebook). One thing she admitted to me. She used to work for the Studios till much of them moved to Canada and people here lost their jobs, because the companies in CA were taxed so much and Canada actually gave them insentives.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I just don't see how that could be true.

    Go look at the stats.

    If that's true, we should do something about it. But the answer can't be to get rid of the whole program.

    Sure it is. Start it up new, figure out how to create a central database that tracks information better, and force people to show on a consistent basis that they really can't make it without it, and that they can't find jobs. This entire process needs to be completely revamped and made more efficient. Too bad government employees have almost as much impetus to work hard as people they're "helping".

    I'm on unemployment. It pays $405/week in NY. Some states it pays as much as ~$800/week. In total, as of now, I can collect for up to 59 weeks. Do you know how little I have to do to collect unemployment, which is arguably one of the *better* government programs? And even so, do you know how much the US Govt. spends on managing and tracking it, let alone on the actual payments?

    Exactly. Which is why we need to regulate them.

    To make sure they're not doing anything illegal? Agreed. Show me how any government regulatory agency does so NOT after the fact.

    Great piece on 60 Minutes this past week with Markopolis ripping into the SEC for being exactly that pathetic. I was a hedge fund auditor for just two years and I could show you how easy it is for any hedge fund to commit fraud and the SEC would never catch it - but the investors and auditors (private!) have a muuuch better chance of doing so.

    Do I need to pull out my chart of income growth under Republicans vs. Democrats again? Short version is nobody but the richest quintile does well under Republicans.

    LOL that's such a simplistic analysis.

    Please don't straw man me or the left.

    You said it.

    I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but you're clearly combining various aspects of government spending here.

    ?? So? What government spending outside of defense and national infrastructure should the federal government be a given on? And whatever you come up with, how in the heck would that add up to over half the country!? Do you really believe that half the country "needs" to be getting anything from government?

    However, they preferred to get zero votes in the Senate so they can claim some sort of victory and hope to hell the economy keeps tanking and they can say I told you so.

    Talk about revisionist. The reason the '94 Dittoheads were able to was because Clinton didn't have a supermajority. Obama had no interest in compromise, and therefore got zero votes. He didn't care - he is still running on his popularity, and he got his/Pelosi's pork bill passed. As Rahm Emanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." BTW, that's one of the sickest things I've ever seen come out of politics. We knew he was slimy, but imagine if Cheney had said that.

    The left does nothing significant to hurt small businesses. It's all rhetoric. Maybe 1% of small businesses would be negatively affected by repealing Bush's tax cuts.

    LOLOL. According to the US Govt., "small business" is one that has $14M in revenues. A "very small business" is one that has $1M. You're just clueless.

    Obvious to you, not me.

    Well, no point in demonstrating how liberalism causes a loss of moral clarity, I guess...

    LOL. Only a Republican could blame that on taxes rather than on the corporations gaming the system. We should outlaw that kind of manipulation -- especially tax shelters.

    LOL You CAN'T!! They're legitimate deductions, silly. They invest in non-taxable instruments or they invest in offshore companies (which are simply entities filed in the Caymans or Bahamas) and use offshore companies to do all their work. Welcome to a global marketplace. If you want people to keep their money here, stop encouraging them from taking it elsewhere!

    It does in my opinion and in most Americans' opinions. Including Warren Buffet and many others in the top brackets.

    Wow, the richest guy in the country who could give away $60 Billion and still have a few thinks it's okay to leave a hard-working millionaire who built up a small business with a couple hundred thousand. So nice. There's a study that notes the uber-rich almost all become liberal once they've hit a certain point.

    It's not punishment. It's part of being a citizen of this country. And again, such shielding should be illegal.

    That IS punishment. You're just driving anyone with a brain out - or at least their money. And there's no way to make it illegal. Stop being silly.

    What, Mom and Pop are going to replace AIG?

    AIG hasn't even been around that long. You don't think that the other insurance companies can't cover all the people AIG does at about the same cost? There are over 30 large insurance companies in this country. In fact, AIG's insurance business was actually fine - their problem was they couldn't get their usual collateral which set off a house of cards. Sure, there might have been a short-term mess - but long-term, it would be a quick rebound.

    Could be.

    LOL. Just take all the money that was given to the big three, and give it back to each family. It'd make a nice down payment on a Toyota or Honda.

    How about by pushing universal health care, for example? That way people can start their own businesses without worrying about going without health care. How about trust busting? How about infrastructure? Education? Etc.

    UHC!? Small businesses would be better off if there were increased competition (re: less dumb regulation, such as each no cross-state insurance), if they could pool together under an umbrella plan, etc. etc. What about infrastructure!? See HH's examples. Education? Huh?

    Trust-busting is the *only* one I agree with, but so do most people on the right.

    It's not a rarity. The best product rarely wins. And other companies were only able to step up after the "liberal" anti-trust actions.

    Again, most people like trust-busting, though it has to be done right. And the best product usually wins, though not necessarily first. Getting out a product is not just about the product itself, but about advertising and efficient production. The more regulations, the more likely a great product will never see the light of day.

    I didn't say that. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to argue that the stock market helps the little guy as much as it does the big guy.

    Of course it does. If the stock price rises 10%, each of them gain 10%.

    Well, gee, let me think. The party who wins no demographic except white males would throw a party. Shocking.

    Really?! You just said that? So since the only demographic that would gain is white males, morality doesn't matter? Wow. Just... wow.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. That's the foundation of (small d) democratic politics.

    It IS a bad thing. Special interests are only necessary when an inequality exists or a special need is realized. As soon as that is done, the special interest should cease - but that doesn't happen here, because thanks to current policies, those same interests transition from protection to outright mugging on behalf of a constituency. It's unions all over again, but within politics.

    ReplyDelete
  26. JA - Personally, throughout this, it's clear you've missed the point. While your policies are clearly wrong, IMO, *even* if they were right they *still* would be against the ideas laid out in the Constitution. You're saying it's for a higher purpose, a "better end", but the means are still against the ideals that this country was founded on.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ezzie:

    The more people can "get by fine" without fathers the less backlash people get for abandoning mothers.

    I don't think that's true.

    If you've been telling a person their entire life "you can't do it, you didn't grow up rich" and you keep giving them more than enough to get by fine, why would they try to move up out of that?

    Which is why nobody ever tells them that or gives them more than enough.

    And if it gives them all their basic needs, why *should* they move up? If they think they can't make it far, no point. If they can, they know that it'll just end up right back with government anyway, after years and years of hard work and tough times.

    Well, if they can work and don't, they shouldn't get welfare.

    That's just dumb. PLEASE LEARN ECONOMICS. Show me ONE example in the past 75 years where the people were negatively impacted by too free of a market where they had no choice but to bend to the dictates of the corporate world. (I can think of only one, and that's solely foreign-based.)

    HOW ABOUT THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL WORLD MELTING DOWN?

    LOL. So instead, let's tax them! That'll cut their profits! Until of course they raise prices and fire more workers to retain those profits. Brilliant.

    Equilibrium, man.


    HH:

    I never said get rid of it. I think it should be harder to get on it. It shouldn't be just walk through the doors and be handed a check.

    Obviously it should be only for those with genuine need.

    First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "constantly." Second, how does that, equal, not allowing the little guy to succeed? Its called competition.

    Right, but the bigger companies have way more leverage and can do things like loss leading, etc.

    Everyone in the game does it. Even two small businesses try to out compete each other till the other closes.

    There's competition that's good for everybody and competition that's bad.

    I'm curious if you do your shopping at Walmart. Do you also buy books on Amazon? If you do, do you realize you are killing off small time book stores.

    Yeah, I realize that.

    I don't follow. Your gripe with them is not that they are doing anything illegal, but that they "hoarding" (whatever that means) or externalize costs, which are legal. I mean, the ugly secret here is that as average americans that invest in these companies, you WANT these companies to do all they can to be profitable as long as its legal. So I don't follow what regulating does. Should we regulate how much they charge for their product in the mean time?

    What regulating does is make ILLEGAL those things that are very bad for the country, like saving profits by dumping pollutants into public waters or by using one's monopoly power to drive out competition.

    Things that hurt small business are mandatory remodeling for handicapped (such as ramps and bathrooms), minimum wage increases, excessive taxes on just about anything for some city project, rate hikes in such things as city parking meters and environmental rules, etc etc etc all hurt small businesses where as larger ones can move past it.

    There are tradeoffs, as I've mentioned.


    Ezzie:

    Sure it is. Start it up new, figure out how to create a central database that tracks information better, and force people to show on a consistent basis that they really can't make it without it, and that they can't find jobs. This entire process needs to be completely revamped and made more efficient. Too bad government employees have almost as much impetus to work hard as people they're "helping".

    I'm fine with all that. You're moving the goalposts, though. Is the problem that people are cheating or is the problem that welfare is socialism?

    Great piece on 60 Minutes this past week with Markopolis ripping into the SEC for being exactly that pathetic.

    Yes, they have been that pathetic. Largely, I suspect, as a result of years of beliefs that government can't do anything right and acting as if that's true. Bush chose foxes to guard the henhouses.

    but the investors and auditors (private!) have a muuuch better chance of doing so.

    Yeah, so why didn't they?

    ?? So? What government spending outside of defense and national infrastructure should the federal government be a given on? And whatever you come up with, how in the heck would that add up to over half the country!? Do you really believe that half the country "needs" to be getting anything from government?

    I'd be happier if we spent half as much on defense and twice as much on health care. No, I don't believe that half the country needs to be getting anything.

    Obama had no interest in compromise, and therefore got zero votes.

    LOL. So far from reality.

    As Rahm Emanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." BTW, that's one of the sickest things I've ever seen come out of politics. We knew he was slimy, but imagine if Cheney had said that.

    Oh come on. That's just standard politics. The Bushies used 9/11 to start an unrelated war.

    LOLOL. According to the US Govt., "small business" is one that has $14M in revenues. A "very small business" is one that has $1M. You're just clueless.

    CNN: "Second, even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise.

    That's because the lion's share of taxable income comes from a small number of wealthy businesses. Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

    The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike."

    Well, no point in demonstrating how liberalism causes a loss of moral clarity, I guess...

    I have moral clarity. I just disagree with you.

    LOL You CAN'T!! They're legitimate deductions, silly. They invest in non-taxable instruments or they invest in offshore companies (which are simply entities filed in the Caymans or Bahamas) and use offshore companies to do all their work. Welcome to a global marketplace. If you want people to keep their money here, stop encouraging them from taking it elsewhere!

    There's no reason we can't make illegal or otherwise dis-incentivize companies from stashing their money in e.g. the Caymans.

    Wow, the richest guy in the country who could give away $60 Billion and still have a few thinks it's okay to leave a hard-working millionaire who built up a small business with a couple hundred thousand. So nice. There's a study that notes the uber-rich almost all become liberal once they've hit a certain point.

    I don't know if you noticed, but Obama won the rich vote.

    That IS punishment. You're just driving anyone with a brain out - or at least their money.

    Hasn't happened yet. We had a much higher rate on the top bracket for decades with a booming economy.

    LOL. Just take all the money that was given to the big three, and give it back to each family. It'd make a nice down payment on a Toyota or Honda.

    I'd have been happy with that. Republicans would NEVER have gone for it.

    Of course it does. If the stock price rises 10%, each of them gain 10%.

    Yeah, one guy gets 10% of $100 and another gets 10% of $1,000,000. They both benefit!!

    Really?! You just said that? So since the only demographic that would gain is white males, morality doesn't matter? Wow. Just... wow.

    I didn't say that. I said it's not surprising that the party of white males would celebrate the end of AA.

    It IS a bad thing. Special interests are only necessary when an inequality exists or a special need is realized.

    Yeah? So when's the Republican party going to disband?

    JA - Personally, throughout this, it's clear you've missed the point. While your policies are clearly wrong, IMO, *even* if they were right they *still* would be against the ideas laid out in the Constitution.

    How do you figure? Nothing I'm for is against the Constitution, unlike the right's embrace of the War on Drugs, actual "wars" that are never declared by Congress, a permanent enormous standing army, domestic spying, etc.

    You're saying it's for a higher purpose, a "better end", but the means are still against the ideals that this country was founded on.

    We all have different ideals than the founders did. They were all about slavery and only white men voting, etc. Times change. We evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't think that's true.

    !? Who are you kidding.

    Which is why nobody ever tells them that or gives them more than enough.

    Ditto.

    Well, if they can work and don't, they shouldn't get welfare.

    LOL. Okay, go enforce it.

    HOW ABOUT THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL WORLD MELTING DOWN?

    How does that have anything to do with bending to the dictates of large corporations?!

    Equilibrium, man.

    ?! How is that equilibrium!?

    Obviously it should be only for those with genuine need.

    ...but it's not.

    There's competition that's good for everybody and competition that's bad.

    What is "bad" competition!?

    Yeah, I realize that.

    So, as a consumer, you realize that you act in your self-interests, which are best served by these large corporations. Either you're a fool or a hypocrite.

    What regulating does is make ILLEGAL those things that are very bad for the country, like saving profits by dumping pollutants into public waters or by using one's monopoly power to drive out competition.

    Rarely. Most regulations have little to do with those, and will not actually stop anything, but punish those who do it after the fact if they're caught. All they do is slow down or stop responsible business owners.

    There are tradeoffs, as I've mentioned.

    How in the world can you justify every loss as a "tradeoff" - these are not tradeoffs, because you're not even accomplishing what you're setting out to do!

    I'm fine with all that. You're moving the goalposts, though. Is the problem that people are cheating or is the problem that welfare is socialism?

    BOTH.

    Yes, they have been that pathetic. Largely, I suspect, as a result of years of beliefs that government can't do anything right and acting as if that's true. Bush chose foxes to guard the henhouses.

    LOL! Really?! You really think THAT's why the SEC sucks? And once again it's somehow Bush's fault!? LOL. Wow.

    Yeah, so why didn't they?

    They do! But people placed more trust in the SEC. Look at Madoff! The SEC investigated him and said "A-OK!" If the SEC says it's good, why look into the auditing firm?

    I'd be happier if we spent half as much on defense and twice as much on health care. No, I don't believe that half the country needs to be getting anything.

    Really? Where are you slashing defense? And if you don't believe it, why do you support such policies?

    LOL. So far from reality.

    Really? Show me ANYTHING in the stimulus that a reasonable conservative would want.

    Oh come on. That's just standard politics. The Bushies used 9/11 to start an unrelated war.

    LOL. Right. I think that's idiotic to compare, but at BEST you're saying Emanual is an economic Cheney.

    CNN: "Second, even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise.

    That's because the lion's share of taxable income comes from a small number of wealthy businesses. Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

    The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike."


    That's silly. That's like comparing Serach's headband business to a normal small business. That's such a skewed understanding.

    But even of those 479,000 filers, how many employees do you think that represents? 10 million people? 20 million?

    I have moral clarity. I just disagree with you.

    Sorry - that's not moral clarity. You've become so blinded by a desire to get to certain ends that you've lost it.

    There's no reason we can't make illegal or otherwise dis-incentivize companies from stashing their money in e.g. the Caymans.

    LOL! That's so naive. Do me a favor - explain to me how you propose to do that.

    I don't know if you noticed, but Obama won the rich vote.

    That's my point.

    Hasn't happened yet. We had a much higher rate on the top bracket for decades with a booming economy.

    Not really. Also, quite a different economy, and no global marketplace.

    I'd have been happy with that. Republicans would NEVER have gone for it.

    !!! Are you kidding? They'd have gladly taken that over bailing out the Big Three. But you're right - they'd have wondered why the hell we were taxing people in the first place.

    Yeah, one guy gets 10% of $100 and another gets 10% of $1,000,000. They both benefit!!

    Like I said - do you propose to give the guy the same amount of shares at a $1 as someone else gets for $1M? Guess what - THAT'S HOW IT WORKS! You start small, and you work your way up. You are NOT ENTITLED TO RICHES. Wow, you're such a tool.

    I didn't say that. I said it's not surprising that the party of white males would celebrate the end of AA.

    Shouldn't EVERYONE celebrate the end of AA?! What's wrong with you!?

    Yeah? So when's the Republican party going to disband?

    Right after the Democratic Party and the need is no longer there! :)

    How do you figure? Nothing I'm for is against the Constitution, unlike the right's embrace of the War on Drugs, actual "wars" that are never declared by Congress, a permanent enormous standing army, domestic spying, etc.

    You're going against the whole premise of the United States - Freedom.

    We all have different ideals than the founders did. They were all about slavery and only white men voting, etc. Times change. We evolve.

    So long as you admit that it's got nothing to do with what the Constitution sets out. The difference is that in the past, the country changed the Constitution through Amendments; you're just saying that we need to completely change from a free country to an ends-driven one. I think that's immoral, I think that's disgusting, I think it goes against the principles of freedom, and I think it's doomed to failure. I also think that a high majority of this country would agree with me and not with you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What are you even talking about with this Constitution stuff? What am I advocating that goes against it?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Like I said from the beginning, I think you missed the point.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Like I said from the beginning, I think you missed the point.

    I guess so.

    ReplyDelete