by Doctor Science
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones discusses something I’ve been wondering about for a while: the number of conservative American political grifters. Drum asks,
why is this problem so much bigger on the right than on the left? I won’t be happy with answers that simply assume liberals are innately better people. Even if they are, they aren’t that much better. It’s got to be something institutional, or something inherent in the nature of American conservatism. But what?
I think there are two factors at play:
- “Demand side”: Conservatives are more elderly, more fearful, and more loyal than liberals, which makes them naturally more vulnerable to scams, especially affinity scams.
- “Supply side”: Conservatives believe very strongly in capitalism and in making money, so conservative political operatives are much more likely than liberals to feel they deserve to make a lot of money for their political work. They expect to do well by doing (conservative political) good.
Here are the kinds of things I mean by “conservative grifters”:
1. “A POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission covering the 2014 cycle found that 33 PACs that court small donors with tea party-oriented email and direct-mail appeals raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs.”
2. Erick Erickson (of RedState.com and CNN) has written about such “Scam PACs”, but his own RedState email list has sent sponsored missives about “Reagan’s Secret Victory Over Cancer,” “Obama’s Deadly FDA Secret,” “1 Weird Trick to KILL old age,” items to “hoard” to protect your family from starving, and the “Obama scandal” that “WILL KILL MILIONS [sic].
3. At least 6 different conservative outlets promoted Dr. Russell Blaylock, and anti-vaxxer who also claims he knows what causes (and prevents) Alzheimers. Liberal Bill Maher (the poster boy for Smug Hipster Assholes) also finds Blaylock convincing, so it’s not *only* conservatives — but mostly.
4. Fred Clark, the slacktivist, often writes about the tribalism of Evangelical Christians, and how it makes them vulnerable to affinity scams. These may be small-scale, losing the “mark” only the cost of a book or two, or go all the way to a full-fledged Ponzi investment schemes.
5. The Romney 2012 campaign was riddled with them. After the fact, Ben Howe at RedState wrote that The Romney Campaign was a Consultant Con Job: he talked to sources inside the campaign who said “the consultants essentially used the Romney campaign as a money making scheme, forcing employees to spin false data as truth in order to paint a rosy picture of a successful campaign as a form of job security.” And it wasn’t just the consultants — Sean Sullivan at the Washington Post reported “President Obama’s campaign team won the 2012 election. But Mitt Romney’s top campaign staff won the battle of paychecks… Romney’s seven highest-paid campaign staffers all made more in 2012 than anyone on Obama’s campaign.”
6. Then there’s the matter of the recent Republican candidates themselves. So far in the 2016 pre-campaign, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump have said they’re running, but “appear to be using the tease of a presidential campaign as much or more to market themselves for their own TV reality shows as for any genuine campaign.” In 2012, all of the GOP candidates except Romney and Ron Paul failed to get on some primary ballots. It was never clear to me how many of them were actually serious about running for President — which really does require building a massive organization. They all seemed interested in fund-raising, though.
Kevin Drum has thought about my “demand side” idea, and isn’t really satisfied by it:
There are plenty of elderly liberals, after all—certainly enough to make them worth targeting with the same kind of fraudulent appeals that infest the right.
AFAICT, scams aimed at the liberal elderly are mostly heart-string-pluckers: help these baby seals, those homeless children, these colorful oppressed people. And you definitely can find “ancient secret medicine Big Pharma doesn’t want you to know about” frauds going around on the left.
But though I’ve signed up for a lot of liberal sites and newsletters over the years, they don’t send me “See this surefire investment opportunity!” emails the way conservative sites (where I’ve signed up to comment, or out of curiosity) do.
Drum starts to go in the right direction when he says
Another possibility is that it’s basically a supply-side phenomenon. Maybe liberal outlets simply tend to be less ruthless, less willing to set up scam fundraising organizations than conservative outlets.
I don’t think most of the conservative grifters think of themselves that way, as scammers who are fleecing the rubes. I think they raise money because they can, with the intention of helping the conservative cause — it just happens to mostly end up in their own pockets. Because you have to spend money to get money, or because they work hard and deserve to be rewarded, because there’s nothing wrong with getting rich. They’re thinking like capitalists, like entrepreneurs.
Basically, I think American conservatives of all sorts like and respect money (even) more than liberals do. I’m not saying that American liberalism includes many out-and-out Commies any more, but it does include most of the people who are suspicious of the rich and of the profit motive. Which means that, for instance, left-leaning political websites are less eager to “monetize” their audience than conservative ones are — and Obama’s staff was willing to get paid less than Romney’s. And it means that conservatives at every income level may be more likely to fall for investment frauds, because they have a stronger feeling that they deserve to be rich.[1]
[1] I haven’t been able to find any scholarly work about political affinity and fraud, but the evangelical Barna Group found Evangelical Christians to be much more vulnerable to Internet fraud than most people — at least, in 2002.
Decent post, some good points:
But you reference Ben Howe. This is Ben Howe:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-howe-red-state-id-have-shot-mike-brown-in-face
Also:
“I don’t think most of the conservative grifters think of themselves that way, as scammers who are fleecing the rubes. I think they raise money because they can, with the intention of helping the conservative cause — it just happens to mostly end up in their own pockets.”
Politically correct bullsh*t.
Who cares how these sensitive souls think of themselves.
It doesn’t just happen. Theft IS Capitalism to them. What do you think the smirks signify?
They are armed, ruthless murderers.
They’d be happy to see you dead if you were in the position of being denied Obamacare, for example, not as happy as they would to see themselves get rich by any means, but they’d settle for the first instance as compensation.
Decent post, some good points:
But you reference Ben Howe. This is Ben Howe:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-howe-red-state-id-have-shot-mike-brown-in-face
Also:
“I don’t think most of the conservative grifters think of themselves that way, as scammers who are fleecing the rubes. I think they raise money because they can, with the intention of helping the conservative cause — it just happens to mostly end up in their own pockets.”
Politically correct bullsh*t.
Who cares how these sensitive souls think of themselves.
It doesn’t just happen. Theft IS Capitalism to them. What do you think the smirks signify?
They are armed, ruthless murderers.
They’d be happy to see you dead if you were in the position of being denied Obamacare, for example, not as happy as they would to see themselves get rich by any means, but they’d settle for the first instance as compensation.
Decent post, some good points:
But you reference Ben Howe. This is Ben Howe:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-howe-red-state-id-have-shot-mike-brown-in-face
Also:
“I don’t think most of the conservative grifters think of themselves that way, as scammers who are fleecing the rubes. I think they raise money because they can, with the intention of helping the conservative cause — it just happens to mostly end up in their own pockets.”
Politically correct bullsh*t.
Who cares how these sensitive souls think of themselves.
It doesn’t just happen. Theft IS Capitalism to them. What do you think the smirks signify?
They are armed, ruthless murderers.
They’d be happy to see you dead if you were in the position of being denied Obamacare, for example, not as happy as they would to see themselves get rich by any means, but they’d settle for the first instance as compensation.
By the way, my criticism of your referencing Ben Howe is not a sop to Romney.
In fact, Ben Howe is the epitome of the rank armed Republican base that Romney tried to suck up to in 2012.
He needed these pig filth to put him over the top.
The thing is, Ben Howe read Romney correctly.
Mitt never would have had the heart to institute the murderous policies Howe favors.
Mitt is a RINO. A frat-boy face man happy to play up to the ruthless, murderous, racist, Confederate Erickson agenda, but his heart just wasn’t in it.
Nothing personal, Doc. You’re just too nice.
By the way, my criticism of your referencing Ben Howe is not a sop to Romney.
In fact, Ben Howe is the epitome of the rank armed Republican base that Romney tried to suck up to in 2012.
He needed these pig filth to put him over the top.
The thing is, Ben Howe read Romney correctly.
Mitt never would have had the heart to institute the murderous policies Howe favors.
Mitt is a RINO. A frat-boy face man happy to play up to the ruthless, murderous, racist, Confederate Erickson agenda, but his heart just wasn’t in it.
Nothing personal, Doc. You’re just too nice.
By the way, my criticism of your referencing Ben Howe is not a sop to Romney.
In fact, Ben Howe is the epitome of the rank armed Republican base that Romney tried to suck up to in 2012.
He needed these pig filth to put him over the top.
The thing is, Ben Howe read Romney correctly.
Mitt never would have had the heart to institute the murderous policies Howe favors.
Mitt is a RINO. A frat-boy face man happy to play up to the ruthless, murderous, racist, Confederate Erickson agenda, but his heart just wasn’t in it.
Nothing personal, Doc. You’re just too nice.
One of the things that prompted my departure from the Libertarian party was the realization that Harry Browne was a grifter, and that the LP establishment were ok with that.
However, I think this disparity you’re seeing is mostly a matter of perception. You don’t notice that Jesse Jackson is a grifter? Al Sharpton?
One of the things that prompted my departure from the Libertarian party was the realization that Harry Browne was a grifter, and that the LP establishment were ok with that.
However, I think this disparity you’re seeing is mostly a matter of perception. You don’t notice that Jesse Jackson is a grifter? Al Sharpton?
One of the things that prompted my departure from the Libertarian party was the realization that Harry Browne was a grifter, and that the LP establishment were ok with that.
However, I think this disparity you’re seeing is mostly a matter of perception. You don’t notice that Jesse Jackson is a grifter? Al Sharpton?
However, ” In 2012, all of the GOP candidates except Romney and Ron Paul failed to get on some primary ballots.”
Let’s say that you’re a candidate, a real candidate, and you have finite resources. I think that’s a reasonable assumption, no?
Let’s further assume that you can identify a few states with winner takes all primaries, where you stand essentially zero chance of being that winner, even if you were doing well enough to possibly secure the nomination. Also a not unreasonable assumption.
Doesn’t it follow that you wouldn’t expend resources to get on those primary ballots?
Now, if you’re Romney, you’ve got enough resources that getting on all the ballots is a trivial expenditure. If you’re Paul, you probably didn’t consider not trying to get on all the ballots.
But any of the other candidates, gifted with neither effectively unlimited budgets, or extremely enthusiastic and widespread supporters, they have to make that calculation.
Incidentally, if you’re going to identify grifters on that basis, shouldn’t you perhaps look at the 2008 Democratic primaries, to see who didn’t bother contesting every state? I believe you’ve just identified Joe Biden as a grifter.
However, ” In 2012, all of the GOP candidates except Romney and Ron Paul failed to get on some primary ballots.”
Let’s say that you’re a candidate, a real candidate, and you have finite resources. I think that’s a reasonable assumption, no?
Let’s further assume that you can identify a few states with winner takes all primaries, where you stand essentially zero chance of being that winner, even if you were doing well enough to possibly secure the nomination. Also a not unreasonable assumption.
Doesn’t it follow that you wouldn’t expend resources to get on those primary ballots?
Now, if you’re Romney, you’ve got enough resources that getting on all the ballots is a trivial expenditure. If you’re Paul, you probably didn’t consider not trying to get on all the ballots.
But any of the other candidates, gifted with neither effectively unlimited budgets, or extremely enthusiastic and widespread supporters, they have to make that calculation.
Incidentally, if you’re going to identify grifters on that basis, shouldn’t you perhaps look at the 2008 Democratic primaries, to see who didn’t bother contesting every state? I believe you’ve just identified Joe Biden as a grifter.
However, ” In 2012, all of the GOP candidates except Romney and Ron Paul failed to get on some primary ballots.”
Let’s say that you’re a candidate, a real candidate, and you have finite resources. I think that’s a reasonable assumption, no?
Let’s further assume that you can identify a few states with winner takes all primaries, where you stand essentially zero chance of being that winner, even if you were doing well enough to possibly secure the nomination. Also a not unreasonable assumption.
Doesn’t it follow that you wouldn’t expend resources to get on those primary ballots?
Now, if you’re Romney, you’ve got enough resources that getting on all the ballots is a trivial expenditure. If you’re Paul, you probably didn’t consider not trying to get on all the ballots.
But any of the other candidates, gifted with neither effectively unlimited budgets, or extremely enthusiastic and widespread supporters, they have to make that calculation.
Incidentally, if you’re going to identify grifters on that basis, shouldn’t you perhaps look at the 2008 Democratic primaries, to see who didn’t bother contesting every state? I believe you’ve just identified Joe Biden as a grifter.
And any that ARE that ruthless would just set up an operation targeting conservatives while funneling cash to liberals. Win-win!
Gotta wonder about those big “administrative expenses”, cause that would be how it’s done.
And any that ARE that ruthless would just set up an operation targeting conservatives while funneling cash to liberals. Win-win!
Gotta wonder about those big “administrative expenses”, cause that would be how it’s done.
And any that ARE that ruthless would just set up an operation targeting conservatives while funneling cash to liberals. Win-win!
Gotta wonder about those big “administrative expenses”, cause that would be how it’s done.
Doc,
If you have not read it already, I recommend The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. “The Grift” is, for all intents and purposes, an institutional attribute of today’s Republican Party.
Perhaps it is the languid slide into epistemic closure that has promoted this development as close knit groups attract grifters like sh*t draws flies.
Doc,
If you have not read it already, I recommend The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. “The Grift” is, for all intents and purposes, an institutional attribute of today’s Republican Party.
Perhaps it is the languid slide into epistemic closure that has promoted this development as close knit groups attract grifters like sh*t draws flies.
Doc,
If you have not read it already, I recommend The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. “The Grift” is, for all intents and purposes, an institutional attribute of today’s Republican Party.
Perhaps it is the languid slide into epistemic closure that has promoted this development as close knit groups attract grifters like sh*t draws flies.
i’ll just copy my comment from there over to here:
:::
a big, scared, credulous audience has self-selected themselves into being consumers of tabloid-level political magazines, websites (ex NewsMax, TownHall) and radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.). what’s a scammy marketer not to love?
they’ve already proven themselves to be dupes and suckers by coming back for more and more of the ostensibly straight content, so savvy marketers know they’re the kind of people who just might be good targets for some sketchy ads, as well.
as the marketers lined the pockets of the, err, content providers, they both stepped up their efforts to milk more and more of the masses’ cash. they’ve grown up together and now one can’t live without the other: co-dependent parasites.
but of course that happened decades ago.
the left probably never had a large enough media ecosystem to get such a thing started – until the web came along.
i’ll just copy my comment from there over to here:
:::
a big, scared, credulous audience has self-selected themselves into being consumers of tabloid-level political magazines, websites (ex NewsMax, TownHall) and radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.). what’s a scammy marketer not to love?
they’ve already proven themselves to be dupes and suckers by coming back for more and more of the ostensibly straight content, so savvy marketers know they’re the kind of people who just might be good targets for some sketchy ads, as well.
as the marketers lined the pockets of the, err, content providers, they both stepped up their efforts to milk more and more of the masses’ cash. they’ve grown up together and now one can’t live without the other: co-dependent parasites.
but of course that happened decades ago.
the left probably never had a large enough media ecosystem to get such a thing started – until the web came along.
i’ll just copy my comment from there over to here:
:::
a big, scared, credulous audience has self-selected themselves into being consumers of tabloid-level political magazines, websites (ex NewsMax, TownHall) and radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.). what’s a scammy marketer not to love?
they’ve already proven themselves to be dupes and suckers by coming back for more and more of the ostensibly straight content, so savvy marketers know they’re the kind of people who just might be good targets for some sketchy ads, as well.
as the marketers lined the pockets of the, err, content providers, they both stepped up their efforts to milk more and more of the masses’ cash. they’ve grown up together and now one can’t live without the other: co-dependent parasites.
but of course that happened decades ago.
the left probably never had a large enough media ecosystem to get such a thing started – until the web came along.
I rather agree with Brett re: candidates that don’t get on primary ballots on every state; for real candidates, there’s a cost/benefit calculation they need to make.
In any case, the label “grifter” is more appropriate to campaign functionaries rather than the candidates themselves. Palin and Sharpton, you can toss in the same box: at this point, they’re all about the publicity and pushing the issues important to them.
“Toss in the same box”…hmmm…mud wrestling on PPV? Any grifters out there want to make it happen?
I rather agree with Brett re: candidates that don’t get on primary ballots on every state; for real candidates, there’s a cost/benefit calculation they need to make.
In any case, the label “grifter” is more appropriate to campaign functionaries rather than the candidates themselves. Palin and Sharpton, you can toss in the same box: at this point, they’re all about the publicity and pushing the issues important to them.
“Toss in the same box”…hmmm…mud wrestling on PPV? Any grifters out there want to make it happen?
I rather agree with Brett re: candidates that don’t get on primary ballots on every state; for real candidates, there’s a cost/benefit calculation they need to make.
In any case, the label “grifter” is more appropriate to campaign functionaries rather than the candidates themselves. Palin and Sharpton, you can toss in the same box: at this point, they’re all about the publicity and pushing the issues important to them.
“Toss in the same box”…hmmm…mud wrestling on PPV? Any grifters out there want to make it happen?
Ben Carson, reportedly a gifted pediatric surgeon, hawks sh*t and crap from lying supplement and “health” businesses.
Even the National Review is on to him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty
Meanwhile, right, he vomits up “Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery”.
These are the people (the entire Republican Party power structure) who are very close to “privatizing” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Let’s trust them.
I look forward to getting late night calls from Social Security call centers in Boca Raton telling me my SS check is being invested in Florida Coastal housing developments as part of Republican legislation (entitled: the John Galt Social Security Reinvestment Act) “revamping” the program.
No sir, Medicare no longer pays for that surgery, but we’ll charge you $2999 (one dollar less than the new Medicare deductible) miracle salve. Call Vinny at 1-900-F*ckyou to get your orders now.
Cheating lying low-lifes like Governor Rick Got-Off-Scott-Free from charges he stole millions from Medicare (“stealing” and “entrepreneurship” — synonyms) by taking the 5th — how many dozens of times?
Pigs.
They are really different than Vlad Putin’s inner circle of thug “businessmen” and “investors” putting every Russian asset in their own names and calling it, I don’t know,
“The Renew Russia for Ruble Freedom Program”.
Has a Luntzian twang to it, doesn’t it.
Caleb Howe, fellow Erickson punk and Ben Howe’s brother:
http://gawker.com/5537780/how-drunk-was-the-tea-bagger-blogger-who-mocked-rogert-eberts-cancer
Cut to same receiving charity money from liberals at DKOS because he was too f*cking pig-as* stupid to medically insure himself and his kids.
Obamacare was available.
Ben Carson, reportedly a gifted pediatric surgeon, hawks sh*t and crap from lying supplement and “health” businesses.
Even the National Review is on to him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty
Meanwhile, right, he vomits up “Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery”.
These are the people (the entire Republican Party power structure) who are very close to “privatizing” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Let’s trust them.
I look forward to getting late night calls from Social Security call centers in Boca Raton telling me my SS check is being invested in Florida Coastal housing developments as part of Republican legislation (entitled: the John Galt Social Security Reinvestment Act) “revamping” the program.
No sir, Medicare no longer pays for that surgery, but we’ll charge you $2999 (one dollar less than the new Medicare deductible) miracle salve. Call Vinny at 1-900-F*ckyou to get your orders now.
Cheating lying low-lifes like Governor Rick Got-Off-Scott-Free from charges he stole millions from Medicare (“stealing” and “entrepreneurship” — synonyms) by taking the 5th — how many dozens of times?
Pigs.
They are really different than Vlad Putin’s inner circle of thug “businessmen” and “investors” putting every Russian asset in their own names and calling it, I don’t know,
“The Renew Russia for Ruble Freedom Program”.
Has a Luntzian twang to it, doesn’t it.
Caleb Howe, fellow Erickson punk and Ben Howe’s brother:
http://gawker.com/5537780/how-drunk-was-the-tea-bagger-blogger-who-mocked-rogert-eberts-cancer
Cut to same receiving charity money from liberals at DKOS because he was too f*cking pig-as* stupid to medically insure himself and his kids.
Obamacare was available.
Ben Carson, reportedly a gifted pediatric surgeon, hawks sh*t and crap from lying supplement and “health” businesses.
Even the National Review is on to him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty
Meanwhile, right, he vomits up “Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery”.
These are the people (the entire Republican Party power structure) who are very close to “privatizing” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Let’s trust them.
I look forward to getting late night calls from Social Security call centers in Boca Raton telling me my SS check is being invested in Florida Coastal housing developments as part of Republican legislation (entitled: the John Galt Social Security Reinvestment Act) “revamping” the program.
No sir, Medicare no longer pays for that surgery, but we’ll charge you $2999 (one dollar less than the new Medicare deductible) miracle salve. Call Vinny at 1-900-F*ckyou to get your orders now.
Cheating lying low-lifes like Governor Rick Got-Off-Scott-Free from charges he stole millions from Medicare (“stealing” and “entrepreneurship” — synonyms) by taking the 5th — how many dozens of times?
Pigs.
They are really different than Vlad Putin’s inner circle of thug “businessmen” and “investors” putting every Russian asset in their own names and calling it, I don’t know,
“The Renew Russia for Ruble Freedom Program”.
Has a Luntzian twang to it, doesn’t it.
Caleb Howe, fellow Erickson punk and Ben Howe’s brother:
http://gawker.com/5537780/how-drunk-was-the-tea-bagger-blogger-who-mocked-rogert-eberts-cancer
Cut to same receiving charity money from liberals at DKOS because he was too f*cking pig-as* stupid to medically insure himself and his kids.
Obamacare was available.
You don’t notice that Jesse Jackson is a grifter? Al Sharpton?
The scale of the Jackson/Sharpton grift pales to insignificance when compared to that found on the right, and, as Doc pointed out, is qualitatively different from that found on the right of the political spectrum.
No points today for your attempt at deflection.
We return you to your regularly scheduled Superbowl programming.
You don’t notice that Jesse Jackson is a grifter? Al Sharpton?
The scale of the Jackson/Sharpton grift pales to insignificance when compared to that found on the right, and, as Doc pointed out, is qualitatively different from that found on the right of the political spectrum.
No points today for your attempt at deflection.
We return you to your regularly scheduled Superbowl programming.
You don’t notice that Jesse Jackson is a grifter? Al Sharpton?
The scale of the Jackson/Sharpton grift pales to insignificance when compared to that found on the right, and, as Doc pointed out, is qualitatively different from that found on the right of the political spectrum.
No points today for your attempt at deflection.
We return you to your regularly scheduled Superbowl programming.
The DKOS link”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/31/1228070/-RedState-s-Chief-Blogger-in-Critical-Condition-in-NC-No-Insurance
See the difference.
The DKOS link”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/31/1228070/-RedState-s-Chief-Blogger-in-Critical-Condition-in-NC-No-Insurance
See the difference.
The DKOS link”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/31/1228070/-RedState-s-Chief-Blogger-in-Critical-Condition-in-NC-No-Insurance
See the difference.
I’m not sure how much is causation and how much mere correlation. But there seem to be a lot more mega-churchs (and TV preachers) on the conservative side than the liberal side. And those certainly seem to make their “preachers” extremely wealthy. Yes, the big establishment churchs lean liberal. But they don’t seem to be making their preachers vast sums.
As I say, not sure why the correlation even. But it sure seems to be there.
I’m not sure how much is causation and how much mere correlation. But there seem to be a lot more mega-churchs (and TV preachers) on the conservative side than the liberal side. And those certainly seem to make their “preachers” extremely wealthy. Yes, the big establishment churchs lean liberal. But they don’t seem to be making their preachers vast sums.
As I say, not sure why the correlation even. But it sure seems to be there.
I’m not sure how much is causation and how much mere correlation. But there seem to be a lot more mega-churchs (and TV preachers) on the conservative side than the liberal side. And those certainly seem to make their “preachers” extremely wealthy. Yes, the big establishment churchs lean liberal. But they don’t seem to be making their preachers vast sums.
As I say, not sure why the correlation even. But it sure seems to be there.
About Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I am sure they beg for money from supporters, either for political campaigns or other projects. But I do not recall any instances of either of them, or any other leftish activist/political figure, selling the mailing lists of their supporters to “One Weird Trick to Beat Cancer!” and “Fabulous Investment Opportunity the IRS Hates!” hucksters.
All activists and politicians ask for financial support from likeminded others. I don’t really see that as grifting or scamming. It’s the monetizing of their supporters that makes me see the right-wingers as scam artists.
About Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I am sure they beg for money from supporters, either for political campaigns or other projects. But I do not recall any instances of either of them, or any other leftish activist/political figure, selling the mailing lists of their supporters to “One Weird Trick to Beat Cancer!” and “Fabulous Investment Opportunity the IRS Hates!” hucksters.
All activists and politicians ask for financial support from likeminded others. I don’t really see that as grifting or scamming. It’s the monetizing of their supporters that makes me see the right-wingers as scam artists.
About Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I am sure they beg for money from supporters, either for political campaigns or other projects. But I do not recall any instances of either of them, or any other leftish activist/political figure, selling the mailing lists of their supporters to “One Weird Trick to Beat Cancer!” and “Fabulous Investment Opportunity the IRS Hates!” hucksters.
All activists and politicians ask for financial support from likeminded others. I don’t really see that as grifting or scamming. It’s the monetizing of their supporters that makes me see the right-wingers as scam artists.
No, what they do, that I find disreputable, is essentially sell “protection”. If your company gives them money, they don’t go after you.
Maybe you regard that as distinct from grifting?
No, what they do, that I find disreputable, is essentially sell “protection”. If your company gives them money, they don’t go after you.
Maybe you regard that as distinct from grifting?
No, what they do, that I find disreputable, is essentially sell “protection”. If your company gives them money, they don’t go after you.
Maybe you regard that as distinct from grifting?
A round-up:
http://etb-former-fundamentalists.blogspot.com/2012/04/onward-christian-soldiers.html
A round-up:
http://etb-former-fundamentalists.blogspot.com/2012/04/onward-christian-soldiers.html
A round-up:
http://etb-former-fundamentalists.blogspot.com/2012/04/onward-christian-soldiers.html
Brett notes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, with the implication that grifter also means liberal. However, my take is that the grifter linkage is through large faith based organizations, which allow mobilization of membership. As they simplify the message to reach the maximum number of people and mobilize, you are going to have temptation.
This is not to dismiss large group action, this is an interesting example of that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/01/13/how-harry-potter-fans-won-a-four-year-fight-against-child-slavery/
One could look at the group as threatening the value of Warner Brother’s intellectual property and therefore grifting, but it seems different, no?
Brett notes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, with the implication that grifter also means liberal. However, my take is that the grifter linkage is through large faith based organizations, which allow mobilization of membership. As they simplify the message to reach the maximum number of people and mobilize, you are going to have temptation.
This is not to dismiss large group action, this is an interesting example of that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/01/13/how-harry-potter-fans-won-a-four-year-fight-against-child-slavery/
One could look at the group as threatening the value of Warner Brother’s intellectual property and therefore grifting, but it seems different, no?
Brett notes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, with the implication that grifter also means liberal. However, my take is that the grifter linkage is through large faith based organizations, which allow mobilization of membership. As they simplify the message to reach the maximum number of people and mobilize, you are going to have temptation.
This is not to dismiss large group action, this is an interesting example of that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/01/13/how-harry-potter-fans-won-a-four-year-fight-against-child-slavery/
One could look at the group as threatening the value of Warner Brother’s intellectual property and therefore grifting, but it seems different, no?
” with the implication that grifter also means liberal.”
Actually, the implication would be that grifter doesn’t mean liberal OR conservative.
It means grifter.
” with the implication that grifter also means liberal.”
Actually, the implication would be that grifter doesn’t mean liberal OR conservative.
It means grifter.
” with the implication that grifter also means liberal.”
Actually, the implication would be that grifter doesn’t mean liberal OR conservative.
It means grifter.
I don’t think anyone was arguing that grifting was unique to any particular political view. Clearly it is not. The question was why there seems to be substantially more of it on the right.
And, in particular, more of it directed at individuals. Rather than extortion aimed at corporations, which isn’t quite the same thing.
I don’t think anyone was arguing that grifting was unique to any particular political view. Clearly it is not. The question was why there seems to be substantially more of it on the right.
And, in particular, more of it directed at individuals. Rather than extortion aimed at corporations, which isn’t quite the same thing.
I don’t think anyone was arguing that grifting was unique to any particular political view. Clearly it is not. The question was why there seems to be substantially more of it on the right.
And, in particular, more of it directed at individuals. Rather than extortion aimed at corporations, which isn’t quite the same thing.
it might also be simply a case of grifters going where the money is. the money isn’t in poor minorities or college kids, it’s in older people – especially older people who are fearful of losing that money. and those people lean conservative.
it might also be simply a case of grifters going where the money is. the money isn’t in poor minorities or college kids, it’s in older people – especially older people who are fearful of losing that money. and those people lean conservative.
it might also be simply a case of grifters going where the money is. the money isn’t in poor minorities or college kids, it’s in older people – especially older people who are fearful of losing that money. and those people lean conservative.
So, WJ, what you’re suggesting is that the the left’s criminal subculture preys in a different way than the right’s? That I’d easily believe, if you really think it that important to distinguish between “grifting” and extortion.
So, WJ, what you’re suggesting is that the the left’s criminal subculture preys in a different way than the right’s? That I’d easily believe, if you really think it that important to distinguish between “grifting” and extortion.
So, WJ, what you’re suggesting is that the the left’s criminal subculture preys in a different way than the right’s? That I’d easily believe, if you really think it that important to distinguish between “grifting” and extortion.
If “grifting” and “extortion” are more or less the same thing, it seems pointless to have two different words for it.
–TP
If “grifting” and “extortion” are more or less the same thing, it seems pointless to have two different words for it.
–TP
If “grifting” and “extortion” are more or less the same thing, it seems pointless to have two different words for it.
–TP
“If “grifting” and “extortion” are more or less the same thing, it seems pointless to have two different words for it.”
That’s why the perpetrators refer to it with one word: business.
“If “grifting” and “extortion” are more or less the same thing, it seems pointless to have two different words for it.”
That’s why the perpetrators refer to it with one word: business.
“If “grifting” and “extortion” are more or less the same thing, it seems pointless to have two different words for it.”
That’s why the perpetrators refer to it with one word: business.
Fraud (aka grifting) is definitely different from extortion. I’m not sure how one could miss the threat that is an integral part of the latter. (Threats are important. Otherwise we wouldn’t need guns for defense against them, right?)
No question but that both are criminal. But, again, the question was about grifting on the right. If you prefer, it could have been phrased as asking why those on the right are more gullible to the particular kinds of fraud which occur there. It doesn’t require gullibility to give in to extortion, merely understanding of the threat being made.
Fraud (aka grifting) is definitely different from extortion. I’m not sure how one could miss the threat that is an integral part of the latter. (Threats are important. Otherwise we wouldn’t need guns for defense against them, right?)
No question but that both are criminal. But, again, the question was about grifting on the right. If you prefer, it could have been phrased as asking why those on the right are more gullible to the particular kinds of fraud which occur there. It doesn’t require gullibility to give in to extortion, merely understanding of the threat being made.
Fraud (aka grifting) is definitely different from extortion. I’m not sure how one could miss the threat that is an integral part of the latter. (Threats are important. Otherwise we wouldn’t need guns for defense against them, right?)
No question but that both are criminal. But, again, the question was about grifting on the right. If you prefer, it could have been phrased as asking why those on the right are more gullible to the particular kinds of fraud which occur there. It doesn’t require gullibility to give in to extortion, merely understanding of the threat being made.
Perhaps another way to look at it might be this. Grifters (at least the kind we are talking about) are taking advantage of fear of others, i.e. not themselves. And those supposed threats can be real or, at least as often, imaginary. Extortionists are taking advantage of fear of what they, themsleves, threaten to do. And since they are threatening to do something themselves, those threats are real — regardless of whether they would actually carry them out.
Perhaps another way to look at it might be this. Grifters (at least the kind we are talking about) are taking advantage of fear of others, i.e. not themselves. And those supposed threats can be real or, at least as often, imaginary. Extortionists are taking advantage of fear of what they, themsleves, threaten to do. And since they are threatening to do something themselves, those threats are real — regardless of whether they would actually carry them out.
Perhaps another way to look at it might be this. Grifters (at least the kind we are talking about) are taking advantage of fear of others, i.e. not themselves. And those supposed threats can be real or, at least as often, imaginary. Extortionists are taking advantage of fear of what they, themsleves, threaten to do. And since they are threatening to do something themselves, those threats are real — regardless of whether they would actually carry them out.
Oh yes. In case I wasn’t clear (and I think I wasn’t), I consider extortion more noxious than fraud. Had we been discussing the level of noxiousness of behavior in both ends of the political spectrum, that would have been relevant.
Oh yes. In case I wasn’t clear (and I think I wasn’t), I consider extortion more noxious than fraud. Had we been discussing the level of noxiousness of behavior in both ends of the political spectrum, that would have been relevant.
Oh yes. In case I wasn’t clear (and I think I wasn’t), I consider extortion more noxious than fraud. Had we been discussing the level of noxiousness of behavior in both ends of the political spectrum, that would have been relevant.
In the category of petty fraud, I nominate Governor Rick Perry for the hip-looking eyeglasses he’s wearing for this next clown go-around.
The first time I saw them perched on his nose, I felt like I’d stepped out back to the swinery and caught my prize myopic boar hog wearing spectacles, spats, and a cock ring.
Even though the new ocular accoutrements raised his rating a few points on the Republican racial fashion IQ scale, he remains mired somewhere between Sarah Death Palin and Goober despite trying to advance beyond his white trash station in life.
And here I thought the only optometric prescription he required were the high-powered sights attached to the large caliber automatic weapons he murders Mexican kids with from taxpayer-supplied helicopters.
Whoops, thought that was a coyote!
Watch the primary debates to see if during a lengthy pause, as he feigns an intelligent squint and tries to remember the names of the Cabinet agencies he promises to direct to kill various undesirable Americans, but on a sharply cut budget, he reaches up to rub his eye and he puts his finger clear through one of the eye holes where most normal people have correctable lenses, but his are just frames with non-existent lenses, and you’ll see what I mean.
In the category of petty fraud, I nominate Governor Rick Perry for the hip-looking eyeglasses he’s wearing for this next clown go-around.
The first time I saw them perched on his nose, I felt like I’d stepped out back to the swinery and caught my prize myopic boar hog wearing spectacles, spats, and a cock ring.
Even though the new ocular accoutrements raised his rating a few points on the Republican racial fashion IQ scale, he remains mired somewhere between Sarah Death Palin and Goober despite trying to advance beyond his white trash station in life.
And here I thought the only optometric prescription he required were the high-powered sights attached to the large caliber automatic weapons he murders Mexican kids with from taxpayer-supplied helicopters.
Whoops, thought that was a coyote!
Watch the primary debates to see if during a lengthy pause, as he feigns an intelligent squint and tries to remember the names of the Cabinet agencies he promises to direct to kill various undesirable Americans, but on a sharply cut budget, he reaches up to rub his eye and he puts his finger clear through one of the eye holes where most normal people have correctable lenses, but his are just frames with non-existent lenses, and you’ll see what I mean.
In the category of petty fraud, I nominate Governor Rick Perry for the hip-looking eyeglasses he’s wearing for this next clown go-around.
The first time I saw them perched on his nose, I felt like I’d stepped out back to the swinery and caught my prize myopic boar hog wearing spectacles, spats, and a cock ring.
Even though the new ocular accoutrements raised his rating a few points on the Republican racial fashion IQ scale, he remains mired somewhere between Sarah Death Palin and Goober despite trying to advance beyond his white trash station in life.
And here I thought the only optometric prescription he required were the high-powered sights attached to the large caliber automatic weapons he murders Mexican kids with from taxpayer-supplied helicopters.
Whoops, thought that was a coyote!
Watch the primary debates to see if during a lengthy pause, as he feigns an intelligent squint and tries to remember the names of the Cabinet agencies he promises to direct to kill various undesirable Americans, but on a sharply cut budget, he reaches up to rub his eye and he puts his finger clear through one of the eye holes where most normal people have correctable lenses, but his are just frames with non-existent lenses, and you’ll see what I mean.
” If you prefer, it could have been phrased as asking why those on the right are more gullible to the particular kinds of fraud which occur there.”
Well, I do have a theory about that. It also explains why you’ve got the Tea Party movement on the right, and no apparent counterpart on the left.
Essentially, there has arisen in America a distinct ruling culture. To a large extent, the fight between the two major parties is a kind of shirts vs skins affair. They share a lot of their basic views. But the problem for the GOP side of this fake war, is that the ruling culture is more in agreement with moderate left views than conservative views.
So liberals have no great difficulty finding politicians to support who actually agree with them. Sure, you’ve got your grifters, but they have to compete with the real deal, which is tough where actual track records are available.
But conservatives have a great deal of difficulty finding actual conservative politicians to support, particularly above the local or at best state level, because the GOP establishment is pretty relentless about killing off the careers of politicians who are really conservative, and look like they’re getting traction.
This means that conservative grifters don’t have to compete so much with the real deal. The Establishment doesn’t mind the grifters, after all, they’re in a sense grifters themselves, pulling a perpetual bait and switch on their base.
This is exacerbated by the fact that until the last couple of decades, the GOP was a powerless minority in Congress, so GOP leaders didn’t have to deliver on the causes they claimed to be championing. They could just make a show of fighting the good fight, and losing.
Then along came 1994, and the dog caught the car. And the GOP establishment tried to continue as usual, fighting the good fight and losing. And the base noticed that they were taking a dive.
Since then it’s been internal war on the right, with actual conservatives fighting to replace an establishment that only talks conservative, and the establishment using their position at the party’s levers of power to stop them. If the Dems and Republicans hadn’t gotten together in the 80’s on ‘campaign reforming’ third parties into perpetual futility, the GOP would have split up by now.
In this environment, the grifters have the advantage, that the establishment prefers them over the real deal. It wants the energies of conservatives, to the extent they can’t be channeled into electing RINOs, to be wasted. So the grifters have the party establishment’s back.
And there’s a shortage of real-deal conservatives at the federal level to compete with them.
And, this IS different from the Democratic party, where the party establishment is not so actively hostile to the principles it supposedly is working to enact. Indifferent, perhaps, but not actively hostile.
” If you prefer, it could have been phrased as asking why those on the right are more gullible to the particular kinds of fraud which occur there.”
Well, I do have a theory about that. It also explains why you’ve got the Tea Party movement on the right, and no apparent counterpart on the left.
Essentially, there has arisen in America a distinct ruling culture. To a large extent, the fight between the two major parties is a kind of shirts vs skins affair. They share a lot of their basic views. But the problem for the GOP side of this fake war, is that the ruling culture is more in agreement with moderate left views than conservative views.
So liberals have no great difficulty finding politicians to support who actually agree with them. Sure, you’ve got your grifters, but they have to compete with the real deal, which is tough where actual track records are available.
But conservatives have a great deal of difficulty finding actual conservative politicians to support, particularly above the local or at best state level, because the GOP establishment is pretty relentless about killing off the careers of politicians who are really conservative, and look like they’re getting traction.
This means that conservative grifters don’t have to compete so much with the real deal. The Establishment doesn’t mind the grifters, after all, they’re in a sense grifters themselves, pulling a perpetual bait and switch on their base.
This is exacerbated by the fact that until the last couple of decades, the GOP was a powerless minority in Congress, so GOP leaders didn’t have to deliver on the causes they claimed to be championing. They could just make a show of fighting the good fight, and losing.
Then along came 1994, and the dog caught the car. And the GOP establishment tried to continue as usual, fighting the good fight and losing. And the base noticed that they were taking a dive.
Since then it’s been internal war on the right, with actual conservatives fighting to replace an establishment that only talks conservative, and the establishment using their position at the party’s levers of power to stop them. If the Dems and Republicans hadn’t gotten together in the 80’s on ‘campaign reforming’ third parties into perpetual futility, the GOP would have split up by now.
In this environment, the grifters have the advantage, that the establishment prefers them over the real deal. It wants the energies of conservatives, to the extent they can’t be channeled into electing RINOs, to be wasted. So the grifters have the party establishment’s back.
And there’s a shortage of real-deal conservatives at the federal level to compete with them.
And, this IS different from the Democratic party, where the party establishment is not so actively hostile to the principles it supposedly is working to enact. Indifferent, perhaps, but not actively hostile.
” If you prefer, it could have been phrased as asking why those on the right are more gullible to the particular kinds of fraud which occur there.”
Well, I do have a theory about that. It also explains why you’ve got the Tea Party movement on the right, and no apparent counterpart on the left.
Essentially, there has arisen in America a distinct ruling culture. To a large extent, the fight between the two major parties is a kind of shirts vs skins affair. They share a lot of their basic views. But the problem for the GOP side of this fake war, is that the ruling culture is more in agreement with moderate left views than conservative views.
So liberals have no great difficulty finding politicians to support who actually agree with them. Sure, you’ve got your grifters, but they have to compete with the real deal, which is tough where actual track records are available.
But conservatives have a great deal of difficulty finding actual conservative politicians to support, particularly above the local or at best state level, because the GOP establishment is pretty relentless about killing off the careers of politicians who are really conservative, and look like they’re getting traction.
This means that conservative grifters don’t have to compete so much with the real deal. The Establishment doesn’t mind the grifters, after all, they’re in a sense grifters themselves, pulling a perpetual bait and switch on their base.
This is exacerbated by the fact that until the last couple of decades, the GOP was a powerless minority in Congress, so GOP leaders didn’t have to deliver on the causes they claimed to be championing. They could just make a show of fighting the good fight, and losing.
Then along came 1994, and the dog caught the car. And the GOP establishment tried to continue as usual, fighting the good fight and losing. And the base noticed that they were taking a dive.
Since then it’s been internal war on the right, with actual conservatives fighting to replace an establishment that only talks conservative, and the establishment using their position at the party’s levers of power to stop them. If the Dems and Republicans hadn’t gotten together in the 80’s on ‘campaign reforming’ third parties into perpetual futility, the GOP would have split up by now.
In this environment, the grifters have the advantage, that the establishment prefers them over the real deal. It wants the energies of conservatives, to the extent they can’t be channeled into electing RINOs, to be wasted. So the grifters have the party establishment’s back.
And there’s a shortage of real-deal conservatives at the federal level to compete with them.
And, this IS different from the Democratic party, where the party establishment is not so actively hostile to the principles it supposedly is working to enact. Indifferent, perhaps, but not actively hostile.
But conservatives have a great deal of difficulty finding actual conservative politicians to support
They’re depraved on account of they’re deprived?
If only someone would strike the chains from the poor true conservatives, so they could lead us back to our virtuous republican ideals.
But conservatives have a great deal of difficulty finding actual conservative politicians to support
They’re depraved on account of they’re deprived?
If only someone would strike the chains from the poor true conservatives, so they could lead us back to our virtuous republican ideals.
But conservatives have a great deal of difficulty finding actual conservative politicians to support
They’re depraved on account of they’re deprived?
If only someone would strike the chains from the poor true conservatives, so they could lead us back to our virtuous republican ideals.
” with the implication that grifter also means liberal.”
Actually, the implication would be that grifter doesn’t mean liberal OR conservative.
Someone was sleeping one day in their logic class…
” with the implication that grifter also means liberal.”
Actually, the implication would be that grifter doesn’t mean liberal OR conservative.
Someone was sleeping one day in their logic class…
” with the implication that grifter also means liberal.”
Actually, the implication would be that grifter doesn’t mean liberal OR conservative.
Someone was sleeping one day in their logic class…
“They’re depraved on account of they’re deprived?”
I certainly didn’t suggest conservatives were depraved. Just in a situation where the grifter to real deal ratio is very high, and the party establishment is promoting the former, not the latter.
Ok, LJ, Grifter neither means liberal nor conservative. Happy.
Geeze, I spent decades learning to speak colloquially, and this is the thanks I get.
“They’re depraved on account of they’re deprived?”
I certainly didn’t suggest conservatives were depraved. Just in a situation where the grifter to real deal ratio is very high, and the party establishment is promoting the former, not the latter.
Ok, LJ, Grifter neither means liberal nor conservative. Happy.
Geeze, I spent decades learning to speak colloquially, and this is the thanks I get.
“They’re depraved on account of they’re deprived?”
I certainly didn’t suggest conservatives were depraved. Just in a situation where the grifter to real deal ratio is very high, and the party establishment is promoting the former, not the latter.
Ok, LJ, Grifter neither means liberal nor conservative. Happy.
Geeze, I spent decades learning to speak colloquially, and this is the thanks I get.
Brett:
I’m not at all sure you’re *right*, but that’s certainly a take I have to think about.
Does your viewpoint explain, to you, why the Romney campaign (quintessential Republican Establishment, right?) was beset by grifters, mostly in the form of consultants?
There’s also the matter of conservative email promotions, as opposed to liberal’s. Do my observations match yours, or are you seeing more “monetized” email from liberals sites?
Brett:
I’m not at all sure you’re *right*, but that’s certainly a take I have to think about.
Does your viewpoint explain, to you, why the Romney campaign (quintessential Republican Establishment, right?) was beset by grifters, mostly in the form of consultants?
There’s also the matter of conservative email promotions, as opposed to liberal’s. Do my observations match yours, or are you seeing more “monetized” email from liberals sites?
Brett:
I’m not at all sure you’re *right*, but that’s certainly a take I have to think about.
Does your viewpoint explain, to you, why the Romney campaign (quintessential Republican Establishment, right?) was beset by grifters, mostly in the form of consultants?
There’s also the matter of conservative email promotions, as opposed to liberal’s. Do my observations match yours, or are you seeing more “monetized” email from liberals sites?
Q: “Why do you rob banks?” A: “Because that’s where the money is.”
I think bobbyp’s link above explains things well. It’s not a left/right thing, but more about tribal trust. That there may be more opportunity on the right is mostly coincidental.
russell, thanks as usual! [stay cool, boy!]
Q: “Why do you rob banks?” A: “Because that’s where the money is.”
I think bobbyp’s link above explains things well. It’s not a left/right thing, but more about tribal trust. That there may be more opportunity on the right is mostly coincidental.
russell, thanks as usual! [stay cool, boy!]
Q: “Why do you rob banks?” A: “Because that’s where the money is.”
I think bobbyp’s link above explains things well. It’s not a left/right thing, but more about tribal trust. That there may be more opportunity on the right is mostly coincidental.
russell, thanks as usual! [stay cool, boy!]
I certainly didn’t suggest conservatives were depraved.
It was a joke, Brett.
ral got it, anyway.
In any case, your 5:06 appears to be yet another retread of “whatever conservatives do that’s FUBAR, it’s only because they’re not really conservative, and real conservatives would never do that”.
Do you vote? Own it.
I certainly didn’t suggest conservatives were depraved.
It was a joke, Brett.
ral got it, anyway.
In any case, your 5:06 appears to be yet another retread of “whatever conservatives do that’s FUBAR, it’s only because they’re not really conservative, and real conservatives would never do that”.
Do you vote? Own it.
I certainly didn’t suggest conservatives were depraved.
It was a joke, Brett.
ral got it, anyway.
In any case, your 5:06 appears to be yet another retread of “whatever conservatives do that’s FUBAR, it’s only because they’re not really conservative, and real conservatives would never do that”.
Do you vote? Own it.
Here’s my position, from here on out, concerning any bad policies or behavior from anyone claiming to be on “the left” in American politics.
See, if they were really and truly liberal, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe, I don’t know, Albert Schweizer, then they wouldn’t behave badly.
It’s only because they aren’t freaking Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or Albert Schweizer that their actions and policies fail us.
What we need is simply to abandon the corrupt political infrastructure that has metastasized over our good old pure original American electoral system and get some good honest liberals in office, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe Albert Schweizer.
If I’m not mistaken, that corrupt self-serving party-oriented politicking kicked in around 1800.
Here’s my position, from here on out, concerning any bad policies or behavior from anyone claiming to be on “the left” in American politics.
See, if they were really and truly liberal, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe, I don’t know, Albert Schweizer, then they wouldn’t behave badly.
It’s only because they aren’t freaking Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or Albert Schweizer that their actions and policies fail us.
What we need is simply to abandon the corrupt political infrastructure that has metastasized over our good old pure original American electoral system and get some good honest liberals in office, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe Albert Schweizer.
If I’m not mistaken, that corrupt self-serving party-oriented politicking kicked in around 1800.
Here’s my position, from here on out, concerning any bad policies or behavior from anyone claiming to be on “the left” in American politics.
See, if they were really and truly liberal, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe, I don’t know, Albert Schweizer, then they wouldn’t behave badly.
It’s only because they aren’t freaking Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or Albert Schweizer that their actions and policies fail us.
What we need is simply to abandon the corrupt political infrastructure that has metastasized over our good old pure original American electoral system and get some good honest liberals in office, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe Albert Schweizer.
If I’m not mistaken, that corrupt self-serving party-oriented politicking kicked in around 1800.
The election of 1796 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796was a doozy.
Ever since Washington refused to run for a third term, it’s been downhill.
Turtles all the way.
The election of 1796 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796was a doozy.
Ever since Washington refused to run for a third term, it’s been downhill.
Turtles all the way.
The election of 1796 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796was a doozy.
Ever since Washington refused to run for a third term, it’s been downhill.
Turtles all the way.
Attack Ads, Circa 1800 (YouTube)
Attack Ads, Circa 1800 (YouTube)
Attack Ads, Circa 1800 (YouTube)
Slightly faulty link there, dr ngo. The ‘was’ should not be part of it.
What we need is simply to abandon the corrupt political infrastructure that has metastasized over our good old pure original American electoral system and get some good honest liberals in office, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe Albert Schweizer.
What’s so wrong with that?
The GOP is evil and corrupt, the Dems are weak and corrupt. The voters could at least try to do something about the corrupt part.
Schweitzer’s views on race would be a problem though.
Slightly faulty link there, dr ngo. The ‘was’ should not be part of it.
What we need is simply to abandon the corrupt political infrastructure that has metastasized over our good old pure original American electoral system and get some good honest liberals in office, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe Albert Schweizer.
What’s so wrong with that?
The GOP is evil and corrupt, the Dems are weak and corrupt. The voters could at least try to do something about the corrupt part.
Schweitzer’s views on race would be a problem though.
Slightly faulty link there, dr ngo. The ‘was’ should not be part of it.
What we need is simply to abandon the corrupt political infrastructure that has metastasized over our good old pure original American electoral system and get some good honest liberals in office, like Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or maybe Albert Schweizer.
What’s so wrong with that?
The GOP is evil and corrupt, the Dems are weak and corrupt. The voters could at least try to do something about the corrupt part.
Schweitzer’s views on race would be a problem though.
With a choice between a weak and corrupt party, and an evil and corrupt party, (Republicans say, the evil party, that’s you, and the stupid party, that’s them.) why in the world would you want to entrust more and more of life to government?
Maybe it might occur to you to minimize the part of society controlled by a corrupt institution?
With a choice between a weak and corrupt party, and an evil and corrupt party, (Republicans say, the evil party, that’s you, and the stupid party, that’s them.) why in the world would you want to entrust more and more of life to government?
Maybe it might occur to you to minimize the part of society controlled by a corrupt institution?
With a choice between a weak and corrupt party, and an evil and corrupt party, (Republicans say, the evil party, that’s you, and the stupid party, that’s them.) why in the world would you want to entrust more and more of life to government?
Maybe it might occur to you to minimize the part of society controlled by a corrupt institution?
what part of society is free of corrupt institutions?
let me know, because i’m gonna go sign up.
what part of society is free of corrupt institutions?
let me know, because i’m gonna go sign up.
what part of society is free of corrupt institutions?
let me know, because i’m gonna go sign up.
No part of society is completely free of corrupt institutions, but most areas outside government are not run exclusively by corrupt institutions.
No part of society is completely free of corrupt institutions, but most areas outside government are not run exclusively by corrupt institutions.
No part of society is completely free of corrupt institutions, but most areas outside government are not run exclusively by corrupt institutions.
Brett, would you agree that some governments, or at least some parts of some governments, are noticably less corrupt thatn others? (Or, if you prefer, that some are more corrupt than others?)
If so, there would seem to be something to be said for trying to make the government we have less corrupt. Since, like it or not (and I know you don’t) there is no real prospect of massively reducing it any time soon.
Brett, would you agree that some governments, or at least some parts of some governments, are noticably less corrupt thatn others? (Or, if you prefer, that some are more corrupt than others?)
If so, there would seem to be something to be said for trying to make the government we have less corrupt. Since, like it or not (and I know you don’t) there is no real prospect of massively reducing it any time soon.
Brett, would you agree that some governments, or at least some parts of some governments, are noticably less corrupt thatn others? (Or, if you prefer, that some are more corrupt than others?)
If so, there would seem to be something to be said for trying to make the government we have less corrupt. Since, like it or not (and I know you don’t) there is no real prospect of massively reducing it any time soon.
If so, there would seem to be something to be said for trying to make the government we have less corrupt.
Obviously, the solution is to remove any and all limits or regulations on money flows into political campaigning.
What always strikes me about Brett’s analyses of current-day political life here in the US are their asymmetry.
The poor, put-upon true conservative has to somehow struggle with their lack of representation in, and access to, the political establishment.
Folks on the left, however, have never had it so good. The entire political establishment of the country is, apparently, oriented completely toward the goals and preferences of the left.
You can tell that this is so, because of the obvious left-wing orientation of virtually all (D)’s, and the de-facto (if sub rosa) support that left-wing policies receive from the nominally conservative (R)’s.
You may not have realized this, but we actually live in a socialist paradise.
If so, there would seem to be something to be said for trying to make the government we have less corrupt.
Obviously, the solution is to remove any and all limits or regulations on money flows into political campaigning.
What always strikes me about Brett’s analyses of current-day political life here in the US are their asymmetry.
The poor, put-upon true conservative has to somehow struggle with their lack of representation in, and access to, the political establishment.
Folks on the left, however, have never had it so good. The entire political establishment of the country is, apparently, oriented completely toward the goals and preferences of the left.
You can tell that this is so, because of the obvious left-wing orientation of virtually all (D)’s, and the de-facto (if sub rosa) support that left-wing policies receive from the nominally conservative (R)’s.
You may not have realized this, but we actually live in a socialist paradise.
If so, there would seem to be something to be said for trying to make the government we have less corrupt.
Obviously, the solution is to remove any and all limits or regulations on money flows into political campaigning.
What always strikes me about Brett’s analyses of current-day political life here in the US are their asymmetry.
The poor, put-upon true conservative has to somehow struggle with their lack of representation in, and access to, the political establishment.
Folks on the left, however, have never had it so good. The entire political establishment of the country is, apparently, oriented completely toward the goals and preferences of the left.
You can tell that this is so, because of the obvious left-wing orientation of virtually all (D)’s, and the de-facto (if sub rosa) support that left-wing policies receive from the nominally conservative (R)’s.
You may not have realized this, but we actually live in a socialist paradise.
“You may not have realized this, but we actually live in a socialist paradise.”
well, in Massachusetts. And Vermont. And Washington State. In other states paradise awaits. Is it a coincidence that they played in the Super Bowl? Is Defellategate a secret anti socialist plot? Or a cunning sleight of hand conspiracy between Obama and the NFL to prop up those socialist governments? Remember, you heard it herefirst, or second I am not sure.
“You may not have realized this, but we actually live in a socialist paradise.”
well, in Massachusetts. And Vermont. And Washington State. In other states paradise awaits. Is it a coincidence that they played in the Super Bowl? Is Defellategate a secret anti socialist plot? Or a cunning sleight of hand conspiracy between Obama and the NFL to prop up those socialist governments? Remember, you heard it herefirst, or second I am not sure.
“You may not have realized this, but we actually live in a socialist paradise.”
well, in Massachusetts. And Vermont. And Washington State. In other states paradise awaits. Is it a coincidence that they played in the Super Bowl? Is Defellategate a secret anti socialist plot? Or a cunning sleight of hand conspiracy between Obama and the NFL to prop up those socialist governments? Remember, you heard it herefirst, or second I am not sure.
If it’s Defellategate, it must be a gay thing. 😉
If it’s Defellategate, it must be a gay thing. 😉
If it’s Defellategate, it must be a gay thing. 😉
Defellategate?
Not another one of those! What’s next? Blowghazi?
I think once fellated, forever fellated. You can’t put it back in the bottle, as Bill Clinton finally admitted, redfaced, not that he wanted to.
There should probably be something about the vanity of thinking you can put the toothpaste back in the tube, but I’ll leave that for another wagster.
“Republicans say, the evil party, that’s you, and the stupid party, that’s them.”
Somehow, Brett always exempts himself from the evil and stupidity the rest of us practice. You and them, but never him.
It’s defellating, to say the least.
Soren Kierkagaard wrote, according to Walker Percy, that Hegel explained everything in the universe except what it is to be an individual, to be born, to live, and to die.
Percy aimed the same accusation at science, or what he called scientism, and provided examples, which are beside the point here.
But, Brett’s formulations are of the same genre or species. All is explained, except one thing: Brett, the non-participant who stands outside or above it all, judging.
He writes: “Maybe it might occur to you to minimize the part of society controlled by a corrupt institution?”
Which part? The “of the people” part, or the “by the people” part. Or the “for the people” part? “People”, each with interests, being the main constituent and corrupt part. And of course, we’ve not mentioned the really important people, the luckiest people in the world, the corporate people who love corporate people.
This seems apt:
http://news.yahoo.com/gops-christie-parents-choice-vaccinations-135148862–politics.html
“People” with the freedom pox should be able to infect the rest of us, without the corrupt institution of government lending a hand to scratch the itch.
I don’t know about defellation, but we’re headed for bugger all.
Defellategate?
Not another one of those! What’s next? Blowghazi?
I think once fellated, forever fellated. You can’t put it back in the bottle, as Bill Clinton finally admitted, redfaced, not that he wanted to.
There should probably be something about the vanity of thinking you can put the toothpaste back in the tube, but I’ll leave that for another wagster.
“Republicans say, the evil party, that’s you, and the stupid party, that’s them.”
Somehow, Brett always exempts himself from the evil and stupidity the rest of us practice. You and them, but never him.
It’s defellating, to say the least.
Soren Kierkagaard wrote, according to Walker Percy, that Hegel explained everything in the universe except what it is to be an individual, to be born, to live, and to die.
Percy aimed the same accusation at science, or what he called scientism, and provided examples, which are beside the point here.
But, Brett’s formulations are of the same genre or species. All is explained, except one thing: Brett, the non-participant who stands outside or above it all, judging.
He writes: “Maybe it might occur to you to minimize the part of society controlled by a corrupt institution?”
Which part? The “of the people” part, or the “by the people” part. Or the “for the people” part? “People”, each with interests, being the main constituent and corrupt part. And of course, we’ve not mentioned the really important people, the luckiest people in the world, the corporate people who love corporate people.
This seems apt:
http://news.yahoo.com/gops-christie-parents-choice-vaccinations-135148862–politics.html
“People” with the freedom pox should be able to infect the rest of us, without the corrupt institution of government lending a hand to scratch the itch.
I don’t know about defellation, but we’re headed for bugger all.
Defellategate?
Not another one of those! What’s next? Blowghazi?
I think once fellated, forever fellated. You can’t put it back in the bottle, as Bill Clinton finally admitted, redfaced, not that he wanted to.
There should probably be something about the vanity of thinking you can put the toothpaste back in the tube, but I’ll leave that for another wagster.
“Republicans say, the evil party, that’s you, and the stupid party, that’s them.”
Somehow, Brett always exempts himself from the evil and stupidity the rest of us practice. You and them, but never him.
It’s defellating, to say the least.
Soren Kierkagaard wrote, according to Walker Percy, that Hegel explained everything in the universe except what it is to be an individual, to be born, to live, and to die.
Percy aimed the same accusation at science, or what he called scientism, and provided examples, which are beside the point here.
But, Brett’s formulations are of the same genre or species. All is explained, except one thing: Brett, the non-participant who stands outside or above it all, judging.
He writes: “Maybe it might occur to you to minimize the part of society controlled by a corrupt institution?”
Which part? The “of the people” part, or the “by the people” part. Or the “for the people” part? “People”, each with interests, being the main constituent and corrupt part. And of course, we’ve not mentioned the really important people, the luckiest people in the world, the corporate people who love corporate people.
This seems apt:
http://news.yahoo.com/gops-christie-parents-choice-vaccinations-135148862–politics.html
“People” with the freedom pox should be able to infect the rest of us, without the corrupt institution of government lending a hand to scratch the itch.
I don’t know about defellation, but we’re headed for bugger all.
Central banks around the world are finally turning their powers against defellation, instead of this nearly forty year obsession with infellation.
Why, just yesterday, in a joint oral presentation for the press, the New Greek Prime Minister, fresh from his recent landslide erection, said the Eurozone must stop with this constant fight against fellation and let our economies grow larger, which seemed contradictory, but there it is.
The French, not surprisingly, agreed with the Greeks.
The Germans, always uptight about fellation, blushed and demurred, but plan a rearguard action against the Greek insurrection.
Janey Yellen said she was keeping an eye on the entire spectacle, and who can blame her?
Central banks around the world are finally turning their powers against defellation, instead of this nearly forty year obsession with infellation.
Why, just yesterday, in a joint oral presentation for the press, the New Greek Prime Minister, fresh from his recent landslide erection, said the Eurozone must stop with this constant fight against fellation and let our economies grow larger, which seemed contradictory, but there it is.
The French, not surprisingly, agreed with the Greeks.
The Germans, always uptight about fellation, blushed and demurred, but plan a rearguard action against the Greek insurrection.
Janey Yellen said she was keeping an eye on the entire spectacle, and who can blame her?
Central banks around the world are finally turning their powers against defellation, instead of this nearly forty year obsession with infellation.
Why, just yesterday, in a joint oral presentation for the press, the New Greek Prime Minister, fresh from his recent landslide erection, said the Eurozone must stop with this constant fight against fellation and let our economies grow larger, which seemed contradictory, but there it is.
The French, not surprisingly, agreed with the Greeks.
The Germans, always uptight about fellation, blushed and demurred, but plan a rearguard action against the Greek insurrection.
Janey Yellen said she was keeping an eye on the entire spectacle, and who can blame her?
I just make it a matter of personal policy that:
Hey, there’s already too much money in politics; me giving someone money for the cause du jour would be making things worse.
OTOH, as some of my liberal friends have pointed out, I don’t always vote my wallet, because my wallet isn’t my only priority. “Best interests” aren’t solely financial. I’d be hard-pressed to prioritize my interests, though, so don’t ask.
I just make it a matter of personal policy that:
Hey, there’s already too much money in politics; me giving someone money for the cause du jour would be making things worse.
OTOH, as some of my liberal friends have pointed out, I don’t always vote my wallet, because my wallet isn’t my only priority. “Best interests” aren’t solely financial. I’d be hard-pressed to prioritize my interests, though, so don’t ask.
I just make it a matter of personal policy that:
Hey, there’s already too much money in politics; me giving someone money for the cause du jour would be making things worse.
OTOH, as some of my liberal friends have pointed out, I don’t always vote my wallet, because my wallet isn’t my only priority. “Best interests” aren’t solely financial. I’d be hard-pressed to prioritize my interests, though, so don’t ask.
Obviously, Christie’s gambit to make the measles lobby his own, is but the opening shot for the rest of the Republican Party to draft most of the major diseases to their side in the quest to gain the White House (and then be quarantined).
Rick Perry is on the phone to chicken pox and shingles lovers everywhere.
Mike Huckabee will speak in front of Hepatitis C, B, and Z afficianados next week, while Sarah Palin will lead a parade of polio fans for her “Polio Virus Restoration Project”, as they limp toward the finish line, where they will pile like breathless clowns into an iron lung.
AIDS and EBOLA vaccines now in the works will be burnt on effigy at the next Steve King Republican fete in Iowa and Jodi Ernst will attend a target practice at her local gun range and take pot shots at Chlamydia Vaccine developers, while warning that she is a proud sufferer of chlamydia and will do everything in her power to spread the gospel, at gunpoint.
Swine flu is one of her favorites too.
America’s head is so far up our collective asses, that ……………..
Obviously, Christie’s gambit to make the measles lobby his own, is but the opening shot for the rest of the Republican Party to draft most of the major diseases to their side in the quest to gain the White House (and then be quarantined).
Rick Perry is on the phone to chicken pox and shingles lovers everywhere.
Mike Huckabee will speak in front of Hepatitis C, B, and Z afficianados next week, while Sarah Palin will lead a parade of polio fans for her “Polio Virus Restoration Project”, as they limp toward the finish line, where they will pile like breathless clowns into an iron lung.
AIDS and EBOLA vaccines now in the works will be burnt on effigy at the next Steve King Republican fete in Iowa and Jodi Ernst will attend a target practice at her local gun range and take pot shots at Chlamydia Vaccine developers, while warning that she is a proud sufferer of chlamydia and will do everything in her power to spread the gospel, at gunpoint.
Swine flu is one of her favorites too.
America’s head is so far up our collective asses, that ……………..
Obviously, Christie’s gambit to make the measles lobby his own, is but the opening shot for the rest of the Republican Party to draft most of the major diseases to their side in the quest to gain the White House (and then be quarantined).
Rick Perry is on the phone to chicken pox and shingles lovers everywhere.
Mike Huckabee will speak in front of Hepatitis C, B, and Z afficianados next week, while Sarah Palin will lead a parade of polio fans for her “Polio Virus Restoration Project”, as they limp toward the finish line, where they will pile like breathless clowns into an iron lung.
AIDS and EBOLA vaccines now in the works will be burnt on effigy at the next Steve King Republican fete in Iowa and Jodi Ernst will attend a target practice at her local gun range and take pot shots at Chlamydia Vaccine developers, while warning that she is a proud sufferer of chlamydia and will do everything in her power to spread the gospel, at gunpoint.
Swine flu is one of her favorites too.
America’s head is so far up our collective asses, that ……………..
if liberals care so much about all those endangered species, why do they want to eradicate measles? huh? why do we have to save the spotted owl but we have to kill off measles ? tell me that, mister en-vi-ro-ment!
if liberals care so much about all those endangered species, why do they want to eradicate measles? huh? why do we have to save the spotted owl but we have to kill off measles ? tell me that, mister en-vi-ro-ment!
if liberals care so much about all those endangered species, why do they want to eradicate measles? huh? why do we have to save the spotted owl but we have to kill off measles ? tell me that, mister en-vi-ro-ment!
Count, you’re getting too ad-hominemy at Brett. Back off, please.
Count, you’re getting too ad-hominemy at Brett. Back off, please.
Count, you’re getting too ad-hominemy at Brett. Back off, please.
He can handle it, but O.K.
He can handle it, but O.K.
He can handle it, but O.K.
russell, it does rather seem like, if corruption (i.e the influence of money) in government is a bad thing, then the amount of money being spent on politics ought to be reduced, not opened up. But perhaps there is something subtle here about the interaction of removing limits on spending and reducing corruption that I’m missing. Wouldn’t be the first time.
russell, it does rather seem like, if corruption (i.e the influence of money) in government is a bad thing, then the amount of money being spent on politics ought to be reduced, not opened up. But perhaps there is something subtle here about the interaction of removing limits on spending and reducing corruption that I’m missing. Wouldn’t be the first time.
russell, it does rather seem like, if corruption (i.e the influence of money) in government is a bad thing, then the amount of money being spent on politics ought to be reduced, not opened up. But perhaps there is something subtle here about the interaction of removing limits on spending and reducing corruption that I’m missing. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Limits on contributions corrupt the natural process of corruption. Bribists have to take great care whom to bribe to be effective. The limits serve the purpose to channel the limited bribes to a limited number of bribees, those who make the rules and profit off them. Someone not yet part of this group will find it far more difficult to get bribed enough to rise high enough to reach the same teat. So the pool of corruptees turns stale because there is not enough turnover. Without the limits a bribist could tell the old guard of bribees “Yes, I will give you the usual amnount because you have proven a reliable corruptee who will give me what I desire in return. But in order to keep you from getting lazy and complacent, I will spend on fresh corruptible blood to compete with you. Maybe I can get a little bit more for a little bit less, if you have to fear that you will receive less of the invigorating corruptive fluid.” So, removing limits and regulations will keep the process of bribes and corruption more honest. It will also be more cost effective since less is lost in the arduous process of circumventing the rules and regulations.
Btw, it’s time to replace that old complicated motto ‘e pluribus unum’ with the more simple and true-to-life ‘do ut des’ (although that is a rather dissonant chord).
Limits on contributions corrupt the natural process of corruption. Bribists have to take great care whom to bribe to be effective. The limits serve the purpose to channel the limited bribes to a limited number of bribees, those who make the rules and profit off them. Someone not yet part of this group will find it far more difficult to get bribed enough to rise high enough to reach the same teat. So the pool of corruptees turns stale because there is not enough turnover. Without the limits a bribist could tell the old guard of bribees “Yes, I will give you the usual amnount because you have proven a reliable corruptee who will give me what I desire in return. But in order to keep you from getting lazy and complacent, I will spend on fresh corruptible blood to compete with you. Maybe I can get a little bit more for a little bit less, if you have to fear that you will receive less of the invigorating corruptive fluid.” So, removing limits and regulations will keep the process of bribes and corruption more honest. It will also be more cost effective since less is lost in the arduous process of circumventing the rules and regulations.
Btw, it’s time to replace that old complicated motto ‘e pluribus unum’ with the more simple and true-to-life ‘do ut des’ (although that is a rather dissonant chord).
Limits on contributions corrupt the natural process of corruption. Bribists have to take great care whom to bribe to be effective. The limits serve the purpose to channel the limited bribes to a limited number of bribees, those who make the rules and profit off them. Someone not yet part of this group will find it far more difficult to get bribed enough to rise high enough to reach the same teat. So the pool of corruptees turns stale because there is not enough turnover. Without the limits a bribist could tell the old guard of bribees “Yes, I will give you the usual amnount because you have proven a reliable corruptee who will give me what I desire in return. But in order to keep you from getting lazy and complacent, I will spend on fresh corruptible blood to compete with you. Maybe I can get a little bit more for a little bit less, if you have to fear that you will receive less of the invigorating corruptive fluid.” So, removing limits and regulations will keep the process of bribes and corruption more honest. It will also be more cost effective since less is lost in the arduous process of circumventing the rules and regulations.
Btw, it’s time to replace that old complicated motto ‘e pluribus unum’ with the more simple and true-to-life ‘do ut des’ (although that is a rather dissonant chord).
The White House seems a little less forthright than the Count when it comes to vaccination:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1302015
Q And obviously it has revived the debate over vaccines. Does the President, does the White House have a message about that and who will be getting vaccinated?
MR. EARNEST: Well, the President certainly believes that these kinds of decisions are decisions that should be made by parents, because ultimately when we’re talking about vaccinations, we’re typically talking about vaccinations that are given to children. But the science on this, as our public health professionals I’m sure would be happy to tell you, the science on this is really clear.
Q That people should get vaccinated?
MR. EARNEST: That’s certainly what the science indicates, and that’s obviously what our public health professionals recommend. And being guided by the science in matters like this is typically the right approach.
Kevin.
The White House seems a little less forthright than the Count when it comes to vaccination:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1302015
Q And obviously it has revived the debate over vaccines. Does the President, does the White House have a message about that and who will be getting vaccinated?
MR. EARNEST: Well, the President certainly believes that these kinds of decisions are decisions that should be made by parents, because ultimately when we’re talking about vaccinations, we’re typically talking about vaccinations that are given to children. But the science on this, as our public health professionals I’m sure would be happy to tell you, the science on this is really clear.
Q That people should get vaccinated?
MR. EARNEST: That’s certainly what the science indicates, and that’s obviously what our public health professionals recommend. And being guided by the science in matters like this is typically the right approach.
Kevin.
The White House seems a little less forthright than the Count when it comes to vaccination:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1302015
Q And obviously it has revived the debate over vaccines. Does the President, does the White House have a message about that and who will be getting vaccinated?
MR. EARNEST: Well, the President certainly believes that these kinds of decisions are decisions that should be made by parents, because ultimately when we’re talking about vaccinations, we’re typically talking about vaccinations that are given to children. But the science on this, as our public health professionals I’m sure would be happy to tell you, the science on this is really clear.
Q That people should get vaccinated?
MR. EARNEST: That’s certainly what the science indicates, and that’s obviously what our public health professionals recommend. And being guided by the science in matters like this is typically the right approach.
Kevin.
the WH knows that to come out strongly in favor of something would guarantee that Republicans would immediately come out against it. so, their best move is to say “being guided by the science in matters like this is typically the right approach”
the WH knows that to come out strongly in favor of something would guarantee that Republicans would immediately come out against it. so, their best move is to say “being guided by the science in matters like this is typically the right approach”
the WH knows that to come out strongly in favor of something would guarantee that Republicans would immediately come out against it. so, their best move is to say “being guided by the science in matters like this is typically the right approach”
Ad-hominemey sounds like one of the last steps in preparing a Southern-style breakfast.
Ad-hominemey sounds like one of the last steps in preparing a Southern-style breakfast.
Ad-hominemey sounds like one of the last steps in preparing a Southern-style breakfast.
[…]
For instance: If you’re interested in finding communitarians, look for highly educated whites who frequently attend church services and have lower socioeconomic statuses. If you want to find libertarian women, look for white, heterosexual atheists or Christians with infrequent church attendance, high education levels, and incomes above the median.
If you want to find lawyers who are opposed to tax hikes, look for ones who got lower SAT scores and attended bottom-tier schools; they will tend to have more pessimistic expectations about their future earnings capacity. The higher an individual’s human capital, the less likely they are to be concerned about future tax hikes. That goes for accountants and hot dog cart owners alike.
[…]
Are Demographics Destiny?: Self-interest, sex, snakes, and the making of our political preferences
[…]
For instance: If you’re interested in finding communitarians, look for highly educated whites who frequently attend church services and have lower socioeconomic statuses. If you want to find libertarian women, look for white, heterosexual atheists or Christians with infrequent church attendance, high education levels, and incomes above the median.
If you want to find lawyers who are opposed to tax hikes, look for ones who got lower SAT scores and attended bottom-tier schools; they will tend to have more pessimistic expectations about their future earnings capacity. The higher an individual’s human capital, the less likely they are to be concerned about future tax hikes. That goes for accountants and hot dog cart owners alike.
[…]
Are Demographics Destiny?: Self-interest, sex, snakes, and the making of our political preferences
[…]
For instance: If you’re interested in finding communitarians, look for highly educated whites who frequently attend church services and have lower socioeconomic statuses. If you want to find libertarian women, look for white, heterosexual atheists or Christians with infrequent church attendance, high education levels, and incomes above the median.
If you want to find lawyers who are opposed to tax hikes, look for ones who got lower SAT scores and attended bottom-tier schools; they will tend to have more pessimistic expectations about their future earnings capacity. The higher an individual’s human capital, the less likely they are to be concerned about future tax hikes. That goes for accountants and hot dog cart owners alike.
[…]
Are Demographics Destiny?: Self-interest, sex, snakes, and the making of our political preferences
“then the amount of money being spent on politics ought to be reduced, not opened up.”
But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents, and “money being spent on politics” is often spent trying to *replace* corrupt incumbents.
So, when you “reduce money spent on politics”, you are playing into the hands of incumbents, who view this as a darned effective way of handicapping challengers.
“then the amount of money being spent on politics ought to be reduced, not opened up.”
But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents, and “money being spent on politics” is often spent trying to *replace* corrupt incumbents.
So, when you “reduce money spent on politics”, you are playing into the hands of incumbents, who view this as a darned effective way of handicapping challengers.
“then the amount of money being spent on politics ought to be reduced, not opened up.”
But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents, and “money being spent on politics” is often spent trying to *replace* corrupt incumbents.
So, when you “reduce money spent on politics”, you are playing into the hands of incumbents, who view this as a darned effective way of handicapping challengers.
time handicaps all incumbents.
time handicaps all incumbents.
time handicaps all incumbents.
Ad-hominemey = one-man, single-serving grits.
Also something Ralph Kramden might stutter.
“But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents, and “money being spent on politics” is often spent trying to *replace* corrupt incumbents.”
So, when the incumbent who is bought and paid for to adhere to certain planks goes against the big money to vote his or her consciences ….
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-republican-partys-abortion-bind/384736/
… is the corrupt one, but the bigger money that calls him or her a traitor to the Party and a RINO and fattens the money envelope slipped into the slot of the unmarked mailbox in, probably Texas, to remove said traitor from office using even bigger money to put a supposedly non-corrupt mouthpiece in to stick unquestioningly to the entire Party line is clean money?:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/23/renee-ellmers-call-campaign-team-primary-challenge/
I guess corruption equals refusing to be paid off.
I hope that was somewhat opposite of ad hominum.
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/03/25/whats-the-opposite-of-ad-hominem/
Ad-hominemey = one-man, single-serving grits.
Also something Ralph Kramden might stutter.
“But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents, and “money being spent on politics” is often spent trying to *replace* corrupt incumbents.”
So, when the incumbent who is bought and paid for to adhere to certain planks goes against the big money to vote his or her consciences ….
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-republican-partys-abortion-bind/384736/
… is the corrupt one, but the bigger money that calls him or her a traitor to the Party and a RINO and fattens the money envelope slipped into the slot of the unmarked mailbox in, probably Texas, to remove said traitor from office using even bigger money to put a supposedly non-corrupt mouthpiece in to stick unquestioningly to the entire Party line is clean money?:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/23/renee-ellmers-call-campaign-team-primary-challenge/
I guess corruption equals refusing to be paid off.
I hope that was somewhat opposite of ad hominum.
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/03/25/whats-the-opposite-of-ad-hominem/
Ad-hominemey = one-man, single-serving grits.
Also something Ralph Kramden might stutter.
“But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents, and “money being spent on politics” is often spent trying to *replace* corrupt incumbents.”
So, when the incumbent who is bought and paid for to adhere to certain planks goes against the big money to vote his or her consciences ….
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-republican-partys-abortion-bind/384736/
… is the corrupt one, but the bigger money that calls him or her a traitor to the Party and a RINO and fattens the money envelope slipped into the slot of the unmarked mailbox in, probably Texas, to remove said traitor from office using even bigger money to put a supposedly non-corrupt mouthpiece in to stick unquestioningly to the entire Party line is clean money?:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/23/renee-ellmers-call-campaign-team-primary-challenge/
I guess corruption equals refusing to be paid off.
I hope that was somewhat opposite of ad hominum.
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/03/25/whats-the-opposite-of-ad-hominem/
I am, instead, playing into the hands of my bank account, my ability to retire as planned, and my lack of interest in electing either incumbents or challengers due to the quality of candidates.
This is, as I see it, a purely personal decision. I would not, for example, dream of constraining others from doing as they please with their money.
I am, instead, playing into the hands of my bank account, my ability to retire as planned, and my lack of interest in electing either incumbents or challengers due to the quality of candidates.
This is, as I see it, a purely personal decision. I would not, for example, dream of constraining others from doing as they please with their money.
I am, instead, playing into the hands of my bank account, my ability to retire as planned, and my lack of interest in electing either incumbents or challengers due to the quality of candidates.
This is, as I see it, a purely personal decision. I would not, for example, dream of constraining others from doing as they please with their money.
With a baton, to the knee.
We can always hope.
With a baton, to the knee.
We can always hope.
With a baton, to the knee.
We can always hope.
Brett, as you yourself remarked a couple of days ago, Harry Browne was a grifter (corrupt), despite his platform against incumbency and politicians, and yet he was corrupt without ever having experienced political incumbency.
Of course, he was a financial newsletter writer, so I guess bullsh*t was baked into the cake without his ever having served in office.
In fact, his profession was superb training for lying, cheating, corruption, and incumbency. Browne was made for politics.
I seems to me the bottom line is that “the People” are the raw material that all corrupt incumbency derives from.
We need new raw material.
Soylent Green, also good for breakfast.
Brett, as you yourself remarked a couple of days ago, Harry Browne was a grifter (corrupt), despite his platform against incumbency and politicians, and yet he was corrupt without ever having experienced political incumbency.
Of course, he was a financial newsletter writer, so I guess bullsh*t was baked into the cake without his ever having served in office.
In fact, his profession was superb training for lying, cheating, corruption, and incumbency. Browne was made for politics.
I seems to me the bottom line is that “the People” are the raw material that all corrupt incumbency derives from.
We need new raw material.
Soylent Green, also good for breakfast.
Brett, as you yourself remarked a couple of days ago, Harry Browne was a grifter (corrupt), despite his platform against incumbency and politicians, and yet he was corrupt without ever having experienced political incumbency.
Of course, he was a financial newsletter writer, so I guess bullsh*t was baked into the cake without his ever having served in office.
In fact, his profession was superb training for lying, cheating, corruption, and incumbency. Browne was made for politics.
I seems to me the bottom line is that “the People” are the raw material that all corrupt incumbency derives from.
We need new raw material.
Soylent Green, also good for breakfast.
There are arguably lots of causes of corruption in government.
Quid pro quo deals, guarantees of fat consulting gigs after your career as an elected official are over. The sheer number of folks whose entire working lives are dedicated to throwing money at elected officials. The ginormous buckets of money those folks have to throw.
Lots and lots of reasons.
The thing that just doesn’t seem to rise to the top of the list is the limited amount of money available to spend on political campaigns.
There are arguably lots of causes of corruption in government.
Quid pro quo deals, guarantees of fat consulting gigs after your career as an elected official are over. The sheer number of folks whose entire working lives are dedicated to throwing money at elected officials. The ginormous buckets of money those folks have to throw.
Lots and lots of reasons.
The thing that just doesn’t seem to rise to the top of the list is the limited amount of money available to spend on political campaigns.
There are arguably lots of causes of corruption in government.
Quid pro quo deals, guarantees of fat consulting gigs after your career as an elected official are over. The sheer number of folks whose entire working lives are dedicated to throwing money at elected officials. The ginormous buckets of money those folks have to throw.
Lots and lots of reasons.
The thing that just doesn’t seem to rise to the top of the list is the limited amount of money available to spend on political campaigns.
The Koch Brothers have spent a lot of money to end the incumbency of moderate RINO Republicans, not to mention Democrats, prone to the corrupt practice of compromise.
I wonder why?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_02/pledging_allegiance053986.php
The Koch Brothers have spent a lot of money to end the incumbency of moderate RINO Republicans, not to mention Democrats, prone to the corrupt practice of compromise.
I wonder why?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_02/pledging_allegiance053986.php
The Koch Brothers have spent a lot of money to end the incumbency of moderate RINO Republicans, not to mention Democrats, prone to the corrupt practice of compromise.
I wonder why?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_02/pledging_allegiance053986.php
But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents…
So if we lower the number of incumbents there will be less corruption? I am reminded of the wingers elected in the 90’s who advocated term limits and conveniently forgot about that once they achieved office.
I would also note that the level of government corruption appears to be inversely correlated with its size.
But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents…
So if we lower the number of incumbents there will be less corruption? I am reminded of the wingers elected in the 90’s who advocated term limits and conveniently forgot about that once they achieved office.
I would also note that the level of government corruption appears to be inversely correlated with its size.
But corruption IN government is a matter of corrupt incumbents…
So if we lower the number of incumbents there will be less corruption? I am reminded of the wingers elected in the 90’s who advocated term limits and conveniently forgot about that once they achieved office.
I would also note that the level of government corruption appears to be inversely correlated with its size.
Not necessarily, but you need to keep in mind that incumbents are always trying to game the system to render themselves safe, and one of the ways they do so is by finding ways to deny challengers enough funding to run an effective campaign. More of campaign ‘reform’ has been incumbents doing just this, than the ‘reformers’ care to admit.
Not necessarily, but you need to keep in mind that incumbents are always trying to game the system to render themselves safe, and one of the ways they do so is by finding ways to deny challengers enough funding to run an effective campaign. More of campaign ‘reform’ has been incumbents doing just this, than the ‘reformers’ care to admit.
Not necessarily, but you need to keep in mind that incumbents are always trying to game the system to render themselves safe, and one of the ways they do so is by finding ways to deny challengers enough funding to run an effective campaign. More of campaign ‘reform’ has been incumbents doing just this, than the ‘reformers’ care to admit.
I’d like to see some substantiating evidence for that statement.
Also, it’d be interesting to hear what you think is and isn’t government corruption.
I’d like to see some substantiating evidence for that statement.
Also, it’d be interesting to hear what you think is and isn’t government corruption.
I’d like to see some substantiating evidence for that statement.
Also, it’d be interesting to hear what you think is and isn’t government corruption.
As an aside:
The Romney 2012 campaign was riddled with them. After the fact, Ben Howe at RedState wrote that The Romney Campaign was a Consultant Con Job: he talked to sources inside the campaign who said “the consultants essentially used the Romney campaign as a money making scheme, forcing employees to spin false data as truth in order to paint a rosy picture of a successful campaign as a form of job security.”
If I was prone to schadenfreude, this would be delicious.
As it is, I’ll just call it karma.
As an aside:
The Romney 2012 campaign was riddled with them. After the fact, Ben Howe at RedState wrote that The Romney Campaign was a Consultant Con Job: he talked to sources inside the campaign who said “the consultants essentially used the Romney campaign as a money making scheme, forcing employees to spin false data as truth in order to paint a rosy picture of a successful campaign as a form of job security.”
If I was prone to schadenfreude, this would be delicious.
As it is, I’ll just call it karma.
As an aside:
The Romney 2012 campaign was riddled with them. After the fact, Ben Howe at RedState wrote that The Romney Campaign was a Consultant Con Job: he talked to sources inside the campaign who said “the consultants essentially used the Romney campaign as a money making scheme, forcing employees to spin false data as truth in order to paint a rosy picture of a successful campaign as a form of job security.”
If I was prone to schadenfreude, this would be delicious.
As it is, I’ll just call it karma.
To grift you need suckers, people who don’t have a firm grasp on how things actually happen. The rightwing has both cultivated and self-selected that quality. To be rightwing in the USA nowadays you have to be able to deny reality, and that makes you a perfect dupe.
To grift you need suckers, people who don’t have a firm grasp on how things actually happen. The rightwing has both cultivated and self-selected that quality. To be rightwing in the USA nowadays you have to be able to deny reality, and that makes you a perfect dupe.
To grift you need suckers, people who don’t have a firm grasp on how things actually happen. The rightwing has both cultivated and self-selected that quality. To be rightwing in the USA nowadays you have to be able to deny reality, and that makes you a perfect dupe.
How do we distinguish between corruption of the “pay office holders for favors” variety from corruption of the “pay office holders’, or would-be office holders’, campaign funds in exchange for favors” variety.
How do we distinguish between corruption of the “pay office holders for favors” variety from corruption of the “pay office holders’, or would-be office holders’, campaign funds in exchange for favors” variety.
How do we distinguish between corruption of the “pay office holders for favors” variety from corruption of the “pay office holders’, or would-be office holders’, campaign funds in exchange for favors” variety.
wj, that’s easy. The former is illegal, the latter is legal.
wj, that’s easy. The former is illegal, the latter is legal.
wj, that’s easy. The former is illegal, the latter is legal.
Defellating: A typo I knew the Count would appreciate. I did have to add the second l after noticing the spelling error. I was really trying to figure out a crisp definition but, alas, my mind was unable to rise to the occasion again.
Defellating: A typo I knew the Count would appreciate. I did have to add the second l after noticing the spelling error. I was really trying to figure out a crisp definition but, alas, my mind was unable to rise to the occasion again.
Defellating: A typo I knew the Count would appreciate. I did have to add the second l after noticing the spelling error. I was really trying to figure out a crisp definition but, alas, my mind was unable to rise to the occasion again.
How do we distinguish between…
The gold standard, per the SCOTUS, is that there has to be a clear, unambiguous, explicit quid pro quo in order for it to earn the name “corruption”.
I.e., “I will pay you $10,000 for a yes vote on this bill, here’s a bag of money, and can I have a receipt”.
I’m not sure, but I think that *perhaps* Boehner’s handing out of checks on the floor of the House in exchange for votes might have qualified, had that standard been articulated at that time.
Merely paying for influence, where “influence” apparently includes writing the text of legislation, is not corruption, says the court. Apparently, it’s now known as “speech”.
How do we distinguish between…
The gold standard, per the SCOTUS, is that there has to be a clear, unambiguous, explicit quid pro quo in order for it to earn the name “corruption”.
I.e., “I will pay you $10,000 for a yes vote on this bill, here’s a bag of money, and can I have a receipt”.
I’m not sure, but I think that *perhaps* Boehner’s handing out of checks on the floor of the House in exchange for votes might have qualified, had that standard been articulated at that time.
Merely paying for influence, where “influence” apparently includes writing the text of legislation, is not corruption, says the court. Apparently, it’s now known as “speech”.
How do we distinguish between…
The gold standard, per the SCOTUS, is that there has to be a clear, unambiguous, explicit quid pro quo in order for it to earn the name “corruption”.
I.e., “I will pay you $10,000 for a yes vote on this bill, here’s a bag of money, and can I have a receipt”.
I’m not sure, but I think that *perhaps* Boehner’s handing out of checks on the floor of the House in exchange for votes might have qualified, had that standard been articulated at that time.
Merely paying for influence, where “influence” apparently includes writing the text of legislation, is not corruption, says the court. Apparently, it’s now known as “speech”.
ral, it may be legal, but it is still corruption. Just sayin’
ral, it may be legal, but it is still corruption. Just sayin’
ral, it may be legal, but it is still corruption. Just sayin’
I think it’s paying for access. Senator X will meet/talk with Big Donor Z who can make a pretty convincing case to adopt Preferred Policy #3, especially when there is no one arguing Not Preferred Policy #3 with similar access. And it’s not like Big Donor Z’s argument is “vote for this bill so I gets teh $$$!” It’s always good public policy, or beneficial to the district/state, or both, or for the good of the country, etc.
So, it gets you listened to, perhaps to the exclusion of others. I’d argue it is similar to legacy admissions – if you’re a legacy that means your file gets a “real” look, not necessarily that you’ll be admitted over more a qualified non-legacy candidate (not that there won’t be exceptions). Since the top schools now get enough applicants to fill their incoming freshman class with uber-qualified candidates, including legacies, why not admit more legacies and get the (presumably) extra-donation $$ that might come with that?
I think it’s paying for access. Senator X will meet/talk with Big Donor Z who can make a pretty convincing case to adopt Preferred Policy #3, especially when there is no one arguing Not Preferred Policy #3 with similar access. And it’s not like Big Donor Z’s argument is “vote for this bill so I gets teh $$$!” It’s always good public policy, or beneficial to the district/state, or both, or for the good of the country, etc.
So, it gets you listened to, perhaps to the exclusion of others. I’d argue it is similar to legacy admissions – if you’re a legacy that means your file gets a “real” look, not necessarily that you’ll be admitted over more a qualified non-legacy candidate (not that there won’t be exceptions). Since the top schools now get enough applicants to fill their incoming freshman class with uber-qualified candidates, including legacies, why not admit more legacies and get the (presumably) extra-donation $$ that might come with that?
I think it’s paying for access. Senator X will meet/talk with Big Donor Z who can make a pretty convincing case to adopt Preferred Policy #3, especially when there is no one arguing Not Preferred Policy #3 with similar access. And it’s not like Big Donor Z’s argument is “vote for this bill so I gets teh $$$!” It’s always good public policy, or beneficial to the district/state, or both, or for the good of the country, etc.
So, it gets you listened to, perhaps to the exclusion of others. I’d argue it is similar to legacy admissions – if you’re a legacy that means your file gets a “real” look, not necessarily that you’ll be admitted over more a qualified non-legacy candidate (not that there won’t be exceptions). Since the top schools now get enough applicants to fill their incoming freshman class with uber-qualified candidates, including legacies, why not admit more legacies and get the (presumably) extra-donation $$ that might come with that?
wj, I hope you know I agree with you 100%
wj, I hope you know I agree with you 100%
wj, I hope you know I agree with you 100%
“Are you a policeman?”
“No, a constable.”
“What’s the difference?”
“They’re spelt differently.”
[the Goon Show]
“Are you a policeman?”
“No, a constable.”
“What’s the difference?”
“They’re spelt differently.”
[the Goon Show]
“Are you a policeman?”
“No, a constable.”
“What’s the difference?”
“They’re spelt differently.”
[the Goon Show]
I’d like to see some substantiating evidence for that statement.
Slarti,
I am burning the candle at both ends at work right now…so, no, I do not have quantitative evidence, but I shall do some searching about and see what I can find. For now I simply ask you some questions in return:
1. Who is more likely to be on “the take”…the local cop on the beat or an FBI/Treasury agent?
2. Who is more likely to hire your worthless nephew for a government job based simply on your say so…a local municipality or the federal civil service?
3. Where do you find more instances of land use back scratching…your local planning agency or the BLM?
4. When it comes to flat out criminal dipping into the public till, where do you see this more often…at the local level or the federal level?
For good or for ill, that’s what I was thinking when I wrote that statement.
Also, it’d be interesting to hear what you think is and isn’t government corruption.
Here’s an article by Juan Cole listing “10 ways the us is the most corrupt….yada, yada in the WORLD!” While these items are indeed lamentable, I do not consider them corruption. They are consciously adopted public policies that are hurting our polity, crippling our future, and constraining our ability to be a truly functional democracy. With the right politics, these policies can be altered, rolled back, or eliminated. They are the outcome of the self dealing of an array of interest groups working through the political process.
Hope that helps….now to find some data.
I’d like to see some substantiating evidence for that statement.
Slarti,
I am burning the candle at both ends at work right now…so, no, I do not have quantitative evidence, but I shall do some searching about and see what I can find. For now I simply ask you some questions in return:
1. Who is more likely to be on “the take”…the local cop on the beat or an FBI/Treasury agent?
2. Who is more likely to hire your worthless nephew for a government job based simply on your say so…a local municipality or the federal civil service?
3. Where do you find more instances of land use back scratching…your local planning agency or the BLM?
4. When it comes to flat out criminal dipping into the public till, where do you see this more often…at the local level or the federal level?
For good or for ill, that’s what I was thinking when I wrote that statement.
Also, it’d be interesting to hear what you think is and isn’t government corruption.
Here’s an article by Juan Cole listing “10 ways the us is the most corrupt….yada, yada in the WORLD!” While these items are indeed lamentable, I do not consider them corruption. They are consciously adopted public policies that are hurting our polity, crippling our future, and constraining our ability to be a truly functional democracy. With the right politics, these policies can be altered, rolled back, or eliminated. They are the outcome of the self dealing of an array of interest groups working through the political process.
Hope that helps….now to find some data.
I’d like to see some substantiating evidence for that statement.
Slarti,
I am burning the candle at both ends at work right now…so, no, I do not have quantitative evidence, but I shall do some searching about and see what I can find. For now I simply ask you some questions in return:
1. Who is more likely to be on “the take”…the local cop on the beat or an FBI/Treasury agent?
2. Who is more likely to hire your worthless nephew for a government job based simply on your say so…a local municipality or the federal civil service?
3. Where do you find more instances of land use back scratching…your local planning agency or the BLM?
4. When it comes to flat out criminal dipping into the public till, where do you see this more often…at the local level or the federal level?
For good or for ill, that’s what I was thinking when I wrote that statement.
Also, it’d be interesting to hear what you think is and isn’t government corruption.
Here’s an article by Juan Cole listing “10 ways the us is the most corrupt….yada, yada in the WORLD!” While these items are indeed lamentable, I do not consider them corruption. They are consciously adopted public policies that are hurting our polity, crippling our future, and constraining our ability to be a truly functional democracy. With the right politics, these policies can be altered, rolled back, or eliminated. They are the outcome of the self dealing of an array of interest groups working through the political process.
Hope that helps….now to find some data.
bobbyp, thanks for the link to the Cole piece.
IMO most of the items on that list are obvious and blatant forms of corruption.
None of them is recognized as such under US law.
Per Kennedy in Citizens United, and Roberts in McCutcheon, corruption consists solely and entirely in the direct exchange of an official act for money.
Here is a check for $50,000, you can have it if you vote “yes” on this bill.
Pay for access is not even close. Basically, the view appears to be that *money is speech*, and so spending money is protected activity under the 1st A. Not just issue advocacy, or campaigning, but lobbying as well.
Money buying the privilege of having your speech heard is not only not wrong, it’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Want to be heard? Get more money.
bobbyp, thanks for the link to the Cole piece.
IMO most of the items on that list are obvious and blatant forms of corruption.
None of them is recognized as such under US law.
Per Kennedy in Citizens United, and Roberts in McCutcheon, corruption consists solely and entirely in the direct exchange of an official act for money.
Here is a check for $50,000, you can have it if you vote “yes” on this bill.
Pay for access is not even close. Basically, the view appears to be that *money is speech*, and so spending money is protected activity under the 1st A. Not just issue advocacy, or campaigning, but lobbying as well.
Money buying the privilege of having your speech heard is not only not wrong, it’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Want to be heard? Get more money.
bobbyp, thanks for the link to the Cole piece.
IMO most of the items on that list are obvious and blatant forms of corruption.
None of them is recognized as such under US law.
Per Kennedy in Citizens United, and Roberts in McCutcheon, corruption consists solely and entirely in the direct exchange of an official act for money.
Here is a check for $50,000, you can have it if you vote “yes” on this bill.
Pay for access is not even close. Basically, the view appears to be that *money is speech*, and so spending money is protected activity under the 1st A. Not just issue advocacy, or campaigning, but lobbying as well.
Money buying the privilege of having your speech heard is not only not wrong, it’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Want to be heard? Get more money.
if money is speech because it can facilitate speech, is it voting because it can buy all the things you need to get to the polls? is it religion because it can buy churches and hymnals? is it guns because it can buy guns?
if money is speech because it can facilitate speech, is it voting because it can buy all the things you need to get to the polls? is it religion because it can buy churches and hymnals? is it guns because it can buy guns?
if money is speech because it can facilitate speech, is it voting because it can buy all the things you need to get to the polls? is it religion because it can buy churches and hymnals? is it guns because it can buy guns?
Time is money.
Time is money.
Time is money.
if time is money, then money is time. and if money is speech, then time is speech. therefore … wasting my time is a violation of my 1st A rights?
if time is money, then money is time. and if money is speech, then time is speech. therefore … wasting my time is a violation of my 1st A rights?
if time is money, then money is time. and if money is speech, then time is speech. therefore … wasting my time is a violation of my 1st A rights?
“if money is speech because it can facilitate speech, is it voting because it can buy all the things you need to get to the polls? is it religion because it can buy churches and hymnals? is it guns because it can buy guns?”
Yes.
Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press. Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church. The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms.
People try to use money as a handle to regulate rights, and pretend that they’re not regulating the right, just the money. Nobody whose right is under attack that way buys it for an instant, and, thankfully, neither does the Supreme court.
“if money is speech because it can facilitate speech, is it voting because it can buy all the things you need to get to the polls? is it religion because it can buy churches and hymnals? is it guns because it can buy guns?”
Yes.
Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press. Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church. The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms.
People try to use money as a handle to regulate rights, and pretend that they’re not regulating the right, just the money. Nobody whose right is under attack that way buys it for an instant, and, thankfully, neither does the Supreme court.
“if money is speech because it can facilitate speech, is it voting because it can buy all the things you need to get to the polls? is it religion because it can buy churches and hymnals? is it guns because it can buy guns?”
Yes.
Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press. Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church. The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms.
People try to use money as a handle to regulate rights, and pretend that they’re not regulating the right, just the money. Nobody whose right is under attack that way buys it for an instant, and, thankfully, neither does the Supreme court.
Apropos of nothing, and therefore everything, I give you this quote from the freshly minted Greek Finance Minister, regarding upcoming debt negotiations with the Eurozone:
“I only entered politics three weeks ago,” the Greek minister said on Tuesday. “Therefore, I remain optimistic on the possibility of an agreement.”
I’m glad to see the spirit of Aristophanes lives on in Greece.
The French may view it as Panglossian.
Apropos of nothing, and therefore everything, I give you this quote from the freshly minted Greek Finance Minister, regarding upcoming debt negotiations with the Eurozone:
“I only entered politics three weeks ago,” the Greek minister said on Tuesday. “Therefore, I remain optimistic on the possibility of an agreement.”
I’m glad to see the spirit of Aristophanes lives on in Greece.
The French may view it as Panglossian.
Apropos of nothing, and therefore everything, I give you this quote from the freshly minted Greek Finance Minister, regarding upcoming debt negotiations with the Eurozone:
“I only entered politics three weeks ago,” the Greek minister said on Tuesday. “Therefore, I remain optimistic on the possibility of an agreement.”
I’m glad to see the spirit of Aristophanes lives on in Greece.
The French may view it as Panglossian.
The trouble with the “explicit exchange of money for action” definition is that it ignores the “nod and wink” kind of understanding. Everybody knows that, if you don’t vote the way some big donor asks, your chances of future donations nosedive. Nobody has to say so explicitly. Which means that it isn’t legally corruption . . . just really.
The trouble with the “explicit exchange of money for action” definition is that it ignores the “nod and wink” kind of understanding. Everybody knows that, if you don’t vote the way some big donor asks, your chances of future donations nosedive. Nobody has to say so explicitly. Which means that it isn’t legally corruption . . . just really.
The trouble with the “explicit exchange of money for action” definition is that it ignores the “nod and wink” kind of understanding. Everybody knows that, if you don’t vote the way some big donor asks, your chances of future donations nosedive. Nobody has to say so explicitly. Which means that it isn’t legally corruption . . . just really.
People try to use money as a handle to regulate rights, and pretend that they’re not regulating the right, just the money. Nobody whose right is under attack that way buys it for an instant, and, thankfully, neither does the Supreme court.
So what you are saying is that corruption (real corruption, not just the narrow legal definition) must be allowed? OK, if that’s the way you see it. But never again complain about the corruption of those in office.
Personally, I think that corruption can be dealt with by constraints on spending money just as reasonably as freedom of speech is constrained by prohibiting shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater or prohibiting libel and slander. Both are undoubtedly restrictions on a Constitutional right. But that doesn’t mean that they are unreasonalble.
People try to use money as a handle to regulate rights, and pretend that they’re not regulating the right, just the money. Nobody whose right is under attack that way buys it for an instant, and, thankfully, neither does the Supreme court.
So what you are saying is that corruption (real corruption, not just the narrow legal definition) must be allowed? OK, if that’s the way you see it. But never again complain about the corruption of those in office.
Personally, I think that corruption can be dealt with by constraints on spending money just as reasonably as freedom of speech is constrained by prohibiting shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater or prohibiting libel and slander. Both are undoubtedly restrictions on a Constitutional right. But that doesn’t mean that they are unreasonalble.
People try to use money as a handle to regulate rights, and pretend that they’re not regulating the right, just the money. Nobody whose right is under attack that way buys it for an instant, and, thankfully, neither does the Supreme court.
So what you are saying is that corruption (real corruption, not just the narrow legal definition) must be allowed? OK, if that’s the way you see it. But never again complain about the corruption of those in office.
Personally, I think that corruption can be dealt with by constraints on spending money just as reasonably as freedom of speech is constrained by prohibiting shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater or prohibiting libel and slander. Both are undoubtedly restrictions on a Constitutional right. But that doesn’t mean that they are unreasonalble.
“Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press. Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church. The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms”
All very pristine.
How much money traveled under the table and up the britches of the Founding Fathers from the special interests of the day to cause the former to believe all that you posit here was self-evident?
Corruption flowing therefrom:
A. Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing.
Slavery, yup.
B. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press.
William Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War
FOX News, Drudge, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Second War in Iraq, not to mention the first, but who is counting?
“Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church.”
Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a corrupt carve-out. You, yourself, have noted in recent days the Church of Scientology criminal enterprise (tax exempt), and the need to do something about Islam, which I presume, might include tinkering with constitutional protections for Mosques on American soil.
“The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms”
The language of the Second Amendment does not include the words “bullets” or “ammunition”, so your absolutist tone about this stuff has no basis in the text. However, you’ll be gratified to know that I’m working on a novel legal theory that, in fact, if money is speech, and money can buy or sell weapons, then guns are amplifiers for human speech, and bullets are in fact the speech that requires no trigger warnings, just like now.
I’m pretty sure I can get that past the current Supreme Court, who spend their time just making sh*t up, like the characters in Alice in Wonderland.
Along the lines of when Ted Nugent hoists his automatic military weaponry in concert or on FOX News and says “It’s time that we let these babies do the talking!” or when Bundy or his militias let their fingers on the triggers do the walking and the talking, and to be fair and balanced, the BLM, the ATF, the IRS, and police forces across the country do the same.
I’m going to take all of their weapons. And their bullets.
Then they can talk to each other like human beings.
“Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press. Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church. The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms”
All very pristine.
How much money traveled under the table and up the britches of the Founding Fathers from the special interests of the day to cause the former to believe all that you posit here was self-evident?
Corruption flowing therefrom:
A. Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing.
Slavery, yup.
B. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press.
William Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War
FOX News, Drudge, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Second War in Iraq, not to mention the first, but who is counting?
“Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church.”
Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a corrupt carve-out. You, yourself, have noted in recent days the Church of Scientology criminal enterprise (tax exempt), and the need to do something about Islam, which I presume, might include tinkering with constitutional protections for Mosques on American soil.
“The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms”
The language of the Second Amendment does not include the words “bullets” or “ammunition”, so your absolutist tone about this stuff has no basis in the text. However, you’ll be gratified to know that I’m working on a novel legal theory that, in fact, if money is speech, and money can buy or sell weapons, then guns are amplifiers for human speech, and bullets are in fact the speech that requires no trigger warnings, just like now.
I’m pretty sure I can get that past the current Supreme Court, who spend their time just making sh*t up, like the characters in Alice in Wonderland.
Along the lines of when Ted Nugent hoists his automatic military weaponry in concert or on FOX News and says “It’s time that we let these babies do the talking!” or when Bundy or his militias let their fingers on the triggers do the walking and the talking, and to be fair and balanced, the BLM, the ATF, the IRS, and police forces across the country do the same.
I’m going to take all of their weapons. And their bullets.
Then they can talk to each other like human beings.
“Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press. Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church. The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms”
All very pristine.
How much money traveled under the table and up the britches of the Founding Fathers from the special interests of the day to cause the former to believe all that you posit here was self-evident?
Corruption flowing therefrom:
A. Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing.
Slavery, yup.
B. Freedom of the press means you can’t bar people from buying ink and paper, from renting or buying a printing press.
William Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War
FOX News, Drudge, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Second War in Iraq, not to mention the first, but who is counting?
“Freedom of religion means you can’t prohibit people from giving money to a church.”
Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a corrupt carve-out. You, yourself, have noted in recent days the Church of Scientology criminal enterprise (tax exempt), and the need to do something about Islam, which I presume, might include tinkering with constitutional protections for Mosques on American soil.
“The right to keep and bear arms means you can’t prohibit people from buying or selling arms”
The language of the Second Amendment does not include the words “bullets” or “ammunition”, so your absolutist tone about this stuff has no basis in the text. However, you’ll be gratified to know that I’m working on a novel legal theory that, in fact, if money is speech, and money can buy or sell weapons, then guns are amplifiers for human speech, and bullets are in fact the speech that requires no trigger warnings, just like now.
I’m pretty sure I can get that past the current Supreme Court, who spend their time just making sh*t up, like the characters in Alice in Wonderland.
Along the lines of when Ted Nugent hoists his automatic military weaponry in concert or on FOX News and says “It’s time that we let these babies do the talking!” or when Bundy or his militias let their fingers on the triggers do the walking and the talking, and to be fair and balanced, the BLM, the ATF, the IRS, and police forces across the country do the same.
I’m going to take all of their weapons. And their bullets.
Then they can talk to each other like human beings.
While these items are indeed lamentable, I do not consider them corruption. They are consciously adopted public policies that are hurting our polity, crippling our future, and constraining our ability to be a truly functional democracy. With the right politics, these policies can be altered, rolled back, or eliminated.
Corruption does not cease to be corruption simply because it’s been institutionalized. It’s simply made more formal, rote, and respectable, and is allowed to show its face in public.
Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing.
This is only true if we can only have completely unrestrained freedoms – if it’s binary, and either you can do anything you can construe to be X, or else you “can’t really” do X. I.e., if we don’t have free speech if someone can hold that we don’t have the right to speak “Fire!” at the top of our lungs in a crowded theater, or the right to speak untruths simply because we gave an oath not to, or to speak untruths about earnings to your shareholders, or to speak someone else’s name when identifying yourself in a civilly/financially significant matter, etc.
Money makes it easier to do many of the things you’ve mentioned, and lets you do them on a larger scale. It facilitates certain kinds of speech, but does not “allow speech” full stop. To claim that it cannot be limited without eliminating the underlying right is to claim that freedoms must be wholly unconstrained, always and without question, or they do not exist. Without that extreme and frankly dangerous stance, we’ve already established what the Constitution is; now we’re just negotiating the price.
While these items are indeed lamentable, I do not consider them corruption. They are consciously adopted public policies that are hurting our polity, crippling our future, and constraining our ability to be a truly functional democracy. With the right politics, these policies can be altered, rolled back, or eliminated.
Corruption does not cease to be corruption simply because it’s been institutionalized. It’s simply made more formal, rote, and respectable, and is allowed to show its face in public.
Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing.
This is only true if we can only have completely unrestrained freedoms – if it’s binary, and either you can do anything you can construe to be X, or else you “can’t really” do X. I.e., if we don’t have free speech if someone can hold that we don’t have the right to speak “Fire!” at the top of our lungs in a crowded theater, or the right to speak untruths simply because we gave an oath not to, or to speak untruths about earnings to your shareholders, or to speak someone else’s name when identifying yourself in a civilly/financially significant matter, etc.
Money makes it easier to do many of the things you’ve mentioned, and lets you do them on a larger scale. It facilitates certain kinds of speech, but does not “allow speech” full stop. To claim that it cannot be limited without eliminating the underlying right is to claim that freedoms must be wholly unconstrained, always and without question, or they do not exist. Without that extreme and frankly dangerous stance, we’ve already established what the Constitution is; now we’re just negotiating the price.
While these items are indeed lamentable, I do not consider them corruption. They are consciously adopted public policies that are hurting our polity, crippling our future, and constraining our ability to be a truly functional democracy. With the right politics, these policies can be altered, rolled back, or eliminated.
Corruption does not cease to be corruption simply because it’s been institutionalized. It’s simply made more formal, rote, and respectable, and is allowed to show its face in public.
Because the power to prohibit people from spending money to do something is the power to prevent them from doing that thing.
This is only true if we can only have completely unrestrained freedoms – if it’s binary, and either you can do anything you can construe to be X, or else you “can’t really” do X. I.e., if we don’t have free speech if someone can hold that we don’t have the right to speak “Fire!” at the top of our lungs in a crowded theater, or the right to speak untruths simply because we gave an oath not to, or to speak untruths about earnings to your shareholders, or to speak someone else’s name when identifying yourself in a civilly/financially significant matter, etc.
Money makes it easier to do many of the things you’ve mentioned, and lets you do them on a larger scale. It facilitates certain kinds of speech, but does not “allow speech” full stop. To claim that it cannot be limited without eliminating the underlying right is to claim that freedoms must be wholly unconstrained, always and without question, or they do not exist. Without that extreme and frankly dangerous stance, we’ve already established what the Constitution is; now we’re just negotiating the price.
Getting a firm grip on what counts as corruption in America is problematic, to say the least.
Since I brought up “Health” supplements earlier, to wit:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-herbal-supplements-might-be-a-sham-2015-02-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Now, the supplement makers until recent years have been free to lie and cheat at will (not all, mind you) regarding the contents of their miracle-cure capsules, caplets, salves, and draughts and the spectacular disease-preventing properties of such.
But here comes the FDA, conducting peer-reviewed blind studies over many years and sure enough many of these claims are hot air, so we will now, at the very least, regulate the labeling of the products to reflect the actual ingredients … ie, reality.
Well, this is enough to send the, pale, cross-eyed, besandaled hippies (again, not all) who started the supplement movement down to the local gun store, with a stop at the NRC’s outpost to pick up some brochures, to protect their God-given First Amendment rights to believe and sell whatever they want and either say so (bullsh*t) with extravagant labeling claims OR not be forced, I say forced, by gummint NOT to say so by listing the ingredients on the bottle and not making unfounded claims for the products. After all, what the customer doesn’t know, won’t hurt him (what’s he going to do, put the ingredients in a centrifuge and then, donning his lab coat, eye the contents under an electron microscope?) and will keep the stuff flying off the shelves.
Depending on who you talk to (or pay, money being speech), the lies heretofore claimed to be the Truth by the supplement industry are NOT corruption.
Indeed, the heavy hand of the FDA and the Agriculture Department trying to ferret out the truth and labeling the products so, is where the corruption lies.
Show me the money! I’m listening.
Getting a firm grip on what counts as corruption in America is problematic, to say the least.
Since I brought up “Health” supplements earlier, to wit:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-herbal-supplements-might-be-a-sham-2015-02-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Now, the supplement makers until recent years have been free to lie and cheat at will (not all, mind you) regarding the contents of their miracle-cure capsules, caplets, salves, and draughts and the spectacular disease-preventing properties of such.
But here comes the FDA, conducting peer-reviewed blind studies over many years and sure enough many of these claims are hot air, so we will now, at the very least, regulate the labeling of the products to reflect the actual ingredients … ie, reality.
Well, this is enough to send the, pale, cross-eyed, besandaled hippies (again, not all) who started the supplement movement down to the local gun store, with a stop at the NRC’s outpost to pick up some brochures, to protect their God-given First Amendment rights to believe and sell whatever they want and either say so (bullsh*t) with extravagant labeling claims OR not be forced, I say forced, by gummint NOT to say so by listing the ingredients on the bottle and not making unfounded claims for the products. After all, what the customer doesn’t know, won’t hurt him (what’s he going to do, put the ingredients in a centrifuge and then, donning his lab coat, eye the contents under an electron microscope?) and will keep the stuff flying off the shelves.
Depending on who you talk to (or pay, money being speech), the lies heretofore claimed to be the Truth by the supplement industry are NOT corruption.
Indeed, the heavy hand of the FDA and the Agriculture Department trying to ferret out the truth and labeling the products so, is where the corruption lies.
Show me the money! I’m listening.
Getting a firm grip on what counts as corruption in America is problematic, to say the least.
Since I brought up “Health” supplements earlier, to wit:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-herbal-supplements-might-be-a-sham-2015-02-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Now, the supplement makers until recent years have been free to lie and cheat at will (not all, mind you) regarding the contents of their miracle-cure capsules, caplets, salves, and draughts and the spectacular disease-preventing properties of such.
But here comes the FDA, conducting peer-reviewed blind studies over many years and sure enough many of these claims are hot air, so we will now, at the very least, regulate the labeling of the products to reflect the actual ingredients … ie, reality.
Well, this is enough to send the, pale, cross-eyed, besandaled hippies (again, not all) who started the supplement movement down to the local gun store, with a stop at the NRC’s outpost to pick up some brochures, to protect their God-given First Amendment rights to believe and sell whatever they want and either say so (bullsh*t) with extravagant labeling claims OR not be forced, I say forced, by gummint NOT to say so by listing the ingredients on the bottle and not making unfounded claims for the products. After all, what the customer doesn’t know, won’t hurt him (what’s he going to do, put the ingredients in a centrifuge and then, donning his lab coat, eye the contents under an electron microscope?) and will keep the stuff flying off the shelves.
Depending on who you talk to (or pay, money being speech), the lies heretofore claimed to be the Truth by the supplement industry are NOT corruption.
Indeed, the heavy hand of the FDA and the Agriculture Department trying to ferret out the truth and labeling the products so, is where the corruption lies.
Show me the money! I’m listening.
Yes
money is guns and speech and religion.
tell us again about doing violence to the language.
Yes
money is guns and speech and religion.
tell us again about doing violence to the language.
Yes
money is guns and speech and religion.
tell us again about doing violence to the language.
Yes, but language isn’t speech, otherwise I wouldn’t always be asked to watch the former.
Yes, but language isn’t speech, otherwise I wouldn’t always be asked to watch the former.
Yes, but language isn’t speech, otherwise I wouldn’t always be asked to watch the former.
I read this topic yesterday but couldn’t post on chrome, I’m trying again using Firefox, today.
I just had one thing I wanted to say after reading the big “gullibility theory” post of Brett’s.
Brett, your post sounds remarkably like someone that is about to BE grifted. It’s full of ‘purity’ and ‘us vs them’ where you can ONLY trust the ‘true conservatives’. When you only trust ONE group, that group can take you for everything if you won’t even LISTEN to the ‘others’. Notice how the ‘Republican Establishment’ are all ‘RINOS’ now because you’ve decided they aren’t ‘Tea Party’.
I’m not going to go any further with this, but just be aware that the group you apparently believe in, is one of the MAJOR groups full of grifters right now, NOT just ‘The Establishment’.
I read this topic yesterday but couldn’t post on chrome, I’m trying again using Firefox, today.
I just had one thing I wanted to say after reading the big “gullibility theory” post of Brett’s.
Brett, your post sounds remarkably like someone that is about to BE grifted. It’s full of ‘purity’ and ‘us vs them’ where you can ONLY trust the ‘true conservatives’. When you only trust ONE group, that group can take you for everything if you won’t even LISTEN to the ‘others’. Notice how the ‘Republican Establishment’ are all ‘RINOS’ now because you’ve decided they aren’t ‘Tea Party’.
I’m not going to go any further with this, but just be aware that the group you apparently believe in, is one of the MAJOR groups full of grifters right now, NOT just ‘The Establishment’.
I read this topic yesterday but couldn’t post on chrome, I’m trying again using Firefox, today.
I just had one thing I wanted to say after reading the big “gullibility theory” post of Brett’s.
Brett, your post sounds remarkably like someone that is about to BE grifted. It’s full of ‘purity’ and ‘us vs them’ where you can ONLY trust the ‘true conservatives’. When you only trust ONE group, that group can take you for everything if you won’t even LISTEN to the ‘others’. Notice how the ‘Republican Establishment’ are all ‘RINOS’ now because you’ve decided they aren’t ‘Tea Party’.
I’m not going to go any further with this, but just be aware that the group you apparently believe in, is one of the MAJOR groups full of grifters right now, NOT just ‘The Establishment’.
The “WHEREVER your hands have been is guaranteed by the Constitution” caucus arrives straight on the heels (what have they been stepping in, and why are you stirring my fruit smoothie with your feet, not that there is anything wrong with that?) of the yeah-my-kid-has-the-measles-and-dengue-fever-gotta-problem-with-that-Chief? crowd gearing up for the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary, which promises to be the biggest subhuman sh*tstorm of pig-ignorant, armed jagoffery and as*holery kicked up since John Adams threatened darkly that female chastity would go by the wayside if Tom Jefferson got his way.
Full disclosure, I voted for Jefferson in that election, but I’ve always believed that those who lose their chastity should be forced to wash their hands after the act and before Republicans and Libertarians rush to lick the fingers of the unchaste before the latter serve dinner.
The “WHEREVER your hands have been is guaranteed by the Constitution” caucus arrives straight on the heels (what have they been stepping in, and why are you stirring my fruit smoothie with your feet, not that there is anything wrong with that?) of the yeah-my-kid-has-the-measles-and-dengue-fever-gotta-problem-with-that-Chief? crowd gearing up for the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary, which promises to be the biggest subhuman sh*tstorm of pig-ignorant, armed jagoffery and as*holery kicked up since John Adams threatened darkly that female chastity would go by the wayside if Tom Jefferson got his way.
Full disclosure, I voted for Jefferson in that election, but I’ve always believed that those who lose their chastity should be forced to wash their hands after the act and before Republicans and Libertarians rush to lick the fingers of the unchaste before the latter serve dinner.
The “WHEREVER your hands have been is guaranteed by the Constitution” caucus arrives straight on the heels (what have they been stepping in, and why are you stirring my fruit smoothie with your feet, not that there is anything wrong with that?) of the yeah-my-kid-has-the-measles-and-dengue-fever-gotta-problem-with-that-Chief? crowd gearing up for the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary, which promises to be the biggest subhuman sh*tstorm of pig-ignorant, armed jagoffery and as*holery kicked up since John Adams threatened darkly that female chastity would go by the wayside if Tom Jefferson got his way.
Full disclosure, I voted for Jefferson in that election, but I’ve always believed that those who lose their chastity should be forced to wash their hands after the act and before Republicans and Libertarians rush to lick the fingers of the unchaste before the latter serve dinner.
Link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/thom-tillis-washing-hands-toilet
Funny, Tillis believes servers shouldn’t be forced to wash their hands after micturating into the soup, but Huckabee (a character out of Mark Twain) believes the FOX blondes should have their mouths washed out for cursing like O’Reilly on an Irish bender.
Link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/thom-tillis-washing-hands-toilet
Funny, Tillis believes servers shouldn’t be forced to wash their hands after micturating into the soup, but Huckabee (a character out of Mark Twain) believes the FOX blondes should have their mouths washed out for cursing like O’Reilly on an Irish bender.
Link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/thom-tillis-washing-hands-toilet
Funny, Tillis believes servers shouldn’t be forced to wash their hands after micturating into the soup, but Huckabee (a character out of Mark Twain) believes the FOX blondes should have their mouths washed out for cursing like O’Reilly on an Irish bender.
Within 24 hours from the time of this comment, a Republican State legislator, probably from a state somewhere south of the Mason Dixon, although that line has shifted all the way to the Canadian border, will bring legislation to the floor (which they eat off of) mandating that unvaccinated children (the victimized), whose parents probably don’t keep any soap and towels in their bathrooms, must be permitted to attend school while contagious, and further that vaccinated children, whose parents are statist totalitarians with immaculately cleaned fingernails, should be disallowed from attending school until the expiration date on their vaccinations has passed.
Armed pig teachers, carrying the swine flu, would monitor who got their booster shots on the sneaky-sly and take appropriate action.
I also predict Tillis will be quoted thusly: “There’s nothing wrong with getting your hands dirty in the bathroom at work (more Americans — you know who I’m talking about! — need to roll up their sleeves, wipe their *sses and get back to work in this country) and then separating those damnable American cheese slices for the cheeseburgers without wearing hygienic gloves. Taste the freedom!”
Within 24 hours from the time of this comment, a Republican State legislator, probably from a state somewhere south of the Mason Dixon, although that line has shifted all the way to the Canadian border, will bring legislation to the floor (which they eat off of) mandating that unvaccinated children (the victimized), whose parents probably don’t keep any soap and towels in their bathrooms, must be permitted to attend school while contagious, and further that vaccinated children, whose parents are statist totalitarians with immaculately cleaned fingernails, should be disallowed from attending school until the expiration date on their vaccinations has passed.
Armed pig teachers, carrying the swine flu, would monitor who got their booster shots on the sneaky-sly and take appropriate action.
I also predict Tillis will be quoted thusly: “There’s nothing wrong with getting your hands dirty in the bathroom at work (more Americans — you know who I’m talking about! — need to roll up their sleeves, wipe their *sses and get back to work in this country) and then separating those damnable American cheese slices for the cheeseburgers without wearing hygienic gloves. Taste the freedom!”
Within 24 hours from the time of this comment, a Republican State legislator, probably from a state somewhere south of the Mason Dixon, although that line has shifted all the way to the Canadian border, will bring legislation to the floor (which they eat off of) mandating that unvaccinated children (the victimized), whose parents probably don’t keep any soap and towels in their bathrooms, must be permitted to attend school while contagious, and further that vaccinated children, whose parents are statist totalitarians with immaculately cleaned fingernails, should be disallowed from attending school until the expiration date on their vaccinations has passed.
Armed pig teachers, carrying the swine flu, would monitor who got their booster shots on the sneaky-sly and take appropriate action.
I also predict Tillis will be quoted thusly: “There’s nothing wrong with getting your hands dirty in the bathroom at work (more Americans — you know who I’m talking about! — need to roll up their sleeves, wipe their *sses and get back to work in this country) and then separating those damnable American cheese slices for the cheeseburgers without wearing hygienic gloves. Taste the freedom!”
According to the USSC, money is speech.
Also, speech is money. As in, say something supportive of Al-Qaida, and it counts as “material support of terrorism”.
Mixing distinct categories corrupts all of them.
According to the USSC, money is speech.
Also, speech is money. As in, say something supportive of Al-Qaida, and it counts as “material support of terrorism”.
Mixing distinct categories corrupts all of them.
According to the USSC, money is speech.
Also, speech is money. As in, say something supportive of Al-Qaida, and it counts as “material support of terrorism”.
Mixing distinct categories corrupts all of them.
One good thing about unlimited incumbency is it removes the need to constantly redecorate Congressional digs, at what cost to the tender, demoralized, put-upon taxpayer, by Tea Party pig filth who promise to cut the balls off we lesser pigs.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/02/03/shiny-metal-objects-forever/
It wouldn’t surprise if the entire anti-incumbency movement has been bought and paid for by the National Association of Interior Heterosexual Decorators to keep their cash flow steady from one election cycle to the next.
Corruption.
One good thing about unlimited incumbency is it removes the need to constantly redecorate Congressional digs, at what cost to the tender, demoralized, put-upon taxpayer, by Tea Party pig filth who promise to cut the balls off we lesser pigs.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/02/03/shiny-metal-objects-forever/
It wouldn’t surprise if the entire anti-incumbency movement has been bought and paid for by the National Association of Interior Heterosexual Decorators to keep their cash flow steady from one election cycle to the next.
Corruption.
One good thing about unlimited incumbency is it removes the need to constantly redecorate Congressional digs, at what cost to the tender, demoralized, put-upon taxpayer, by Tea Party pig filth who promise to cut the balls off we lesser pigs.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/02/03/shiny-metal-objects-forever/
It wouldn’t surprise if the entire anti-incumbency movement has been bought and paid for by the National Association of Interior Heterosexual Decorators to keep their cash flow steady from one election cycle to the next.
Corruption.
Fantastic point Berial. That self proclaimed moral purity also means that folks don’t want to admit when they have been scammed. I’ve often wondered about the charges of how librulz want to dictate x, y and z, be it marriage practices, multi-culturalism, toilet flush rates or light bulbs, which often seem less a description of liberal behavior and more like a funhouse mirror held up to the persons writing.
Fantastic point Berial. That self proclaimed moral purity also means that folks don’t want to admit when they have been scammed. I’ve often wondered about the charges of how librulz want to dictate x, y and z, be it marriage practices, multi-culturalism, toilet flush rates or light bulbs, which often seem less a description of liberal behavior and more like a funhouse mirror held up to the persons writing.
Fantastic point Berial. That self proclaimed moral purity also means that folks don’t want to admit when they have been scammed. I’ve often wondered about the charges of how librulz want to dictate x, y and z, be it marriage practices, multi-culturalism, toilet flush rates or light bulbs, which often seem less a description of liberal behavior and more like a funhouse mirror held up to the persons writing.
Fluoride again, if you can believe it:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pat-robertson-vaccines-fluoridation
Fluoride again, if you can believe it:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pat-robertson-vaccines-fluoridation
Fluoride again, if you can believe it:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pat-robertson-vaccines-fluoridation
it’s da illegals:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mo-brooks-measles-vaccines-illegal
oh yes it is:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-measles-immigrants-vaccines
It’s the full f*cking crazy.
it’s da illegals:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mo-brooks-measles-vaccines-illegal
oh yes it is:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-measles-immigrants-vaccines
It’s the full f*cking crazy.
it’s da illegals:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mo-brooks-measles-vaccines-illegal
oh yes it is:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-measles-immigrants-vaccines
It’s the full f*cking crazy.
please GOP, please please, please please PLEASE run as the anti-vaxx, anti-flouride party. be bold and proud and vocal about it!
please GOP, please please, please please PLEASE run as the anti-vaxx, anti-flouride party. be bold and proud and vocal about it!
please GOP, please please, please please PLEASE run as the anti-vaxx, anti-flouride party. be bold and proud and vocal about it!
Why is Pat so negative?
But what does fluoride do to people? We don’t know some of the consequences, that’s all I’m saying. We don’t have all the knowledge we need…
I’m not sure we know exactly what radio waves do to people, either. Yet, we broadcast them all over the place, at various frequencies and power levels, exposing the public to them on a constant basis.
If I had to guess, I’d say whatever radio waves carry Rush Limbaugh’s show are probably the most dangerous.
Why is Pat so negative?
But what does fluoride do to people? We don’t know some of the consequences, that’s all I’m saying. We don’t have all the knowledge we need…
I’m not sure we know exactly what radio waves do to people, either. Yet, we broadcast them all over the place, at various frequencies and power levels, exposing the public to them on a constant basis.
If I had to guess, I’d say whatever radio waves carry Rush Limbaugh’s show are probably the most dangerous.
Why is Pat so negative?
But what does fluoride do to people? We don’t know some of the consequences, that’s all I’m saying. We don’t have all the knowledge we need…
I’m not sure we know exactly what radio waves do to people, either. Yet, we broadcast them all over the place, at various frequencies and power levels, exposing the public to them on a constant basis.
If I had to guess, I’d say whatever radio waves carry Rush Limbaugh’s show are probably the most dangerous.
Interestingly, my home state of New Jersey, going by the 2006 map, has the lowest use of water fluoridation in the country.
New Jersey … not Alabama or Alaska or Texas or Montana. New Jersey…
Interestingly, my home state of New Jersey, going by the 2006 map, has the lowest use of water fluoridation in the country.
New Jersey … not Alabama or Alaska or Texas or Montana. New Jersey…
Interestingly, my home state of New Jersey, going by the 2006 map, has the lowest use of water fluoridation in the country.
New Jersey … not Alabama or Alaska or Texas or Montana. New Jersey…
I’ve heard NJ has the highest incidence of home dentistry as well.
Bobby Jindal has his voter ID portrait painted to comply with Louisiana’s stricter requirements:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bobby-jindals-official-painting-looks-nothing-like-bobby-jindal/
Word has it that David Duke’s plastic surgeon also painted Jindal’s new visage.
A whiter, less nappy-headed shade of stale.
I don’t why all the vanity expense if the two of them are wearing the same hoods anyway.
I’ve heard NJ has the highest incidence of home dentistry as well.
Bobby Jindal has his voter ID portrait painted to comply with Louisiana’s stricter requirements:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bobby-jindals-official-painting-looks-nothing-like-bobby-jindal/
Word has it that David Duke’s plastic surgeon also painted Jindal’s new visage.
A whiter, less nappy-headed shade of stale.
I don’t why all the vanity expense if the two of them are wearing the same hoods anyway.
I’ve heard NJ has the highest incidence of home dentistry as well.
Bobby Jindal has his voter ID portrait painted to comply with Louisiana’s stricter requirements:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bobby-jindals-official-painting-looks-nothing-like-bobby-jindal/
Word has it that David Duke’s plastic surgeon also painted Jindal’s new visage.
A whiter, less nappy-headed shade of stale.
I don’t why all the vanity expense if the two of them are wearing the same hoods anyway.
Please, please, please, Democratic party: Stop being the anti-vax party, too many children have died because of it.
Trial Lawyers and Dem Donors Support Anti-Vaccination Movement
Obama supports vaccines now — but pandered to anti-vaxxers in 2008
You’d love this to be a right-wing problem, wouldn’t you? But your side is hip deep in creating this problem.
Please, please, please, Democratic party: Stop being the anti-vax party, too many children have died because of it.
Trial Lawyers and Dem Donors Support Anti-Vaccination Movement
Obama supports vaccines now — but pandered to anti-vaxxers in 2008
You’d love this to be a right-wing problem, wouldn’t you? But your side is hip deep in creating this problem.
Please, please, please, Democratic party: Stop being the anti-vax party, too many children have died because of it.
Trial Lawyers and Dem Donors Support Anti-Vaccination Movement
Obama supports vaccines now — but pandered to anti-vaxxers in 2008
You’d love this to be a right-wing problem, wouldn’t you? But your side is hip deep in creating this problem.
are trial lawyers and “dem donors” running for election in 2016? did you miss the point?
and as far as Obama goes … i’m fully prepared to excuse anyone who has changed their mind about this stuff. a lot of debunking has happened in the past few years and what once seemed like far-fetched but still, maybe, plausible questions have been swept away.
wanting to actually see evidence for or against something isn’t a crime, in my book.
are trial lawyers and “dem donors” running for election in 2016? did you miss the point?
and as far as Obama goes … i’m fully prepared to excuse anyone who has changed their mind about this stuff. a lot of debunking has happened in the past few years and what once seemed like far-fetched but still, maybe, plausible questions have been swept away.
wanting to actually see evidence for or against something isn’t a crime, in my book.
are trial lawyers and “dem donors” running for election in 2016? did you miss the point?
and as far as Obama goes … i’m fully prepared to excuse anyone who has changed their mind about this stuff. a lot of debunking has happened in the past few years and what once seemed like far-fetched but still, maybe, plausible questions have been swept away.
wanting to actually see evidence for or against something isn’t a crime, in my book.
I don’t want this it be ANY type of political football, personally.
There are definitely anti-vaxxers in the Democratic camp. There are definitely anti-vaxxers in the Republican camp.
What I don’t want is those SMALL camps taking over the whole damn group, EITHER of them. I want them kept SMALL! Hopefully actual political debate can happen if the dems talk to their anti-vaxxers and the repubs talk to their anti-vaxxers, because sadly these days if a member of the other ‘policical group’ talks to someone, they seem to AUTOMATICALLY decide that ‘other group’ is always wrong. You can’t compromise or find a workable solution when you can’t even TRY to see someone else’s point of view.
I don’t want this it be ANY type of political football, personally.
There are definitely anti-vaxxers in the Democratic camp. There are definitely anti-vaxxers in the Republican camp.
What I don’t want is those SMALL camps taking over the whole damn group, EITHER of them. I want them kept SMALL! Hopefully actual political debate can happen if the dems talk to their anti-vaxxers and the repubs talk to their anti-vaxxers, because sadly these days if a member of the other ‘policical group’ talks to someone, they seem to AUTOMATICALLY decide that ‘other group’ is always wrong. You can’t compromise or find a workable solution when you can’t even TRY to see someone else’s point of view.
I don’t want this it be ANY type of political football, personally.
There are definitely anti-vaxxers in the Democratic camp. There are definitely anti-vaxxers in the Republican camp.
What I don’t want is those SMALL camps taking over the whole damn group, EITHER of them. I want them kept SMALL! Hopefully actual political debate can happen if the dems talk to their anti-vaxxers and the repubs talk to their anti-vaxxers, because sadly these days if a member of the other ‘policical group’ talks to someone, they seem to AUTOMATICALLY decide that ‘other group’ is always wrong. You can’t compromise or find a workable solution when you can’t even TRY to see someone else’s point of view.
“You’d love this to be a right-wing problem, wouldn’t you? But your side is hip deep in creating this problem.”
Duly noted by me several times in this thread and elsewhere. Main County is a proudly liberal enclave.
THIS problem was also created by what some would call the liberal counterculture:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-supplements-work/385119/
But here’s what’s happening as we hear now on a daily basis about Republican/conservative Presidential candidates (what are there now — 20 of them, even with Romney out?) and their operatives on the internet and in the media harping on vaccination, regulation of the supplements industry (now that it is an “industry”, rather than just old hippie mom-and pop purveyors) and even the hoary, old bugaboo, fluoride polluting our precious bodily fluids.
As the Republican Party gears up for 2016, it’s beating the drums through the underbrush to scare up all of the paranoid, crypto-religious, gummint-hating libertarian tribes to get them good and hotted up against the socialist Kenyan in the Shite House, the better to squeeze a few percentage points of voter turnout excitation to put them over the top so that the sole Republican electoral plank can be pursued with all three branches of government in hand: eliminating all regulation and taxation of the Koch Brothers industrial empire.
There are plenty of liberal/libertarians in Marin County and plenty of liberals hawking useless supplements on the internet and through conservative PACs that are susceptible to the Republican noise machine, now that the former have gone Corporate, which as you know, are the only real people left in America.
Your touching concern for objective balance regarding who’s who in the full-of-sh*t anti-vaccination clamor and supplement regulation/labeling baloney will melt away if indeed these tribes put the conservatives over the top and both movements are free of government regs to spread measles and lie their butts off on supplement claims.*
I suspect if more of the anti-reg and anti-tax candidates gain office (that would be “your side”, even though you fake being sideless), your virginal concern about the corruption of political incumbency will fall by the wayside as well.
You’re just another of the Koch Cousins without the trust fund.
Full disclosure: a search could be done in the OBWI archives that would reveal me a number of years ago expressing some off the top of my head concern about the vaccine/autism link, now pretty-well thoroughly debunked.
If memory serves, Sebastian parachuted in to correct my delusion and thank you for that.
I changed my mind as the science shifted.
*I predict as well that the Republican Party will make a completely insincere pitch to the burgeoning legal marijuana industry, now that it is being transformed from illegal hippie pothead sin into upstanding corporate personhood (the only real people in this thing called America) flush with dollars ready to be donated in unlimited, anonymous amounts to the anti-regulation Republican Party, never mind that the only reason for the latter’s interest in the matter is to eliminate all taxes and regulation of Koch Brothers enterprises and maybe murder a few Obamacare enrollees along the way.
Brett, I appreciate your dedication to keeping the rest of us (please continue, if only for your recipes) on the fair and balanced up and up and pointing out the motes in our eyes, but if I were to visit say, a dozen or so conservative/libertarian blogs, would I find you tsk-tsking their one-sided, mono-vision political zeitgeist?
“You’d love this to be a right-wing problem, wouldn’t you? But your side is hip deep in creating this problem.”
Duly noted by me several times in this thread and elsewhere. Main County is a proudly liberal enclave.
THIS problem was also created by what some would call the liberal counterculture:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-supplements-work/385119/
But here’s what’s happening as we hear now on a daily basis about Republican/conservative Presidential candidates (what are there now — 20 of them, even with Romney out?) and their operatives on the internet and in the media harping on vaccination, regulation of the supplements industry (now that it is an “industry”, rather than just old hippie mom-and pop purveyors) and even the hoary, old bugaboo, fluoride polluting our precious bodily fluids.
As the Republican Party gears up for 2016, it’s beating the drums through the underbrush to scare up all of the paranoid, crypto-religious, gummint-hating libertarian tribes to get them good and hotted up against the socialist Kenyan in the Shite House, the better to squeeze a few percentage points of voter turnout excitation to put them over the top so that the sole Republican electoral plank can be pursued with all three branches of government in hand: eliminating all regulation and taxation of the Koch Brothers industrial empire.
There are plenty of liberal/libertarians in Marin County and plenty of liberals hawking useless supplements on the internet and through conservative PACs that are susceptible to the Republican noise machine, now that the former have gone Corporate, which as you know, are the only real people left in America.
Your touching concern for objective balance regarding who’s who in the full-of-sh*t anti-vaccination clamor and supplement regulation/labeling baloney will melt away if indeed these tribes put the conservatives over the top and both movements are free of government regs to spread measles and lie their butts off on supplement claims.*
I suspect if more of the anti-reg and anti-tax candidates gain office (that would be “your side”, even though you fake being sideless), your virginal concern about the corruption of political incumbency will fall by the wayside as well.
You’re just another of the Koch Cousins without the trust fund.
Full disclosure: a search could be done in the OBWI archives that would reveal me a number of years ago expressing some off the top of my head concern about the vaccine/autism link, now pretty-well thoroughly debunked.
If memory serves, Sebastian parachuted in to correct my delusion and thank you for that.
I changed my mind as the science shifted.
*I predict as well that the Republican Party will make a completely insincere pitch to the burgeoning legal marijuana industry, now that it is being transformed from illegal hippie pothead sin into upstanding corporate personhood (the only real people in this thing called America) flush with dollars ready to be donated in unlimited, anonymous amounts to the anti-regulation Republican Party, never mind that the only reason for the latter’s interest in the matter is to eliminate all taxes and regulation of Koch Brothers enterprises and maybe murder a few Obamacare enrollees along the way.
Brett, I appreciate your dedication to keeping the rest of us (please continue, if only for your recipes) on the fair and balanced up and up and pointing out the motes in our eyes, but if I were to visit say, a dozen or so conservative/libertarian blogs, would I find you tsk-tsking their one-sided, mono-vision political zeitgeist?
“You’d love this to be a right-wing problem, wouldn’t you? But your side is hip deep in creating this problem.”
Duly noted by me several times in this thread and elsewhere. Main County is a proudly liberal enclave.
THIS problem was also created by what some would call the liberal counterculture:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-supplements-work/385119/
But here’s what’s happening as we hear now on a daily basis about Republican/conservative Presidential candidates (what are there now — 20 of them, even with Romney out?) and their operatives on the internet and in the media harping on vaccination, regulation of the supplements industry (now that it is an “industry”, rather than just old hippie mom-and pop purveyors) and even the hoary, old bugaboo, fluoride polluting our precious bodily fluids.
As the Republican Party gears up for 2016, it’s beating the drums through the underbrush to scare up all of the paranoid, crypto-religious, gummint-hating libertarian tribes to get them good and hotted up against the socialist Kenyan in the Shite House, the better to squeeze a few percentage points of voter turnout excitation to put them over the top so that the sole Republican electoral plank can be pursued with all three branches of government in hand: eliminating all regulation and taxation of the Koch Brothers industrial empire.
There are plenty of liberal/libertarians in Marin County and plenty of liberals hawking useless supplements on the internet and through conservative PACs that are susceptible to the Republican noise machine, now that the former have gone Corporate, which as you know, are the only real people left in America.
Your touching concern for objective balance regarding who’s who in the full-of-sh*t anti-vaccination clamor and supplement regulation/labeling baloney will melt away if indeed these tribes put the conservatives over the top and both movements are free of government regs to spread measles and lie their butts off on supplement claims.*
I suspect if more of the anti-reg and anti-tax candidates gain office (that would be “your side”, even though you fake being sideless), your virginal concern about the corruption of political incumbency will fall by the wayside as well.
You’re just another of the Koch Cousins without the trust fund.
Full disclosure: a search could be done in the OBWI archives that would reveal me a number of years ago expressing some off the top of my head concern about the vaccine/autism link, now pretty-well thoroughly debunked.
If memory serves, Sebastian parachuted in to correct my delusion and thank you for that.
I changed my mind as the science shifted.
*I predict as well that the Republican Party will make a completely insincere pitch to the burgeoning legal marijuana industry, now that it is being transformed from illegal hippie pothead sin into upstanding corporate personhood (the only real people in this thing called America) flush with dollars ready to be donated in unlimited, anonymous amounts to the anti-regulation Republican Party, never mind that the only reason for the latter’s interest in the matter is to eliminate all taxes and regulation of Koch Brothers enterprises and maybe murder a few Obamacare enrollees along the way.
Brett, I appreciate your dedication to keeping the rest of us (please continue, if only for your recipes) on the fair and balanced up and up and pointing out the motes in our eyes, but if I were to visit say, a dozen or so conservative/libertarian blogs, would I find you tsk-tsking their one-sided, mono-vision political zeitgeist?
I changed my mind as the science shifted.
I once thought corn-based ethanol was a good idea. New, better and more complete information matters to some people.
I changed my mind as the science shifted.
I once thought corn-based ethanol was a good idea. New, better and more complete information matters to some people.
I changed my mind as the science shifted.
I once thought corn-based ethanol was a good idea. New, better and more complete information matters to some people.
From Brett’s cite:
“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”
–Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.
Then, the next paragraph begins:
Obama was, as I note below, gesturing to an audience member when he said “this person included.”
C’mon man, do you even read this stuff before you link to it?
From Brett’s cite:
“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”
–Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.
Then, the next paragraph begins:
Obama was, as I note below, gesturing to an audience member when he said “this person included.”
C’mon man, do you even read this stuff before you link to it?
From Brett’s cite:
“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”
–Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.
Then, the next paragraph begins:
Obama was, as I note below, gesturing to an audience member when he said “this person included.”
C’mon man, do you even read this stuff before you link to it?
And not to belabor the obvious regarding supplements, but:
These products are not required to be tested for purity or effectiveness with regard to any health claims on the part of the manufacturer.
By all means, let’s extend the unregulated libertarian paradise that is the herbal supplements industry to the health care industry as a whole.
And not to belabor the obvious regarding supplements, but:
These products are not required to be tested for purity or effectiveness with regard to any health claims on the part of the manufacturer.
By all means, let’s extend the unregulated libertarian paradise that is the herbal supplements industry to the health care industry as a whole.
And not to belabor the obvious regarding supplements, but:
These products are not required to be tested for purity or effectiveness with regard to any health claims on the part of the manufacturer.
By all means, let’s extend the unregulated libertarian paradise that is the herbal supplements industry to the health care industry as a whole.
I’ve noted this before, but I feel like the anti-vaxx movement developed out of an observation that was actually quite logical, which is that many of the symptoms of autism seem to be similar to the symptoms of mercury poisoning. It is the sort of observation that, if a link were found, would be taken as evidence of genius.
Unfortunately, the movement (and grifting) that has grown up around it makes it difficult to identify the sincere but misguided, the gullible and the simply evil, though anyone using the issue now (looking at you, Chris Christie) really should be put in stocks in the town square with a supply of rotting vegetables at hand for throwing.
I’ve noted this before, but I feel like the anti-vaxx movement developed out of an observation that was actually quite logical, which is that many of the symptoms of autism seem to be similar to the symptoms of mercury poisoning. It is the sort of observation that, if a link were found, would be taken as evidence of genius.
Unfortunately, the movement (and grifting) that has grown up around it makes it difficult to identify the sincere but misguided, the gullible and the simply evil, though anyone using the issue now (looking at you, Chris Christie) really should be put in stocks in the town square with a supply of rotting vegetables at hand for throwing.
I’ve noted this before, but I feel like the anti-vaxx movement developed out of an observation that was actually quite logical, which is that many of the symptoms of autism seem to be similar to the symptoms of mercury poisoning. It is the sort of observation that, if a link were found, would be taken as evidence of genius.
Unfortunately, the movement (and grifting) that has grown up around it makes it difficult to identify the sincere but misguided, the gullible and the simply evil, though anyone using the issue now (looking at you, Chris Christie) really should be put in stocks in the town square with a supply of rotting vegetables at hand for throwing.
There may have been some initial impetus form that sort of suspicion, but it really got going as a result of outright academic fraud.
There may have been some initial impetus form that sort of suspicion, but it really got going as a result of outright academic fraud.
There may have been some initial impetus form that sort of suspicion, but it really got going as a result of outright academic fraud.
The problem with true believers of all sorts is that they don’t care about your facts. Wakefield has been disgraced for a while now, if I remember correctly, but the anti-vaxxers either just decide ‘big pharma’ railroaded him, or “that doesn’t matter” and wave it off. It’s hard to re-engage with someone after they do that.
I guess to get back to the post topic, maybe there are just more ‘true believers’ on the right these days? If you believe something no matter WHAT others say, the people you trust can easily grift you.
Is that the bottom line? More ‘true believers’ on the right?
I don’t know if that works for me. Seems like there are a lot of believers on both sides of the political divide. What makes ‘the left’ less susceptible? Maybe ‘the left’ is just as easily grifted but the numbers aren’t there within the ‘categories’ of ‘true belief’ like ‘the right’
Example, as Brett said there is no equivalent to the ‘Tea Party’ on the left. So if you can appeal as an authority to that large group of ‘Tea Party’ believers its much easier to grift them and get a LARGE payday for less work, than a messy assortment of single issue true believers on the left, that you’d have to set up multiple ‘authorities’ to get the same number of suckers.
The problem with true believers of all sorts is that they don’t care about your facts. Wakefield has been disgraced for a while now, if I remember correctly, but the anti-vaxxers either just decide ‘big pharma’ railroaded him, or “that doesn’t matter” and wave it off. It’s hard to re-engage with someone after they do that.
I guess to get back to the post topic, maybe there are just more ‘true believers’ on the right these days? If you believe something no matter WHAT others say, the people you trust can easily grift you.
Is that the bottom line? More ‘true believers’ on the right?
I don’t know if that works for me. Seems like there are a lot of believers on both sides of the political divide. What makes ‘the left’ less susceptible? Maybe ‘the left’ is just as easily grifted but the numbers aren’t there within the ‘categories’ of ‘true belief’ like ‘the right’
Example, as Brett said there is no equivalent to the ‘Tea Party’ on the left. So if you can appeal as an authority to that large group of ‘Tea Party’ believers its much easier to grift them and get a LARGE payday for less work, than a messy assortment of single issue true believers on the left, that you’d have to set up multiple ‘authorities’ to get the same number of suckers.
The problem with true believers of all sorts is that they don’t care about your facts. Wakefield has been disgraced for a while now, if I remember correctly, but the anti-vaxxers either just decide ‘big pharma’ railroaded him, or “that doesn’t matter” and wave it off. It’s hard to re-engage with someone after they do that.
I guess to get back to the post topic, maybe there are just more ‘true believers’ on the right these days? If you believe something no matter WHAT others say, the people you trust can easily grift you.
Is that the bottom line? More ‘true believers’ on the right?
I don’t know if that works for me. Seems like there are a lot of believers on both sides of the political divide. What makes ‘the left’ less susceptible? Maybe ‘the left’ is just as easily grifted but the numbers aren’t there within the ‘categories’ of ‘true belief’ like ‘the right’
Example, as Brett said there is no equivalent to the ‘Tea Party’ on the left. So if you can appeal as an authority to that large group of ‘Tea Party’ believers its much easier to grift them and get a LARGE payday for less work, than a messy assortment of single issue true believers on the left, that you’d have to set up multiple ‘authorities’ to get the same number of suckers.
I think it’s just that liberals can find a real outlet in the Democratic party, while the Republican party actively cheats conservatives. The realization that this was happening drove the creation of the Tea party, and the grifters are backed by the party establishment, because the GOP, unlike the Democratic party, is actually run by the grifters.
The difference, IOW, isn’t something to do with the party base’s characteristics, but the nature of the party they have/are stuck with.
I think it’s just that liberals can find a real outlet in the Democratic party, while the Republican party actively cheats conservatives. The realization that this was happening drove the creation of the Tea party, and the grifters are backed by the party establishment, because the GOP, unlike the Democratic party, is actually run by the grifters.
The difference, IOW, isn’t something to do with the party base’s characteristics, but the nature of the party they have/are stuck with.
I think it’s just that liberals can find a real outlet in the Democratic party, while the Republican party actively cheats conservatives. The realization that this was happening drove the creation of the Tea party, and the grifters are backed by the party establishment, because the GOP, unlike the Democratic party, is actually run by the grifters.
The difference, IOW, isn’t something to do with the party base’s characteristics, but the nature of the party they have/are stuck with.
What’s everyone going to do if it turns out global warming is caused by vaccine and supplement emissions into the atmosphere?
Chris Christie and company will be doing pirouettes and hoax-juggling unlike anything witnessed since fat man Ralph Kramden and Norton took the girls dancing.
What’s everyone going to do if it turns out global warming is caused by vaccine and supplement emissions into the atmosphere?
Chris Christie and company will be doing pirouettes and hoax-juggling unlike anything witnessed since fat man Ralph Kramden and Norton took the girls dancing.
What’s everyone going to do if it turns out global warming is caused by vaccine and supplement emissions into the atmosphere?
Chris Christie and company will be doing pirouettes and hoax-juggling unlike anything witnessed since fat man Ralph Kramden and Norton took the girls dancing.
I think it’s just that liberals can find a real outlet in the Democratic party,
if you talk to actual self-identifying liberals, you’ll find no shortage of people who think the Democratic party is useless if not harmful to actual liberal goals. the very widespread “Obama is a Republican” notion is just one example of this. the widespread longing for universal coverage or a public option is another.
I think it’s just that liberals can find a real outlet in the Democratic party,
if you talk to actual self-identifying liberals, you’ll find no shortage of people who think the Democratic party is useless if not harmful to actual liberal goals. the very widespread “Obama is a Republican” notion is just one example of this. the widespread longing for universal coverage or a public option is another.
I think it’s just that liberals can find a real outlet in the Democratic party,
if you talk to actual self-identifying liberals, you’ll find no shortage of people who think the Democratic party is useless if not harmful to actual liberal goals. the very widespread “Obama is a Republican” notion is just one example of this. the widespread longing for universal coverage or a public option is another.
The difference, IOW, isn’t something to do with the party base’s characteristics, but the nature of the party they have/are stuck with.
It can be both. In fact, it would make sense that a base susceptible to cons would attract grifters, and possibly vice versa.
The difference, IOW, isn’t something to do with the party base’s characteristics, but the nature of the party they have/are stuck with.
It can be both. In fact, it would make sense that a base susceptible to cons would attract grifters, and possibly vice versa.
The difference, IOW, isn’t something to do with the party base’s characteristics, but the nature of the party they have/are stuck with.
It can be both. In fact, it would make sense that a base susceptible to cons would attract grifters, and possibly vice versa.
if you talk to actual self-identifying liberals, you’ll find no shortage of people who think the Democratic party is useless if not harmful to actual liberal goals.
Not to get all ad-hominemy, but Brett *has* been talking to actual self-identifying liberals, right here on our very own ObWi, for years and years.
And, has been hearing from many of those self-identifying liberals that the (D)’s, certainly at least since the triangulating days of Bill Clinton, have not really been reliable advocates of traditional American liberalism.
And yet, Brett persists in the belief he has articulated in this thread.
So I doubt the issue is any kind of lack of information.
if you talk to actual self-identifying liberals, you’ll find no shortage of people who think the Democratic party is useless if not harmful to actual liberal goals.
Not to get all ad-hominemy, but Brett *has* been talking to actual self-identifying liberals, right here on our very own ObWi, for years and years.
And, has been hearing from many of those self-identifying liberals that the (D)’s, certainly at least since the triangulating days of Bill Clinton, have not really been reliable advocates of traditional American liberalism.
And yet, Brett persists in the belief he has articulated in this thread.
So I doubt the issue is any kind of lack of information.
if you talk to actual self-identifying liberals, you’ll find no shortage of people who think the Democratic party is useless if not harmful to actual liberal goals.
Not to get all ad-hominemy, but Brett *has* been talking to actual self-identifying liberals, right here on our very own ObWi, for years and years.
And, has been hearing from many of those self-identifying liberals that the (D)’s, certainly at least since the triangulating days of Bill Clinton, have not really been reliable advocates of traditional American liberalism.
And yet, Brett persists in the belief he has articulated in this thread.
So I doubt the issue is any kind of lack of information.
It’s certainly true that anti-vaxxer nut cases inhabit both the left and the right. But consider this:
We see lots of Republican politicians supporting the right of parents to endanger not only their own children but other people’s children as well. Including several of the would-be Presidential candidates.
I have yet to hear a Democratic politician doing so. Not saying that there aren’t any. Just that there don’t seem to be any prominent ones.
Anybody have examples on that second point that I have missed? Because if not, we have to say it kind of indicates where the bulk of the ignorance lies. (OK, maybe not. Maybe just where the bulk of the “if the other side says anything in favor of X, we must be against X. Totally without regard to what X is, or what its actual merits might be” sentiment is.)
It’s certainly true that anti-vaxxer nut cases inhabit both the left and the right. But consider this:
We see lots of Republican politicians supporting the right of parents to endanger not only their own children but other people’s children as well. Including several of the would-be Presidential candidates.
I have yet to hear a Democratic politician doing so. Not saying that there aren’t any. Just that there don’t seem to be any prominent ones.
Anybody have examples on that second point that I have missed? Because if not, we have to say it kind of indicates where the bulk of the ignorance lies. (OK, maybe not. Maybe just where the bulk of the “if the other side says anything in favor of X, we must be against X. Totally without regard to what X is, or what its actual merits might be” sentiment is.)
It’s certainly true that anti-vaxxer nut cases inhabit both the left and the right. But consider this:
We see lots of Republican politicians supporting the right of parents to endanger not only their own children but other people’s children as well. Including several of the would-be Presidential candidates.
I have yet to hear a Democratic politician doing so. Not saying that there aren’t any. Just that there don’t seem to be any prominent ones.
Anybody have examples on that second point that I have missed? Because if not, we have to say it kind of indicates where the bulk of the ignorance lies. (OK, maybe not. Maybe just where the bulk of the “if the other side says anything in favor of X, we must be against X. Totally without regard to what X is, or what its actual merits might be” sentiment is.)
It certainly could be both, but I wanted to make clear that it wasn’t *my* position that it was both.
Why do I think that liberals have an easier time finding genuine representation in the Democratic party, than conservatives do in the Republican?
Two reasons: First, there IS a Tea party, and no similar insurgency on the left. This suggests that either the Democratic party better represents liberals than the Republican does conservatives, OR that liberals are sunk in despair, resigned to being unrepresented. That latter explanation doesn’t jibe with what I see here.
Second, I recall seeing a few years back a poll of elected politicians, showing that the Republican incuments actually had more in common with the Democratic party than the Republican base, on a wide range of issues. I’ll try to find it.
It certainly could be both, but I wanted to make clear that it wasn’t *my* position that it was both.
Why do I think that liberals have an easier time finding genuine representation in the Democratic party, than conservatives do in the Republican?
Two reasons: First, there IS a Tea party, and no similar insurgency on the left. This suggests that either the Democratic party better represents liberals than the Republican does conservatives, OR that liberals are sunk in despair, resigned to being unrepresented. That latter explanation doesn’t jibe with what I see here.
Second, I recall seeing a few years back a poll of elected politicians, showing that the Republican incuments actually had more in common with the Democratic party than the Republican base, on a wide range of issues. I’ll try to find it.
It certainly could be both, but I wanted to make clear that it wasn’t *my* position that it was both.
Why do I think that liberals have an easier time finding genuine representation in the Democratic party, than conservatives do in the Republican?
Two reasons: First, there IS a Tea party, and no similar insurgency on the left. This suggests that either the Democratic party better represents liberals than the Republican does conservatives, OR that liberals are sunk in despair, resigned to being unrepresented. That latter explanation doesn’t jibe with what I see here.
Second, I recall seeing a few years back a poll of elected politicians, showing that the Republican incuments actually had more in common with the Democratic party than the Republican base, on a wide range of issues. I’ll try to find it.
in line with the OT… the GOP’s grift/message/outrage machine played a huge role in getting the TP going on the right. but there’s no similar machine on the left.
there’s plenty of appetite on the left for something much more liberal than what the Democratic party delivers, but there’s no good way to get the average lefty involved. lots of people have tried. but lefties just don’t bite.
and, the left can’t agree on anything, ever, anyway. so taking what we can get is kindof the way it goes.
in line with the OT… the GOP’s grift/message/outrage machine played a huge role in getting the TP going on the right. but there’s no similar machine on the left.
there’s plenty of appetite on the left for something much more liberal than what the Democratic party delivers, but there’s no good way to get the average lefty involved. lots of people have tried. but lefties just don’t bite.
and, the left can’t agree on anything, ever, anyway. so taking what we can get is kindof the way it goes.
in line with the OT… the GOP’s grift/message/outrage machine played a huge role in getting the TP going on the right. but there’s no similar machine on the left.
there’s plenty of appetite on the left for something much more liberal than what the Democratic party delivers, but there’s no good way to get the average lefty involved. lots of people have tried. but lefties just don’t bite.
and, the left can’t agree on anything, ever, anyway. so taking what we can get is kindof the way it goes.
“the GOP’s grift/message/outrage machine played a huge role in getting the TP going on the right.”
That sounds an awful lot like the usual “large numbers of people can’t disagree with me, so mass movements that seem to must be astroturf” reasoning I see a lot of here. No, the Tea party is real, but the GOP establishment has been desperately trying it subvert it from the start.
Not yet successfully, though.
“the GOP’s grift/message/outrage machine played a huge role in getting the TP going on the right.”
That sounds an awful lot like the usual “large numbers of people can’t disagree with me, so mass movements that seem to must be astroturf” reasoning I see a lot of here. No, the Tea party is real, but the GOP establishment has been desperately trying it subvert it from the start.
Not yet successfully, though.
“the GOP’s grift/message/outrage machine played a huge role in getting the TP going on the right.”
That sounds an awful lot like the usual “large numbers of people can’t disagree with me, so mass movements that seem to must be astroturf” reasoning I see a lot of here. No, the Tea party is real, but the GOP establishment has been desperately trying it subvert it from the start.
Not yet successfully, though.
This suggests that either the Democratic party better represents liberals than the Republican does conservatives, OR that liberals are sunk in despair, resigned to being unrepresented.
Or, folks on the left just go about things differently than folks on the right.
Maybe we just aren’t tea party kind of people.
And, in spite of not wearing tea bags on our hats, and in spite of having no cool snake flag to wave around, we do manage to eke out a few successes here and there.
We do what works for us. Just like you.
Second, I recall seeing a few years back a poll of elected politicians, showing that the Republican incuments actually had more in common with the Democratic party than the Republican base, on a wide range of issues.
Which would demonstrate exactly nothing about whether people on the left find themselves well-represented by (D)’s.
Look, I know you really believe that “people like me” believe what you think we believe, in spite of our clear statements that we don’t.
That’s your prerogative.
You’ve just failed to convince me that I, and people like me, think what you believe we think. I find my own thoughts about what I think to be more persuasive than yours.
Keep trying, though. Someday you may prevail.
This suggests that either the Democratic party better represents liberals than the Republican does conservatives, OR that liberals are sunk in despair, resigned to being unrepresented.
Or, folks on the left just go about things differently than folks on the right.
Maybe we just aren’t tea party kind of people.
And, in spite of not wearing tea bags on our hats, and in spite of having no cool snake flag to wave around, we do manage to eke out a few successes here and there.
We do what works for us. Just like you.
Second, I recall seeing a few years back a poll of elected politicians, showing that the Republican incuments actually had more in common with the Democratic party than the Republican base, on a wide range of issues.
Which would demonstrate exactly nothing about whether people on the left find themselves well-represented by (D)’s.
Look, I know you really believe that “people like me” believe what you think we believe, in spite of our clear statements that we don’t.
That’s your prerogative.
You’ve just failed to convince me that I, and people like me, think what you believe we think. I find my own thoughts about what I think to be more persuasive than yours.
Keep trying, though. Someday you may prevail.
This suggests that either the Democratic party better represents liberals than the Republican does conservatives, OR that liberals are sunk in despair, resigned to being unrepresented.
Or, folks on the left just go about things differently than folks on the right.
Maybe we just aren’t tea party kind of people.
And, in spite of not wearing tea bags on our hats, and in spite of having no cool snake flag to wave around, we do manage to eke out a few successes here and there.
We do what works for us. Just like you.
Second, I recall seeing a few years back a poll of elected politicians, showing that the Republican incuments actually had more in common with the Democratic party than the Republican base, on a wide range of issues.
Which would demonstrate exactly nothing about whether people on the left find themselves well-represented by (D)’s.
Look, I know you really believe that “people like me” believe what you think we believe, in spite of our clear statements that we don’t.
That’s your prerogative.
You’ve just failed to convince me that I, and people like me, think what you believe we think. I find my own thoughts about what I think to be more persuasive than yours.
Keep trying, though. Someday you may prevail.
That sounds an awful lot like the usual “large numbers of people can’t disagree with me, so mass movements that seem to must be astroturf” reasoning I see a lot of here.
i was simply pointing out that ConservativeLand’s already-existing message machine helped the TP out enormously. do you disagree with that?
That sounds an awful lot like the usual “large numbers of people can’t disagree with me, so mass movements that seem to must be astroturf” reasoning I see a lot of here.
i was simply pointing out that ConservativeLand’s already-existing message machine helped the TP out enormously. do you disagree with that?
That sounds an awful lot like the usual “large numbers of people can’t disagree with me, so mass movements that seem to must be astroturf” reasoning I see a lot of here.
i was simply pointing out that ConservativeLand’s already-existing message machine helped the TP out enormously. do you disagree with that?
there’s no similar machine on the left.
There are similar things on the left. Blogs, MoveOn, advocacy organizations like Emily’s List. There are PACs, 501(c) orgs, etc.
They just don’t result in a “tea party”-ish popular phenomenon.
My general impression is that there isn’t the tendency toward simplistic reduction of complex issues to bullet points that seems to characterize organizations like the Tea Party. To the degree that that’s true, that would be one difference.
I also think that people “on the left” are just not as prone to joining a Great Big Movement. At least not in about the the last 40 years. Maybe there is some interesting socio-psychological aspect to that, maybe not. I have no idea. There’s probably a nice graduate school thesis in there somewhere, but basically I’m just not that interested in exploring the mental quirks of imaginary “typical” people, from whatever group.
There isn’t a movement analogous to the tea party on the left at this particular point in time. I think we all agree on that basic fact, for whatever it’s worth.
How that demonstrates that people who identify as leftists really and truly are well represented by the (D)’s, in spite of their own perception and understanding that they are not, escapes me.
People respond to phenomena in different ways. Maybe lefties, having moved beyond their youthful Bread and Puppet phase, are just not that interested in dressing up and running around on the weekend.
We have jobs and kids and we’re really busy. So, we do other stuff.
there’s no similar machine on the left.
There are similar things on the left. Blogs, MoveOn, advocacy organizations like Emily’s List. There are PACs, 501(c) orgs, etc.
They just don’t result in a “tea party”-ish popular phenomenon.
My general impression is that there isn’t the tendency toward simplistic reduction of complex issues to bullet points that seems to characterize organizations like the Tea Party. To the degree that that’s true, that would be one difference.
I also think that people “on the left” are just not as prone to joining a Great Big Movement. At least not in about the the last 40 years. Maybe there is some interesting socio-psychological aspect to that, maybe not. I have no idea. There’s probably a nice graduate school thesis in there somewhere, but basically I’m just not that interested in exploring the mental quirks of imaginary “typical” people, from whatever group.
There isn’t a movement analogous to the tea party on the left at this particular point in time. I think we all agree on that basic fact, for whatever it’s worth.
How that demonstrates that people who identify as leftists really and truly are well represented by the (D)’s, in spite of their own perception and understanding that they are not, escapes me.
People respond to phenomena in different ways. Maybe lefties, having moved beyond their youthful Bread and Puppet phase, are just not that interested in dressing up and running around on the weekend.
We have jobs and kids and we’re really busy. So, we do other stuff.
there’s no similar machine on the left.
There are similar things on the left. Blogs, MoveOn, advocacy organizations like Emily’s List. There are PACs, 501(c) orgs, etc.
They just don’t result in a “tea party”-ish popular phenomenon.
My general impression is that there isn’t the tendency toward simplistic reduction of complex issues to bullet points that seems to characterize organizations like the Tea Party. To the degree that that’s true, that would be one difference.
I also think that people “on the left” are just not as prone to joining a Great Big Movement. At least not in about the the last 40 years. Maybe there is some interesting socio-psychological aspect to that, maybe not. I have no idea. There’s probably a nice graduate school thesis in there somewhere, but basically I’m just not that interested in exploring the mental quirks of imaginary “typical” people, from whatever group.
There isn’t a movement analogous to the tea party on the left at this particular point in time. I think we all agree on that basic fact, for whatever it’s worth.
How that demonstrates that people who identify as leftists really and truly are well represented by the (D)’s, in spite of their own perception and understanding that they are not, escapes me.
People respond to phenomena in different ways. Maybe lefties, having moved beyond their youthful Bread and Puppet phase, are just not that interested in dressing up and running around on the weekend.
We have jobs and kids and we’re really busy. So, we do other stuff.
“the Tea party is real, but the GOP establishment has been desperately trying it subvert it from the start.”
Alternative theory:
“The Confederacy, tired of being subverted by the leadership of the Democratic Party by the early 1960’s, found a welcoming home with the corporatist, John Birch Society, Libertarian leadership of the Republican Party and, like all recent newlyweds, they now quibble over the style of draperies with which to outfit the new Overton Window, now moved around to the far right side of the body politic’s house, and the size of the bombs to throw from its adjoining balcony.”
RINOs, purged from the Republican Party, have reached agreement with liberal and moderate Democrats only on the observation that much of the house seems a lot darker now that the Window has been moved so far to the Right.
As to the Tea Party, those whining parasites on government, and their poor hurt feelings of being subverted by the Republican leadership, we’ll see if “subversion” is the word they howl when their Medicare and Social Security checks stop arriving.
In fact, it would be highly conservative of Barack moderation in all things Obama to announce executive action to indeed halt all government transfer payments to anyone affiliated with or who funds the Tea Party movement, merely to align their income with their murderous, but barely skin-deep principles.
He won’t, of course, because he labors under the sentimental illusion that he is President of one country, when there are really two countries, headed for armed Civil War.
“the Tea party is real, but the GOP establishment has been desperately trying it subvert it from the start.”
Alternative theory:
“The Confederacy, tired of being subverted by the leadership of the Democratic Party by the early 1960’s, found a welcoming home with the corporatist, John Birch Society, Libertarian leadership of the Republican Party and, like all recent newlyweds, they now quibble over the style of draperies with which to outfit the new Overton Window, now moved around to the far right side of the body politic’s house, and the size of the bombs to throw from its adjoining balcony.”
RINOs, purged from the Republican Party, have reached agreement with liberal and moderate Democrats only on the observation that much of the house seems a lot darker now that the Window has been moved so far to the Right.
As to the Tea Party, those whining parasites on government, and their poor hurt feelings of being subverted by the Republican leadership, we’ll see if “subversion” is the word they howl when their Medicare and Social Security checks stop arriving.
In fact, it would be highly conservative of Barack moderation in all things Obama to announce executive action to indeed halt all government transfer payments to anyone affiliated with or who funds the Tea Party movement, merely to align their income with their murderous, but barely skin-deep principles.
He won’t, of course, because he labors under the sentimental illusion that he is President of one country, when there are really two countries, headed for armed Civil War.
“the Tea party is real, but the GOP establishment has been desperately trying it subvert it from the start.”
Alternative theory:
“The Confederacy, tired of being subverted by the leadership of the Democratic Party by the early 1960’s, found a welcoming home with the corporatist, John Birch Society, Libertarian leadership of the Republican Party and, like all recent newlyweds, they now quibble over the style of draperies with which to outfit the new Overton Window, now moved around to the far right side of the body politic’s house, and the size of the bombs to throw from its adjoining balcony.”
RINOs, purged from the Republican Party, have reached agreement with liberal and moderate Democrats only on the observation that much of the house seems a lot darker now that the Window has been moved so far to the Right.
As to the Tea Party, those whining parasites on government, and their poor hurt feelings of being subverted by the Republican leadership, we’ll see if “subversion” is the word they howl when their Medicare and Social Security checks stop arriving.
In fact, it would be highly conservative of Barack moderation in all things Obama to announce executive action to indeed halt all government transfer payments to anyone affiliated with or who funds the Tea Party movement, merely to align their income with their murderous, but barely skin-deep principles.
He won’t, of course, because he labors under the sentimental illusion that he is President of one country, when there are really two countries, headed for armed Civil War.
A swinish pig-herder speaks:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alex-jones-rand-paul-whore
Meanwhile, the crazy swine flu, injected into the central artery of the body politic by Republican politicians and their media, erupts in the likeliest places:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/juror-pulls-hair-out-aurora-trial
A swinish pig-herder speaks:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alex-jones-rand-paul-whore
Meanwhile, the crazy swine flu, injected into the central artery of the body politic by Republican politicians and their media, erupts in the likeliest places:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/juror-pulls-hair-out-aurora-trial
A swinish pig-herder speaks:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alex-jones-rand-paul-whore
Meanwhile, the crazy swine flu, injected into the central artery of the body politic by Republican politicians and their media, erupts in the likeliest places:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/juror-pulls-hair-out-aurora-trial
No inoculation of pigs with the “human virus” has been known to cure swine flu:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/kory-watkins-open-carry-treason
No inoculation of pigs with the “human virus” has been known to cure swine flu:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/kory-watkins-open-carry-treason
No inoculation of pigs with the “human virus” has been known to cure swine flu:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/kory-watkins-open-carry-treason
“That’s why I like Rand Paul. This isn’t rhetoric, calling it ‘martial law,'” Jones said. “This is medical martial law.”
“Yes, vaccines are a great medical development,” Jones added. “The problem is that the New World Order runs them.”
The Illuminati strike again.
They’re everywhere and nowhere, the Hidden Paw, veritable Napoleons of crime.
If they didn’t exist, someone would have to make them up.
“That’s why I like Rand Paul. This isn’t rhetoric, calling it ‘martial law,'” Jones said. “This is medical martial law.”
“Yes, vaccines are a great medical development,” Jones added. “The problem is that the New World Order runs them.”
The Illuminati strike again.
They’re everywhere and nowhere, the Hidden Paw, veritable Napoleons of crime.
If they didn’t exist, someone would have to make them up.
“That’s why I like Rand Paul. This isn’t rhetoric, calling it ‘martial law,'” Jones said. “This is medical martial law.”
“Yes, vaccines are a great medical development,” Jones added. “The problem is that the New World Order runs them.”
The Illuminati strike again.
They’re everywhere and nowhere, the Hidden Paw, veritable Napoleons of crime.
If they didn’t exist, someone would have to make them up.
There may have been some initial impetus form that sort of suspicion, but it really got going as a result of outright academic fraud.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/
I suppose it is comforting to think that if Wakefield hadn’t published it, this idea would have never got going, but Wakefield’s paper was published in 1998 and the questions about the levels of methylmercury poisoning and cognitive impairment arose in the late 80’s.
There may have been some initial impetus form that sort of suspicion, but it really got going as a result of outright academic fraud.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/
I suppose it is comforting to think that if Wakefield hadn’t published it, this idea would have never got going, but Wakefield’s paper was published in 1998 and the questions about the levels of methylmercury poisoning and cognitive impairment arose in the late 80’s.
There may have been some initial impetus form that sort of suspicion, but it really got going as a result of outright academic fraud.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/
I suppose it is comforting to think that if Wakefield hadn’t published it, this idea would have never got going, but Wakefield’s paper was published in 1998 and the questions about the levels of methylmercury poisoning and cognitive impairment arose in the late 80’s.
An alternative theory to my alternative theory to Brett’s theory about the rift between the conservative base and the Republican leadership:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/court-dress-is-required-rand.html
Turns out the well-dressed hogs are put off their feed by the under-dressed pigs who lie down in the muck with them.
Maybe it’s as simple as a cravat.
An alternative theory to my alternative theory to Brett’s theory about the rift between the conservative base and the Republican leadership:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/court-dress-is-required-rand.html
Turns out the well-dressed hogs are put off their feed by the under-dressed pigs who lie down in the muck with them.
Maybe it’s as simple as a cravat.
An alternative theory to my alternative theory to Brett’s theory about the rift between the conservative base and the Republican leadership:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/court-dress-is-required-rand.html
Turns out the well-dressed hogs are put off their feed by the under-dressed pigs who lie down in the muck with them.
Maybe it’s as simple as a cravat.
Democrats come as they are, to add to russell’s list of the differences.
Democrats come as they are, to add to russell’s list of the differences.
Democrats come as they are, to add to russell’s list of the differences.
“You can’t cheat an honest man.”
The answer is painfully easy. Republicans are quite willing to bend truth past the breaking point for self-interest.
“You can’t cheat an honest man.”
The answer is painfully easy. Republicans are quite willing to bend truth past the breaking point for self-interest.
“You can’t cheat an honest man.”
The answer is painfully easy. Republicans are quite willing to bend truth past the breaking point for self-interest.
lots of people have tried. but lefties just don’t bite.
The problem just might be that there are simply not that many “lefties” out there.
We, too, can do better.
lots of people have tried. but lefties just don’t bite.
The problem just might be that there are simply not that many “lefties” out there.
We, too, can do better.
lots of people have tried. but lefties just don’t bite.
The problem just might be that there are simply not that many “lefties” out there.
We, too, can do better.
The base is the basiest:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/02/1361916/-Hey-Tea-Party-Latin-Was-the-Language-of-Ancient-Rome?detail=facebook
More fun:
https://www.facebook.com/dailykos/posts/10153097629069255
As Seneca the Elder said to Seneca the Younger:
e pluribus whatthef*ckus
The base is the basiest:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/02/1361916/-Hey-Tea-Party-Latin-Was-the-Language-of-Ancient-Rome?detail=facebook
More fun:
https://www.facebook.com/dailykos/posts/10153097629069255
As Seneca the Elder said to Seneca the Younger:
e pluribus whatthef*ckus
The base is the basiest:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/02/1361916/-Hey-Tea-Party-Latin-Was-the-Language-of-Ancient-Rome?detail=facebook
More fun:
https://www.facebook.com/dailykos/posts/10153097629069255
As Seneca the Elder said to Seneca the Younger:
e pluribus whatthef*ckus
Inevitably, it is that time in the election cycle when that grifting crooner of crypto-Christian paranoia, Pat Boone, who will not be outdone by the junior crazies, speaks:
http://wonkette.com/575018/million-year-old-rocker-pat-boone-thinks-obama-will-set-all-the-murderers-free
Stay tuned for Pat’s Tea Party late-night info-commercials hawking shower inserts and catheters for elderly Tea Partiers to be provided and paid for by that Commie Medicare.
Remember Pat’s understated hit “I Almost Lost My Mind”
He also did a cover of Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti”, which made Little Richard, when the latter heard it, turn gay and Christian simultaneously.
Inevitably, it is that time in the election cycle when that grifting crooner of crypto-Christian paranoia, Pat Boone, who will not be outdone by the junior crazies, speaks:
http://wonkette.com/575018/million-year-old-rocker-pat-boone-thinks-obama-will-set-all-the-murderers-free
Stay tuned for Pat’s Tea Party late-night info-commercials hawking shower inserts and catheters for elderly Tea Partiers to be provided and paid for by that Commie Medicare.
Remember Pat’s understated hit “I Almost Lost My Mind”
He also did a cover of Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti”, which made Little Richard, when the latter heard it, turn gay and Christian simultaneously.
Inevitably, it is that time in the election cycle when that grifting crooner of crypto-Christian paranoia, Pat Boone, who will not be outdone by the junior crazies, speaks:
http://wonkette.com/575018/million-year-old-rocker-pat-boone-thinks-obama-will-set-all-the-murderers-free
Stay tuned for Pat’s Tea Party late-night info-commercials hawking shower inserts and catheters for elderly Tea Partiers to be provided and paid for by that Commie Medicare.
Remember Pat’s understated hit “I Almost Lost My Mind”
He also did a cover of Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti”, which made Little Richard, when the latter heard it, turn gay and Christian simultaneously.
Charles Pierce agrees with me:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Anti_Vaccination_Left_And_Why_It_Should_Shut_Up
Meanwhile, we smirk as the clowns divert us with tootling and blatting and squirting lapel flowers, while one of the goals that both Brett’s base and the Republican leadership are solid together on approaches:
The murder of ten million Obamacare enrollees.
Charles Pierce agrees with me:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Anti_Vaccination_Left_And_Why_It_Should_Shut_Up
Meanwhile, we smirk as the clowns divert us with tootling and blatting and squirting lapel flowers, while one of the goals that both Brett’s base and the Republican leadership are solid together on approaches:
The murder of ten million Obamacare enrollees.
Charles Pierce agrees with me:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Anti_Vaccination_Left_And_Why_It_Should_Shut_Up
Meanwhile, we smirk as the clowns divert us with tootling and blatting and squirting lapel flowers, while one of the goals that both Brett’s base and the Republican leadership are solid together on approaches:
The murder of ten million Obamacare enrollees.
Has everyone forgotten Occupy? That is the closest manifestation on the left of a Tea Party-like movement that I can think of. OK, not long-term viable, but at least noticeable.
[russell] … the Hidden Paw, veritable Napoleons of crime.
Such deceitfulness and suavity. [I had to let you know!]
Has everyone forgotten Occupy? That is the closest manifestation on the left of a Tea Party-like movement that I can think of. OK, not long-term viable, but at least noticeable.
[russell] … the Hidden Paw, veritable Napoleons of crime.
Such deceitfulness and suavity. [I had to let you know!]
Has everyone forgotten Occupy? That is the closest manifestation on the left of a Tea Party-like movement that I can think of. OK, not long-term viable, but at least noticeable.
[russell] … the Hidden Paw, veritable Napoleons of crime.
Such deceitfulness and suavity. [I had to let you know!]
About Occupy, I imagine that the average age is a lot lower than Tea Party,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/
They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).
which might be a reason why scams are aimed at Tea Party types. Older people are generally going to have amassed more wealth, where as scamming your 20+ year old is not going to get you much (at least if someone had scammed me, though not sure if things have changed all that much)
About Occupy, I imagine that the average age is a lot lower than Tea Party,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/
They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).
which might be a reason why scams are aimed at Tea Party types. Older people are generally going to have amassed more wealth, where as scamming your 20+ year old is not going to get you much (at least if someone had scammed me, though not sure if things have changed all that much)
About Occupy, I imagine that the average age is a lot lower than Tea Party,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/
They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).
which might be a reason why scams are aimed at Tea Party types. Older people are generally going to have amassed more wealth, where as scamming your 20+ year old is not going to get you much (at least if someone had scammed me, though not sure if things have changed all that much)
Occupy is a good example of a grass-roots movement on the left.
The major difference between Occupy and the tea party is that Occupy is basically not interested in electoral politics. At least as far as I can tell.
They also demonstrate the degree to which whatever passes for “the left” in the US is represented by (D)’s. Which is to say, barely if at all.
Occupy is a good example of a grass-roots movement on the left.
The major difference between Occupy and the tea party is that Occupy is basically not interested in electoral politics. At least as far as I can tell.
They also demonstrate the degree to which whatever passes for “the left” in the US is represented by (D)’s. Which is to say, barely if at all.
Occupy is a good example of a grass-roots movement on the left.
The major difference between Occupy and the tea party is that Occupy is basically not interested in electoral politics. At least as far as I can tell.
They also demonstrate the degree to which whatever passes for “the left” in the US is represented by (D)’s. Which is to say, barely if at all.
If we’re talking about the party machines relative to the party bases, we’re talking about the GOP machine relative to the right, and we’re talking about the Democratic machine relative to the center.
The left isn’t the base of the Democratic party. This may be what is confounding Brett’s analysis and/or the interpretation of it.
But those slick Socialists, they’re taking the true liberals for quite the ride, huh?
If we’re talking about the party machines relative to the party bases, we’re talking about the GOP machine relative to the right, and we’re talking about the Democratic machine relative to the center.
The left isn’t the base of the Democratic party. This may be what is confounding Brett’s analysis and/or the interpretation of it.
But those slick Socialists, they’re taking the true liberals for quite the ride, huh?
If we’re talking about the party machines relative to the party bases, we’re talking about the GOP machine relative to the right, and we’re talking about the Democratic machine relative to the center.
The left isn’t the base of the Democratic party. This may be what is confounding Brett’s analysis and/or the interpretation of it.
But those slick Socialists, they’re taking the true liberals for quite the ride, huh?
There are similar things on the left. Blogs, MoveOn, advocacy organizations like Emily’s List. There are PACs, 501(c) orgs, etc.
yes. similar, but much smaller. they don’t have anywhere near the reach and influence that the right’s vast talk radio network has. nor does the left have anything even close to Fox News. mailing lists and PACs? noise, sources of junk mail and ads. and blogs are insignificant, compared to the audience of Limbaugh or Hannity.
the left just doesn’t have a way to push a message the way the right does.
There are similar things on the left. Blogs, MoveOn, advocacy organizations like Emily’s List. There are PACs, 501(c) orgs, etc.
yes. similar, but much smaller. they don’t have anywhere near the reach and influence that the right’s vast talk radio network has. nor does the left have anything even close to Fox News. mailing lists and PACs? noise, sources of junk mail and ads. and blogs are insignificant, compared to the audience of Limbaugh or Hannity.
the left just doesn’t have a way to push a message the way the right does.
There are similar things on the left. Blogs, MoveOn, advocacy organizations like Emily’s List. There are PACs, 501(c) orgs, etc.
yes. similar, but much smaller. they don’t have anywhere near the reach and influence that the right’s vast talk radio network has. nor does the left have anything even close to Fox News. mailing lists and PACs? noise, sources of junk mail and ads. and blogs are insignificant, compared to the audience of Limbaugh or Hannity.
the left just doesn’t have a way to push a message the way the right does.
nor does the left have anything even close to Fox News.
Conservatives would say “NPR”, but lefties call them “Nice Polite Republicans”.
So, no. You are correct.
nor does the left have anything even close to Fox News.
Conservatives would say “NPR”, but lefties call them “Nice Polite Republicans”.
So, no. You are correct.
nor does the left have anything even close to Fox News.
Conservatives would say “NPR”, but lefties call them “Nice Polite Republicans”.
So, no. You are correct.
The other thing I would say is that the reason the left doesn’t have the equivalent of Fox, or Rush, or Beck, etc., is that there is no market for it.
Some folks have tried to create the left-wing equivalent of Fox, but they’ve failed.
I can tell you from direct personal experience that there are lots of people whose social, economic, and political leanings would make them a likely audience for something like that, but it just doesn’t click with them.
Apparently, folks on the left and right are different in how they go about things.
The other thing I would say is that the reason the left doesn’t have the equivalent of Fox, or Rush, or Beck, etc., is that there is no market for it.
Some folks have tried to create the left-wing equivalent of Fox, but they’ve failed.
I can tell you from direct personal experience that there are lots of people whose social, economic, and political leanings would make them a likely audience for something like that, but it just doesn’t click with them.
Apparently, folks on the left and right are different in how they go about things.
The other thing I would say is that the reason the left doesn’t have the equivalent of Fox, or Rush, or Beck, etc., is that there is no market for it.
Some folks have tried to create the left-wing equivalent of Fox, but they’ve failed.
I can tell you from direct personal experience that there are lots of people whose social, economic, and political leanings would make them a likely audience for something like that, but it just doesn’t click with them.
Apparently, folks on the left and right are different in how they go about things.
An interesting take on vaccination, and the American contemptuous view of “obligation”:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120951/voluntary-vaccines-work-europe-wouldnt-work-us
Also, casting the net a little wider, some Libertarians views on what they as parents may do to their post-born children without government intervention:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120965/rand-paul-libertarians-have-long-had-horrifying-view-parenting
I doubt very many self-identifying Libertarians would put this stuff into practice, but the fact that so many true believers get themselves into high government positions is peculiar and rather chilling.
An interesting take on vaccination, and the American contemptuous view of “obligation”:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120951/voluntary-vaccines-work-europe-wouldnt-work-us
Also, casting the net a little wider, some Libertarians views on what they as parents may do to their post-born children without government intervention:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120965/rand-paul-libertarians-have-long-had-horrifying-view-parenting
I doubt very many self-identifying Libertarians would put this stuff into practice, but the fact that so many true believers get themselves into high government positions is peculiar and rather chilling.
An interesting take on vaccination, and the American contemptuous view of “obligation”:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120951/voluntary-vaccines-work-europe-wouldnt-work-us
Also, casting the net a little wider, some Libertarians views on what they as parents may do to their post-born children without government intervention:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120965/rand-paul-libertarians-have-long-had-horrifying-view-parenting
I doubt very many self-identifying Libertarians would put this stuff into practice, but the fact that so many true believers get themselves into high government positions is peculiar and rather chilling.
That second link is stunning.
That second link is stunning.
That second link is stunning.
“The other thing I would say is that the reason the left doesn’t have the equivalent of Fox, or Rush, or Beck, etc., is that there is no market for it.”
There is always a market for demagoguery in human affairs, especially the kind that demonizes the Other, as the examples you provide have demonstrated in an almost monopolistic fashion, just as there exists a market (albeit small, but give the marketers time) for scat porn.
Beck is a superb marketer, and like any fascist grifting sociopath, can sell with antic cheerfulness or turn to tearful sentimentality to pick his marks’ pockets, and f*ck up my country as a by-product.
I don’t subscribe to the “market” model universally applied. It can make anything seem anodyne (yes, it’s outright hatred, but we are following modern, commonly accepted marketing principles).
Hitler was such a great MBA marketing exec that Jews exiting the trains at Treblinka not only packed their belongings for the duration, but would approach the Nazi guards and politely request the way to their new, safe accommodations, at which point the marketing abruptly stopped and the product complaint window closed. Sorry, no returns.
Your less lethal sociopaths on the Right, and they are legion but no less murderous in the aggregate, know when a marketing window closes and have perfect timing in moving on to fresh marks — Vlad Putin, whose marketing methods are remarked on with awe by Republicans, is a perfect example. Bibi Netanyahu can sense his marketing scheme is losing a little of its steam in his own country, so he rushes into foreign markets where his nasty product is in great demand. Chris Christie, given consumer polling in his original market — New Jersey — has diversified his business into Iowa and Texas, markets which have been considerably softened and fluffed by the right-wing sociopaths who preceded him.
Yeah, the Right’s market model just doesn’t seem to work properly on the Left. God knows, I try, in my small ways.
The Left is a tough crowd.
“The other thing I would say is that the reason the left doesn’t have the equivalent of Fox, or Rush, or Beck, etc., is that there is no market for it.”
There is always a market for demagoguery in human affairs, especially the kind that demonizes the Other, as the examples you provide have demonstrated in an almost monopolistic fashion, just as there exists a market (albeit small, but give the marketers time) for scat porn.
Beck is a superb marketer, and like any fascist grifting sociopath, can sell with antic cheerfulness or turn to tearful sentimentality to pick his marks’ pockets, and f*ck up my country as a by-product.
I don’t subscribe to the “market” model universally applied. It can make anything seem anodyne (yes, it’s outright hatred, but we are following modern, commonly accepted marketing principles).
Hitler was such a great MBA marketing exec that Jews exiting the trains at Treblinka not only packed their belongings for the duration, but would approach the Nazi guards and politely request the way to their new, safe accommodations, at which point the marketing abruptly stopped and the product complaint window closed. Sorry, no returns.
Your less lethal sociopaths on the Right, and they are legion but no less murderous in the aggregate, know when a marketing window closes and have perfect timing in moving on to fresh marks — Vlad Putin, whose marketing methods are remarked on with awe by Republicans, is a perfect example. Bibi Netanyahu can sense his marketing scheme is losing a little of its steam in his own country, so he rushes into foreign markets where his nasty product is in great demand. Chris Christie, given consumer polling in his original market — New Jersey — has diversified his business into Iowa and Texas, markets which have been considerably softened and fluffed by the right-wing sociopaths who preceded him.
Yeah, the Right’s market model just doesn’t seem to work properly on the Left. God knows, I try, in my small ways.
The Left is a tough crowd.
“The other thing I would say is that the reason the left doesn’t have the equivalent of Fox, or Rush, or Beck, etc., is that there is no market for it.”
There is always a market for demagoguery in human affairs, especially the kind that demonizes the Other, as the examples you provide have demonstrated in an almost monopolistic fashion, just as there exists a market (albeit small, but give the marketers time) for scat porn.
Beck is a superb marketer, and like any fascist grifting sociopath, can sell with antic cheerfulness or turn to tearful sentimentality to pick his marks’ pockets, and f*ck up my country as a by-product.
I don’t subscribe to the “market” model universally applied. It can make anything seem anodyne (yes, it’s outright hatred, but we are following modern, commonly accepted marketing principles).
Hitler was such a great MBA marketing exec that Jews exiting the trains at Treblinka not only packed their belongings for the duration, but would approach the Nazi guards and politely request the way to their new, safe accommodations, at which point the marketing abruptly stopped and the product complaint window closed. Sorry, no returns.
Your less lethal sociopaths on the Right, and they are legion but no less murderous in the aggregate, know when a marketing window closes and have perfect timing in moving on to fresh marks — Vlad Putin, whose marketing methods are remarked on with awe by Republicans, is a perfect example. Bibi Netanyahu can sense his marketing scheme is losing a little of its steam in his own country, so he rushes into foreign markets where his nasty product is in great demand. Chris Christie, given consumer polling in his original market — New Jersey — has diversified his business into Iowa and Texas, markets which have been considerably softened and fluffed by the right-wing sociopaths who preceded him.
Yeah, the Right’s market model just doesn’t seem to work properly on the Left. God knows, I try, in my small ways.
The Left is a tough crowd.
MSNBC is widely regarded by folks on the right as slanted left. But I would guess it’s because it’s a different group of folks who are unjustly & overly proud of their intellects that sometimes disagree with the Fox News crowd.
In other news, I’ve decided that one of the biggest problems plaguing this country nowadays is the inclination to bitch about absolutely anything.
So, I’ve decided to make a decent effort to reduce the insane, cacaphonic chorus of bitching by one voice.
You’re welcome.
MSNBC is widely regarded by folks on the right as slanted left. But I would guess it’s because it’s a different group of folks who are unjustly & overly proud of their intellects that sometimes disagree with the Fox News crowd.
In other news, I’ve decided that one of the biggest problems plaguing this country nowadays is the inclination to bitch about absolutely anything.
So, I’ve decided to make a decent effort to reduce the insane, cacaphonic chorus of bitching by one voice.
You’re welcome.
MSNBC is widely regarded by folks on the right as slanted left. But I would guess it’s because it’s a different group of folks who are unjustly & overly proud of their intellects that sometimes disagree with the Fox News crowd.
In other news, I’ve decided that one of the biggest problems plaguing this country nowadays is the inclination to bitch about absolutely anything.
So, I’ve decided to make a decent effort to reduce the insane, cacaphonic chorus of bitching by one voice.
You’re welcome.
If I look at the media programming that’s very popular on the right, vs very popular on the left, the conclusion I draw is that folks on the right enjoy feeling outraged and self-righteous, while folks on the left like to point and laugh.
Righties like Fox, lefties like John Stewart. For example.
Both indulge in disparaging The Other, however they employ very different styles in doing so.
Whether the difference in style is significant in a way that points to greater or lesser goodness or legitimacy, I leave as an exercise for the reader. Stuff like that is above my pay grade.
Basically, I identify as a lefty because I think our version of capitalism is past it’s sell-by date, and I think people should get paid more. I have a mild bias toward labor.
The rest of it is not that interesting to me.
I will say that IMO this:
the American contemptuous view of “obligation”
gets to the heart of about a million different things, and is about 90% of the reason why we can’t have nice things.
We accept a very very high degree of childishness in our public life, here in the good old USA.
If I look at the media programming that’s very popular on the right, vs very popular on the left, the conclusion I draw is that folks on the right enjoy feeling outraged and self-righteous, while folks on the left like to point and laugh.
Righties like Fox, lefties like John Stewart. For example.
Both indulge in disparaging The Other, however they employ very different styles in doing so.
Whether the difference in style is significant in a way that points to greater or lesser goodness or legitimacy, I leave as an exercise for the reader. Stuff like that is above my pay grade.
Basically, I identify as a lefty because I think our version of capitalism is past it’s sell-by date, and I think people should get paid more. I have a mild bias toward labor.
The rest of it is not that interesting to me.
I will say that IMO this:
the American contemptuous view of “obligation”
gets to the heart of about a million different things, and is about 90% of the reason why we can’t have nice things.
We accept a very very high degree of childishness in our public life, here in the good old USA.
If I look at the media programming that’s very popular on the right, vs very popular on the left, the conclusion I draw is that folks on the right enjoy feeling outraged and self-righteous, while folks on the left like to point and laugh.
Righties like Fox, lefties like John Stewart. For example.
Both indulge in disparaging The Other, however they employ very different styles in doing so.
Whether the difference in style is significant in a way that points to greater or lesser goodness or legitimacy, I leave as an exercise for the reader. Stuff like that is above my pay grade.
Basically, I identify as a lefty because I think our version of capitalism is past it’s sell-by date, and I think people should get paid more. I have a mild bias toward labor.
The rest of it is not that interesting to me.
I will say that IMO this:
the American contemptuous view of “obligation”
gets to the heart of about a million different things, and is about 90% of the reason why we can’t have nice things.
We accept a very very high degree of childishness in our public life, here in the good old USA.
I’ll add that the Left, as marketing types, suck.
Barack Obama — lousy.
His fellow Democratic office-holders — the cowardly lions of the MBA Marketing Program.
Take Obamacare for example.
Ten million customers, surpassing market expectations, even despite the shaky website roll-out and product sabotage by we know who.
Hell, even Marty got sucked into it. 😉
A further huge market exists for universal healthcare insurance coverage, even among the naysayers who swear to God they would never, I say never, eat a chocolate covered cockroach, but once they try it … hmmmm. Sweet, and a pleasing crunchiness!
Marketing surveys show that a sizable plurality want the Obamacare wording on subsidies fixed by Congress if the Supreme Court overturns the thing.
Do Democrats get out in front of this marketing bonanza. Nope. They think brussels sprouts, Ford pickups, and feminine crotch deoderizers just sell themselves.
Now conservatives, those guys can market. It helps to be a congenital liar and a sociopath as well, or even a true believer, as any TV Ministry, Ricard Viguerie, and Grover Norquist will tell you.
That’s direct marketing, as Stalin preached.
It also stiffens the spine to be a bunch of cold-blooded killers.
I’ll add that the Left, as marketing types, suck.
Barack Obama — lousy.
His fellow Democratic office-holders — the cowardly lions of the MBA Marketing Program.
Take Obamacare for example.
Ten million customers, surpassing market expectations, even despite the shaky website roll-out and product sabotage by we know who.
Hell, even Marty got sucked into it. 😉
A further huge market exists for universal healthcare insurance coverage, even among the naysayers who swear to God they would never, I say never, eat a chocolate covered cockroach, but once they try it … hmmmm. Sweet, and a pleasing crunchiness!
Marketing surveys show that a sizable plurality want the Obamacare wording on subsidies fixed by Congress if the Supreme Court overturns the thing.
Do Democrats get out in front of this marketing bonanza. Nope. They think brussels sprouts, Ford pickups, and feminine crotch deoderizers just sell themselves.
Now conservatives, those guys can market. It helps to be a congenital liar and a sociopath as well, or even a true believer, as any TV Ministry, Ricard Viguerie, and Grover Norquist will tell you.
That’s direct marketing, as Stalin preached.
It also stiffens the spine to be a bunch of cold-blooded killers.
I’ll add that the Left, as marketing types, suck.
Barack Obama — lousy.
His fellow Democratic office-holders — the cowardly lions of the MBA Marketing Program.
Take Obamacare for example.
Ten million customers, surpassing market expectations, even despite the shaky website roll-out and product sabotage by we know who.
Hell, even Marty got sucked into it. 😉
A further huge market exists for universal healthcare insurance coverage, even among the naysayers who swear to God they would never, I say never, eat a chocolate covered cockroach, but once they try it … hmmmm. Sweet, and a pleasing crunchiness!
Marketing surveys show that a sizable plurality want the Obamacare wording on subsidies fixed by Congress if the Supreme Court overturns the thing.
Do Democrats get out in front of this marketing bonanza. Nope. They think brussels sprouts, Ford pickups, and feminine crotch deoderizers just sell themselves.
Now conservatives, those guys can market. It helps to be a congenital liar and a sociopath as well, or even a true believer, as any TV Ministry, Ricard Viguerie, and Grover Norquist will tell you.
That’s direct marketing, as Stalin preached.
It also stiffens the spine to be a bunch of cold-blooded killers.
Ah, yes, Comedy Central is the lefty equivalent of Fox News. That explains a lot.
Ah, yes, Comedy Central is the lefty equivalent of Fox News. That explains a lot.
Ah, yes, Comedy Central is the lefty equivalent of Fox News. That explains a lot.
Thank you, Slart.
Your journey has been impressive. You are a better man than I.
Your approach will be the death of the Internet, social media, and all of the other noise machines, but like Candide, I think if more of us would stick to tending our garden and our goats, we’d have a better world, as long as we also have universal health coverage available to those who want it.
Pascal said: “We view things not only from different sides, but with different eyes; we have no wish to find them alike.”
He also said: “I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man’s being unable to sit still in a room.”
But I’m antsy. I’d tie myself to a stationary chair, but then we are cursed with the world leaking through all of the nodes of electronic connectivity in our humble abodes.
I did get rid of the TV several years ago.
Maybe I’ll cut the cord on the rest too.
I like a good fight, as you would know if you saw me slide into second base in a baseball game. Maybe you know anyway from reading me here.
However, I’m getting old enough now that one of these days I won’t be able to get up, so I may have to settle for singles.
Russell:
“folks on the right enjoy feeling outraged and feeling outraged while folks on the left like to point and laugh.
Righties like Fox, lefties like John Stewart. For example.”
This reminds of the key line in the great British cop show starring Gillian Anderson, “The Fall”, feminist in a very pugnacious way, the second season of which is now available on Netflix, and you have to watch the series, of course to get it:
“Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men are going to kill them.”
The macho (both male and female) conservative, like radical Islamists and the NRA, armed, is a target for really funny satire.
The more sensitive liberal cast of mind, while capable of savage satire, needs to watch its steps who it’s talking to.
Not exclusively to either side, but enough to generalize.
Thank you, Slart.
Your journey has been impressive. You are a better man than I.
Your approach will be the death of the Internet, social media, and all of the other noise machines, but like Candide, I think if more of us would stick to tending our garden and our goats, we’d have a better world, as long as we also have universal health coverage available to those who want it.
Pascal said: “We view things not only from different sides, but with different eyes; we have no wish to find them alike.”
He also said: “I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man’s being unable to sit still in a room.”
But I’m antsy. I’d tie myself to a stationary chair, but then we are cursed with the world leaking through all of the nodes of electronic connectivity in our humble abodes.
I did get rid of the TV several years ago.
Maybe I’ll cut the cord on the rest too.
I like a good fight, as you would know if you saw me slide into second base in a baseball game. Maybe you know anyway from reading me here.
However, I’m getting old enough now that one of these days I won’t be able to get up, so I may have to settle for singles.
Russell:
“folks on the right enjoy feeling outraged and feeling outraged while folks on the left like to point and laugh.
Righties like Fox, lefties like John Stewart. For example.”
This reminds of the key line in the great British cop show starring Gillian Anderson, “The Fall”, feminist in a very pugnacious way, the second season of which is now available on Netflix, and you have to watch the series, of course to get it:
“Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men are going to kill them.”
The macho (both male and female) conservative, like radical Islamists and the NRA, armed, is a target for really funny satire.
The more sensitive liberal cast of mind, while capable of savage satire, needs to watch its steps who it’s talking to.
Not exclusively to either side, but enough to generalize.
Thank you, Slart.
Your journey has been impressive. You are a better man than I.
Your approach will be the death of the Internet, social media, and all of the other noise machines, but like Candide, I think if more of us would stick to tending our garden and our goats, we’d have a better world, as long as we also have universal health coverage available to those who want it.
Pascal said: “We view things not only from different sides, but with different eyes; we have no wish to find them alike.”
He also said: “I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man’s being unable to sit still in a room.”
But I’m antsy. I’d tie myself to a stationary chair, but then we are cursed with the world leaking through all of the nodes of electronic connectivity in our humble abodes.
I did get rid of the TV several years ago.
Maybe I’ll cut the cord on the rest too.
I like a good fight, as you would know if you saw me slide into second base in a baseball game. Maybe you know anyway from reading me here.
However, I’m getting old enough now that one of these days I won’t be able to get up, so I may have to settle for singles.
Russell:
“folks on the right enjoy feeling outraged and feeling outraged while folks on the left like to point and laugh.
Righties like Fox, lefties like John Stewart. For example.”
This reminds of the key line in the great British cop show starring Gillian Anderson, “The Fall”, feminist in a very pugnacious way, the second season of which is now available on Netflix, and you have to watch the series, of course to get it:
“Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men are going to kill them.”
The macho (both male and female) conservative, like radical Islamists and the NRA, armed, is a target for really funny satire.
The more sensitive liberal cast of mind, while capable of savage satire, needs to watch its steps who it’s talking to.
Not exclusively to either side, but enough to generalize.
“The left isn’t the base of the Democratic party.”
I call this the “Ptolemic falacy”, the belief that there is some absolute center of the political spectrum, usually somewhere near where the person employing the fallacy finds themselves. In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
Even if most Democrats would not be considered “leftists” in some other country.
“The left isn’t the base of the Democratic party.”
I call this the “Ptolemic falacy”, the belief that there is some absolute center of the political spectrum, usually somewhere near where the person employing the fallacy finds themselves. In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
Even if most Democrats would not be considered “leftists” in some other country.
“The left isn’t the base of the Democratic party.”
I call this the “Ptolemic falacy”, the belief that there is some absolute center of the political spectrum, usually somewhere near where the person employing the fallacy finds themselves. In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
Even if most Democrats would not be considered “leftists” in some other country.
Brett, what you just described basically boils down to “Anyone to the left of a Fascist is a Commie”. Your basically letting ‘the right’ determine everyone else’s politics and that ain’t so.
Leftist have very different political goals than centrists.
Brett, what you just described basically boils down to “Anyone to the left of a Fascist is a Commie”. Your basically letting ‘the right’ determine everyone else’s politics and that ain’t so.
Leftist have very different political goals than centrists.
Brett, what you just described basically boils down to “Anyone to the left of a Fascist is a Commie”. Your basically letting ‘the right’ determine everyone else’s politics and that ain’t so.
Leftist have very different political goals than centrists.
The center of the Democratic Party is definitely to the left of the center of the Republican Party. Not the slightest doubt of that. And to the left of the country as a whole. But that says nothing about how close the center of either party is to the center of the country as a whole.
If the center of the Democratic Party is further left than 75% of the nation as a whole, then I would say it is a party of the left. But if it is only to the left of 55%, I would call it a centerist party. Anybody got any actual evidence on where the reality is?
Also, if 25% of one party is on the other side of the national center than the center of the party, whereas only 5% of the other party is, then I think you might justify calling the former the centerist party — based on which party more of the center appears to belong to. Just tossing numbers out at random here. But something along those lines makes sense to me. Better suggestions for how to justify calling a party “centerist”?
The center of the Democratic Party is definitely to the left of the center of the Republican Party. Not the slightest doubt of that. And to the left of the country as a whole. But that says nothing about how close the center of either party is to the center of the country as a whole.
If the center of the Democratic Party is further left than 75% of the nation as a whole, then I would say it is a party of the left. But if it is only to the left of 55%, I would call it a centerist party. Anybody got any actual evidence on where the reality is?
Also, if 25% of one party is on the other side of the national center than the center of the party, whereas only 5% of the other party is, then I think you might justify calling the former the centerist party — based on which party more of the center appears to belong to. Just tossing numbers out at random here. But something along those lines makes sense to me. Better suggestions for how to justify calling a party “centerist”?
The center of the Democratic Party is definitely to the left of the center of the Republican Party. Not the slightest doubt of that. And to the left of the country as a whole. But that says nothing about how close the center of either party is to the center of the country as a whole.
If the center of the Democratic Party is further left than 75% of the nation as a whole, then I would say it is a party of the left. But if it is only to the left of 55%, I would call it a centerist party. Anybody got any actual evidence on where the reality is?
Also, if 25% of one party is on the other side of the national center than the center of the party, whereas only 5% of the other party is, then I think you might justify calling the former the centerist party — based on which party more of the center appears to belong to. Just tossing numbers out at random here. But something along those lines makes sense to me. Better suggestions for how to justify calling a party “centerist”?
I prefer to think of it as the “polemic fallacy”, personally.
I prefer to think of it as the “polemic fallacy”, personally.
I prefer to think of it as the “polemic fallacy”, personally.
I confess that I initially read that as: “I may have to settle for shingles”, which made me think of boomeranging childhood diseases and the age of my roof, in that order.
It does suck, getting old.
I confess that I initially read that as: “I may have to settle for shingles”, which made me think of boomeranging childhood diseases and the age of my roof, in that order.
It does suck, getting old.
I confess that I initially read that as: “I may have to settle for shingles”, which made me think of boomeranging childhood diseases and the age of my roof, in that order.
It does suck, getting old.
I call this the “Ptolemic falacy”, the belief that there is some absolute center of the political spectrum, usually somewhere near where the person employing the fallacy finds themselves. In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
Call it what you like, but it doesn’t make it so. To the limited extent that characterizations like right and left are useful, there is something of a center, particularly in light of some number of decades of politics, and the D party is only slightly to the left of it overall. There are still conservative Democrats – maybe not what you, Brett, would call conservatives, but what most people would. There are virtually no liberal Republicans anymore.
And I find myself to the left of the center, fairly far so judging by what I see going on and hear people saying in these United States. So I think your fallacy is a fallacy.
I call this the “Ptolemic falacy”, the belief that there is some absolute center of the political spectrum, usually somewhere near where the person employing the fallacy finds themselves. In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
Call it what you like, but it doesn’t make it so. To the limited extent that characterizations like right and left are useful, there is something of a center, particularly in light of some number of decades of politics, and the D party is only slightly to the left of it overall. There are still conservative Democrats – maybe not what you, Brett, would call conservatives, but what most people would. There are virtually no liberal Republicans anymore.
And I find myself to the left of the center, fairly far so judging by what I see going on and hear people saying in these United States. So I think your fallacy is a fallacy.
I call this the “Ptolemic falacy”, the belief that there is some absolute center of the political spectrum, usually somewhere near where the person employing the fallacy finds themselves. In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
Call it what you like, but it doesn’t make it so. To the limited extent that characterizations like right and left are useful, there is something of a center, particularly in light of some number of decades of politics, and the D party is only slightly to the left of it overall. There are still conservative Democrats – maybe not what you, Brett, would call conservatives, but what most people would. There are virtually no liberal Republicans anymore.
And I find myself to the left of the center, fairly far so judging by what I see going on and hear people saying in these United States. So I think your fallacy is a fallacy.
In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
And, conversely, the (D)’s are what we have for a “left” in the US today, in terms of elected representatives.
Which makes my point. People whose social and political orientation is to the left side of the spectrum are not well represented by the members of the political class.
They exist, and they are not some weird fringey demographic hiding out in Berkeley and Vermont.
They just are not well represented by the (D)’s, or anyone else other than maybe Bernie Sanders.
The “Ptolemic fallacy” thing is a cute idea, but as a simple matter of historical reality, not just around the world but in this country as well, the terms “right” and “left” actually do have substantive content.
If you have a room full of basketball players, the ones who are only 6’5″ do not, somehow, become short.
Nice try, though. Keep trying to tell me what I really think, maybe it’ll sink in eventually.
In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
And, conversely, the (D)’s are what we have for a “left” in the US today, in terms of elected representatives.
Which makes my point. People whose social and political orientation is to the left side of the spectrum are not well represented by the members of the political class.
They exist, and they are not some weird fringey demographic hiding out in Berkeley and Vermont.
They just are not well represented by the (D)’s, or anyone else other than maybe Bernie Sanders.
The “Ptolemic fallacy” thing is a cute idea, but as a simple matter of historical reality, not just around the world but in this country as well, the terms “right” and “left” actually do have substantive content.
If you have a room full of basketball players, the ones who are only 6’5″ do not, somehow, become short.
Nice try, though. Keep trying to tell me what I really think, maybe it’ll sink in eventually.
In terms of the political center in the US, the left certainly IS the base of the Democratic party.
And, conversely, the (D)’s are what we have for a “left” in the US today, in terms of elected representatives.
Which makes my point. People whose social and political orientation is to the left side of the spectrum are not well represented by the members of the political class.
They exist, and they are not some weird fringey demographic hiding out in Berkeley and Vermont.
They just are not well represented by the (D)’s, or anyone else other than maybe Bernie Sanders.
The “Ptolemic fallacy” thing is a cute idea, but as a simple matter of historical reality, not just around the world but in this country as well, the terms “right” and “left” actually do have substantive content.
If you have a room full of basketball players, the ones who are only 6’5″ do not, somehow, become short.
Nice try, though. Keep trying to tell me what I really think, maybe it’ll sink in eventually.
Slarti, you are not *old*, you are just chronologically challenged.
Slarti, you are not *old*, you are just chronologically challenged.
Slarti, you are not *old*, you are just chronologically challenged.
Anybody got any actual evidence on where the reality is?
92% of Americans would prefer the income distribution found in Sweden to what we have here.
For example.
What laws or policies have been proposed by our elected representatives to help make that happen?
Anybody got any actual evidence on where the reality is?
92% of Americans would prefer the income distribution found in Sweden to what we have here.
For example.
What laws or policies have been proposed by our elected representatives to help make that happen?
Anybody got any actual evidence on where the reality is?
92% of Americans would prefer the income distribution found in Sweden to what we have here.
For example.
What laws or policies have been proposed by our elected representatives to help make that happen?
Ptlomy tolla me that his mistake was to think his Overton Window wasn’t constantly moving to the Right, instead of remaining stationary.
Slart, I’ve been vaccinated against shingles, which dovetails nicely.
I’m asked at the grocery checkout sometimes if I’d like to donate FOR cancer or diabetes, or Alzheimers.
I reply, no, but if you’re taking money AGAINST those three diseases, I’m all ears.
Same goes for Shingles. I go for the double every time.
Ptlomy tolla me that his mistake was to think his Overton Window wasn’t constantly moving to the Right, instead of remaining stationary.
Slart, I’ve been vaccinated against shingles, which dovetails nicely.
I’m asked at the grocery checkout sometimes if I’d like to donate FOR cancer or diabetes, or Alzheimers.
I reply, no, but if you’re taking money AGAINST those three diseases, I’m all ears.
Same goes for Shingles. I go for the double every time.
Ptlomy tolla me that his mistake was to think his Overton Window wasn’t constantly moving to the Right, instead of remaining stationary.
Slart, I’ve been vaccinated against shingles, which dovetails nicely.
I’m asked at the grocery checkout sometimes if I’d like to donate FOR cancer or diabetes, or Alzheimers.
I reply, no, but if you’re taking money AGAINST those three diseases, I’m all ears.
Same goes for Shingles. I go for the double every time.
Not to argue this point overly much, but I think you’d also find out that 99% of Americans would prefer to be millionaires over what they are now.
I think if you told people exactly what had to be done in order to make that happen, you might get a different response.
Perhaps not, though. I just think that if you ask people what they prefer without telling them what effort they personally need to expend in order to achieve that condition, the answer is less meaningful than it could be.
Not to argue this point overly much, but I think you’d also find out that 99% of Americans would prefer to be millionaires over what they are now.
I think if you told people exactly what had to be done in order to make that happen, you might get a different response.
Perhaps not, though. I just think that if you ask people what they prefer without telling them what effort they personally need to expend in order to achieve that condition, the answer is less meaningful than it could be.
Not to argue this point overly much, but I think you’d also find out that 99% of Americans would prefer to be millionaires over what they are now.
I think if you told people exactly what had to be done in order to make that happen, you might get a different response.
Perhaps not, though. I just think that if you ask people what they prefer without telling them what effort they personally need to expend in order to achieve that condition, the answer is less meaningful than it could be.
Regarding the 92% …
The 1% (plus 6% for good measure) answers: “Lutefisk, by any other name”.
Plus the 1% are able and willing to spend 92% of their wealth to prevent the eventuality, and they’d still maintain their position as the 1%.
Regarding the 92% …
The 1% (plus 6% for good measure) answers: “Lutefisk, by any other name”.
Plus the 1% are able and willing to spend 92% of their wealth to prevent the eventuality, and they’d still maintain their position as the 1%.
Regarding the 92% …
The 1% (plus 6% for good measure) answers: “Lutefisk, by any other name”.
Plus the 1% are able and willing to spend 92% of their wealth to prevent the eventuality, and they’d still maintain their position as the 1%.
The liberal New York Times takes down Al Sharpton, yet another chink in the liberal solidarity movement Brett thinks he’s on top of.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2015/02/05/people-jailed-for-owing-less-taxes-than-al-sharpton/
I suppose FOX finally found something fair and balanced to report from the Commie Times news service.
I wonder if FOX will call for further cuts in IRS budgets to prevent this type of harassment.
Sharpton ought to consult Mitt Romney regarding those offshore shelters.
I always knew Sharpton’s real deep-down grift was that he a tax-hating conservative.
The liberal New York Times takes down Al Sharpton, yet another chink in the liberal solidarity movement Brett thinks he’s on top of.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2015/02/05/people-jailed-for-owing-less-taxes-than-al-sharpton/
I suppose FOX finally found something fair and balanced to report from the Commie Times news service.
I wonder if FOX will call for further cuts in IRS budgets to prevent this type of harassment.
Sharpton ought to consult Mitt Romney regarding those offshore shelters.
I always knew Sharpton’s real deep-down grift was that he a tax-hating conservative.
The liberal New York Times takes down Al Sharpton, yet another chink in the liberal solidarity movement Brett thinks he’s on top of.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2015/02/05/people-jailed-for-owing-less-taxes-than-al-sharpton/
I suppose FOX finally found something fair and balanced to report from the Commie Times news service.
I wonder if FOX will call for further cuts in IRS budgets to prevent this type of harassment.
Sharpton ought to consult Mitt Romney regarding those offshore shelters.
I always knew Sharpton’s real deep-down grift was that he a tax-hating conservative.
I think you’d also find out that 99% of Americans would prefer to be millionaires over what they are now.
It wasn’t really that kind of question.
What folks were asked to respond to wasn’t “would you personally like more money?”
They were presented with depictions of different wealth distributions, and asked which they thought seemed most fair.
Sweden won.
Your point might be apt if the current distribution of income and wealth in the US was merely a fair and accurate reflection of how hard some folks work relative to others, or how productive some folks are relative to others.
And/or, if our current public policies had no effect on the distribution of wealth and income, and that distribution was simply the outcome of a fair and neutral economic playing field.
In those cases, maybe seeing the current distribution as unfair might be construed as wishing for a pony. Might be.
In any case, my point overall here is that the argument that our national elected representatives accurately reflect the priorities of the people, and that the reason that (D)’s are objectively centrist rather than more to the left is because there just isn’t a constituency for more left-leaning policies, is false.
92% of the people in the survey considered our current distribution of income and wealth to be unfair.
That tells me there is a constituency for policies other than what we have.
I think you’d also find out that 99% of Americans would prefer to be millionaires over what they are now.
It wasn’t really that kind of question.
What folks were asked to respond to wasn’t “would you personally like more money?”
They were presented with depictions of different wealth distributions, and asked which they thought seemed most fair.
Sweden won.
Your point might be apt if the current distribution of income and wealth in the US was merely a fair and accurate reflection of how hard some folks work relative to others, or how productive some folks are relative to others.
And/or, if our current public policies had no effect on the distribution of wealth and income, and that distribution was simply the outcome of a fair and neutral economic playing field.
In those cases, maybe seeing the current distribution as unfair might be construed as wishing for a pony. Might be.
In any case, my point overall here is that the argument that our national elected representatives accurately reflect the priorities of the people, and that the reason that (D)’s are objectively centrist rather than more to the left is because there just isn’t a constituency for more left-leaning policies, is false.
92% of the people in the survey considered our current distribution of income and wealth to be unfair.
That tells me there is a constituency for policies other than what we have.
I think you’d also find out that 99% of Americans would prefer to be millionaires over what they are now.
It wasn’t really that kind of question.
What folks were asked to respond to wasn’t “would you personally like more money?”
They were presented with depictions of different wealth distributions, and asked which they thought seemed most fair.
Sweden won.
Your point might be apt if the current distribution of income and wealth in the US was merely a fair and accurate reflection of how hard some folks work relative to others, or how productive some folks are relative to others.
And/or, if our current public policies had no effect on the distribution of wealth and income, and that distribution was simply the outcome of a fair and neutral economic playing field.
In those cases, maybe seeing the current distribution as unfair might be construed as wishing for a pony. Might be.
In any case, my point overall here is that the argument that our national elected representatives accurately reflect the priorities of the people, and that the reason that (D)’s are objectively centrist rather than more to the left is because there just isn’t a constituency for more left-leaning policies, is false.
92% of the people in the survey considered our current distribution of income and wealth to be unfair.
That tells me there is a constituency for policies other than what we have.
russell, your facts are correct, the conclusion is a stretch. 92% favoring a different income distribution says nothing about the policy solutions they would support. I’m sure 92% of people would like a unicorn, few would support a massive government program to bioengineer one.
russell, your facts are correct, the conclusion is a stretch. 92% favoring a different income distribution says nothing about the policy solutions they would support. I’m sure 92% of people would like a unicorn, few would support a massive government program to bioengineer one.
russell, your facts are correct, the conclusion is a stretch. 92% favoring a different income distribution says nothing about the policy solutions they would support. I’m sure 92% of people would like a unicorn, few would support a massive government program to bioengineer one.
Tea Party heartthrob, tacky interior decorator, and unfortunately, newly elected political incumbent Aaron Schock (Shock! Schlock!) reveals the core Tea Party Zeitgiest:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benjamin-cole-schock-facebook-black-people-animals
and, what the hey-nonny-nonny, let’s go for the twofer:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benjamin-cole-aaron-shock-obama-mosque
Contra Brett’s theory of the rift between the incumbent Republican establishment and the true conservative Tea Party insurgency, I believe the two are solidly united in this racist, anti-American, subhuman, pig vermin worldview.
I will concede that the former may frown on the latter’s choice of Congressional office decor, but the concession is not incumbent upon me, especially if you noticed the sickly hue of John Boehner’s skin lately.
Tea Party heartthrob, tacky interior decorator, and unfortunately, newly elected political incumbent Aaron Schock (Shock! Schlock!) reveals the core Tea Party Zeitgiest:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benjamin-cole-schock-facebook-black-people-animals
and, what the hey-nonny-nonny, let’s go for the twofer:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benjamin-cole-aaron-shock-obama-mosque
Contra Brett’s theory of the rift between the incumbent Republican establishment and the true conservative Tea Party insurgency, I believe the two are solidly united in this racist, anti-American, subhuman, pig vermin worldview.
I will concede that the former may frown on the latter’s choice of Congressional office decor, but the concession is not incumbent upon me, especially if you noticed the sickly hue of John Boehner’s skin lately.
Tea Party heartthrob, tacky interior decorator, and unfortunately, newly elected political incumbent Aaron Schock (Shock! Schlock!) reveals the core Tea Party Zeitgiest:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benjamin-cole-schock-facebook-black-people-animals
and, what the hey-nonny-nonny, let’s go for the twofer:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benjamin-cole-aaron-shock-obama-mosque
Contra Brett’s theory of the rift between the incumbent Republican establishment and the true conservative Tea Party insurgency, I believe the two are solidly united in this racist, anti-American, subhuman, pig vermin worldview.
I will concede that the former may frown on the latter’s choice of Congressional office decor, but the concession is not incumbent upon me, especially if you noticed the sickly hue of John Boehner’s skin lately.
I think what Russell is describing is similar to this youtube video. People THINK our income distribution is one thing, and they WANT it to be that way and are really not happy when they see what it ACTUALLY is. Opinions differ on how to accomplish that desired distribution I’m sure.
http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
I think what Russell is describing is similar to this youtube video. People THINK our income distribution is one thing, and they WANT it to be that way and are really not happy when they see what it ACTUALLY is. Opinions differ on how to accomplish that desired distribution I’m sure.
http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
I think what Russell is describing is similar to this youtube video. People THINK our income distribution is one thing, and they WANT it to be that way and are really not happy when they see what it ACTUALLY is. Opinions differ on how to accomplish that desired distribution I’m sure.
http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
First, as noted in my reply to slarti, it’s sort of obnoxious to say that thinking a different income distribution would be fair is like wanting to magically be a millionaire for free, or wanting a nice sparkly unicorn.
It’s just an observation about the basic fairness of a set of hypothetical outcomes. Not really hypothetical, but presented as hypothetical, i.e., without identifying anything as the actual distribution of either the US or Sweden.
The fact is that the current income and wealth distribution in the US *is already* determined to no small degree by public policies. Complete with massive federal infrastructure.
So, we’re also not talking about having policies and programs vs. not having policies and programs. We’re talking about *which* policies and programs.
My argument is that, if a person recognizes an outcome as unfair, that same person would be likely to consider policies that enable that outcome to be unfair, or at least undesirable.
That doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to me.
There’s an argument to be made that folks who consider the existing income and wealth distribution to unfair are not likely to recognize a connection between that outcome and the public policies that enable it.
I would not disagree with that argument, but it’s sort of a different issue.
There’s also an argument to be made that if you told the 92% who found the outcomes unfair that a given set of policy changes would make the desired adjustment, at least half of them would not want the policy changes, for any of a variety of reasons.
I wouldn’t disagree with that, either.
But that just dials us back to a constituency of 46% for the policy change.
If you don’t like half, pick a different number. You still end up with a non-trivial constituency for policies that are well to the left of anything on the table at the national level right now.
And that’s what I mean when I say that (D)’s, let alone (R)’s, fail to represent a significant population whose preferences are to the left of anything currently on offer.
First, as noted in my reply to slarti, it’s sort of obnoxious to say that thinking a different income distribution would be fair is like wanting to magically be a millionaire for free, or wanting a nice sparkly unicorn.
It’s just an observation about the basic fairness of a set of hypothetical outcomes. Not really hypothetical, but presented as hypothetical, i.e., without identifying anything as the actual distribution of either the US or Sweden.
The fact is that the current income and wealth distribution in the US *is already* determined to no small degree by public policies. Complete with massive federal infrastructure.
So, we’re also not talking about having policies and programs vs. not having policies and programs. We’re talking about *which* policies and programs.
My argument is that, if a person recognizes an outcome as unfair, that same person would be likely to consider policies that enable that outcome to be unfair, or at least undesirable.
That doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to me.
There’s an argument to be made that folks who consider the existing income and wealth distribution to unfair are not likely to recognize a connection between that outcome and the public policies that enable it.
I would not disagree with that argument, but it’s sort of a different issue.
There’s also an argument to be made that if you told the 92% who found the outcomes unfair that a given set of policy changes would make the desired adjustment, at least half of them would not want the policy changes, for any of a variety of reasons.
I wouldn’t disagree with that, either.
But that just dials us back to a constituency of 46% for the policy change.
If you don’t like half, pick a different number. You still end up with a non-trivial constituency for policies that are well to the left of anything on the table at the national level right now.
And that’s what I mean when I say that (D)’s, let alone (R)’s, fail to represent a significant population whose preferences are to the left of anything currently on offer.
First, as noted in my reply to slarti, it’s sort of obnoxious to say that thinking a different income distribution would be fair is like wanting to magically be a millionaire for free, or wanting a nice sparkly unicorn.
It’s just an observation about the basic fairness of a set of hypothetical outcomes. Not really hypothetical, but presented as hypothetical, i.e., without identifying anything as the actual distribution of either the US or Sweden.
The fact is that the current income and wealth distribution in the US *is already* determined to no small degree by public policies. Complete with massive federal infrastructure.
So, we’re also not talking about having policies and programs vs. not having policies and programs. We’re talking about *which* policies and programs.
My argument is that, if a person recognizes an outcome as unfair, that same person would be likely to consider policies that enable that outcome to be unfair, or at least undesirable.
That doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to me.
There’s an argument to be made that folks who consider the existing income and wealth distribution to unfair are not likely to recognize a connection between that outcome and the public policies that enable it.
I would not disagree with that argument, but it’s sort of a different issue.
There’s also an argument to be made that if you told the 92% who found the outcomes unfair that a given set of policy changes would make the desired adjustment, at least half of them would not want the policy changes, for any of a variety of reasons.
I wouldn’t disagree with that, either.
But that just dials us back to a constituency of 46% for the policy change.
If you don’t like half, pick a different number. You still end up with a non-trivial constituency for policies that are well to the left of anything on the table at the national level right now.
And that’s what I mean when I say that (D)’s, let alone (R)’s, fail to represent a significant population whose preferences are to the left of anything currently on offer.
Cue camera and lights to clown circus ring No 4:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-guy-gets-around
It will be reported soon, if satire is any guide, that this Tea Party incumbent’s wife, and girlfriend, and the woman he pays for her attentions – the three of them — will have fallen asleep while reading the wordy pledge he has mandated for Utahans to sign, to wit, that all Utah State Law will take precedence over U.S. Federal Law, and that the eager Representative will violate them via penetration with his microscopic sexual member while they slumber, and may even shoot them with his other derringer while they sleep, but he would never, NE-E-EVer, not in six thousand years since the dinosaurs disappeared, even if Abraham Lincoln said he had to, EVER, vaccinate the three women as they slumber.
It would be probably be more efficient for all of you to go over and read TPM instead of me having to haul every bit over here.
Cue camera and lights to clown circus ring No 4:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-guy-gets-around
It will be reported soon, if satire is any guide, that this Tea Party incumbent’s wife, and girlfriend, and the woman he pays for her attentions – the three of them — will have fallen asleep while reading the wordy pledge he has mandated for Utahans to sign, to wit, that all Utah State Law will take precedence over U.S. Federal Law, and that the eager Representative will violate them via penetration with his microscopic sexual member while they slumber, and may even shoot them with his other derringer while they sleep, but he would never, NE-E-EVer, not in six thousand years since the dinosaurs disappeared, even if Abraham Lincoln said he had to, EVER, vaccinate the three women as they slumber.
It would be probably be more efficient for all of you to go over and read TPM instead of me having to haul every bit over here.
Cue camera and lights to clown circus ring No 4:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-guy-gets-around
It will be reported soon, if satire is any guide, that this Tea Party incumbent’s wife, and girlfriend, and the woman he pays for her attentions – the three of them — will have fallen asleep while reading the wordy pledge he has mandated for Utahans to sign, to wit, that all Utah State Law will take precedence over U.S. Federal Law, and that the eager Representative will violate them via penetration with his microscopic sexual member while they slumber, and may even shoot them with his other derringer while they sleep, but he would never, NE-E-EVer, not in six thousand years since the dinosaurs disappeared, even if Abraham Lincoln said he had to, EVER, vaccinate the three women as they slumber.
It would be probably be more efficient for all of you to go over and read TPM instead of me having to haul every bit over here.
What struck me is that, looking at Figure 3 from russell’s link, you can’t even see the bottom 40%’s share of national wealth in the bar chart because it’s not big enough to show up at the resolution of the graphic.
That’s fncked up.
What struck me is that, looking at Figure 3 from russell’s link, you can’t even see the bottom 40%’s share of national wealth in the bar chart because it’s not big enough to show up at the resolution of the graphic.
That’s fncked up.
What struck me is that, looking at Figure 3 from russell’s link, you can’t even see the bottom 40%’s share of national wealth in the bar chart because it’s not big enough to show up at the resolution of the graphic.
That’s fncked up.
That tells me there is a constituency for policies other than what we have.
Indeed.
The “bioengineering” required to have a substantial reduction of income inequality is not all that much:
1. Increase marginal tax rates substantially at the high end.
2. Close a lot of special interest tax loopholes.
3. Close the tax gap as between income from labor and income from just having a pile of money (aka capital gains).
4. Limit the reach and term of patents.
5. Lower the value of the dollar to encourage domestic mfg.
6. Repeal Taft-Hartley.
7. Actively work to lower state sanctioned guild protections 9barriers to entry) for certain occupations that tend to have high incomes. (dentists, doctors, lawyers).
8. Corporate governance reform.
9. A small financial transaction tax on publically traded financial instruments.
None of these policies are particularly revolutionary by any means. They are, however, pretty much politically “constrained” by our political and economic elites.
That tells me there is a constituency for policies other than what we have.
Indeed.
The “bioengineering” required to have a substantial reduction of income inequality is not all that much:
1. Increase marginal tax rates substantially at the high end.
2. Close a lot of special interest tax loopholes.
3. Close the tax gap as between income from labor and income from just having a pile of money (aka capital gains).
4. Limit the reach and term of patents.
5. Lower the value of the dollar to encourage domestic mfg.
6. Repeal Taft-Hartley.
7. Actively work to lower state sanctioned guild protections 9barriers to entry) for certain occupations that tend to have high incomes. (dentists, doctors, lawyers).
8. Corporate governance reform.
9. A small financial transaction tax on publically traded financial instruments.
None of these policies are particularly revolutionary by any means. They are, however, pretty much politically “constrained” by our political and economic elites.
That tells me there is a constituency for policies other than what we have.
Indeed.
The “bioengineering” required to have a substantial reduction of income inequality is not all that much:
1. Increase marginal tax rates substantially at the high end.
2. Close a lot of special interest tax loopholes.
3. Close the tax gap as between income from labor and income from just having a pile of money (aka capital gains).
4. Limit the reach and term of patents.
5. Lower the value of the dollar to encourage domestic mfg.
6. Repeal Taft-Hartley.
7. Actively work to lower state sanctioned guild protections 9barriers to entry) for certain occupations that tend to have high incomes. (dentists, doctors, lawyers).
8. Corporate governance reform.
9. A small financial transaction tax on publically traded financial instruments.
None of these policies are particularly revolutionary by any means. They are, however, pretty much politically “constrained” by our political and economic elites.
10: Remove Grover Norquist’s tail and graft a unicorn horn in its place.
Also, a rabid, angry NRA for liberals, blacks, immigrants and Obamacare enrollees, but a list of ten will do because it is a round number.
10: Remove Grover Norquist’s tail and graft a unicorn horn in its place.
Also, a rabid, angry NRA for liberals, blacks, immigrants and Obamacare enrollees, but a list of ten will do because it is a round number.
10: Remove Grover Norquist’s tail and graft a unicorn horn in its place.
Also, a rabid, angry NRA for liberals, blacks, immigrants and Obamacare enrollees, but a list of ten will do because it is a round number.
bobbyp gets replies!
“IMO most of the items on that list are obvious and blatant forms of corruption.”
-Russell
“Corruption does not cease to be corruption simply because it’s been institutionalized. It’s simply made more formal, rote, and respectable, and is allowed to show its face in public.”
-Nombrilisbe Vida
Russell, I would prefer “class hegemony” with the faintest whiff of oppression. They run the place the way they want it. How then can you call it corruption? 🙂
But I certainly get your point.
I must admit I am a quasi-Marxist do-gooder and maybe (as long as you don’t talk to a Trotskyite) a member of the “real” left who used to proudly go by the moniker “socialist” and whose numbers in the US, if gathered all in one place, might populate a city the size of Cincinnati.
Nombril: See above. Thanks.
bobbyp gets replies!
“IMO most of the items on that list are obvious and blatant forms of corruption.”
-Russell
“Corruption does not cease to be corruption simply because it’s been institutionalized. It’s simply made more formal, rote, and respectable, and is allowed to show its face in public.”
-Nombrilisbe Vida
Russell, I would prefer “class hegemony” with the faintest whiff of oppression. They run the place the way they want it. How then can you call it corruption? 🙂
But I certainly get your point.
I must admit I am a quasi-Marxist do-gooder and maybe (as long as you don’t talk to a Trotskyite) a member of the “real” left who used to proudly go by the moniker “socialist” and whose numbers in the US, if gathered all in one place, might populate a city the size of Cincinnati.
Nombril: See above. Thanks.
bobbyp gets replies!
“IMO most of the items on that list are obvious and blatant forms of corruption.”
-Russell
“Corruption does not cease to be corruption simply because it’s been institutionalized. It’s simply made more formal, rote, and respectable, and is allowed to show its face in public.”
-Nombrilisbe Vida
Russell, I would prefer “class hegemony” with the faintest whiff of oppression. They run the place the way they want it. How then can you call it corruption? 🙂
But I certainly get your point.
I must admit I am a quasi-Marxist do-gooder and maybe (as long as you don’t talk to a Trotskyite) a member of the “real” left who used to proudly go by the moniker “socialist” and whose numbers in the US, if gathered all in one place, might populate a city the size of Cincinnati.
Nombril: See above. Thanks.
I congratulate Aetna and its CEO for behaving like human beings, not an accountant in a cheap dime-store Ayn Rand bodice-ripper.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blodget–paying-employees-low-wages-is-a-choice-191025383.html
See, corporate America (Aetna, Costco, etc) can do the right thing without Government forcing it to. Now the rest of ya do the right thing.
Or else. As with Obamacare, or else.
I congratulate Aetna and its CEO for behaving like human beings, not an accountant in a cheap dime-store Ayn Rand bodice-ripper.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blodget–paying-employees-low-wages-is-a-choice-191025383.html
See, corporate America (Aetna, Costco, etc) can do the right thing without Government forcing it to. Now the rest of ya do the right thing.
Or else. As with Obamacare, or else.
I congratulate Aetna and its CEO for behaving like human beings, not an accountant in a cheap dime-store Ayn Rand bodice-ripper.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blodget–paying-employees-low-wages-is-a-choice-191025383.html
See, corporate America (Aetna, Costco, etc) can do the right thing without Government forcing it to. Now the rest of ya do the right thing.
Or else. As with Obamacare, or else.
11. Reduce the wealth of the richest to the point where we won’t really miss them if they work up the nerve to “go Galt”.
12. Make the Republican Party and its Tea Party lickspittle a thing at the past by obliterating them at the polls (I wish).
A Baker’s dozen.
Also recommended to all: James Galbraith’s The Predator State.
11. Reduce the wealth of the richest to the point where we won’t really miss them if they work up the nerve to “go Galt”.
12. Make the Republican Party and its Tea Party lickspittle a thing at the past by obliterating them at the polls (I wish).
A Baker’s dozen.
Also recommended to all: James Galbraith’s The Predator State.
11. Reduce the wealth of the richest to the point where we won’t really miss them if they work up the nerve to “go Galt”.
12. Make the Republican Party and its Tea Party lickspittle a thing at the past by obliterating them at the polls (I wish).
A Baker’s dozen.
Also recommended to all: James Galbraith’s The Predator State.
bobby, regarding your number 3, there is a bit of a mystery here. It is a matter of conservative dogma that governments should not interfere in markets. But taxing one kind of income (capital gains) at a different rate than other kinds of income seems like an obvious case of government interfering in the market. Indeed, the justification for it is typically “to encourage investment and economic development” — i.e. to change behavior from what the market would provide.
So you would expect conservatives to be all for getting rid of this blatant interference with the market. And yet conservatives are all for lower rates for capital gains, and indeed howl whenever raising them is suggested. So clearly those different tax rates are NOT “government interference with the market.”
The question is, how is it not? Until we can answer that, the chances of getting it changed (fixed0 are nil.
bobby, regarding your number 3, there is a bit of a mystery here. It is a matter of conservative dogma that governments should not interfere in markets. But taxing one kind of income (capital gains) at a different rate than other kinds of income seems like an obvious case of government interfering in the market. Indeed, the justification for it is typically “to encourage investment and economic development” — i.e. to change behavior from what the market would provide.
So you would expect conservatives to be all for getting rid of this blatant interference with the market. And yet conservatives are all for lower rates for capital gains, and indeed howl whenever raising them is suggested. So clearly those different tax rates are NOT “government interference with the market.”
The question is, how is it not? Until we can answer that, the chances of getting it changed (fixed0 are nil.
bobby, regarding your number 3, there is a bit of a mystery here. It is a matter of conservative dogma that governments should not interfere in markets. But taxing one kind of income (capital gains) at a different rate than other kinds of income seems like an obvious case of government interfering in the market. Indeed, the justification for it is typically “to encourage investment and economic development” — i.e. to change behavior from what the market would provide.
So you would expect conservatives to be all for getting rid of this blatant interference with the market. And yet conservatives are all for lower rates for capital gains, and indeed howl whenever raising them is suggested. So clearly those different tax rates are NOT “government interference with the market.”
The question is, how is it not? Until we can answer that, the chances of getting it changed (fixed0 are nil.
wj: “there is a bit of a mystery here.”
Not really. Conservatives believe in market intervention just like liberals do. Their interventions just favor other groups in different ways. They have, however, come up with a lot of emotively appealing propaganda about how they don’t, which is a very appealing fantasy to many of our fellow citizens.
How to change this? I wish I knew. As some hippy once remarked, “Keep on truckin'”.
wj: “there is a bit of a mystery here.”
Not really. Conservatives believe in market intervention just like liberals do. Their interventions just favor other groups in different ways. They have, however, come up with a lot of emotively appealing propaganda about how they don’t, which is a very appealing fantasy to many of our fellow citizens.
How to change this? I wish I knew. As some hippy once remarked, “Keep on truckin'”.
wj: “there is a bit of a mystery here.”
Not really. Conservatives believe in market intervention just like liberals do. Their interventions just favor other groups in different ways. They have, however, come up with a lot of emotively appealing propaganda about how they don’t, which is a very appealing fantasy to many of our fellow citizens.
How to change this? I wish I knew. As some hippy once remarked, “Keep on truckin'”.
13. Eliminate all tax exemption and other tax favoritism provided to the Republican Party’s paramilitary organizations across the U.S., including the NRA and its sister organizations, which have been converted by conservative radicals from benign gun enthusiast and safety organizations into armed, violence-threatening forces to prevent any move by liberals toward adoption of the first twelve measures.
Any requests by liberal interest groups for tax exemptions for their own heavily-armed paramilitary forces, should they occur, but they won’t, given the essential differences between conservative and liberal political grifting methods, should be denied by the IRS as well.
In the meantime, armed Federal troops should be dispatched to the State of Texas, specifically the Texas Legislative House, which allows the carrying of weapons within, and the threats of violence that always accompany the guns, given the f*ck pigs who carry the things in public, to serve as protection for moderate Democratic legislators and their families who vote against further loosening of that State’s open-carry laws.
Specifically they need to interdict this guy and his people who show their faces within 1000 feet of the folks they threaten with violence.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/05/open-carry-activist-threatens-lawmakers-treason-is-punishable-by-death/
Federal troops should shoot to kill if necessary.
As comedian Chris Rock will tell you, if you want to know why you need to carry a gun in America, try merely joking about curtailing gun ownership and use in any way, and wait for the subhuman murderous conservative Republican filth to threaten your life and the lives of your family.
13. Eliminate all tax exemption and other tax favoritism provided to the Republican Party’s paramilitary organizations across the U.S., including the NRA and its sister organizations, which have been converted by conservative radicals from benign gun enthusiast and safety organizations into armed, violence-threatening forces to prevent any move by liberals toward adoption of the first twelve measures.
Any requests by liberal interest groups for tax exemptions for their own heavily-armed paramilitary forces, should they occur, but they won’t, given the essential differences between conservative and liberal political grifting methods, should be denied by the IRS as well.
In the meantime, armed Federal troops should be dispatched to the State of Texas, specifically the Texas Legislative House, which allows the carrying of weapons within, and the threats of violence that always accompany the guns, given the f*ck pigs who carry the things in public, to serve as protection for moderate Democratic legislators and their families who vote against further loosening of that State’s open-carry laws.
Specifically they need to interdict this guy and his people who show their faces within 1000 feet of the folks they threaten with violence.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/05/open-carry-activist-threatens-lawmakers-treason-is-punishable-by-death/
Federal troops should shoot to kill if necessary.
As comedian Chris Rock will tell you, if you want to know why you need to carry a gun in America, try merely joking about curtailing gun ownership and use in any way, and wait for the subhuman murderous conservative Republican filth to threaten your life and the lives of your family.
13. Eliminate all tax exemption and other tax favoritism provided to the Republican Party’s paramilitary organizations across the U.S., including the NRA and its sister organizations, which have been converted by conservative radicals from benign gun enthusiast and safety organizations into armed, violence-threatening forces to prevent any move by liberals toward adoption of the first twelve measures.
Any requests by liberal interest groups for tax exemptions for their own heavily-armed paramilitary forces, should they occur, but they won’t, given the essential differences between conservative and liberal political grifting methods, should be denied by the IRS as well.
In the meantime, armed Federal troops should be dispatched to the State of Texas, specifically the Texas Legislative House, which allows the carrying of weapons within, and the threats of violence that always accompany the guns, given the f*ck pigs who carry the things in public, to serve as protection for moderate Democratic legislators and their families who vote against further loosening of that State’s open-carry laws.
Specifically they need to interdict this guy and his people who show their faces within 1000 feet of the folks they threaten with violence.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/05/open-carry-activist-threatens-lawmakers-treason-is-punishable-by-death/
Federal troops should shoot to kill if necessary.
As comedian Chris Rock will tell you, if you want to know why you need to carry a gun in America, try merely joking about curtailing gun ownership and use in any way, and wait for the subhuman murderous conservative Republican filth to threaten your life and the lives of your family.
I would have put that as “suboptimal”, personally. Or “undesirable”. But I do not aim to put words in your mouth.
I don’t deny that we have some problems, but I see them as more cultural than otherwise. Treat the symptoms and the culture will still be what it is. This is not to say that there isn’t any symptom-treating that is sensible.
bobbyp is a guy I don’t agree with much, but there are some things I can agree with in his list. I would, for instance, support these things (which are not exactly what he proposed, but what the heck):
2. Close a lot of special interest tax loopholes. Make the tax code simpler, so that ordinary people can do their own taxes. This is going to piss off a lot of people, but I personally am willing to give up my home mortgage deduction, etc. It will change behaviors, so I would be inclined to phase these loopholes out over time if that could be done cleanly.
3. Close the tax gap as between income from labor and income from just having a pile of money (aka capital gains). I would modify this as follows: gains inside tax-sheltered investment vehicles like 401(k)s don’t get taxed until they are realized. I would support expansion of the tax-sheltered investment vehicle definitions so that anyone can roll up gains untaxed so long as the funds stay inside the vehicle, but get taxed at the appropriate annual level of income (regular income, I am saying) when extracted.
13) Inheritance, over and above some exemption, gets taxed at the annual income rate. This represents a departure from my views ~10 years ago, I realize. But if gifts are income, so is inheritance. I am perfectly fine with some mechanisms to spread the effectivity of the inheritance over more time so that people can make preparations to pay taxes on their inherited property without the need for a hasty liquidation, but pay it they will.
14) Quit pissing off the citizenry, implement a more effective and streamlined government, and they just might be more ok with forking over more of their hard-earned money. Also: quit spying on people; quit confiscating their stuff, and quit having e.g. some department or other in the government dictate to individuals that their property is now a wetland and oh by the way now you can’t build on it, and sorry there is no appeals process for that. Quit pissing on the citizenry.
That last is kind of a recent thing with me. Government is not, by anyone I know personally, regarded as being efficient. And why should they be? There’s no reward for anyone in government to be more efficient. No department is going to voluntary reduce its own staffing; that would mean a reduction in scope and responsibility for the department head, as well as a reduction in annual funding. There’s no payoff.
Hell, just try and un-do the whole sort of general mish-mash that is the Department of Homeland Security. You can’t. There is no undo feature to government. There is no sunsetting of laws.
Right now, our government is a coral reef of people and laws and offices, mindlessly growing over time without any controls at all on the outcome. There’s no design; there is only growth.
Fix that. It might help. I don’t know how to, though. It would be nice to have some of our various policy wonks take that one on, I think.
I would have put that as “suboptimal”, personally. Or “undesirable”. But I do not aim to put words in your mouth.
I don’t deny that we have some problems, but I see them as more cultural than otherwise. Treat the symptoms and the culture will still be what it is. This is not to say that there isn’t any symptom-treating that is sensible.
bobbyp is a guy I don’t agree with much, but there are some things I can agree with in his list. I would, for instance, support these things (which are not exactly what he proposed, but what the heck):
2. Close a lot of special interest tax loopholes. Make the tax code simpler, so that ordinary people can do their own taxes. This is going to piss off a lot of people, but I personally am willing to give up my home mortgage deduction, etc. It will change behaviors, so I would be inclined to phase these loopholes out over time if that could be done cleanly.
3. Close the tax gap as between income from labor and income from just having a pile of money (aka capital gains). I would modify this as follows: gains inside tax-sheltered investment vehicles like 401(k)s don’t get taxed until they are realized. I would support expansion of the tax-sheltered investment vehicle definitions so that anyone can roll up gains untaxed so long as the funds stay inside the vehicle, but get taxed at the appropriate annual level of income (regular income, I am saying) when extracted.
13) Inheritance, over and above some exemption, gets taxed at the annual income rate. This represents a departure from my views ~10 years ago, I realize. But if gifts are income, so is inheritance. I am perfectly fine with some mechanisms to spread the effectivity of the inheritance over more time so that people can make preparations to pay taxes on their inherited property without the need for a hasty liquidation, but pay it they will.
14) Quit pissing off the citizenry, implement a more effective and streamlined government, and they just might be more ok with forking over more of their hard-earned money. Also: quit spying on people; quit confiscating their stuff, and quit having e.g. some department or other in the government dictate to individuals that their property is now a wetland and oh by the way now you can’t build on it, and sorry there is no appeals process for that. Quit pissing on the citizenry.
That last is kind of a recent thing with me. Government is not, by anyone I know personally, regarded as being efficient. And why should they be? There’s no reward for anyone in government to be more efficient. No department is going to voluntary reduce its own staffing; that would mean a reduction in scope and responsibility for the department head, as well as a reduction in annual funding. There’s no payoff.
Hell, just try and un-do the whole sort of general mish-mash that is the Department of Homeland Security. You can’t. There is no undo feature to government. There is no sunsetting of laws.
Right now, our government is a coral reef of people and laws and offices, mindlessly growing over time without any controls at all on the outcome. There’s no design; there is only growth.
Fix that. It might help. I don’t know how to, though. It would be nice to have some of our various policy wonks take that one on, I think.
I would have put that as “suboptimal”, personally. Or “undesirable”. But I do not aim to put words in your mouth.
I don’t deny that we have some problems, but I see them as more cultural than otherwise. Treat the symptoms and the culture will still be what it is. This is not to say that there isn’t any symptom-treating that is sensible.
bobbyp is a guy I don’t agree with much, but there are some things I can agree with in his list. I would, for instance, support these things (which are not exactly what he proposed, but what the heck):
2. Close a lot of special interest tax loopholes. Make the tax code simpler, so that ordinary people can do their own taxes. This is going to piss off a lot of people, but I personally am willing to give up my home mortgage deduction, etc. It will change behaviors, so I would be inclined to phase these loopholes out over time if that could be done cleanly.
3. Close the tax gap as between income from labor and income from just having a pile of money (aka capital gains). I would modify this as follows: gains inside tax-sheltered investment vehicles like 401(k)s don’t get taxed until they are realized. I would support expansion of the tax-sheltered investment vehicle definitions so that anyone can roll up gains untaxed so long as the funds stay inside the vehicle, but get taxed at the appropriate annual level of income (regular income, I am saying) when extracted.
13) Inheritance, over and above some exemption, gets taxed at the annual income rate. This represents a departure from my views ~10 years ago, I realize. But if gifts are income, so is inheritance. I am perfectly fine with some mechanisms to spread the effectivity of the inheritance over more time so that people can make preparations to pay taxes on their inherited property without the need for a hasty liquidation, but pay it they will.
14) Quit pissing off the citizenry, implement a more effective and streamlined government, and they just might be more ok with forking over more of their hard-earned money. Also: quit spying on people; quit confiscating their stuff, and quit having e.g. some department or other in the government dictate to individuals that their property is now a wetland and oh by the way now you can’t build on it, and sorry there is no appeals process for that. Quit pissing on the citizenry.
That last is kind of a recent thing with me. Government is not, by anyone I know personally, regarded as being efficient. And why should they be? There’s no reward for anyone in government to be more efficient. No department is going to voluntary reduce its own staffing; that would mean a reduction in scope and responsibility for the department head, as well as a reduction in annual funding. There’s no payoff.
Hell, just try and un-do the whole sort of general mish-mash that is the Department of Homeland Security. You can’t. There is no undo feature to government. There is no sunsetting of laws.
Right now, our government is a coral reef of people and laws and offices, mindlessly growing over time without any controls at all on the outcome. There’s no design; there is only growth.
Fix that. It might help. I don’t know how to, though. It would be nice to have some of our various policy wonks take that one on, I think.
Just to expand on the tax-sheltered investment comment:
One of the main arguments against taxing capital gains at a higher rate is it would tend to discourage reinvestment because part of those gains, drained away by taxes, won’t get reinvested.
So: take that objection away. Let the reinvestment occur, if it’s going to. At some point, the money has to come back out and get used or passed on to an heir, and that’s where you can tax it in full.
I think that’s a decent compromise.
Just to expand on the tax-sheltered investment comment:
One of the main arguments against taxing capital gains at a higher rate is it would tend to discourage reinvestment because part of those gains, drained away by taxes, won’t get reinvested.
So: take that objection away. Let the reinvestment occur, if it’s going to. At some point, the money has to come back out and get used or passed on to an heir, and that’s where you can tax it in full.
I think that’s a decent compromise.
Just to expand on the tax-sheltered investment comment:
One of the main arguments against taxing capital gains at a higher rate is it would tend to discourage reinvestment because part of those gains, drained away by taxes, won’t get reinvested.
So: take that objection away. Let the reinvestment occur, if it’s going to. At some point, the money has to come back out and get used or passed on to an heir, and that’s where you can tax it in full.
I think that’s a decent compromise.
I would have put that as “suboptimal”, personally. Or “undesirable”. But I do not aim to put words in your mouth.
I have no problem with your version. No worries.
Also few if any quibbles about your 6:47. Or, with your 10:42 for that matter.
When investment turns into income, treat it as income. Sounds good to me.
The tax code as it stands is FUBAR and counter-productive. It’s dead easy to find yourself in the position of needing to hire professional assistance – a CPA or an attorney or both – just to file your taxes.
That is messed up.
I’m actually not a big fan of redistribution. I’m not a fan of welfare, I’m not a big fan of food stamps.
I’m not even a particularly big fan of income tax. If we could run the country on tariffs and luxury taxes, like the founders did, I’d be fine with that.
I’m a fan, not of redistribution, but of DISTRIBUTION.
I think people should be paid more, because IMO the creation of value that underlies the creation of wealth comes from people doing stuff, as much as, if not more than, it comes from people making their money available for capital investment. That’s less true nowadays, due to technological advances, than it used to be, but it’s still pretty much true.
The US is a fabulously wealthy nation, and our economy is a fabulously productive economy. Put more money in the pockets of the people who do the producing.
People who get their @sses out of bed in the morning, take a shower, eat some breakfast, give their spouses and kids a fond kiss, and go the f*** to work.
Lots of problems will simply go away, as if by magic.
I would have put that as “suboptimal”, personally. Or “undesirable”. But I do not aim to put words in your mouth.
I have no problem with your version. No worries.
Also few if any quibbles about your 6:47. Or, with your 10:42 for that matter.
When investment turns into income, treat it as income. Sounds good to me.
The tax code as it stands is FUBAR and counter-productive. It’s dead easy to find yourself in the position of needing to hire professional assistance – a CPA or an attorney or both – just to file your taxes.
That is messed up.
I’m actually not a big fan of redistribution. I’m not a fan of welfare, I’m not a big fan of food stamps.
I’m not even a particularly big fan of income tax. If we could run the country on tariffs and luxury taxes, like the founders did, I’d be fine with that.
I’m a fan, not of redistribution, but of DISTRIBUTION.
I think people should be paid more, because IMO the creation of value that underlies the creation of wealth comes from people doing stuff, as much as, if not more than, it comes from people making their money available for capital investment. That’s less true nowadays, due to technological advances, than it used to be, but it’s still pretty much true.
The US is a fabulously wealthy nation, and our economy is a fabulously productive economy. Put more money in the pockets of the people who do the producing.
People who get their @sses out of bed in the morning, take a shower, eat some breakfast, give their spouses and kids a fond kiss, and go the f*** to work.
Lots of problems will simply go away, as if by magic.
I would have put that as “suboptimal”, personally. Or “undesirable”. But I do not aim to put words in your mouth.
I have no problem with your version. No worries.
Also few if any quibbles about your 6:47. Or, with your 10:42 for that matter.
When investment turns into income, treat it as income. Sounds good to me.
The tax code as it stands is FUBAR and counter-productive. It’s dead easy to find yourself in the position of needing to hire professional assistance – a CPA or an attorney or both – just to file your taxes.
That is messed up.
I’m actually not a big fan of redistribution. I’m not a fan of welfare, I’m not a big fan of food stamps.
I’m not even a particularly big fan of income tax. If we could run the country on tariffs and luxury taxes, like the founders did, I’d be fine with that.
I’m a fan, not of redistribution, but of DISTRIBUTION.
I think people should be paid more, because IMO the creation of value that underlies the creation of wealth comes from people doing stuff, as much as, if not more than, it comes from people making their money available for capital investment. That’s less true nowadays, due to technological advances, than it used to be, but it’s still pretty much true.
The US is a fabulously wealthy nation, and our economy is a fabulously productive economy. Put more money in the pockets of the people who do the producing.
People who get their @sses out of bed in the morning, take a shower, eat some breakfast, give their spouses and kids a fond kiss, and go the f*** to work.
Lots of problems will simply go away, as if by magic.
One of the things Slarti said that bugs me is this: EVERYONE blames the government for being ineffective, but a lot of the supposed fixes they propose would just make things worse. You know WHY a lot, not all, but a lot of these agencies are ‘slow’ or ineffective? It’s not necessarily their bureaucracy, but the fact that THEY DON’T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO THE WORK!
I work for a red state. We need 5-7 more people just in my department to do the work we are currently assigned, much less all the new projects they want us to do, but the state legislature, in their wisdom, have set pay so low, for so long, we can’t even hire the bottom of the barrel. Kids right out of college having a hard time finding a job will take a position with us. We’ll train them, and just about the time that they become PRODUCTIVE for us instead of a drain, they leave for a MUCH better paying job somewhere else.
Just that constant turn over in people cost my state $80-300M in training costs each year. (The source of that number was the state personnel board.) That same work force that can’t get new people will lose around 30% from the TOP of that workforce to retirement in the next 5 years as well. So yeah, in many cases, you are getting the government services you are paying for, ie BAD.
TLDR: It’s not just a one fit solution all the time, ‘more spending = bad’ is often part of the REASON for bad government services.
One of the things Slarti said that bugs me is this: EVERYONE blames the government for being ineffective, but a lot of the supposed fixes they propose would just make things worse. You know WHY a lot, not all, but a lot of these agencies are ‘slow’ or ineffective? It’s not necessarily their bureaucracy, but the fact that THEY DON’T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO THE WORK!
I work for a red state. We need 5-7 more people just in my department to do the work we are currently assigned, much less all the new projects they want us to do, but the state legislature, in their wisdom, have set pay so low, for so long, we can’t even hire the bottom of the barrel. Kids right out of college having a hard time finding a job will take a position with us. We’ll train them, and just about the time that they become PRODUCTIVE for us instead of a drain, they leave for a MUCH better paying job somewhere else.
Just that constant turn over in people cost my state $80-300M in training costs each year. (The source of that number was the state personnel board.) That same work force that can’t get new people will lose around 30% from the TOP of that workforce to retirement in the next 5 years as well. So yeah, in many cases, you are getting the government services you are paying for, ie BAD.
TLDR: It’s not just a one fit solution all the time, ‘more spending = bad’ is often part of the REASON for bad government services.
One of the things Slarti said that bugs me is this: EVERYONE blames the government for being ineffective, but a lot of the supposed fixes they propose would just make things worse. You know WHY a lot, not all, but a lot of these agencies are ‘slow’ or ineffective? It’s not necessarily their bureaucracy, but the fact that THEY DON’T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO THE WORK!
I work for a red state. We need 5-7 more people just in my department to do the work we are currently assigned, much less all the new projects they want us to do, but the state legislature, in their wisdom, have set pay so low, for so long, we can’t even hire the bottom of the barrel. Kids right out of college having a hard time finding a job will take a position with us. We’ll train them, and just about the time that they become PRODUCTIVE for us instead of a drain, they leave for a MUCH better paying job somewhere else.
Just that constant turn over in people cost my state $80-300M in training costs each year. (The source of that number was the state personnel board.) That same work force that can’t get new people will lose around 30% from the TOP of that workforce to retirement in the next 5 years as well. So yeah, in many cases, you are getting the government services you are paying for, ie BAD.
TLDR: It’s not just a one fit solution all the time, ‘more spending = bad’ is often part of the REASON for bad government services.
I have always wondered about that investment/reinvestment argument. Because, after all, what else am I going to do with that capital gains income? Stuff it in a mattress? The theory that it’s the actual taxes that wouldn’t be reinvested makes more sense than anything I have previously heard.
But it still amounts to the government interfering with the market. If we really need the government to do stuff, it has to be paid for — and the money has to come from somewhere. If we, collectively, want to cut some government, so we can cut taxes and have more money for investment (or whatever else), fine. But don’t discriminate between different kinds of income when setting, or cutting, the tax rates.
I have always wondered about that investment/reinvestment argument. Because, after all, what else am I going to do with that capital gains income? Stuff it in a mattress? The theory that it’s the actual taxes that wouldn’t be reinvested makes more sense than anything I have previously heard.
But it still amounts to the government interfering with the market. If we really need the government to do stuff, it has to be paid for — and the money has to come from somewhere. If we, collectively, want to cut some government, so we can cut taxes and have more money for investment (or whatever else), fine. But don’t discriminate between different kinds of income when setting, or cutting, the tax rates.
I have always wondered about that investment/reinvestment argument. Because, after all, what else am I going to do with that capital gains income? Stuff it in a mattress? The theory that it’s the actual taxes that wouldn’t be reinvested makes more sense than anything I have previously heard.
But it still amounts to the government interfering with the market. If we really need the government to do stuff, it has to be paid for — and the money has to come from somewhere. If we, collectively, want to cut some government, so we can cut taxes and have more money for investment (or whatever else), fine. But don’t discriminate between different kinds of income when setting, or cutting, the tax rates.
Ok, so: back to grifting. I have been thinking about this a while, now.
There’s a segment of the population that spans a number of political orientations that is into a blurry mess of activities that I’m going to throw under a tarp and label “homesteading”. These people want to raise more of their own food, and possibly want to generate some of their own power, and the like. I have started hanging out with some of them. Some of them are immediate family; I might even be considered one due to my various & recent escapades with chickens, pigs and goats.
In the realm of homesteading, there really isn’t a great deal of academics. There are books, and there’s the entirety of the Internet (which, as you know, is chock-full of material whose veracity is dubious at best), and then there’s each other. Some people do a better job of screening out valid information from chaff, while others (like my dad) don’t have a particularly good filter of experience and training to rely on.
There is, for example, a lot of opinionation on the subject of GMO-free animal feeds. I’d want to do a lot of reading and source-checking before I have an opinion one way or the other. It’s a subject of seemingly endless disagreement, in homesteading circles.
Back to frifting: there exists one or more predatory companies that tell you that you can power your home and environs with wind or solar power, and do so affordably, if you send them (e.g.) $35 for the shipping and handling of their instruction materials, which would otherwise be free.
Which is a manifold of crap, really. There are certain elements of home power generation that are going to cost you money no matter how much of it that you elect to do yourself. And if it’s just shipping and handling, well, put the information up on a website, somewhere.
I have no idea what kinds of people fall for these scams, but they piss me off irrespective of that.
I told my dad at the time that you can’t make your own solar panels. Well, it turns out that you can, but doing so requires materials, skill, patience, and care that he simply does not possess any of in abundance.
I could do it. It just looks tricky, and I’d want to tot up the materials cost and see whether it’s really worthwhile. Reliability is still an open question.
I tend to, instead of relying on such things as the web version of aluminum siding salesmen, rely on painstaking brain-picking of willing folks who have been there, done that for themselves. I know one such, and he is completely off the grid. He invested a lot of money (not that he had much; his circumstances are complicated but suffice it to say that the electric company was going to charge him something over half of what self-sufficiency would cost, just to run power to his house) in setting up his own system, but he did it after having done heroic amounts of research. And then he did it himself. Everything. Fabrication of the solar panel racks, and getting them set into the ground. Wiring the panels together. Assembling sufficient battery storage. All of it. He’s adding some wind power as a supplement; there were a few days when he got below 20% reserves that he’d like to be able to avoid.
Even people who do things for themselves, though, don’t always have answers that are correct. For example, we’re going to cover our garden in wood chips. We have an enormous amount of brush that is either lying around in heaps or soon will be. We have a multitude of young walnut trees that are just about to the point where they’re in the power lines, and all of that is going to get cut down and chipped. The homesteaders I have spoken with dismiss this idea, based on that wood chips acidify the soil. It’s possible that they’re right about that, but every single one of them has a solution at their disposal: all of them have woodburning fireplaces or furnaces, and they all generate a respectable about of ash in the process. Ash that is chemically alkaline. So: problem is fixable.
What we’re going to do is more like science than supposition. Science requires a hypothesis. Ours is: wood chips are not going to affect the soil pH in any important way, because they break down very slowly. Their bonus effect is retaining moisture and inhibiting weed growth. Instead of assuming we are correct, we’re going to have our soil tested periodically, and amend it (only if necessary) in order to keep the pH in an acceptable range. Then we’re going to present our findings, along with the supporting data. It won’t necessarily apply to everyone; probably results are going to vary with materials being chipped. Some of our material, for example, is going to be black locust, which breaks down very, very slowly.
We’re probably going to have to implement controls, just in case soil pH is affected in some important way by other variables.
I am going to be planting and cultivating that kind of tree, in addition to some others (beech, oak and ash seem to do very well here. Also: poplar, but we have a lot of poplar already). Black locust is one of the more useful woods in existence: it grows quickly, it’s one of the harder woods that grows in America, and it’s one of the top BTU-producing firewoods there is. Also, it propagates itself readily. It is, in short, a renewable resource in some of the ways that bamboo is. It also makes for fenceposts that are inherently rot-resistant.
The key to not getting flim-flammed is to not stop with the information that you like. Dig deeper. I keep telling myself that, anyway.
Ok, so: back to grifting. I have been thinking about this a while, now.
There’s a segment of the population that spans a number of political orientations that is into a blurry mess of activities that I’m going to throw under a tarp and label “homesteading”. These people want to raise more of their own food, and possibly want to generate some of their own power, and the like. I have started hanging out with some of them. Some of them are immediate family; I might even be considered one due to my various & recent escapades with chickens, pigs and goats.
In the realm of homesteading, there really isn’t a great deal of academics. There are books, and there’s the entirety of the Internet (which, as you know, is chock-full of material whose veracity is dubious at best), and then there’s each other. Some people do a better job of screening out valid information from chaff, while others (like my dad) don’t have a particularly good filter of experience and training to rely on.
There is, for example, a lot of opinionation on the subject of GMO-free animal feeds. I’d want to do a lot of reading and source-checking before I have an opinion one way or the other. It’s a subject of seemingly endless disagreement, in homesteading circles.
Back to frifting: there exists one or more predatory companies that tell you that you can power your home and environs with wind or solar power, and do so affordably, if you send them (e.g.) $35 for the shipping and handling of their instruction materials, which would otherwise be free.
Which is a manifold of crap, really. There are certain elements of home power generation that are going to cost you money no matter how much of it that you elect to do yourself. And if it’s just shipping and handling, well, put the information up on a website, somewhere.
I have no idea what kinds of people fall for these scams, but they piss me off irrespective of that.
I told my dad at the time that you can’t make your own solar panels. Well, it turns out that you can, but doing so requires materials, skill, patience, and care that he simply does not possess any of in abundance.
I could do it. It just looks tricky, and I’d want to tot up the materials cost and see whether it’s really worthwhile. Reliability is still an open question.
I tend to, instead of relying on such things as the web version of aluminum siding salesmen, rely on painstaking brain-picking of willing folks who have been there, done that for themselves. I know one such, and he is completely off the grid. He invested a lot of money (not that he had much; his circumstances are complicated but suffice it to say that the electric company was going to charge him something over half of what self-sufficiency would cost, just to run power to his house) in setting up his own system, but he did it after having done heroic amounts of research. And then he did it himself. Everything. Fabrication of the solar panel racks, and getting them set into the ground. Wiring the panels together. Assembling sufficient battery storage. All of it. He’s adding some wind power as a supplement; there were a few days when he got below 20% reserves that he’d like to be able to avoid.
Even people who do things for themselves, though, don’t always have answers that are correct. For example, we’re going to cover our garden in wood chips. We have an enormous amount of brush that is either lying around in heaps or soon will be. We have a multitude of young walnut trees that are just about to the point where they’re in the power lines, and all of that is going to get cut down and chipped. The homesteaders I have spoken with dismiss this idea, based on that wood chips acidify the soil. It’s possible that they’re right about that, but every single one of them has a solution at their disposal: all of them have woodburning fireplaces or furnaces, and they all generate a respectable about of ash in the process. Ash that is chemically alkaline. So: problem is fixable.
What we’re going to do is more like science than supposition. Science requires a hypothesis. Ours is: wood chips are not going to affect the soil pH in any important way, because they break down very slowly. Their bonus effect is retaining moisture and inhibiting weed growth. Instead of assuming we are correct, we’re going to have our soil tested periodically, and amend it (only if necessary) in order to keep the pH in an acceptable range. Then we’re going to present our findings, along with the supporting data. It won’t necessarily apply to everyone; probably results are going to vary with materials being chipped. Some of our material, for example, is going to be black locust, which breaks down very, very slowly.
We’re probably going to have to implement controls, just in case soil pH is affected in some important way by other variables.
I am going to be planting and cultivating that kind of tree, in addition to some others (beech, oak and ash seem to do very well here. Also: poplar, but we have a lot of poplar already). Black locust is one of the more useful woods in existence: it grows quickly, it’s one of the harder woods that grows in America, and it’s one of the top BTU-producing firewoods there is. Also, it propagates itself readily. It is, in short, a renewable resource in some of the ways that bamboo is. It also makes for fenceposts that are inherently rot-resistant.
The key to not getting flim-flammed is to not stop with the information that you like. Dig deeper. I keep telling myself that, anyway.
Ok, so: back to grifting. I have been thinking about this a while, now.
There’s a segment of the population that spans a number of political orientations that is into a blurry mess of activities that I’m going to throw under a tarp and label “homesteading”. These people want to raise more of their own food, and possibly want to generate some of their own power, and the like. I have started hanging out with some of them. Some of them are immediate family; I might even be considered one due to my various & recent escapades with chickens, pigs and goats.
In the realm of homesteading, there really isn’t a great deal of academics. There are books, and there’s the entirety of the Internet (which, as you know, is chock-full of material whose veracity is dubious at best), and then there’s each other. Some people do a better job of screening out valid information from chaff, while others (like my dad) don’t have a particularly good filter of experience and training to rely on.
There is, for example, a lot of opinionation on the subject of GMO-free animal feeds. I’d want to do a lot of reading and source-checking before I have an opinion one way or the other. It’s a subject of seemingly endless disagreement, in homesteading circles.
Back to frifting: there exists one or more predatory companies that tell you that you can power your home and environs with wind or solar power, and do so affordably, if you send them (e.g.) $35 for the shipping and handling of their instruction materials, which would otherwise be free.
Which is a manifold of crap, really. There are certain elements of home power generation that are going to cost you money no matter how much of it that you elect to do yourself. And if it’s just shipping and handling, well, put the information up on a website, somewhere.
I have no idea what kinds of people fall for these scams, but they piss me off irrespective of that.
I told my dad at the time that you can’t make your own solar panels. Well, it turns out that you can, but doing so requires materials, skill, patience, and care that he simply does not possess any of in abundance.
I could do it. It just looks tricky, and I’d want to tot up the materials cost and see whether it’s really worthwhile. Reliability is still an open question.
I tend to, instead of relying on such things as the web version of aluminum siding salesmen, rely on painstaking brain-picking of willing folks who have been there, done that for themselves. I know one such, and he is completely off the grid. He invested a lot of money (not that he had much; his circumstances are complicated but suffice it to say that the electric company was going to charge him something over half of what self-sufficiency would cost, just to run power to his house) in setting up his own system, but he did it after having done heroic amounts of research. And then he did it himself. Everything. Fabrication of the solar panel racks, and getting them set into the ground. Wiring the panels together. Assembling sufficient battery storage. All of it. He’s adding some wind power as a supplement; there were a few days when he got below 20% reserves that he’d like to be able to avoid.
Even people who do things for themselves, though, don’t always have answers that are correct. For example, we’re going to cover our garden in wood chips. We have an enormous amount of brush that is either lying around in heaps or soon will be. We have a multitude of young walnut trees that are just about to the point where they’re in the power lines, and all of that is going to get cut down and chipped. The homesteaders I have spoken with dismiss this idea, based on that wood chips acidify the soil. It’s possible that they’re right about that, but every single one of them has a solution at their disposal: all of them have woodburning fireplaces or furnaces, and they all generate a respectable about of ash in the process. Ash that is chemically alkaline. So: problem is fixable.
What we’re going to do is more like science than supposition. Science requires a hypothesis. Ours is: wood chips are not going to affect the soil pH in any important way, because they break down very slowly. Their bonus effect is retaining moisture and inhibiting weed growth. Instead of assuming we are correct, we’re going to have our soil tested periodically, and amend it (only if necessary) in order to keep the pH in an acceptable range. Then we’re going to present our findings, along with the supporting data. It won’t necessarily apply to everyone; probably results are going to vary with materials being chipped. Some of our material, for example, is going to be black locust, which breaks down very, very slowly.
We’re probably going to have to implement controls, just in case soil pH is affected in some important way by other variables.
I am going to be planting and cultivating that kind of tree, in addition to some others (beech, oak and ash seem to do very well here. Also: poplar, but we have a lot of poplar already). Black locust is one of the more useful woods in existence: it grows quickly, it’s one of the harder woods that grows in America, and it’s one of the top BTU-producing firewoods there is. Also, it propagates itself readily. It is, in short, a renewable resource in some of the ways that bamboo is. It also makes for fenceposts that are inherently rot-resistant.
The key to not getting flim-flammed is to not stop with the information that you like. Dig deeper. I keep telling myself that, anyway.
stories like slarti’s are just one of the reasons that i miss the whole earth quarterly.
it was like getting together four times a year with a bunch of people who had gone and figured a bunch of basic, pragmatic stuff out for themselves, and were there to tell the tale.
best of luck slart, you’re living one of the dreams.
stories like slarti’s are just one of the reasons that i miss the whole earth quarterly.
it was like getting together four times a year with a bunch of people who had gone and figured a bunch of basic, pragmatic stuff out for themselves, and were there to tell the tale.
best of luck slart, you’re living one of the dreams.
stories like slarti’s are just one of the reasons that i miss the whole earth quarterly.
it was like getting together four times a year with a bunch of people who had gone and figured a bunch of basic, pragmatic stuff out for themselves, and were there to tell the tale.
best of luck slart, you’re living one of the dreams.
But it still amounts to the government interfering with the market.
The question I always have about stuff like this is, who died and made the market god?
If the market isn’t making things happen that we want to have happen, what’s wrong with interfering with the market? Or, likewise, if it’s making things happen that we *don’t* want.
I’m basically at a loss to understand or explain the fetishistic deference that we’re obliged to give to what is, basically, a bunch of people making, buying, and selling stuff, for their own reasons and purposes.
It’d be like unplugging all of the traffic lights in the country, because we wouldn’t want to interfere with people’s personal choice about where and when they want to drive.
Maybe a more astute mind can explain it to me.
But it still amounts to the government interfering with the market.
The question I always have about stuff like this is, who died and made the market god?
If the market isn’t making things happen that we want to have happen, what’s wrong with interfering with the market? Or, likewise, if it’s making things happen that we *don’t* want.
I’m basically at a loss to understand or explain the fetishistic deference that we’re obliged to give to what is, basically, a bunch of people making, buying, and selling stuff, for their own reasons and purposes.
It’d be like unplugging all of the traffic lights in the country, because we wouldn’t want to interfere with people’s personal choice about where and when they want to drive.
Maybe a more astute mind can explain it to me.
But it still amounts to the government interfering with the market.
The question I always have about stuff like this is, who died and made the market god?
If the market isn’t making things happen that we want to have happen, what’s wrong with interfering with the market? Or, likewise, if it’s making things happen that we *don’t* want.
I’m basically at a loss to understand or explain the fetishistic deference that we’re obliged to give to what is, basically, a bunch of people making, buying, and selling stuff, for their own reasons and purposes.
It’d be like unplugging all of the traffic lights in the country, because we wouldn’t want to interfere with people’s personal choice about where and when they want to drive.
Maybe a more astute mind can explain it to me.
i’d like to see a convincing answer to that, too.
to me, the “we must let the market do its thing” is just cover for “we must let me do my thing.” it’s a way to pretend that selfishness is really just upholding an economic good.
maybe Gordon Gekko has something to say about this.
i’d like to see a convincing answer to that, too.
to me, the “we must let the market do its thing” is just cover for “we must let me do my thing.” it’s a way to pretend that selfishness is really just upholding an economic good.
maybe Gordon Gekko has something to say about this.
i’d like to see a convincing answer to that, too.
to me, the “we must let the market do its thing” is just cover for “we must let me do my thing.” it’s a way to pretend that selfishness is really just upholding an economic good.
maybe Gordon Gekko has something to say about this.
I spend a considerable amount of time Pffhifting, but I draw the line at Frifting.
I leave that to Sylvester the cat.
I spend a considerable amount of time Pffhifting, but I draw the line at Frifting.
I leave that to Sylvester the cat.
I spend a considerable amount of time Pffhifting, but I draw the line at Frifting.
I leave that to Sylvester the cat.
I wasn’t actually arguing for the market being God. Although as a way to decide where to allocate resources it does seem to work better, overall and with caveats, than any other approach we have tried.
Rather my point was that, given that devotion to markets as decision makers, how can different tax rates for different kinds of income be justified? Slarti provided a beter justification than any I have encountered heretofore. But not an overwhelmingly convincing one.
I wasn’t actually arguing for the market being God. Although as a way to decide where to allocate resources it does seem to work better, overall and with caveats, than any other approach we have tried.
Rather my point was that, given that devotion to markets as decision makers, how can different tax rates for different kinds of income be justified? Slarti provided a beter justification than any I have encountered heretofore. But not an overwhelmingly convincing one.
I wasn’t actually arguing for the market being God. Although as a way to decide where to allocate resources it does seem to work better, overall and with caveats, than any other approach we have tried.
Rather my point was that, given that devotion to markets as decision makers, how can different tax rates for different kinds of income be justified? Slarti provided a beter justification than any I have encountered heretofore. But not an overwhelmingly convincing one.
best of luck slart, you’re living one of the dreams.
I’d second the good luck, and also say he’s living one of my dreams anyway…when I retire.
I’d also second Slart’s recommendation of black locust. It really is a great resource.
best of luck slart, you’re living one of the dreams.
I’d second the good luck, and also say he’s living one of my dreams anyway…when I retire.
I’d also second Slart’s recommendation of black locust. It really is a great resource.
best of luck slart, you’re living one of the dreams.
I’d second the good luck, and also say he’s living one of my dreams anyway…when I retire.
I’d also second Slart’s recommendation of black locust. It really is a great resource.
Although as a way to decide where to allocate resources it does seem to work better, overall and with caveats, than any other approach we have tried.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t.
And if by “we” you mean “the US”, we haven’t really tried that many approaches.
I’m basically biased toward the market as a way to organize economic activity in general. Not as a matter of some kind of ideological principle, but more on the basis of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
But if it’s broke, fix it.
I think I misunderstood slarti’s point upthread. If he was arguing that taxing unearned income at a rate like that of earned income would discourage re-investment, I guess I’m not seeing how that follows.
My take is that we tax earned income at a higher rate for two reasons.
1. We’re capitalists, and capitalists favor the interests of capital over labor as a basic ground truth.
2. Money is fungible – it’s purpose for existing is to be fungible – and if we make it too expensive to invest here, the money will go somewhere else. Most folks can’t pick up and move overseas to find a more agreeable environment in which to work, but it’s dead easy to put your money anyplace on the globe.
Although as a way to decide where to allocate resources it does seem to work better, overall and with caveats, than any other approach we have tried.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t.
And if by “we” you mean “the US”, we haven’t really tried that many approaches.
I’m basically biased toward the market as a way to organize economic activity in general. Not as a matter of some kind of ideological principle, but more on the basis of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
But if it’s broke, fix it.
I think I misunderstood slarti’s point upthread. If he was arguing that taxing unearned income at a rate like that of earned income would discourage re-investment, I guess I’m not seeing how that follows.
My take is that we tax earned income at a higher rate for two reasons.
1. We’re capitalists, and capitalists favor the interests of capital over labor as a basic ground truth.
2. Money is fungible – it’s purpose for existing is to be fungible – and if we make it too expensive to invest here, the money will go somewhere else. Most folks can’t pick up and move overseas to find a more agreeable environment in which to work, but it’s dead easy to put your money anyplace on the globe.
Although as a way to decide where to allocate resources it does seem to work better, overall and with caveats, than any other approach we have tried.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t.
And if by “we” you mean “the US”, we haven’t really tried that many approaches.
I’m basically biased toward the market as a way to organize economic activity in general. Not as a matter of some kind of ideological principle, but more on the basis of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
But if it’s broke, fix it.
I think I misunderstood slarti’s point upthread. If he was arguing that taxing unearned income at a rate like that of earned income would discourage re-investment, I guess I’m not seeing how that follows.
My take is that we tax earned income at a higher rate for two reasons.
1. We’re capitalists, and capitalists favor the interests of capital over labor as a basic ground truth.
2. Money is fungible – it’s purpose for existing is to be fungible – and if we make it too expensive to invest here, the money will go somewhere else. Most folks can’t pick up and move overseas to find a more agreeable environment in which to work, but it’s dead easy to put your money anyplace on the globe.
By “us” I meant humanity in general. Granted there are some theoretical approachs (e.g. communism) which have not been tried on a large scale. But what evidence we do have suggests, in a large scale, that human nature will cause attempts in that direction to degenerate into something else.
The real argument, by “real” meaning appropriate, is how to fix it when it is broke. On that, I would argue that we are still a long ways from a clear answer in many cases. Unfortunately, ideological arguments prevent the sort of pragmatic approach (try something; if it doesn’t work, scrap that one and try something else) that this engineer would like.
By “us” I meant humanity in general. Granted there are some theoretical approachs (e.g. communism) which have not been tried on a large scale. But what evidence we do have suggests, in a large scale, that human nature will cause attempts in that direction to degenerate into something else.
The real argument, by “real” meaning appropriate, is how to fix it when it is broke. On that, I would argue that we are still a long ways from a clear answer in many cases. Unfortunately, ideological arguments prevent the sort of pragmatic approach (try something; if it doesn’t work, scrap that one and try something else) that this engineer would like.
By “us” I meant humanity in general. Granted there are some theoretical approachs (e.g. communism) which have not been tried on a large scale. But what evidence we do have suggests, in a large scale, that human nature will cause attempts in that direction to degenerate into something else.
The real argument, by “real” meaning appropriate, is how to fix it when it is broke. On that, I would argue that we are still a long ways from a clear answer in many cases. Unfortunately, ideological arguments prevent the sort of pragmatic approach (try something; if it doesn’t work, scrap that one and try something else) that this engineer would like.
Who am I to interfere with gravity by not falling on my face and staying there? What is the supposed state of nature that the market would exist in without government or its laws and regulations?
I thought there was a marketplace of ideas, whereby people put out proposals to be adopted or not, given how well they’re received, through the established mechanisms of (Thatcher’s non-existent) society.
Markets don’t exist in a vacuum. For all the “laws” of economics to work, there has to be some level of regulation. It’s inherent to there being a market in the first place. Otherwise, it’s just people ripping each other off even more blatantly than they are now.
If the best deal out here is to make 75% of what you would have made if taxes were lower, it’s still the best deal out there. If that’s not good enough for the ultra-rich investor, maybe a bunch of not-so-ultra-rich investors, who are (or should be) taxed at a lower rate, will take the deal.
I’d re-phrase russell’s 1. to read, “The people who run the show are capitalists….” You end up in the same place either way, but still, might doesn’t make right and doesn’t mean that we’re all willing supporters of the system we’re stuck with.
Not all economic matters are as simple as determining the price of, say, rice so that buyers and sellers are in something that looks like equilibrium, which markets are good at making happen.
Who am I to interfere with gravity by not falling on my face and staying there? What is the supposed state of nature that the market would exist in without government or its laws and regulations?
I thought there was a marketplace of ideas, whereby people put out proposals to be adopted or not, given how well they’re received, through the established mechanisms of (Thatcher’s non-existent) society.
Markets don’t exist in a vacuum. For all the “laws” of economics to work, there has to be some level of regulation. It’s inherent to there being a market in the first place. Otherwise, it’s just people ripping each other off even more blatantly than they are now.
If the best deal out here is to make 75% of what you would have made if taxes were lower, it’s still the best deal out there. If that’s not good enough for the ultra-rich investor, maybe a bunch of not-so-ultra-rich investors, who are (or should be) taxed at a lower rate, will take the deal.
I’d re-phrase russell’s 1. to read, “The people who run the show are capitalists….” You end up in the same place either way, but still, might doesn’t make right and doesn’t mean that we’re all willing supporters of the system we’re stuck with.
Not all economic matters are as simple as determining the price of, say, rice so that buyers and sellers are in something that looks like equilibrium, which markets are good at making happen.
Who am I to interfere with gravity by not falling on my face and staying there? What is the supposed state of nature that the market would exist in without government or its laws and regulations?
I thought there was a marketplace of ideas, whereby people put out proposals to be adopted or not, given how well they’re received, through the established mechanisms of (Thatcher’s non-existent) society.
Markets don’t exist in a vacuum. For all the “laws” of economics to work, there has to be some level of regulation. It’s inherent to there being a market in the first place. Otherwise, it’s just people ripping each other off even more blatantly than they are now.
If the best deal out here is to make 75% of what you would have made if taxes were lower, it’s still the best deal out there. If that’s not good enough for the ultra-rich investor, maybe a bunch of not-so-ultra-rich investors, who are (or should be) taxed at a lower rate, will take the deal.
I’d re-phrase russell’s 1. to read, “The people who run the show are capitalists….” You end up in the same place either way, but still, might doesn’t make right and doesn’t mean that we’re all willing supporters of the system we’re stuck with.
Not all economic matters are as simple as determining the price of, say, rice so that buyers and sellers are in something that looks like equilibrium, which markets are good at making happen.
The linkage between the tax take and “investment” is, to say the least, tenuous.
As to “discriminating” by using the power to tax, that has always been the case.
Show me a tax that is not.
So what you actually see is people expressing horror about “discrimination” so they can advance their own particular agenda, i.e., my income is more socially useful than yours.
And thus we get stuff like this:
A. Some dolt who won the birth lottery should get to keep the swag (income) because “freedom”, and any attempt to tax it is some kind or “wealth redistribution” or pure Kenyan Islamo-communism.
B. On the other hand, trade and monetary policies that pit US workers directly against low paid workers in Asia, resulting in lower wages for US workers is “free trade” and not redistribution of wealth upward.
Never ceases to amaze me.
The linkage between the tax take and “investment” is, to say the least, tenuous.
As to “discriminating” by using the power to tax, that has always been the case.
Show me a tax that is not.
So what you actually see is people expressing horror about “discrimination” so they can advance their own particular agenda, i.e., my income is more socially useful than yours.
And thus we get stuff like this:
A. Some dolt who won the birth lottery should get to keep the swag (income) because “freedom”, and any attempt to tax it is some kind or “wealth redistribution” or pure Kenyan Islamo-communism.
B. On the other hand, trade and monetary policies that pit US workers directly against low paid workers in Asia, resulting in lower wages for US workers is “free trade” and not redistribution of wealth upward.
Never ceases to amaze me.
The linkage between the tax take and “investment” is, to say the least, tenuous.
As to “discriminating” by using the power to tax, that has always been the case.
Show me a tax that is not.
So what you actually see is people expressing horror about “discrimination” so they can advance their own particular agenda, i.e., my income is more socially useful than yours.
And thus we get stuff like this:
A. Some dolt who won the birth lottery should get to keep the swag (income) because “freedom”, and any attempt to tax it is some kind or “wealth redistribution” or pure Kenyan Islamo-communism.
B. On the other hand, trade and monetary policies that pit US workers directly against low paid workers in Asia, resulting in lower wages for US workers is “free trade” and not redistribution of wealth upward.
Never ceases to amaze me.
There’s no design; there is only growth.
I see this a lot, and it kinda’ bugs me. When we discuss many other things, growth is seen as a “good thing”…kids, crops, GNP, wealth, etc.
As pointed out above, we habitually short our government resources in many areas, and then castigate it for “not working”.
Tell me how this makes sense.
And then there is the nonstop nitpicking about toilets, light bulbs, free cell phones for illegals, the “wetland” in your back yard…yadda’ yadda’.
Well, I’m here to tell you that, in this country to a substantial effect, these decisions are made democratically.
Tell me what’s wrong with that.
Of course we could reverse course…as many advocate. Let’s have untrammeled private power! Get government off your back!
You know something.
We tried that.
You know something else?
We rejected it soundly.
I believe we made a wise choice.
There’s no design; there is only growth.
I see this a lot, and it kinda’ bugs me. When we discuss many other things, growth is seen as a “good thing”…kids, crops, GNP, wealth, etc.
As pointed out above, we habitually short our government resources in many areas, and then castigate it for “not working”.
Tell me how this makes sense.
And then there is the nonstop nitpicking about toilets, light bulbs, free cell phones for illegals, the “wetland” in your back yard…yadda’ yadda’.
Well, I’m here to tell you that, in this country to a substantial effect, these decisions are made democratically.
Tell me what’s wrong with that.
Of course we could reverse course…as many advocate. Let’s have untrammeled private power! Get government off your back!
You know something.
We tried that.
You know something else?
We rejected it soundly.
I believe we made a wise choice.
There’s no design; there is only growth.
I see this a lot, and it kinda’ bugs me. When we discuss many other things, growth is seen as a “good thing”…kids, crops, GNP, wealth, etc.
As pointed out above, we habitually short our government resources in many areas, and then castigate it for “not working”.
Tell me how this makes sense.
And then there is the nonstop nitpicking about toilets, light bulbs, free cell phones for illegals, the “wetland” in your back yard…yadda’ yadda’.
Well, I’m here to tell you that, in this country to a substantial effect, these decisions are made democratically.
Tell me what’s wrong with that.
Of course we could reverse course…as many advocate. Let’s have untrammeled private power! Get government off your back!
You know something.
We tried that.
You know something else?
We rejected it soundly.
I believe we made a wise choice.
I’m here to tell you that, in this country to a substantial effect, these decisions are made democratically.
You know that. And I know that. Probably pretty much everybody here knows that.
But there are a lot of people out there who doubt it. They are just sure that these decisions are made by some conspiracy. After all, they know what they want. And pretty much everybody they talk to (and the TV shows they watch) — they all want the same thing. But that isn’t happening, so it must be a conspiracy!
Whether it is a conspiracy of “government” or “elites”, or of “big corporations”, is strictly a matter of taste. But conspiracy it must be, because everybody I know believes what I believe, and that ain’t what’s happening. Q.E.D.
I’m here to tell you that, in this country to a substantial effect, these decisions are made democratically.
You know that. And I know that. Probably pretty much everybody here knows that.
But there are a lot of people out there who doubt it. They are just sure that these decisions are made by some conspiracy. After all, they know what they want. And pretty much everybody they talk to (and the TV shows they watch) — they all want the same thing. But that isn’t happening, so it must be a conspiracy!
Whether it is a conspiracy of “government” or “elites”, or of “big corporations”, is strictly a matter of taste. But conspiracy it must be, because everybody I know believes what I believe, and that ain’t what’s happening. Q.E.D.
I’m here to tell you that, in this country to a substantial effect, these decisions are made democratically.
You know that. And I know that. Probably pretty much everybody here knows that.
But there are a lot of people out there who doubt it. They are just sure that these decisions are made by some conspiracy. After all, they know what they want. And pretty much everybody they talk to (and the TV shows they watch) — they all want the same thing. But that isn’t happening, so it must be a conspiracy!
Whether it is a conspiracy of “government” or “elites”, or of “big corporations”, is strictly a matter of taste. But conspiracy it must be, because everybody I know believes what I believe, and that ain’t what’s happening. Q.E.D.
Perhaps you overestimate the quality of my point-making, then. See, my point does not involve anything so abstract as “capital” and “labor”. It’s more geared to address the objections I see arrayed against taxing capital gains the same as labor: that it discourages further investment.
I kind of agree with those, by the way. I don’t see anything particularly sacred about capital as compared to labor, or vice versa.
Or cancer? The wealth of the wealthy? The power of a government to intrude in the doings of its electorate?
Maybe not always a universal good, then?
Perhaps you overestimate the quality of my point-making, then. See, my point does not involve anything so abstract as “capital” and “labor”. It’s more geared to address the objections I see arrayed against taxing capital gains the same as labor: that it discourages further investment.
I kind of agree with those, by the way. I don’t see anything particularly sacred about capital as compared to labor, or vice versa.
Or cancer? The wealth of the wealthy? The power of a government to intrude in the doings of its electorate?
Maybe not always a universal good, then?
Perhaps you overestimate the quality of my point-making, then. See, my point does not involve anything so abstract as “capital” and “labor”. It’s more geared to address the objections I see arrayed against taxing capital gains the same as labor: that it discourages further investment.
I kind of agree with those, by the way. I don’t see anything particularly sacred about capital as compared to labor, or vice versa.
Or cancer? The wealth of the wealthy? The power of a government to intrude in the doings of its electorate?
Maybe not always a universal good, then?
And the kitty still waits for Slart’s country diary posts. No pressure, just saying….
And the kitty still waits for Slart’s country diary posts. No pressure, just saying….
And the kitty still waits for Slart’s country diary posts. No pressure, just saying….
While the kitty awaits, it should contemplate the upcoming 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, and consider what was, and what might have been.
While the kitty awaits, it should contemplate the upcoming 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, and consider what was, and what might have been.
While the kitty awaits, it should contemplate the upcoming 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, and consider what was, and what might have been.
the objections I see arrayed against taxing capital gains the same as labor: that it discourages further investment.
I guess I’m not seeing it.
If I have $100K to play with (we are in hypothetical territory here, but work with me) and I invest it and make 15%, my profit is $15K.
If my tax rate on that is 15%, I owe $2250. I keep $12750.
If my tax rate on that is 30%, I owe $4500. I keep $10500.
The difference is $2250.
We’d all love to have the extra $2250, but if I don’t invest the money, I don’t get anything at all.
So, why would I not invest the money?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the argument.
If folks are saying that, if I take that original $15K profit and immediately turn it around and re-invest it, rather than take it as income, then it shouldn’t be taxed, at least until I actually take it as income, I’m open to that idea.
I can also see the logic of saying that if I invest it in the US I’ll be taxed at 15%, but if I invest in (for example) Switzerland or Ireland my tax will be 0%, so folks will take their money offshore.
What I don’t understand is the argument that the difference in tax rate will make me *not invest at all*.
Am I just not following the argument correctly?
the objections I see arrayed against taxing capital gains the same as labor: that it discourages further investment.
I guess I’m not seeing it.
If I have $100K to play with (we are in hypothetical territory here, but work with me) and I invest it and make 15%, my profit is $15K.
If my tax rate on that is 15%, I owe $2250. I keep $12750.
If my tax rate on that is 30%, I owe $4500. I keep $10500.
The difference is $2250.
We’d all love to have the extra $2250, but if I don’t invest the money, I don’t get anything at all.
So, why would I not invest the money?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the argument.
If folks are saying that, if I take that original $15K profit and immediately turn it around and re-invest it, rather than take it as income, then it shouldn’t be taxed, at least until I actually take it as income, I’m open to that idea.
I can also see the logic of saying that if I invest it in the US I’ll be taxed at 15%, but if I invest in (for example) Switzerland or Ireland my tax will be 0%, so folks will take their money offshore.
What I don’t understand is the argument that the difference in tax rate will make me *not invest at all*.
Am I just not following the argument correctly?
the objections I see arrayed against taxing capital gains the same as labor: that it discourages further investment.
I guess I’m not seeing it.
If I have $100K to play with (we are in hypothetical territory here, but work with me) and I invest it and make 15%, my profit is $15K.
If my tax rate on that is 15%, I owe $2250. I keep $12750.
If my tax rate on that is 30%, I owe $4500. I keep $10500.
The difference is $2250.
We’d all love to have the extra $2250, but if I don’t invest the money, I don’t get anything at all.
So, why would I not invest the money?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the argument.
If folks are saying that, if I take that original $15K profit and immediately turn it around and re-invest it, rather than take it as income, then it shouldn’t be taxed, at least until I actually take it as income, I’m open to that idea.
I can also see the logic of saying that if I invest it in the US I’ll be taxed at 15%, but if I invest in (for example) Switzerland or Ireland my tax will be 0%, so folks will take their money offshore.
What I don’t understand is the argument that the difference in tax rate will make me *not invest at all*.
Am I just not following the argument correctly?
That’s exactly what I am proposing. The alternative is that you realize the gains, and pay whatever bracket rate it turns out that you’re in for that year on them. If you make a pile of money, then you pay it all in upper-bracket rate.
That’s the price you pay. If it’s reinvested, you pay no taxes, and there’s even more incentive to re-invest. If you pull the profit out, then it’s taxed like regular income.
One, or the other. Choose. Not both.
That’s exactly what I am proposing. The alternative is that you realize the gains, and pay whatever bracket rate it turns out that you’re in for that year on them. If you make a pile of money, then you pay it all in upper-bracket rate.
That’s the price you pay. If it’s reinvested, you pay no taxes, and there’s even more incentive to re-invest. If you pull the profit out, then it’s taxed like regular income.
One, or the other. Choose. Not both.
That’s exactly what I am proposing. The alternative is that you realize the gains, and pay whatever bracket rate it turns out that you’re in for that year on them. If you make a pile of money, then you pay it all in upper-bracket rate.
That’s the price you pay. If it’s reinvested, you pay no taxes, and there’s even more incentive to re-invest. If you pull the profit out, then it’s taxed like regular income.
One, or the other. Choose. Not both.
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Slarti: If it’s reinvested, you pay no taxes, and there’s even more incentive to re-invest.
So let’s say you have “invested” by buying some Apple stock; you sell it at a profit and (from a few microseconds to a few weeks later) you use the entire proceeds to buy some Google stock. You have “re-invested” your capital plus your profit. Should you owe any tax, or not?
Should it make any difference whether “you” are an individual, an individual’s 401k, a mutual fund, a hedge fund, or a corporation?
Suppose you use the proceeds from selling your Apple shares to buy a lathe and a milling machine to start your own machine shop. Is that “re-investment”? Should you pay any tax?
Suppose you incorporate your machine shop, use the proceeds from your Apple shares to buy shares in Slarti Machine Works, Inc., and SMW Inc. uses this “IPO” cash to buy the lathe and the milling machine. Should that make a difference?
Is a house an “investment”, or not? Is it more or less of an investment if you plan to rent it out rather than live in it? Are you “re-investing” your Apple profit if you use it to buy a house for either purpose?
These sorts of questions, BTW, illustrate why any tax code — however well-intentioned — has to be at least a little bit complex.
CharlesWT: Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Investors soon learn that there are capital losses in the world, as well as capital gains, and the tax code allows them to offset the one against the other. That might figure into the marginal calculation too.
–TP
Slarti: If it’s reinvested, you pay no taxes, and there’s even more incentive to re-invest.
So let’s say you have “invested” by buying some Apple stock; you sell it at a profit and (from a few microseconds to a few weeks later) you use the entire proceeds to buy some Google stock. You have “re-invested” your capital plus your profit. Should you owe any tax, or not?
Should it make any difference whether “you” are an individual, an individual’s 401k, a mutual fund, a hedge fund, or a corporation?
Suppose you use the proceeds from selling your Apple shares to buy a lathe and a milling machine to start your own machine shop. Is that “re-investment”? Should you pay any tax?
Suppose you incorporate your machine shop, use the proceeds from your Apple shares to buy shares in Slarti Machine Works, Inc., and SMW Inc. uses this “IPO” cash to buy the lathe and the milling machine. Should that make a difference?
Is a house an “investment”, or not? Is it more or less of an investment if you plan to rent it out rather than live in it? Are you “re-investing” your Apple profit if you use it to buy a house for either purpose?
These sorts of questions, BTW, illustrate why any tax code — however well-intentioned — has to be at least a little bit complex.
CharlesWT: Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Investors soon learn that there are capital losses in the world, as well as capital gains, and the tax code allows them to offset the one against the other. That might figure into the marginal calculation too.
–TP
Slarti: If it’s reinvested, you pay no taxes, and there’s even more incentive to re-invest.
So let’s say you have “invested” by buying some Apple stock; you sell it at a profit and (from a few microseconds to a few weeks later) you use the entire proceeds to buy some Google stock. You have “re-invested” your capital plus your profit. Should you owe any tax, or not?
Should it make any difference whether “you” are an individual, an individual’s 401k, a mutual fund, a hedge fund, or a corporation?
Suppose you use the proceeds from selling your Apple shares to buy a lathe and a milling machine to start your own machine shop. Is that “re-investment”? Should you pay any tax?
Suppose you incorporate your machine shop, use the proceeds from your Apple shares to buy shares in Slarti Machine Works, Inc., and SMW Inc. uses this “IPO” cash to buy the lathe and the milling machine. Should that make a difference?
Is a house an “investment”, or not? Is it more or less of an investment if you plan to rent it out rather than live in it? Are you “re-investing” your Apple profit if you use it to buy a house for either purpose?
These sorts of questions, BTW, illustrate why any tax code — however well-intentioned — has to be at least a little bit complex.
CharlesWT: Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Investors soon learn that there are capital losses in the world, as well as capital gains, and the tax code allows them to offset the one against the other. That might figure into the marginal calculation too.
–TP
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Keynes’ (himself no mean speculator) well known observation about ‘animal spirits’ notwithstanding?
And you forgot to add the required ceteris paribus.
As to evidence, the assertion appears to be lacking.
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Keynes’ (himself no mean speculator) well known observation about ‘animal spirits’ notwithstanding?
And you forgot to add the required ceteris paribus.
As to evidence, the assertion appears to be lacking.
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Keynes’ (himself no mean speculator) well known observation about ‘animal spirits’ notwithstanding?
And you forgot to add the required ceteris paribus.
As to evidence, the assertion appears to be lacking.
Maybe not always a universal good, then?
Well, touche. If one were to apply this dictum to the system of capitalist accumulation as well (growth without design), why we might even have one of our infrequent agreements.
Maybe not always a universal good, then?
Well, touche. If one were to apply this dictum to the system of capitalist accumulation as well (growth without design), why we might even have one of our infrequent agreements.
Maybe not always a universal good, then?
Well, touche. If one were to apply this dictum to the system of capitalist accumulation as well (growth without design), why we might even have one of our infrequent agreements.
I’m not following this argument closely, so forgive me if I’m either missing the point completely or belaboring the obvious but . . .
Surely behind much of the thinking on capital gains taxes is the fact (assumption) that in today’s world more than ever capital is volatile and lacks even the rudiments of loyalty, so if the US becomes less “friendly” to investors they’ll take their toy$ and go elsewhere. As many of them already have. I’m not convinced this is a good reason for not raising capital gains taxes, etc., but it is a reason, and I suspect a pretty powerful one. Global capitalism has sucked the whole world into a game of “beggar my neighbor,” where if your taxes or wages are higher than another country’s are, you lose and they win. And the house ALWAYS gets its take.
I’m not following this argument closely, so forgive me if I’m either missing the point completely or belaboring the obvious but . . .
Surely behind much of the thinking on capital gains taxes is the fact (assumption) that in today’s world more than ever capital is volatile and lacks even the rudiments of loyalty, so if the US becomes less “friendly” to investors they’ll take their toy$ and go elsewhere. As many of them already have. I’m not convinced this is a good reason for not raising capital gains taxes, etc., but it is a reason, and I suspect a pretty powerful one. Global capitalism has sucked the whole world into a game of “beggar my neighbor,” where if your taxes or wages are higher than another country’s are, you lose and they win. And the house ALWAYS gets its take.
I’m not following this argument closely, so forgive me if I’m either missing the point completely or belaboring the obvious but . . .
Surely behind much of the thinking on capital gains taxes is the fact (assumption) that in today’s world more than ever capital is volatile and lacks even the rudiments of loyalty, so if the US becomes less “friendly” to investors they’ll take their toy$ and go elsewhere. As many of them already have. I’m not convinced this is a good reason for not raising capital gains taxes, etc., but it is a reason, and I suspect a pretty powerful one. Global capitalism has sucked the whole world into a game of “beggar my neighbor,” where if your taxes or wages are higher than another country’s are, you lose and they win. And the house ALWAYS gets its take.
On that assumption, would capital not have moved from Germany (high taxes) to, for example, Greece (taxes simply not collected in many cases)? But do we see that? Not so much.
Capital may have no loyalty any more — if it ever did. But does that mean we should engage in a race to the bottom? Either on taxes or on regulations in general? There is a substantial amount of argument that we should do exactly that. (See Brett on the relative merits of doing business in California vs Texas. But somehow Texas’ economy, while better than in some states, doesn’t seem to be replacing California or New York as the business capital of the nation.)
So maybe, just maybe, the tax and regulation question isn’t quite as simplistic as it is presented.
On that assumption, would capital not have moved from Germany (high taxes) to, for example, Greece (taxes simply not collected in many cases)? But do we see that? Not so much.
Capital may have no loyalty any more — if it ever did. But does that mean we should engage in a race to the bottom? Either on taxes or on regulations in general? There is a substantial amount of argument that we should do exactly that. (See Brett on the relative merits of doing business in California vs Texas. But somehow Texas’ economy, while better than in some states, doesn’t seem to be replacing California or New York as the business capital of the nation.)
So maybe, just maybe, the tax and regulation question isn’t quite as simplistic as it is presented.
On that assumption, would capital not have moved from Germany (high taxes) to, for example, Greece (taxes simply not collected in many cases)? But do we see that? Not so much.
Capital may have no loyalty any more — if it ever did. But does that mean we should engage in a race to the bottom? Either on taxes or on regulations in general? There is a substantial amount of argument that we should do exactly that. (See Brett on the relative merits of doing business in California vs Texas. But somehow Texas’ economy, while better than in some states, doesn’t seem to be replacing California or New York as the business capital of the nation.)
So maybe, just maybe, the tax and regulation question isn’t quite as simplistic as it is presented.
Since someone mentioned rice, it seems not totally inappropriate to post this classic again 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgJZADHsyg
Since someone mentioned rice, it seems not totally inappropriate to post this classic again 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgJZADHsyg
Since someone mentioned rice, it seems not totally inappropriate to post this classic again 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgJZADHsyg
WJ: I’m certainly not saying we SHOULD engage in a race to the bottom. I’m suggesting that we MIGHT, and many of those who are loudest in favor of lowering taxes for the rich (and wages for workers) are in favor of it. It’s not an irrational position, though it’s arguably an anti-social one.
(And of course it isn’t as “simplistic” as I put it in a one paragraph comment on a blog thread. I thought that went without saying. Apparently not.)
WJ: I’m certainly not saying we SHOULD engage in a race to the bottom. I’m suggesting that we MIGHT, and many of those who are loudest in favor of lowering taxes for the rich (and wages for workers) are in favor of it. It’s not an irrational position, though it’s arguably an anti-social one.
(And of course it isn’t as “simplistic” as I put it in a one paragraph comment on a blog thread. I thought that went without saying. Apparently not.)
WJ: I’m certainly not saying we SHOULD engage in a race to the bottom. I’m suggesting that we MIGHT, and many of those who are loudest in favor of lowering taxes for the rich (and wages for workers) are in favor of it. It’s not an irrational position, though it’s arguably an anti-social one.
(And of course it isn’t as “simplistic” as I put it in a one paragraph comment on a blog thread. I thought that went without saying. Apparently not.)
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Another argument in favor of higher taxes on capital gains.
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Another argument in favor of higher taxes on capital gains.
Capital gains taxes reduces the potential gains for a given amount of risk. It makes investors marginally more risk averse.
Another argument in favor of higher taxes on capital gains.
Dr. Ngo,
Sorry. I wasn’t suggesting that you were making a simplistic argument. I was saying that most of those politicians arguing for lower capital gains taxes do. At least in the statements that get to the general public.
Dr. Ngo,
Sorry. I wasn’t suggesting that you were making a simplistic argument. I was saying that most of those politicians arguing for lower capital gains taxes do. At least in the statements that get to the general public.
Dr. Ngo,
Sorry. I wasn’t suggesting that you were making a simplistic argument. I was saying that most of those politicians arguing for lower capital gains taxes do. At least in the statements that get to the general public.
WJ: Fair enough, Tx.
WJ: Fair enough, Tx.
WJ: Fair enough, Tx.
Hartmut, that made my weekend.
Great mix of folks we have here at OBWI.
Hartmut, that made my weekend.
Great mix of folks we have here at OBWI.
Hartmut, that made my weekend.
Great mix of folks we have here at OBWI.
Those are all good points, Tony. I’d have to ponder that.
I tend to think of our tax code’s complexity as being largely due to decades of special interests carving their own exemptions and loopholes into the tax code until what’s left is like one of those fantastically detailed sand sculptures, or one of those carved eggshells.
But it’s probably true that there is some apparently-necessary complexity. I just think there may be cases where the choice between complexity and perfect equity may bear more consideration.
My short-term answer to the question of what constitutes an investment is that it’s not how you define investment, it’s what constraints you place on permissible tax-sheltered investments. My first bid would be that it could be constrainable to only stocks purchasable on e.g. NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. And federal and municipal bonds, of course.
I’d want to give more thought to that, though. Again: good points.
Those are all good points, Tony. I’d have to ponder that.
I tend to think of our tax code’s complexity as being largely due to decades of special interests carving their own exemptions and loopholes into the tax code until what’s left is like one of those fantastically detailed sand sculptures, or one of those carved eggshells.
But it’s probably true that there is some apparently-necessary complexity. I just think there may be cases where the choice between complexity and perfect equity may bear more consideration.
My short-term answer to the question of what constitutes an investment is that it’s not how you define investment, it’s what constraints you place on permissible tax-sheltered investments. My first bid would be that it could be constrainable to only stocks purchasable on e.g. NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. And federal and municipal bonds, of course.
I’d want to give more thought to that, though. Again: good points.
Those are all good points, Tony. I’d have to ponder that.
I tend to think of our tax code’s complexity as being largely due to decades of special interests carving their own exemptions and loopholes into the tax code until what’s left is like one of those fantastically detailed sand sculptures, or one of those carved eggshells.
But it’s probably true that there is some apparently-necessary complexity. I just think there may be cases where the choice between complexity and perfect equity may bear more consideration.
My short-term answer to the question of what constitutes an investment is that it’s not how you define investment, it’s what constraints you place on permissible tax-sheltered investments. My first bid would be that it could be constrainable to only stocks purchasable on e.g. NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. And federal and municipal bonds, of course.
I’d want to give more thought to that, though. Again: good points.
It looks like I have to unpack my thinking a bit more.
I am not in general worried about manipulating what individual people can own and do, if acquiring or doing those things doesn’t directly harm another person. I am completely uninterested in having people’s net worth be something the government is interested in, or is tasked to do something about. I regard government as a tool of the people and NOT vice versa. So, while design (or redesign) of that tool to be efficient for the intended purpose is something I regard as good and necessary, having the tool redesign its user isn’t.
This is not me arguing with you; this is me clarifying my position.
In general I think that people should NOT be accumulating so much personal stuff and wealth, but not to the point where I’d want to constrain them from doing so if they choose to, any more than I’d want to statutorily constrain people from eating too much and becoming fat, or from drinking more than they ought to, or from failing to drive all the way up to the white strip in the left turn lane, thereby failing to trip the light sensor and forcing me to sit through three whole light changes until someone was able to pull around them and in front of them, tripping the sensor and setting the whole queue of us free.
Ok, that last one I might yield on a bit.
Did I really just say all of that in one sentence? I need a better editor, maybe.
It looks like I have to unpack my thinking a bit more.
I am not in general worried about manipulating what individual people can own and do, if acquiring or doing those things doesn’t directly harm another person. I am completely uninterested in having people’s net worth be something the government is interested in, or is tasked to do something about. I regard government as a tool of the people and NOT vice versa. So, while design (or redesign) of that tool to be efficient for the intended purpose is something I regard as good and necessary, having the tool redesign its user isn’t.
This is not me arguing with you; this is me clarifying my position.
In general I think that people should NOT be accumulating so much personal stuff and wealth, but not to the point where I’d want to constrain them from doing so if they choose to, any more than I’d want to statutorily constrain people from eating too much and becoming fat, or from drinking more than they ought to, or from failing to drive all the way up to the white strip in the left turn lane, thereby failing to trip the light sensor and forcing me to sit through three whole light changes until someone was able to pull around them and in front of them, tripping the sensor and setting the whole queue of us free.
Ok, that last one I might yield on a bit.
Did I really just say all of that in one sentence? I need a better editor, maybe.
It looks like I have to unpack my thinking a bit more.
I am not in general worried about manipulating what individual people can own and do, if acquiring or doing those things doesn’t directly harm another person. I am completely uninterested in having people’s net worth be something the government is interested in, or is tasked to do something about. I regard government as a tool of the people and NOT vice versa. So, while design (or redesign) of that tool to be efficient for the intended purpose is something I regard as good and necessary, having the tool redesign its user isn’t.
This is not me arguing with you; this is me clarifying my position.
In general I think that people should NOT be accumulating so much personal stuff and wealth, but not to the point where I’d want to constrain them from doing so if they choose to, any more than I’d want to statutorily constrain people from eating too much and becoming fat, or from drinking more than they ought to, or from failing to drive all the way up to the white strip in the left turn lane, thereby failing to trip the light sensor and forcing me to sit through three whole light changes until someone was able to pull around them and in front of them, tripping the sensor and setting the whole queue of us free.
Ok, that last one I might yield on a bit.
Did I really just say all of that in one sentence? I need a better editor, maybe.
I agree with Tony P. about the legitimate reasons for a more complicated tax code. Much of the tax code’s treatment of various items is an attempt to exact fairness and a bit choice from the complicated reality stew of competing interests.
As in the complaints about the 500-page Obamacare legislation being too long to read
(though I notice someone read it close enough to misinterpret it to the Supreme Court), Americans want the Cliffs Notes in all things.
Except when it comes to canned tomatoes (basil? basil and oregano? or just oregano? how about basil and oregano and hold the tomatoes?), or frappacinos, or traffic light nonsynchronization with very little available public transportation to bypass the complications.
That said, I’m all for Slart’s suggestion to simplify the tax code where possible.
Regarding capital gains, I invest a lot in the stock market.
But, I don’t confuse my productive input into producing Apple products via the purchase of Apple stock, which is nada (tell me what I produced by risking my capital and profiting or not from the blips of light I own called Apple stock, except maybe this illusive thing called liquidity; not a cent of my invested money finds its way to Apple itself or the production of their products. Maybe if I had purchased the initial offering I could call that productive investment), with the productive input of the Apple employees and creators who produce the stuff, including the underpaid, and maybe abused, employees at Foxconn in China.
As has been and is done to various degrees, financial instruments, particularly short term derivative ones, should be taxed at higher rates than long-term investment assets.
Warren Buffett agrees with me, for the most part. Hedge fund managers and high frequency traders do not.
Therein is a red light.
I agree with Tony P. about the legitimate reasons for a more complicated tax code. Much of the tax code’s treatment of various items is an attempt to exact fairness and a bit choice from the complicated reality stew of competing interests.
As in the complaints about the 500-page Obamacare legislation being too long to read
(though I notice someone read it close enough to misinterpret it to the Supreme Court), Americans want the Cliffs Notes in all things.
Except when it comes to canned tomatoes (basil? basil and oregano? or just oregano? how about basil and oregano and hold the tomatoes?), or frappacinos, or traffic light nonsynchronization with very little available public transportation to bypass the complications.
That said, I’m all for Slart’s suggestion to simplify the tax code where possible.
Regarding capital gains, I invest a lot in the stock market.
But, I don’t confuse my productive input into producing Apple products via the purchase of Apple stock, which is nada (tell me what I produced by risking my capital and profiting or not from the blips of light I own called Apple stock, except maybe this illusive thing called liquidity; not a cent of my invested money finds its way to Apple itself or the production of their products. Maybe if I had purchased the initial offering I could call that productive investment), with the productive input of the Apple employees and creators who produce the stuff, including the underpaid, and maybe abused, employees at Foxconn in China.
As has been and is done to various degrees, financial instruments, particularly short term derivative ones, should be taxed at higher rates than long-term investment assets.
Warren Buffett agrees with me, for the most part. Hedge fund managers and high frequency traders do not.
Therein is a red light.
I agree with Tony P. about the legitimate reasons for a more complicated tax code. Much of the tax code’s treatment of various items is an attempt to exact fairness and a bit choice from the complicated reality stew of competing interests.
As in the complaints about the 500-page Obamacare legislation being too long to read
(though I notice someone read it close enough to misinterpret it to the Supreme Court), Americans want the Cliffs Notes in all things.
Except when it comes to canned tomatoes (basil? basil and oregano? or just oregano? how about basil and oregano and hold the tomatoes?), or frappacinos, or traffic light nonsynchronization with very little available public transportation to bypass the complications.
That said, I’m all for Slart’s suggestion to simplify the tax code where possible.
Regarding capital gains, I invest a lot in the stock market.
But, I don’t confuse my productive input into producing Apple products via the purchase of Apple stock, which is nada (tell me what I produced by risking my capital and profiting or not from the blips of light I own called Apple stock, except maybe this illusive thing called liquidity; not a cent of my invested money finds its way to Apple itself or the production of their products. Maybe if I had purchased the initial offering I could call that productive investment), with the productive input of the Apple employees and creators who produce the stuff, including the underpaid, and maybe abused, employees at Foxconn in China.
As has been and is done to various degrees, financial instruments, particularly short term derivative ones, should be taxed at higher rates than long-term investment assets.
Warren Buffett agrees with me, for the most part. Hedge fund managers and high frequency traders do not.
Therein is a red light.
The warning kind, or the advertising kind?
The warning kind, or the advertising kind?
The warning kind, or the advertising kind?
It looks like I have to unpack my thinking a bit more.
A good effort. Let me try to unpack mine a bit more, too. Complaints about particular government regulatory “snafus” is part of our american DNA (think snail darter). From such instances many (I’m looking at you, conservatives) conflate this as a basic attribute of government qua government.
I would tend to disagree, but it’s an argument to have.
On the other hand, when it comes to the “snafus” of the system of private enterprise, this insight vanishes to be replaced by a mindlessly worshipful supplication.
If I had to chose as between living in a world that worships greed as a virtue, turns everything and everyone into a commodity, coarsens social interpersonal relationships, and befouls our environment vs. a world where you have to flush the toilet twice….well, give me the regulatory state every time.
Therein lies real freedom.
It looks like I have to unpack my thinking a bit more.
A good effort. Let me try to unpack mine a bit more, too. Complaints about particular government regulatory “snafus” is part of our american DNA (think snail darter). From such instances many (I’m looking at you, conservatives) conflate this as a basic attribute of government qua government.
I would tend to disagree, but it’s an argument to have.
On the other hand, when it comes to the “snafus” of the system of private enterprise, this insight vanishes to be replaced by a mindlessly worshipful supplication.
If I had to chose as between living in a world that worships greed as a virtue, turns everything and everyone into a commodity, coarsens social interpersonal relationships, and befouls our environment vs. a world where you have to flush the toilet twice….well, give me the regulatory state every time.
Therein lies real freedom.
It looks like I have to unpack my thinking a bit more.
A good effort. Let me try to unpack mine a bit more, too. Complaints about particular government regulatory “snafus” is part of our american DNA (think snail darter). From such instances many (I’m looking at you, conservatives) conflate this as a basic attribute of government qua government.
I would tend to disagree, but it’s an argument to have.
On the other hand, when it comes to the “snafus” of the system of private enterprise, this insight vanishes to be replaced by a mindlessly worshipful supplication.
If I had to chose as between living in a world that worships greed as a virtue, turns everything and everyone into a commodity, coarsens social interpersonal relationships, and befouls our environment vs. a world where you have to flush the toilet twice….well, give me the regulatory state every time.
Therein lies real freedom.
Any discussion about taxes inevitably hits the shoals the minute somebody raises their hand and says, “Define income.”
Any discussion about taxes inevitably hits the shoals the minute somebody raises their hand and says, “Define income.”
Any discussion about taxes inevitably hits the shoals the minute somebody raises their hand and says, “Define income.”
“Define income.”
When you cash the check, it’s income.
“Define income.”
When you cash the check, it’s income.
“Define income.”
When you cash the check, it’s income.
Not always.
Not always.
Not always.
that’s cool bobby, i was just being a smart@ss. again.
that’s cool bobby, i was just being a smart@ss. again.
that’s cool bobby, i was just being a smart@ss. again.
also, what you said at 11:19.
also, what you said at 11:19.
also, what you said at 11:19.
The stop kind.
The stop kind.
The stop kind.
Count: I don’t confuse my productive input into producing Apple products via the purchase of Apple stock, which is nada
That’s because we routinely conflait “investment” which is actually putting money into a company so that it can do something (i.e. buying stock from the company) with “investment” which is putting money into buying the stock from someone else (not the company).
Yeah, at some point in the (possibly very distant) past, someone bought that stock from the company and made a real investment in doing something useful and/or productive. (Or at least something people would be willing to spend money to buy.) But that is not true of the vast majority of the “investments” from which people get “capital gains.” I could maybe see that the second person to buy the stock (from the original investor) is making an economic contribution, by providing some incentive for the original investment. But by the time you are buying stock in Apple (not to mention General Electric or IBM), that connection is so tenuous as to be unreal.
Count: I don’t confuse my productive input into producing Apple products via the purchase of Apple stock, which is nada
That’s because we routinely conflait “investment” which is actually putting money into a company so that it can do something (i.e. buying stock from the company) with “investment” which is putting money into buying the stock from someone else (not the company).
Yeah, at some point in the (possibly very distant) past, someone bought that stock from the company and made a real investment in doing something useful and/or productive. (Or at least something people would be willing to spend money to buy.) But that is not true of the vast majority of the “investments” from which people get “capital gains.” I could maybe see that the second person to buy the stock (from the original investor) is making an economic contribution, by providing some incentive for the original investment. But by the time you are buying stock in Apple (not to mention General Electric or IBM), that connection is so tenuous as to be unreal.
Count: I don’t confuse my productive input into producing Apple products via the purchase of Apple stock, which is nada
That’s because we routinely conflait “investment” which is actually putting money into a company so that it can do something (i.e. buying stock from the company) with “investment” which is putting money into buying the stock from someone else (not the company).
Yeah, at some point in the (possibly very distant) past, someone bought that stock from the company and made a real investment in doing something useful and/or productive. (Or at least something people would be willing to spend money to buy.) But that is not true of the vast majority of the “investments” from which people get “capital gains.” I could maybe see that the second person to buy the stock (from the original investor) is making an economic contribution, by providing some incentive for the original investment. But by the time you are buying stock in Apple (not to mention General Electric or IBM), that connection is so tenuous as to be unreal.
Okay, I’m probably revealing my personal “organizational” problems here, but the thing that I find MOST annoying about capital gains, is trying to find the moldy old paperwork from when I bought something years before.
So, here’s an idea. Yeah, it has TONS of problems, but it would take care of the “old, missing paperwork” problem.
Namely: You buy $100 of stock, sell for $200, get taxed X% on the difference.
Suppose, instead, you put in a “buy” for $100 of stock, and the IRS tops up your order by X%. When you sell, the IRS takes X% off of the proceeds. Capital gain taxes occur automatically, no “memory” required, easy and simple: you have a co-investor.
Okay, I’m probably revealing my personal “organizational” problems here, but the thing that I find MOST annoying about capital gains, is trying to find the moldy old paperwork from when I bought something years before.
So, here’s an idea. Yeah, it has TONS of problems, but it would take care of the “old, missing paperwork” problem.
Namely: You buy $100 of stock, sell for $200, get taxed X% on the difference.
Suppose, instead, you put in a “buy” for $100 of stock, and the IRS tops up your order by X%. When you sell, the IRS takes X% off of the proceeds. Capital gain taxes occur automatically, no “memory” required, easy and simple: you have a co-investor.
Okay, I’m probably revealing my personal “organizational” problems here, but the thing that I find MOST annoying about capital gains, is trying to find the moldy old paperwork from when I bought something years before.
So, here’s an idea. Yeah, it has TONS of problems, but it would take care of the “old, missing paperwork” problem.
Namely: You buy $100 of stock, sell for $200, get taxed X% on the difference.
Suppose, instead, you put in a “buy” for $100 of stock, and the IRS tops up your order by X%. When you sell, the IRS takes X% off of the proceeds. Capital gain taxes occur automatically, no “memory” required, easy and simple: you have a co-investor.
That’s a lot of transactions to keep track of and “top up”….
That’s a lot of transactions to keep track of and “top up”….
That’s a lot of transactions to keep track of and “top up”….
…but the thing that I find MOST annoying about capital gains, is trying to find the moldy old paperwork from when I bought something years before.
What you need, obviously, is to hire a good grifter. I wonder if this guy was just ahead of his time.
…but the thing that I find MOST annoying about capital gains, is trying to find the moldy old paperwork from when I bought something years before.
What you need, obviously, is to hire a good grifter. I wonder if this guy was just ahead of his time.
…but the thing that I find MOST annoying about capital gains, is trying to find the moldy old paperwork from when I bought something years before.
What you need, obviously, is to hire a good grifter. I wonder if this guy was just ahead of his time.
Is fiat currency just another con?
However you look at it, it’s a fascinating story.
Is fiat currency just another con?
However you look at it, it’s a fascinating story.
Is fiat currency just another con?
However you look at it, it’s a fascinating story.