by Ugh
Random movie quotes have been popping into my head lately and the number one thing I realized is that none of them are from a movie post-2000. Either I'm old or my movie watching habits have declined. Probably both.
I was going to put up a thread about how one of the great political "branding" campaigns of the past 30+ years is the GOP labeling the estate tax as the "death tax." Not that that's news but it just seems remarkable to me that what, IMHO, should be the least objectionable tax – a tax on a dead person's assets – can be so unpopular. They're dead! What are they going to do with the money? Maybe it should be labeled an inheritance tax.
This might have lead to a broader discussion of why we permit dead people to lock up assets for decades, and potentially forever, in trusts or charitable foundations or the like. Seems a waste, why are people fighting over the wishes of someone who died in the 1930s (or earlier), for example. It's a little trickier when these things are set up while still living (e.g., Gates foundation), but still.
Instead, have an open thread.
Republicans are very good at branding, Dems less so. They have been pushing the tax as theft line for years–which is a pretty blatant appeal to the selfish and irresponsible among us. But there are lots of selfish and irresponsible people among us and apparently the R leadership wants their vote. Taxes are membership dues.
Republicans are very good at branding, Dems less so. They have been pushing the tax as theft line for years–which is a pretty blatant appeal to the selfish and irresponsible among us. But there are lots of selfish and irresponsible people among us and apparently the R leadership wants their vote. Taxes are membership dues.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-asked-to-lay-off-eating-at-the-white-house-mess-so-much
First, bring back the Death Tax, with reasonable minimums.
Second, bring back Death to Republicans.
Perhaps hog-splitting will be required too.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-asked-to-lay-off-eating-at-the-white-house-mess-so-much
First, bring back the Death Tax, with reasonable minimums.
Second, bring back Death to Republicans.
Perhaps hog-splitting will be required too.
Related to this branding thing — and maybe it has been just as deliberate a campaign — is the demonization of “the government” as if it’s something completely separate from the human beings who comprise it (“it” meaning not just the people who are employed in and by the government, but “we the people,” who are supposedly in charge).
I don’t have time to rewrite the Bible today, but in my belief system, the world and all that’s in it started out belonging to all of us (insofar as it could “belong” to humans in the first place).
Somehow, over time — and knowing human nature it was probably not a very long time — the resources started to be apportioned very disproportionately, and as soon as the goodies were all concentrated in a very few hands, property laws were written to perpetuate the situation, tax became theft, inheritance was written into the law along with property, and government became the enemy “other.”
In some ideal sense — and I believe in some sense that we should try to keep our eye on as on a prize — the government is us. If 99 out of a hundred people in a community are hungry because the 100th is hogging all the food, then I think the 99 are perfectly justified in doing something about it, whether by passing tax laws (the more civilized way) or just going and taking the damned food (the brute force way).
Over-simplified, no doubt, but no more oversimplified than the constant barrage of manipulative dishonest BS about the lazy poor people who don’t pay any taxes and don’t want to work and blah blah blah.
Related to this branding thing — and maybe it has been just as deliberate a campaign — is the demonization of “the government” as if it’s something completely separate from the human beings who comprise it (“it” meaning not just the people who are employed in and by the government, but “we the people,” who are supposedly in charge).
I don’t have time to rewrite the Bible today, but in my belief system, the world and all that’s in it started out belonging to all of us (insofar as it could “belong” to humans in the first place).
Somehow, over time — and knowing human nature it was probably not a very long time — the resources started to be apportioned very disproportionately, and as soon as the goodies were all concentrated in a very few hands, property laws were written to perpetuate the situation, tax became theft, inheritance was written into the law along with property, and government became the enemy “other.”
In some ideal sense — and I believe in some sense that we should try to keep our eye on as on a prize — the government is us. If 99 out of a hundred people in a community are hungry because the 100th is hogging all the food, then I think the 99 are perfectly justified in doing something about it, whether by passing tax laws (the more civilized way) or just going and taking the damned food (the brute force way).
Over-simplified, no doubt, but no more oversimplified than the constant barrage of manipulative dishonest BS about the lazy poor people who don’t pay any taxes and don’t want to work and blah blah blah.
Of course, since the people who incessantly demonize “the government” also incessantly demonize poor people and minorities of all sorts, countering the BS would take more than just observing that “the government” is “us.” A big part of the point is that they either don’t want government at all (the Kochs), or they don’t want it to be “us” — they want it to be themselves.
Of course, since the people who incessantly demonize “the government” also incessantly demonize poor people and minorities of all sorts, countering the BS would take more than just observing that “the government” is “us.” A big part of the point is that they either don’t want government at all (the Kochs), or they don’t want it to be “us” — they want it to be themselves.
the demonization of “the government” as if it’s something completely separate from the human beings who comprise it (“it” meaning not just the people who are employed in and by the government, but “we the people,” who are supposedly in charge).
The people who work for the government have been added to the “Other”. That is, they are put in a separate group from the target audience. At the very least, the people who are the managers in government are.
P.S. it is interesting that somehow a large portion of people who work for the government are totally exempt for the demonization. I speak, of course, of the military. (Used to be true of law enforcement, too. But Trump seems to be having some success in changing that.)
the demonization of “the government” as if it’s something completely separate from the human beings who comprise it (“it” meaning not just the people who are employed in and by the government, but “we the people,” who are supposedly in charge).
The people who work for the government have been added to the “Other”. That is, they are put in a separate group from the target audience. At the very least, the people who are the managers in government are.
P.S. it is interesting that somehow a large portion of people who work for the government are totally exempt for the demonization. I speak, of course, of the military. (Used to be true of law enforcement, too. But Trump seems to be having some success in changing that.)
Brand Names I Object To:
1. “Jobs”
A job is a unit of work that needs doing. Politicians have indoctrinated the populace, the media, and each other into talking as if “jobs” are a product that Capital creates for the benefit of Labor.
2. “Jobs”
A job is a trade, not a gift. “Job creators” are glorified as if job consumers are mere recipients of their charity.
3. “Jobs”
Some of us get paid to do one job after another; some of us to do the same job over and over. Some of us take pleasure in doing the work; some of us grit our teeth and bear it. But very, very few of us would prefer work without pay over pay without work. What people need is the income, not the busy-ness. That’s what hobbies are for.
–TP
Brand Names I Object To:
1. “Jobs”
A job is a unit of work that needs doing. Politicians have indoctrinated the populace, the media, and each other into talking as if “jobs” are a product that Capital creates for the benefit of Labor.
2. “Jobs”
A job is a trade, not a gift. “Job creators” are glorified as if job consumers are mere recipients of their charity.
3. “Jobs”
Some of us get paid to do one job after another; some of us to do the same job over and over. Some of us take pleasure in doing the work; some of us grit our teeth and bear it. But very, very few of us would prefer work without pay over pay without work. What people need is the income, not the busy-ness. That’s what hobbies are for.
–TP
Random Question for Rudy Giuliani:
Which woman exploited her sexuality for greater financial gain: Stephanie Clifford, or Melanija Knavs?
–TP
Random Question for Rudy Giuliani:
Which woman exploited her sexuality for greater financial gain: Stephanie Clifford, or Melanija Knavs?
–TP
TP @4:30:
This, a million times over. Esp. #1 and #2.
TP @4:30:
This, a million times over. Esp. #1 and #2.
I first read #2 as “a trade, not a grift.” Of course, that rather conflicts with the next sentence.
I first read #2 as “a trade, not a grift.” Of course, that rather conflicts with the next sentence.
And it finds you a job! And it *is* a job! (h/t Tom Waits)
And it finds you a job! And it *is* a job! (h/t Tom Waits)
I second JanieM.
To expand on point #1: Verily I say (circular reasoning aside) jobs in fact create Capital.
I second JanieM.
To expand on point #1: Verily I say (circular reasoning aside) jobs in fact create Capital.
The people who work for the government have been added to the “Other”.
My wife’s aunts and uncles were public school teachers or postal employees…all of them right wing, and (god bless them) they all enjoyed a respectably comfortable retirement.
Never once did I witness an episode of cognitive dissonance regarding this.
The people who work for the government have been added to the “Other”.
My wife’s aunts and uncles were public school teachers or postal employees…all of them right wing, and (god bless them) they all enjoyed a respectably comfortable retirement.
Never once did I witness an episode of cognitive dissonance regarding this.
But aren’t public school teachers dangerous indoctrinators of our helpless children and postal workers lazy drones and part of a socialist scheme to deprive private delivery companies of their natural profits by keeping prices artificially low? 😉
Both public schools/education and the post office are on the GOP kill list after all.
But aren’t public school teachers dangerous indoctrinators of our helpless children and postal workers lazy drones and part of a socialist scheme to deprive private delivery companies of their natural profits by keeping prices artificially low? 😉
Both public schools/education and the post office are on the GOP kill list after all.
Not to forget that public schools steal the money of people that wisely avoid having children (and thus are also doubly at risk of having their assets stolen by the state after death for lack of natural heirs).
Btw, wasn’t there a discussion a few years ago about preventing people from playing Pharao and taking it all with them into their tombs (famous pieces of art in particular)?
Not to forget that public schools steal the money of people that wisely avoid having children (and thus are also doubly at risk of having their assets stolen by the state after death for lack of natural heirs).
Btw, wasn’t there a discussion a few years ago about preventing people from playing Pharao and taking it all with them into their tombs (famous pieces of art in particular)?
Although US public schools are based on the Prussian model, so far there’re been no incidences of parents taking early vacation being arrested at the airports.
Although US public schools are based on the Prussian model, so far there’re been no incidences of parents taking early vacation being arrested at the airports.
I first read #2 as “a trade, not a grift.”
Well the job of President probably falls into the latter category these days.
I first read #2 as “a trade, not a grift.”
Well the job of President probably falls into the latter category these days.
Still no mention of Axel Foley in the comments. Now that’s out of the way.
Still no mention of Axel Foley in the comments. Now that’s out of the way.
Re: “Death Tax”
Whatever happened to “if you want less, of something TAX it!”.
I thought that was a GOP mantra.
I propose a NEGATIVE tax on billionaires. The IRS pays a bounty for offing them. To reduce fraud, you have to staple the head to your 1040. Extra postage required.
Re: “Death Tax”
Whatever happened to “if you want less, of something TAX it!”.
I thought that was a GOP mantra.
I propose a NEGATIVE tax on billionaires. The IRS pays a bounty for offing them. To reduce fraud, you have to staple the head to your 1040. Extra postage required.
So now Trump wants Russia readmitted to the G-7. Presumably so there will be someone who he can pal around with, rather than having to listen to irritating facts and stuff.
So now Trump wants Russia readmitted to the G-7. Presumably so there will be someone who he can pal around with, rather than having to listen to irritating facts and stuff.
Ok so there is an angle about the Davidson/Stormy Daniels thing that I haven’t seen reported anywhere.
Davidson was Stormy’s original lawyer. It is relatively apparent that he was colluding somehow with Cohen to not represent her best interests. It is also apparent that he did that with at least two or three other clients.
This is obviously horrible for him from a professional ethics perspective. Which everyone notes and then goes on.
But my question is a touch different. How the hell did Davidson end up representing a bunch different women that Trump had sex with? How did it happen to be Davidson? Did Trump call Cohen/Davidson up and say “I banged another one, you should find a way to get her as a client so you can represent my interests…?” How did that work?
There is always a little bit of worry when you deal with attorneys who deal with each other on a regular basis that they might not be as hard on each other as they otherwise would with a non-repeat-player adversary. But how did Davidson arrange to keep getting to represent the other side of Cohen cover-up cases?
Was Davidson actively soliciting women that he already knew Trump need ‘fixing’ so that he could pretend to be their lawyer while really doing Trump’s bidding? Isn’t there criminal fraud or something there?
Ok so there is an angle about the Davidson/Stormy Daniels thing that I haven’t seen reported anywhere.
Davidson was Stormy’s original lawyer. It is relatively apparent that he was colluding somehow with Cohen to not represent her best interests. It is also apparent that he did that with at least two or three other clients.
This is obviously horrible for him from a professional ethics perspective. Which everyone notes and then goes on.
But my question is a touch different. How the hell did Davidson end up representing a bunch different women that Trump had sex with? How did it happen to be Davidson? Did Trump call Cohen/Davidson up and say “I banged another one, you should find a way to get her as a client so you can represent my interests…?” How did that work?
There is always a little bit of worry when you deal with attorneys who deal with each other on a regular basis that they might not be as hard on each other as they otherwise would with a non-repeat-player adversary. But how did Davidson arrange to keep getting to represent the other side of Cohen cover-up cases?
Was Davidson actively soliciting women that he already knew Trump need ‘fixing’ so that he could pretend to be their lawyer while really doing Trump’s bidding? Isn’t there criminal fraud or something there?
Isn’t there criminal fraud or something there?
Just add it to the pile.
🙂
Isn’t there criminal fraud or something there?
Just add it to the pile.
🙂
The question would be, who came up with the idea? Could have been Cohen all on his own, I suppose….
The question would be, who came up with the idea? Could have been Cohen all on his own, I suppose….
I hadn’t heard about the Davidson thing, so I googled and came upon these bullet points:
Neat!
I hadn’t heard about the Davidson thing, so I googled and came upon these bullet points:
Neat!
But how did Davidson arrange to keep getting to represent the other side of Cohen cover-up cases?
“Hi, David,” this is David (heh) Dennison calling. I notched another one. You know what to do.”
“I’m on it, boss,” Replied David Cohen. “Give me the rundown, and we will take care of it. How was she?”
“Terrific,”
TrumpDennison replied. “Almost as good as I am.”Later that day:
“Hi, Keith. David calling. We have another one. Take care of it. We’ll be talking.”
Later, Stormy Daniels gets a call….
“Hi Stormy,” Donald opened. “Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but a non-disclosure agreement is my way of saying goodby. I am working it up on this end. It’s been fun. For both of us, I’m sure. I suggest you seek legal representation. Keith Davidson usually handles this for my affairs and will provide great, really great representation of you and hammer out an agreement with my legal team. He is tough, but fair. I will text to you his number.
Take care. Goodbye.”
But how did Davidson arrange to keep getting to represent the other side of Cohen cover-up cases?
“Hi, David,” this is David (heh) Dennison calling. I notched another one. You know what to do.”
“I’m on it, boss,” Replied David Cohen. “Give me the rundown, and we will take care of it. How was she?”
“Terrific,”
TrumpDennison replied. “Almost as good as I am.”Later that day:
“Hi, Keith. David calling. We have another one. Take care of it. We’ll be talking.”
Later, Stormy Daniels gets a call….
“Hi Stormy,” Donald opened. “Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but a non-disclosure agreement is my way of saying goodby. I am working it up on this end. It’s been fun. For both of us, I’m sure. I suggest you seek legal representation. Keith Davidson usually handles this for my affairs and will provide great, really great representation of you and hammer out an agreement with my legal team. He is tough, but fair. I will text to you his number.
Take care. Goodbye.”
never mind turtles. it’s lawyers all the way down.
never mind turtles. it’s lawyers all the way down.
I just came across this fascinating bit:
I hadn’t realized that was even possible. Let alone apparently routine.
And that would seem to say that, if it is done, a child could acquire citizenship by adoption. At least, there would be an official document to certify citizenship by (apparent) birth.
Further, since you are a “natural born citizen” (and hence eligible to be President) if one of your parents was a citizen, the official record (i.e. the birth certificate) would make you one. At least, we seem to officially use birth certificates for that, too. Hmmm….
I just came across this fascinating bit:
I hadn’t realized that was even possible. Let alone apparently routine.
And that would seem to say that, if it is done, a child could acquire citizenship by adoption. At least, there would be an official document to certify citizenship by (apparent) birth.
Further, since you are a “natural born citizen” (and hence eligible to be President) if one of your parents was a citizen, the official record (i.e. the birth certificate) would make you one. At least, we seem to officially use birth certificates for that, too. Hmmm….
OK, I discover (by bothering to look) that internationally adopted children can be made US citizens relatively easily (there are State Department forms), provided the parents act before the kid turns 18. Makes sense . . . but my faith in “makes sense” as a guide to what our policy will be is somewhat limited.
OK, I discover (by bothering to look) that internationally adopted children can be made US citizens relatively easily (there are State Department forms), provided the parents act before the kid turns 18. Makes sense . . . but my faith in “makes sense” as a guide to what our policy will be is somewhat limited.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/china-donald-trump-branded-without-us-congress-permission-trademarks-spas-escort-services-hotels-and-a7619136.html
Nothing.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/china-donald-trump-branded-without-us-congress-permission-trademarks-spas-escort-services-hotels-and-a7619136.html
Nothing.
Sorry to put this here, maybe this should go in the other open thread, but I want to bring it to the attention of people
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/children-immigration-borders-family-separation.html
When he landed in Michigan in late May, all the weary little boy carried was a trash bag stuffed with dirty clothes from his dayslong trek across Mexico, and two small pieces of paper — one a stick-figure drawing of his family from Honduras, the other a sketch of his father, who had been arrested and led away after they arrived at the United States border in El Paso.
An American government escort handed over the 5-year-old child, identified on his travel documents as José, to the American woman whose family was entrusted with caring for him. He refused to take her hand. He did not cry. He was silent on the ride “home.”
The first few nights, he cried himself to sleep. Then it turned into “just moaning and moaning,” said Janice, his foster mother. He recently slept through the night for the first time, though he still insists on tucking the family pictures under his pillow.
José’s separation from his father is part of the Trump administration’s latest and most widely debated border enforcement policy. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, a directive that is already leading to the breakup of hundreds of migrant families and channeling children into shelters and foster homes across the country.
[…]
Since his arrival in Michigan, family members said, a day has not gone by when the boy has failed to ask in Spanish, “When will I see my papa?”
They tell him the truth. They do not know. No one knows.
José’s father is in detention, and parent and child until this week had not spoken since they were taken into the custody of United States authorities.
“I am watching history happen before my eyes. It’s horrendous,” said Janice, 53.
via LGM
Sorry to put this here, maybe this should go in the other open thread, but I want to bring it to the attention of people
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/children-immigration-borders-family-separation.html
When he landed in Michigan in late May, all the weary little boy carried was a trash bag stuffed with dirty clothes from his dayslong trek across Mexico, and two small pieces of paper — one a stick-figure drawing of his family from Honduras, the other a sketch of his father, who had been arrested and led away after they arrived at the United States border in El Paso.
An American government escort handed over the 5-year-old child, identified on his travel documents as José, to the American woman whose family was entrusted with caring for him. He refused to take her hand. He did not cry. He was silent on the ride “home.”
The first few nights, he cried himself to sleep. Then it turned into “just moaning and moaning,” said Janice, his foster mother. He recently slept through the night for the first time, though he still insists on tucking the family pictures under his pillow.
José’s separation from his father is part of the Trump administration’s latest and most widely debated border enforcement policy. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, a directive that is already leading to the breakup of hundreds of migrant families and channeling children into shelters and foster homes across the country.
[…]
Since his arrival in Michigan, family members said, a day has not gone by when the boy has failed to ask in Spanish, “When will I see my papa?”
They tell him the truth. They do not know. No one knows.
José’s father is in detention, and parent and child until this week had not spoken since they were taken into the custody of United States authorities.
“I am watching history happen before my eyes. It’s horrendous,” said Janice, 53.
via LGM
A possible solution is to tax the beneficiaries rather than the estate (whether as income or capital gain).
Then it’s not a death tax even in the fevered imagination of those who call it that now.
A possible solution is to tax the beneficiaries rather than the estate (whether as income or capital gain).
Then it’s not a death tax even in the fevered imagination of those who call it that now.
Nigel,
so your 100 year old relative just died, and you inherit the share of Western Union that they bought in 1937. You have to pay capital gains on the difference in value between 1937 (good luck finding the original paperwork) and 2018.
Even better for the family farm. That’s why there’s an Estate Tax, to make it EASIER for heirs.
But no, our Lords And Masters want to be completely unhindered in establishing their Hereditary Aristocracy.
Party like it’s 1793.
Nigel,
so your 100 year old relative just died, and you inherit the share of Western Union that they bought in 1937. You have to pay capital gains on the difference in value between 1937 (good luck finding the original paperwork) and 2018.
Even better for the family farm. That’s why there’s an Estate Tax, to make it EASIER for heirs.
But no, our Lords And Masters want to be completely unhindered in establishing their Hereditary Aristocracy.
Party like it’s 1793.
Another example of Sweden moving in the oppsite direction to the US.
“Families like the Wallenbergs changed their core business into a foundation to secure its future. Others simply left the country, taking their fortunes and businesses with them. Tetra Pak founder Ruben Rausing, IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad and industrialist Fredrik Lundberg all chose to emigrate, mainly due to Swedish tax policy.”
How high-tax Sweden abolished its disastrous inheritance tax: In 2004 the Swedish inheritance tax and gift tax was abolished by a unanimous vote in the Riksdag.
Another example of Sweden moving in the oppsite direction to the US.
“Families like the Wallenbergs changed their core business into a foundation to secure its future. Others simply left the country, taking their fortunes and businesses with them. Tetra Pak founder Ruben Rausing, IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad and industrialist Fredrik Lundberg all chose to emigrate, mainly due to Swedish tax policy.”
How high-tax Sweden abolished its disastrous inheritance tax: In 2004 the Swedish inheritance tax and gift tax was abolished by a unanimous vote in the Riksdag.
The simple way to do it is to treat all gifts and inheritance as taxable income – the tax is on the recipient not the donor.
To keep it simple, you’d exempt anything consumed at the time of delivery – daily accommodation, meals, and so on, so that you can look after dependants without their being taxed. And allow up to say $10k of gifts per year tax-free.
That’s it. You can tie up your estate however you like. You can set up a trust to make sure your heirs don’t go hungry. But you can’t make your child a millionaire without their paying tax, just as if they’d earned the money.
The simple way to do it is to treat all gifts and inheritance as taxable income – the tax is on the recipient not the donor.
To keep it simple, you’d exempt anything consumed at the time of delivery – daily accommodation, meals, and so on, so that you can look after dependants without their being taxed. And allow up to say $10k of gifts per year tax-free.
That’s it. You can tie up your estate however you like. You can set up a trust to make sure your heirs don’t go hungry. But you can’t make your child a millionaire without their paying tax, just as if they’d earned the money.
Opposing an inheritance/estate tax is just another way for people to hate on other people. Everybody seems to hate it if someone else gets something for nothing.
Inheritance taxes would be insignificant to the US budget, a few small peaks in quarterly collections here and there.
It’s just the idea of those damn people having all that money they didn’t earn.
Opposing an inheritance/estate tax is just another way for people to hate on other people. Everybody seems to hate it if someone else gets something for nothing.
Inheritance taxes would be insignificant to the US budget, a few small peaks in quarterly collections here and there.
It’s just the idea of those damn people having all that money they didn’t earn.
Wow
Wow
It’s really early I guess, not opposing, advocating for.
It’s really early I guess, not opposing, advocating for.
It’s not hate, more like tough love. Marty’s lot wants to make poor people work harder by immiserating them; I want to help trust fund beneficiaries do something useful with their lives by making them less idly rich.
It’s not hate, more like tough love. Marty’s lot wants to make poor people work harder by immiserating them; I want to help trust fund beneficiaries do something useful with their lives by making them less idly rich.
Murc’s Law, written December 2016:
“NOT OUR FAULT.
We’re the real victims here.”
Liberals and Dems have an “in the meantime” problem.
1920: Well damn, we lost on the League. Let’s put our noses to the grindstone and get some world peace.
dot dot dot the meantime
1947: We did it! United Nations! Who says liberalism fails. Damn, that slow boring of hard boards really works, and those loser radicals can go stuff.
What, the in-between stuff? Like, you think only liberals have agency?
Not our fault. We’re great.
Murc’s Law, written December 2016:
“NOT OUR FAULT.
We’re the real victims here.”
Liberals and Dems have an “in the meantime” problem.
1920: Well damn, we lost on the League. Let’s put our noses to the grindstone and get some world peace.
dot dot dot the meantime
1947: We did it! United Nations! Who says liberalism fails. Damn, that slow boring of hard boards really works, and those loser radicals can go stuff.
What, the in-between stuff? Like, you think only liberals have agency?
Not our fault. We’re great.
It’s just the idea of those damn people having all that money they didn’t earn
the idea that extraordinary accumulations of private wealth are corrosive to democratic and/or republican governance (note the small d and r) goes back to the beginning of the US. probably before.
the general approach of taxing luxuries and other artifacts of conspicuous wealth, likewise.
the idea of taxing higher levels of income at higher rates goes back to The Wealth Of Nations, probably before.
so, taxing a big pile of inherited wealth at a relatively high rate is not such a weird idea, certainly not one out of the mainstream of american thought or tradition.
It’s just the idea of those damn people having all that money they didn’t earn
the idea that extraordinary accumulations of private wealth are corrosive to democratic and/or republican governance (note the small d and r) goes back to the beginning of the US. probably before.
the general approach of taxing luxuries and other artifacts of conspicuous wealth, likewise.
the idea of taxing higher levels of income at higher rates goes back to The Wealth Of Nations, probably before.
so, taxing a big pile of inherited wealth at a relatively high rate is not such a weird idea, certainly not one out of the mainstream of american thought or tradition.
pro bono at 7:31 makes sense to me.
treat it as income. which it is.
pro bono at 7:31 makes sense to me.
treat it as income. which it is.
In the meantime, the kid is crying, the UN says stop immediately which sounds like criminality under int’l law. But we are still protecting the forms and processes, the rule of law in a lawless state? Why?
It is like looking out your Bavarian window in 1942 and saying “But I think the camp is legal, isn’t it? What can we do?”
Anyway, let’s chant Murc’s law, good like other laws: NOT OUR FAULT. (not Hillary’s fault, not Obama’s fault, they’re busy providing for their starving grandchildren.)Tortured kids by state decree not enough to stop counting their money.
We have to wait for President Princess Chelsea in 2024.
Bob’s law: Burn the fuckers now and let the ashes sort out the agency.
In the meantime, the kid is crying, the UN says stop immediately which sounds like criminality under int’l law. But we are still protecting the forms and processes, the rule of law in a lawless state? Why?
It is like looking out your Bavarian window in 1942 and saying “But I think the camp is legal, isn’t it? What can we do?”
Anyway, let’s chant Murc’s law, good like other laws: NOT OUR FAULT. (not Hillary’s fault, not Obama’s fault, they’re busy providing for their starving grandchildren.)Tortured kids by state decree not enough to stop counting their money.
We have to wait for President Princess Chelsea in 2024.
Bob’s law: Burn the fuckers now and let the ashes sort out the agency.
just went and looked up the current rate.
first $5.49M no tax.
40% after that.
the top income tax rate is 39.6%, which kicks in at $418,400.
seriously, if you inherit enough money to even have to think about this stuff, you have no worries. nobody’s picking on you. be happy you aren’t being taxed under the same regime as folks who actually work for a living.
were it me, i’d shut up and quietly go about enjoying myself.
also, i’m hearing what bob is saying. our claim to being champion of human rights has always been tenuous, mostly a matter of who we compare ourselves to. nowadays we appear to be in a hurry to piss all over whatever legacy we ever could lay claim to.
just went and looked up the current rate.
first $5.49M no tax.
40% after that.
the top income tax rate is 39.6%, which kicks in at $418,400.
seriously, if you inherit enough money to even have to think about this stuff, you have no worries. nobody’s picking on you. be happy you aren’t being taxed under the same regime as folks who actually work for a living.
were it me, i’d shut up and quietly go about enjoying myself.
also, i’m hearing what bob is saying. our claim to being champion of human rights has always been tenuous, mostly a matter of who we compare ourselves to. nowadays we appear to be in a hurry to piss all over whatever legacy we ever could lay claim to.
Two things, shut up and pay and be thankful is crap. Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. The inheritance tax is just an f you stealing of money, more than any other tax.
Second, it’s a change in how we look at the world in the US. Prior to sometime around the depression rich people just gave their kids the money, business, farm etc before they died, non taxable. The gift tax was put in to prevent that.
Two things, shut up and pay and be thankful is crap. Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. The inheritance tax is just an f you stealing of money, more than any other tax.
Second, it’s a change in how we look at the world in the US. Prior to sometime around the depression rich people just gave their kids the money, business, farm etc before they died, non taxable. The gift tax was put in to prevent that.
Inheritance taxes would be insignificant to the US budget, a few small peaks in quarterly collections here and there.
The estate tax used to bring in about $25 billion, down now to about $20B. That’s less than 1% of the budget, but
While the estate tax will generate less than 1 percent of federal revenue over the next decade, it is significantly more than the federal government will spend on the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined.
See here.
Twenty billion or so is not exactly chopped liver. It’s also worth noting, as the article points out, that over half of the value of estates is unrealized capital gains.
I myself like pro bono’s suggestion of an inheritance tax. I would make it somewhere around 40%, with an exemption of $100,000, which is recaptured if the recipient gets over $1 million, say.
I might even do something weird, like grant some extra exemption for every small bequest. The idea being to encourage people to spread the wealth a bit in their wills. I bet your run-of-the-mill billionaire knows some people who could really use an extra $100K.
All else aside, I think it is a good idea to take some steps to prevent the development of a hereditary aristocracy. Tax plans put forth by Paul Ryan and conservatives in general often seem aimed at creating just such an aristocracy, and a tax-exempt one at that.
Inheritance taxes would be insignificant to the US budget, a few small peaks in quarterly collections here and there.
The estate tax used to bring in about $25 billion, down now to about $20B. That’s less than 1% of the budget, but
While the estate tax will generate less than 1 percent of federal revenue over the next decade, it is significantly more than the federal government will spend on the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined.
See here.
Twenty billion or so is not exactly chopped liver. It’s also worth noting, as the article points out, that over half of the value of estates is unrealized capital gains.
I myself like pro bono’s suggestion of an inheritance tax. I would make it somewhere around 40%, with an exemption of $100,000, which is recaptured if the recipient gets over $1 million, say.
I might even do something weird, like grant some extra exemption for every small bequest. The idea being to encourage people to spread the wealth a bit in their wills. I bet your run-of-the-mill billionaire knows some people who could really use an extra $100K.
All else aside, I think it is a good idea to take some steps to prevent the development of a hereditary aristocracy. Tax plans put forth by Paul Ryan and conservatives in general often seem aimed at creating just such an aristocracy, and a tax-exempt one at that.
So there we have it: the 1920s were the Golden Age that the “(Republican)” Martys of the world long for.
–TP
So there we have it: the 1920s were the Golden Age that the “(Republican)” Martys of the world long for.
–TP
Giant pools of money locked away in rich people’s vaults (for generations even) is the very definition of illth:
(John Ruskin)
Giant pools of money locked away in rich people’s vaults (for generations even) is the very definition of illth:
(John Ruskin)
Two things, shut up and pay and be thankful is crap.
Whatever. If somebody left me enough money that I had to pay inheritance tax on it, I’d say “thank you”, pay the tax, shut up, and enjoy my life.
YMMV.
Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. The inheritance tax is just an f you stealing of money, more than any other tax.
As has been noted lots of times here and elsewhere, in the US we tax flows. The “same dollar” gets taxed pretty much every time it changes hands.
Inheritance tax, no different. And compared to plain old income tax, it’s a bargain.
Prior to sometime around the depression rich people just gave their kids the money, business, farm etc before they died, non taxable.
Not so.
The oracle at Wiki speaks, see the History section:
So, come and go. And, in any case, “sometime around the Depression” there were changes in “how we look at the world” concerning a great big shitload of things.
Because, the f’ing Depression.
Wanna go back to the glorious 19th C, when we had catastrophic financial panics about every 10-15 years? You go first, and tell us all how it works out.
We’ve never “seen the world” in any one particular way here in the US. We’re an experiment, like everybody else.
Two things, shut up and pay and be thankful is crap.
Whatever. If somebody left me enough money that I had to pay inheritance tax on it, I’d say “thank you”, pay the tax, shut up, and enjoy my life.
YMMV.
Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. The inheritance tax is just an f you stealing of money, more than any other tax.
As has been noted lots of times here and elsewhere, in the US we tax flows. The “same dollar” gets taxed pretty much every time it changes hands.
Inheritance tax, no different. And compared to plain old income tax, it’s a bargain.
Prior to sometime around the depression rich people just gave their kids the money, business, farm etc before they died, non taxable.
Not so.
The oracle at Wiki speaks, see the History section:
So, come and go. And, in any case, “sometime around the Depression” there were changes in “how we look at the world” concerning a great big shitload of things.
Because, the f’ing Depression.
Wanna go back to the glorious 19th C, when we had catastrophic financial panics about every 10-15 years? You go first, and tell us all how it works out.
We’ve never “seen the world” in any one particular way here in the US. We’re an experiment, like everybody else.
Pro Bono: . And allow up to say $10k of gifts per year tax-free.
FYI the current gift tax exemption is $14,000 per year.
Pro Bono: . And allow up to say $10k of gifts per year tax-free.
FYI the current gift tax exemption is $14,000 per year.
Recently quoted in the Grenfell fire enquiry, but of relevance here too:
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay
Recently quoted in the Grenfell fire enquiry, but of relevance here too:
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay
FYI the current gift tax exemption is $14,000 per year.
And gifts greater than that can be applied to a lifetime gift exemption precisely equal to the inheritance tax exemption.
I’m still trying to get my head around five and a half million bucks tax free somehow being an insufficient “nest egg”. Sock that sum away somewhere that you can get 5% on it and you have a gross annual income of $275K. Indefinitely, without touching the capital, ever, you can pass that along to the next generation.
Inheritance tax is no more “f you robbery” than any other tax. We have bills to pay, we need to raise funds. If dad or mom leaves you $10M, you owe Uncle about a million eight. That means you keep $8.2M. Because dad or mom were rich.
I don’t get the outrage.
FYI the current gift tax exemption is $14,000 per year.
And gifts greater than that can be applied to a lifetime gift exemption precisely equal to the inheritance tax exemption.
I’m still trying to get my head around five and a half million bucks tax free somehow being an insufficient “nest egg”. Sock that sum away somewhere that you can get 5% on it and you have a gross annual income of $275K. Indefinitely, without touching the capital, ever, you can pass that along to the next generation.
Inheritance tax is no more “f you robbery” than any other tax. We have bills to pay, we need to raise funds. If dad or mom leaves you $10M, you owe Uncle about a million eight. That means you keep $8.2M. Because dad or mom were rich.
I don’t get the outrage.
Two things, shut up and pay and be thankful is crap.
Except, of course, when it’s applied to poor people, or minorities, or asylum seekers, or anyone anywhere who asks for anything that Marty doesn’t approve of. Then it’s the opposite of crap. Marty put the words “I got mine FU” into the mouths of gay people seeking the right to marry, not into the mouths of the people who already had the right to marry and were trying to prevent that change in the law. It’s the living embodiment of what the Irish call begrudgery, but applied in the wrong direction. AKA, projection.
Two things, shut up and pay and be thankful is crap.
Except, of course, when it’s applied to poor people, or minorities, or asylum seekers, or anyone anywhere who asks for anything that Marty doesn’t approve of. Then it’s the opposite of crap. Marty put the words “I got mine FU” into the mouths of gay people seeking the right to marry, not into the mouths of the people who already had the right to marry and were trying to prevent that change in the law. It’s the living embodiment of what the Irish call begrudgery, but applied in the wrong direction. AKA, projection.
Note that that $14k annual exclusion (actually $15k for 2018) doesn’t mean gifts beyond $15k are taxed. It means annual gifts in excess of $15k must be reported by the giver and will count against the lifetime gift/inheritance exclusion (which is $11.18M for 2018 thanks to the Trump tax cuts, up from $5.49M in 2017; it matters to your heirs when you die!).
Here’s a good summary (http://www.wealthmanagement.com/estate-planning/2018-estate-gift-and-gst-tax-exemption-officially-published).
Note that that $14k annual exclusion (actually $15k for 2018) doesn’t mean gifts beyond $15k are taxed. It means annual gifts in excess of $15k must be reported by the giver and will count against the lifetime gift/inheritance exclusion (which is $11.18M for 2018 thanks to the Trump tax cuts, up from $5.49M in 2017; it matters to your heirs when you die!).
Here’s a good summary (http://www.wealthmanagement.com/estate-planning/2018-estate-gift-and-gst-tax-exemption-officially-published).
Erg, sorry about the extra characters in that url. Just delete the “).” when you hit the 404 page.
Erg, sorry about the extra characters in that url. Just delete the “).” when you hit the 404 page.
I don’t get the outrage.
Anything you can grab is yours to do with as you like until the heat death of the universe, and any other way of looking at it is outrage-ous.
This is ever more true the more the grabbing is made invisible as such by the fact that it’s embedded in a social system that fosters it, praises it as the only way of attaining worth as a human being, and lets you buy more of it with what you and/or your ancestors grabbed before. (I.e. by buying legislators who will pass laws to enable it.)
I don’t get the outrage.
Anything you can grab is yours to do with as you like until the heat death of the universe, and any other way of looking at it is outrage-ous.
This is ever more true the more the grabbing is made invisible as such by the fact that it’s embedded in a social system that fosters it, praises it as the only way of attaining worth as a human being, and lets you buy more of it with what you and/or your ancestors grabbed before. (I.e. by buying legislators who will pass laws to enable it.)
Janie,you remind me of another brand name I object to:
“Net Worth”
I know a woman who cleans offices for a living who is “worth” about a dozen Betsy DeVoses in every way except financially.
–TP
Janie,you remind me of another brand name I object to:
“Net Worth”
I know a woman who cleans offices for a living who is “worth” about a dozen Betsy DeVoses in every way except financially.
–TP
Eccept, russell, prior to 1930 or so you could give it all to your kids while you were alive, no gift tax. Gift tax was implemented to get the money if you didn’t keep your farm or business or savings til you died.
Eccept, russell, prior to 1930 or so you could give it all to your kids while you were alive, no gift tax. Gift tax was implemented to get the money if you didn’t keep your farm or business or savings til you died.
“not into the mouths of the people who already had the right to marry and were trying to prevent that change in the law. ”
You can’t find a single place I ever said they, or I. were trying to prevent that change in the law. I did advocate for no one having to be married to get the benefits in the law attributable to “married” people. Big difference
“not into the mouths of the people who already had the right to marry and were trying to prevent that change in the law. ”
You can’t find a single place I ever said they, or I. were trying to prevent that change in the law. I did advocate for no one having to be married to get the benefits in the law attributable to “married” people. Big difference
I did advocate for no one having to be married to get the benefits in the law attributable to “married” people.
Perhaps you said, and I just don’t recall. But how would you decide who qualifies for those benefits?
And would you (unlike the “domestic partnership”, under whatever name) also require them to take on the same responsibilities towards each other that married couples do? Avoidance of those responsibilities being why the majority of domestic partnerships were heterosexual couple who had no legal barrier to marriage.
If they get both the benefits and assume the responsibilities, then aren’t we just talking about changing the label, nothing more?
I did advocate for no one having to be married to get the benefits in the law attributable to “married” people.
Perhaps you said, and I just don’t recall. But how would you decide who qualifies for those benefits?
And would you (unlike the “domestic partnership”, under whatever name) also require them to take on the same responsibilities towards each other that married couples do? Avoidance of those responsibilities being why the majority of domestic partnerships were heterosexual couple who had no legal barrier to marriage.
If they get both the benefits and assume the responsibilities, then aren’t we just talking about changing the label, nothing more?
Not having that discussion again. Just saying. Gets tiresome after a decade or so.
Not having that discussion again. Just saying. Gets tiresome after a decade or so.
MeToo MeToo MeToo MeToo
Well, I know the kid is crying and isn’t it terrible…insert required phony empathy here…but did you see what Rudy said about Stormy? (400 comments and biggest picture compared to 130 comments about death of ACA. Thanks for the bandaid on the cancer, Barry.)
Where was I? Oh, I like totally cried for an hour about Rudy’s vicious evil statement that all women aren’t equally beautiful. It destroyed me, really really hurt. Oh damn, I’m crying again.
And scared me a lot. I am so scared.
So, the black men bleeding out in the street and the kids crying for their moms are…insert PC empathy here..but
I’m a victim too!! Of Rudy. Of Trump. I’m a victim of the white man too, just as much, maybe more! Don’t you even care?
Look at me. Look at me. Look at MeToo.
MeToo MeToo MeToo MeToo
Well, I know the kid is crying and isn’t it terrible…insert required phony empathy here…but did you see what Rudy said about Stormy? (400 comments and biggest picture compared to 130 comments about death of ACA. Thanks for the bandaid on the cancer, Barry.)
Where was I? Oh, I like totally cried for an hour about Rudy’s vicious evil statement that all women aren’t equally beautiful. It destroyed me, really really hurt. Oh damn, I’m crying again.
And scared me a lot. I am so scared.
So, the black men bleeding out in the street and the kids crying for their moms are…insert PC empathy here..but
I’m a victim too!! Of Rudy. Of Trump. I’m a victim of the white man too, just as much, maybe more! Don’t you even care?
Look at me. Look at me. Look at MeToo.
You can’t find a single place I ever said they, or I. were trying to prevent that change in the law.
Can you even read? That’s not what I wrote. You’ve invented something, pretended I said it, and responded to that.
I quoted the words you put into the mouths of those of us who were trying to change the law, and observed the irony of saying that *we* were the ones who were saying “I got mine,” when the whole damned point was that in fact we didn’t got ours. I was observing the irony of the fact that you *didn’t* put those words into the mouths of the people who were actually, in effect saying them, i.e. the people who did already have theirs and were saying “FU” to us.
I did advocate for no one having to be married to get the benefits in the law attributable to “married” people. Big difference
It took a very long time for you to make that point in any way that anyone else could have sifted out of the usual begrudgery aimed at anyone at the bottom of the heap who dares to ask for anything better.
Not having that discussion again. Just saying. Gets tiresome after a decade or so.
Tiresome indeed. The gay marriage framing is just the one I can quote most accurately, but the sentiment pervades what you write every time anyone asks for something for the people at the bottom. To wit, in this very thread:
OpposingAdvocating for an inheritance/estate tax is just another way for people to hate on other people. Everybody seems to hate it if someone else gets something for nothing.russell at 9:01 and 9:41, pro bono elsewhere — this is not hate. Your “shut up and be thankful is crap” is only ever applied to the put-upon top dogs, never to the poor and the minorities, to whom your party says “shut up and be thankful” on an hourly basis.
You can’t find a single place I ever said they, or I. were trying to prevent that change in the law.
Can you even read? That’s not what I wrote. You’ve invented something, pretended I said it, and responded to that.
I quoted the words you put into the mouths of those of us who were trying to change the law, and observed the irony of saying that *we* were the ones who were saying “I got mine,” when the whole damned point was that in fact we didn’t got ours. I was observing the irony of the fact that you *didn’t* put those words into the mouths of the people who were actually, in effect saying them, i.e. the people who did already have theirs and were saying “FU” to us.
I did advocate for no one having to be married to get the benefits in the law attributable to “married” people. Big difference
It took a very long time for you to make that point in any way that anyone else could have sifted out of the usual begrudgery aimed at anyone at the bottom of the heap who dares to ask for anything better.
Not having that discussion again. Just saying. Gets tiresome after a decade or so.
Tiresome indeed. The gay marriage framing is just the one I can quote most accurately, but the sentiment pervades what you write every time anyone asks for something for the people at the bottom. To wit, in this very thread:
OpposingAdvocating for an inheritance/estate tax is just another way for people to hate on other people. Everybody seems to hate it if someone else gets something for nothing.russell at 9:01 and 9:41, pro bono elsewhere — this is not hate. Your “shut up and be thankful is crap” is only ever applied to the put-upon top dogs, never to the poor and the minorities, to whom your party says “shut up and be thankful” on an hourly basis.
“Your “shut up and be thankful is crap” is only ever applied to the put-upon top dogs, never to the poor and the minorities, to whom your party says “shut up and be thankful” on an hourly basis.”
Again, can you find anyplace to attribute that to me. I don’t think top dogs are put upon, I think chasing inheritance taxes are just a class symbol. The having or not having them hurts or helps literally no one else except them.
If the inherited don’t do anything with the money then it only lasts a few generations.
It is literally the same stupid emotional response as those who complain about lazy people getting food stamps.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore. Hand up reduces the need for hand outs.
Hand outs are necessary but they don’t create less poor people.
“Your “shut up and be thankful is crap” is only ever applied to the put-upon top dogs, never to the poor and the minorities, to whom your party says “shut up and be thankful” on an hourly basis.”
Again, can you find anyplace to attribute that to me. I don’t think top dogs are put upon, I think chasing inheritance taxes are just a class symbol. The having or not having them hurts or helps literally no one else except them.
If the inherited don’t do anything with the money then it only lasts a few generations.
It is literally the same stupid emotional response as those who complain about lazy people getting food stamps.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore. Hand up reduces the need for hand outs.
Hand outs are necessary but they don’t create less poor people.
Sock that sum away somewhere that you can get 5% on it…
The Federal Reserve did away with safe steady 5% returns for little guys — and $5M is a little guy these days — in 2001, and shows no sign of giving them back.
Sock that sum away somewhere that you can get 5% on it…
The Federal Reserve did away with safe steady 5% returns for little guys — and $5M is a little guy these days — in 2001, and shows no sign of giving them back.
Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg.
First, a little over half has never been taxed. See my link above.
Second, the estate tax does not tax the person who “worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. It taxes their heirs, who did none of that and who, by the way, have also in most cases already benefitted hugely from the wealth even before their inheritance.
Third, by the time the wealth reaches the grandchildren, even the previous owner did nothing to earn it. See, for example, Lukas Walton, a grandson of Sam. He may be a fine fellow for all I know, but to claim that he or his parents built a huge fortune by hard toil and intelligence is nonsense.
There are similarly positioned individuals in the Walton family, and I don’t mean to pick on that group in particular. There are lots of rich Rockefellers and others running around too.
Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg.
First, a little over half has never been taxed. See my link above.
Second, the estate tax does not tax the person who “worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. It taxes their heirs, who did none of that and who, by the way, have also in most cases already benefitted hugely from the wealth even before their inheritance.
Third, by the time the wealth reaches the grandchildren, even the previous owner did nothing to earn it. See, for example, Lukas Walton, a grandson of Sam. He may be a fine fellow for all I know, but to claim that he or his parents built a huge fortune by hard toil and intelligence is nonsense.
There are similarly positioned individuals in the Walton family, and I don’t mean to pick on that group in particular. There are lots of rich Rockefellers and others running around too.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore.
Riiiiiiight.
Look at the glee on that man’s face. Someone, somewhere, who can’t afford it, is getting fucked over.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore.
Riiiiiiight.
Look at the glee on that man’s face. Someone, somewhere, who can’t afford it, is getting fucked over.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore.
Unless, of course, they’re the wrong color, or the wrong religion, or on the wrong side of the border, or too ill and disabled to work.
Anyhow, I’d like to see all those people whom Republican policies have raised out of poverty. It’s kind of like being “pro-life,” but only as long as the “life” is in someone else’s womb.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore.
Unless, of course, they’re the wrong color, or the wrong religion, or on the wrong side of the border, or too ill and disabled to work.
Anyhow, I’d like to see all those people whom Republican policies have raised out of poverty. It’s kind of like being “pro-life,” but only as long as the “life” is in someone else’s womb.
Aaaaannd, from the day he was nominated I have denounced Sessions as unsuitable and the worst of bad picks by Trump.
Aaaaannd, from the day he was nominated I have denounced Sessions as unsuitable and the worst of bad picks by Trump.
Oh, I think by now Sessions is no real contender for that top spot anymore.
Even that large scale petty thief Pruitt has left him in his wake long ago.
Oh, I think by now Sessions is no real contender for that top spot anymore.
Even that large scale petty thief Pruitt has left him in his wake long ago.
Eccept, russell, prior to 1930 or so you could give it all to your kids while you were alive, no gift tax.
Lotta things have changed since 1930.
this is clearly an issue you have strong feelings about. you are entitled to them.
if you and enough like-minded people get together, maybe you can change the law back to no inheritance tax.
in the meantime, if you inherit a lot of money, you may have to pay taxes on some of it. just any other income you might have, of whatever kind.
it is true, people are generally not that sympathetic to problems that only affect wealthy people. the graceful response is to accept it as one of the very very few downsides of extraordinary wealth.
if this kind of thing is what constitutes “difficulty” in your world, you’re very very fortunate, and if you’re sane and not a total dick you’ll recognize that.
Eccept, russell, prior to 1930 or so you could give it all to your kids while you were alive, no gift tax.
Lotta things have changed since 1930.
this is clearly an issue you have strong feelings about. you are entitled to them.
if you and enough like-minded people get together, maybe you can change the law back to no inheritance tax.
in the meantime, if you inherit a lot of money, you may have to pay taxes on some of it. just any other income you might have, of whatever kind.
it is true, people are generally not that sympathetic to problems that only affect wealthy people. the graceful response is to accept it as one of the very very few downsides of extraordinary wealth.
if this kind of thing is what constitutes “difficulty” in your world, you’re very very fortunate, and if you’re sane and not a total dick you’ll recognize that.
Repuicans, real ones
This formulation is a preemtive prevarication. Always have an exit plan.
Repuicans, real ones
This formulation is a preemtive prevarication. Always have an exit plan.
Practical question here. Anyone know anything about the progressive turnout project? I am on a zillion email lists and they are asking for money to increase turnout with supposedly data driven methods. That sounds nice and I am tempted to give. But anybody could say this.
I will look later to see if I can find out anything, but the weather is nice outside.
Practical question here. Anyone know anything about the progressive turnout project? I am on a zillion email lists and they are asking for money to increase turnout with supposedly data driven methods. That sounds nice and I am tempted to give. But anybody could say this.
I will look later to see if I can find out anything, but the weather is nice outside.
In 2001, the exempt amount for an estate was $675K and the tax rate was 55% Life somehow went on, and I don’t recall stories of ruination.
Now the exempt amount is $11.18M and the tax rate is 40%.
I don’t have any particular animosity toward people simply for having accumulated a large estate, but I’m also not open to the idea that they or their heirs are being unduly burdened or harmed or damaged or being put into anything remotely resembling a state of hardship. It’s the height of oligarchic horseshit.
In 2001, the exempt amount for an estate was $675K and the tax rate was 55% Life somehow went on, and I don’t recall stories of ruination.
Now the exempt amount is $11.18M and the tax rate is 40%.
I don’t have any particular animosity toward people simply for having accumulated a large estate, but I’m also not open to the idea that they or their heirs are being unduly burdened or harmed or damaged or being put into anything remotely resembling a state of hardship. It’s the height of oligarchic horseshit.
russell, im never going to have enough money that it males a dofference to me. I hsve four kids, if I had 11M it would be disappointing if I could only leave each of them just over a million(2001 amount) rather than almost 3. The difference in those two numbers is a completely different sense of security. Broken down into 8 grandkids well, it’s a nice house. Not bad but not security. I just don’t understand why that is some oligarchs evil desire. That’s all.
russell, im never going to have enough money that it males a dofference to me. I hsve four kids, if I had 11M it would be disappointing if I could only leave each of them just over a million(2001 amount) rather than almost 3. The difference in those two numbers is a completely different sense of security. Broken down into 8 grandkids well, it’s a nice house. Not bad but not security. I just don’t understand why that is some oligarchs evil desire. That’s all.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore.
two things
1. lots of republicans quite obviously consider the poor to be takers, a net drain on the health of the nation. i know this because they say so. you seem to want to tell me that they aren’t “real republicans”. it seems to me that someone who says they’re a republican, runs and wins public office as a republican, is a republican
2. i see nothing in the public policies espoused and advanced by (R)’s over the last 40 years that does bugger-all to improve the lives of the poor.
so, I’m sure you want to believe that (R) policies are really the path forward to help people who are poor, but I have a pair of freaking eyes in my head and I pay attention, and I see nothing whatsoever to persuade me that your wishes and preferences have any relation to, or influence over, the (R) agenda of the last generation or two.
what “help the poor” appears to mean to them is to continually and consistently limit the public assistance they receive, as a spur to make them work. unfortunately, many of them *already fucking work*, so that strategy is not likely to be helpful.
They already work. Many of them work a lot, multiple jobs. They don’t get paid enough to live on. Want to give a “hand up”? Tell your (R) pals to address that.
Repuicans, real ones, don’t want to stop helping poor people, we want to enable them to not be poor anymore.
two things
1. lots of republicans quite obviously consider the poor to be takers, a net drain on the health of the nation. i know this because they say so. you seem to want to tell me that they aren’t “real republicans”. it seems to me that someone who says they’re a republican, runs and wins public office as a republican, is a republican
2. i see nothing in the public policies espoused and advanced by (R)’s over the last 40 years that does bugger-all to improve the lives of the poor.
so, I’m sure you want to believe that (R) policies are really the path forward to help people who are poor, but I have a pair of freaking eyes in my head and I pay attention, and I see nothing whatsoever to persuade me that your wishes and preferences have any relation to, or influence over, the (R) agenda of the last generation or two.
what “help the poor” appears to mean to them is to continually and consistently limit the public assistance they receive, as a spur to make them work. unfortunately, many of them *already fucking work*, so that strategy is not likely to be helpful.
They already work. Many of them work a lot, multiple jobs. They don’t get paid enough to live on. Want to give a “hand up”? Tell your (R) pals to address that.
They already work. Many of them work a lot, multiple jobs. They don’t get paid enough to live on. Want to give a “hand up”? Tell your (R) pals to address that.
Yes. I think low pay for hard work is a bigger problem – vastly bigger – than welfare freeloaders that Republicans are so worried about. I’m not sure what the solution is. In some cases a minimum wage hike can help, in others not so much. I’d sort of prefer a basic stipend to supplement earned income, or a more generous EITC, that would be phased out as income rises. That looks like it provides those incentives people are always going on about.
They already work. Many of them work a lot, multiple jobs. They don’t get paid enough to live on. Want to give a “hand up”? Tell your (R) pals to address that.
Yes. I think low pay for hard work is a bigger problem – vastly bigger – than welfare freeloaders that Republicans are so worried about. I’m not sure what the solution is. In some cases a minimum wage hike can help, in others not so much. I’d sort of prefer a basic stipend to supplement earned income, or a more generous EITC, that would be phased out as income rises. That looks like it provides those incentives people are always going on about.
Some more things.
1. The poor are not to be given anything of value, even a living wage that will support a person on one job, because you’re supposed to earn what you need by hard, hard, hard work. Except if you’re the child or grandchild of someone with millions, of course. Then you’re not required to earn a damned thing by hard work, and you have a grievance if all you’re left with is the price of a nice house.
2. I just don’t understand why that is some oligarchs evil desire. Nobody used the word “evil” in this discussion. That’s you again, inventing bad motivations for people you disagree with. You’re the one who introduced “hate” into the thread, as in Opposing an inheritance/estate tax is just another way for people to hate on other people. Nobody said that but you.
3. It’s useful to consider context and vantage point. A few years ago the average after-tax income of the bottom quintile of American households (125 million or so) was about $15,000, and it had been stuck in that neighborhood for almost thirty years, while the average after-tax income of the top earners had skyrocketed. Like I said at the top of the thread: if 99 people are hungry while one is hogging all the food, the motivation for trying to get hold of some of the food is not “hate.” It’s hunger. From the vantage point of a hungry person, the concern of a multi-millionaire at not being able to leave his or her grandchildren anything more than a house, is … laughable?
Some more things.
1. The poor are not to be given anything of value, even a living wage that will support a person on one job, because you’re supposed to earn what you need by hard, hard, hard work. Except if you’re the child or grandchild of someone with millions, of course. Then you’re not required to earn a damned thing by hard work, and you have a grievance if all you’re left with is the price of a nice house.
2. I just don’t understand why that is some oligarchs evil desire. Nobody used the word “evil” in this discussion. That’s you again, inventing bad motivations for people you disagree with. You’re the one who introduced “hate” into the thread, as in Opposing an inheritance/estate tax is just another way for people to hate on other people. Nobody said that but you.
3. It’s useful to consider context and vantage point. A few years ago the average after-tax income of the bottom quintile of American households (125 million or so) was about $15,000, and it had been stuck in that neighborhood for almost thirty years, while the average after-tax income of the top earners had skyrocketed. Like I said at the top of the thread: if 99 people are hungry while one is hogging all the food, the motivation for trying to get hold of some of the food is not “hate.” It’s hunger. From the vantage point of a hungry person, the concern of a multi-millionaire at not being able to leave his or her grandchildren anything more than a house, is … laughable?
Bernie: I’d sort of prefer a basic stipend to supplement earned income, or a more generous EITC, that would be phased out as income rises.
I’d like to see something like this too. If we had an actually functioning universal safety net, the worry about leaving something for our descendants wouldn’t be so compelling. (Not that multi-millionaires want their offspring to live at that standard, of course.)
Bernie: I’d sort of prefer a basic stipend to supplement earned income, or a more generous EITC, that would be phased out as income rises.
I’d like to see something like this too. If we had an actually functioning universal safety net, the worry about leaving something for our descendants wouldn’t be so compelling. (Not that multi-millionaires want their offspring to live at that standard, of course.)
I watched the income disparity happen in real time. For some years I was responsible for writing and maintaining some payroll-related software into which I had to incorporate annual salary grades for a huge multi-national company. Every year for the ten or so years I did it, the higher-paid people not only got bigger raises than the lower-paid people (that’s not so surprising, though right off the bat it tells you what kind of a culture we live in), they got bigger percentage raises than the lower-paid people.
I watched the income disparity happen in real time. For some years I was responsible for writing and maintaining some payroll-related software into which I had to incorporate annual salary grades for a huge multi-national company. Every year for the ten or so years I did it, the higher-paid people not only got bigger raises than the lower-paid people (that’s not so surprising, though right off the bat it tells you what kind of a culture we live in), they got bigger percentage raises than the lower-paid people.
Uh, this seems to pass for what I referred to
“It’s the height of oligarchic horseshit.”
But let’s nitpick the wording a little more.
Uh, this seems to pass for what I referred to
“It’s the height of oligarchic horseshit.”
But let’s nitpick the wording a little more.
I’m not sure what the solution is.
The solution is for people who decide what folks should get paid, to decide to pay them more.
I understand that there are a million incentives to do otherwise. Nonetheless, it’s a choice.
Make a different choice.
Some companies do, and their people do OK. Other companies don’t, and their people don’t do OK. We end up picking up the tab for it, and then conservatives / Republicans / libertarians end up bitching about that.
Pay people more. Problem solved.
I’m not sure what the solution is.
The solution is for people who decide what folks should get paid, to decide to pay them more.
I understand that there are a million incentives to do otherwise. Nonetheless, it’s a choice.
Make a different choice.
Some companies do, and their people do OK. Other companies don’t, and their people don’t do OK. We end up picking up the tab for it, and then conservatives / Republicans / libertarians end up bitching about that.
Pay people more. Problem solved.
My comments haven’t been appearing, so I’ll try this slightly altered name.
Why are we talking over and over about tax policy?
We, the US people, are acting like Nazis with people on the border. This needs to be our focus right now. I know a lot of people are with me on this, maybe including Marty. Let’s make it stop.
Please – we’re not going to do an equitable tax bill, or agree on what that is, for awhile, but we can, maybe, stop this inhumane treatment of families. Please, folks, let’s join a movement. I got an email from Daily Kos about a phone call tomorrow night. Here’s a link: https://act.moveon.org/survey/resistandwin19/
Will it work? I don’t know. Is this the right organization? I don;t know. We have to come together to fight this atrocity. Anything we can do.
My comments haven’t been appearing, so I’ll try this slightly altered name.
Why are we talking over and over about tax policy?
We, the US people, are acting like Nazis with people on the border. This needs to be our focus right now. I know a lot of people are with me on this, maybe including Marty. Let’s make it stop.
Please – we’re not going to do an equitable tax bill, or agree on what that is, for awhile, but we can, maybe, stop this inhumane treatment of families. Please, folks, let’s join a movement. I got an email from Daily Kos about a phone call tomorrow night. Here’s a link: https://act.moveon.org/survey/resistandwin19/
Will it work? I don’t know. Is this the right organization? I don;t know. We have to come together to fight this atrocity. Anything we can do.
But let’s nitpick the wording a little more.
Have at it. Do you think the inheritance tax, with an exemption of $11M, is a hardship for the people subject to it? Are they suffering because of it? Do you think a janitor who works lots of overtime should have to pay income tax on $40K?
But let’s nitpick the wording a little more.
Have at it. Do you think the inheritance tax, with an exemption of $11M, is a hardship for the people subject to it? Are they suffering because of it? Do you think a janitor who works lots of overtime should have to pay income tax on $40K?
Janie at 6:44
Ditto.
It always seems . . . odd that it is entirely sloth, and a desire to sponge off someone else’s hard work, that motivates an interest in an economic safety net and a living wage for people who are working as hard as they can. But only fairness that motivates opposition to an estate tax which would take money from those who worked so hard to pick out wealthy parents (or grandparents).
Janie at 6:44
Ditto.
It always seems . . . odd that it is entirely sloth, and a desire to sponge off someone else’s hard work, that motivates an interest in an economic safety net and a living wage for people who are working as hard as they can. But only fairness that motivates opposition to an estate tax which would take money from those who worked so hard to pick out wealthy parents (or grandparents).
I’m not sure what the solution is.
Adopt public policies that alter the power relationships in our society. Those without money have no power. If they had more power, they would (all else being equal) have more money.
Just a suggestion.
I’m not sure what the solution is.
Adopt public policies that alter the power relationships in our society. Those without money have no power. If they had more power, they would (all else being equal) have more money.
Just a suggestion.
Love y’all.
We have a couple of years to talk about tax bullsh#t.
People are being irreparably harmed at the borders. Action?
We talked about drones, foreign policy, CIA, etc.
The bottom line right now is us. Stop it with the tax bullshit discussion. We need to do something now about these actual people, the concentration camps, the Nazi bullshit that’s actually happening.
GftNC won’t call it Nazis but the suicides and the crying children might.
Who the f’ cares about tax policy with all of this? Get real, people.
Love y’all.
We have a couple of years to talk about tax bullsh#t.
People are being irreparably harmed at the borders. Action?
We talked about drones, foreign policy, CIA, etc.
The bottom line right now is us. Stop it with the tax bullshit discussion. We need to do something now about these actual people, the concentration camps, the Nazi bullshit that’s actually happening.
GftNC won’t call it Nazis but the suicides and the crying children might.
Who the f’ cares about tax policy with all of this? Get real, people.
The difference, I suggest, is that we need to thrash around a bit on what kind of tax policy is needed. At least about the specifics. So that’s worth talking about.
In contrast, is there anybody here who seriously thinks that we don’t need a massive change in how deal with those apprehended entering the country illegally? Let alone how we treat those who scrupulously follow the law and apply for asylum. I beg leave to doubt it.
We may have disagreements over immigration, over what ought to be done concerning those brought here illegally as children, etc. But whether we should continue abusing those in custody? No. Not really anything to discuss.
The difference, I suggest, is that we need to thrash around a bit on what kind of tax policy is needed. At least about the specifics. So that’s worth talking about.
In contrast, is there anybody here who seriously thinks that we don’t need a massive change in how deal with those apprehended entering the country illegally? Let alone how we treat those who scrupulously follow the law and apply for asylum. I beg leave to doubt it.
We may have disagreements over immigration, over what ought to be done concerning those brought here illegally as children, etc. But whether we should continue abusing those in custody? No. Not really anything to discuss.
Marty,
Uh, this seems to pass for what I referred to
“It’s the height of oligarchic horseshit.”
But let’s nitpick the wording a little more.
Well,, that is from hairshirt, not janiem, and it was after you started your comments. So if you are claiming you are reacting to something that was said, that’s actually mistaken.
And while I disagree with most of what you put forward, the problem I have is that the way you participate in the list leads to pile-ons. Some of those are inevitable, you are a minority here, and everyone has a topic or topics that get them passionate/angry about. I’m sorry about that, but there’s nothing I can do to change that. But I do feel the pile ons could be reduced with a change in behavior on your part.
However, with me telling you this, you will assume that I’m suggesting that I’m better than you (this is the fundamental issue with mansplaining, so what I think you may be experiencing the same thing that a lot of women do when they complain about it, which I hope is something you will also consider) but it’s not that, I did (and unfortunately still sometimes do) the same things that I see you doing, which (imho) is to provoke a reaction and then, when someone on the list overreaches, you say ‘see, that is what I was talking about.’
The ‘Uh’ and the faux suggestion at the end ‘Let’s nitpick the wording’ looks to me like you trying to provoke a reaction rather than discuss. I hope by pointing it out, you might see how it doesn’t help things here very much.
If you could consider what I’m pointing out, I’d appreciate it. I don’t particularly like to see a pile on, regardless who is on the bottom.
Marty,
Uh, this seems to pass for what I referred to
“It’s the height of oligarchic horseshit.”
But let’s nitpick the wording a little more.
Well,, that is from hairshirt, not janiem, and it was after you started your comments. So if you are claiming you are reacting to something that was said, that’s actually mistaken.
And while I disagree with most of what you put forward, the problem I have is that the way you participate in the list leads to pile-ons. Some of those are inevitable, you are a minority here, and everyone has a topic or topics that get them passionate/angry about. I’m sorry about that, but there’s nothing I can do to change that. But I do feel the pile ons could be reduced with a change in behavior on your part.
However, with me telling you this, you will assume that I’m suggesting that I’m better than you (this is the fundamental issue with mansplaining, so what I think you may be experiencing the same thing that a lot of women do when they complain about it, which I hope is something you will also consider) but it’s not that, I did (and unfortunately still sometimes do) the same things that I see you doing, which (imho) is to provoke a reaction and then, when someone on the list overreaches, you say ‘see, that is what I was talking about.’
The ‘Uh’ and the faux suggestion at the end ‘Let’s nitpick the wording’ looks to me like you trying to provoke a reaction rather than discuss. I hope by pointing it out, you might see how it doesn’t help things here very much.
If you could consider what I’m pointing out, I’d appreciate it. I don’t particularly like to see a pile on, regardless who is on the bottom.
We may have disagreements over immigration, over what ought to be done concerning those brought here illegally as children, etc. But whether we should continue abusing those in custody? No. Not really anything to discuss.
I think we all agree on the humanitarian treatment of children. Let’s get on board with an action plan. I’ve posted something above. Not sure if it’s the best answer. But if people show up on that train, maybe it will send a message that we’re not having the Nazi agenda.
We may have disagreements over immigration, over what ought to be done concerning those brought here illegally as children, etc. But whether we should continue abusing those in custody? No. Not really anything to discuss.
I think we all agree on the humanitarian treatment of children. Let’s get on board with an action plan. I’ve posted something above. Not sure if it’s the best answer. But if people show up on that train, maybe it will send a message that we’re not having the Nazi agenda.
Thanks lj, I do, by the nature of my opinions expect a reaction. But I spend a lot of time here not reacting.
It is most difficult when the subject being discussed, in this case the inheritance tax, suddenly turn into an assumption that I have one view or another on, something completely different, in this case people who depend on the safety net.
I can be against the inheritance tax and not believe that most people on welfare are lazy. I don’t have to believe one or the other.
Thanks lj, I do, by the nature of my opinions expect a reaction. But I spend a lot of time here not reacting.
It is most difficult when the subject being discussed, in this case the inheritance tax, suddenly turn into an assumption that I have one view or another on, something completely different, in this case people who depend on the safety net.
I can be against the inheritance tax and not believe that most people on welfare are lazy. I don’t have to believe one or the other.
Hey Marty,
You claim to be on the compassion toward immigrant bus.
Will you do the phone call tomorrow?
Hey Marty,
You claim to be on the compassion toward immigrant bus.
Will you do the phone call tomorrow?
I plan to watch the live stream if I don’t have to sign up for anything. I don’t want most of those organizations to have my info.
I plan to watch the live stream if I don’t have to sign up for anything. I don’t want most of those organizations to have my info.
I understand that. But this is an emergency. The harm here is irreparable. If you’re not on this bus, you need to have your own bus or we’re Nazis. We need to show up for these kids.
I understand that. But this is an emergency. The harm here is irreparable. If you’re not on this bus, you need to have your own bus or we’re Nazis. We need to show up for these kids.
… Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. The inheritance tax is just an f you stealing of money, more than any other tax…
Doesn’t the apply equally to any sales tax, on a daily basis rather than once in a lifetime ?
And which, of course, disproportionally effects those on low incomes.
… Someone originally worked for that money and paid taxes on the income, saved it, invested and created a nest egg. The inheritance tax is just an f you stealing of money, more than any other tax…
Doesn’t the apply equally to any sales tax, on a daily basis rather than once in a lifetime ?
And which, of course, disproportionally effects those on low incomes.
Nigel,
Not really, granting the regressive nature of some sales taxes. People buy things,they work hard and save what they can but everyone buys stuff do that tax is, to me, a part of the calculus of what living costs. The nature of estate taxes is they take from what you have managed to save after all the taxes, (property, income, sales, capital gains, employment) have been paid. The accumulated savings after paying the costs of that life.
Sure the estate might last through a few not so productive kids or grandkids etc but usually only if they don’t have access to the principal in the first place.
But, if that’s what someone does with what they have accrued then taxing it one more time seems wrong.
Just as taking away the safety net for poor people is wrong, and a more important issue.
Nigel,
Not really, granting the regressive nature of some sales taxes. People buy things,they work hard and save what they can but everyone buys stuff do that tax is, to me, a part of the calculus of what living costs. The nature of estate taxes is they take from what you have managed to save after all the taxes, (property, income, sales, capital gains, employment) have been paid. The accumulated savings after paying the costs of that life.
Sure the estate might last through a few not so productive kids or grandkids etc but usually only if they don’t have access to the principal in the first place.
But, if that’s what someone does with what they have accrued then taxing it one more time seems wrong.
Just as taking away the safety net for poor people is wrong, and a more important issue.
The nature of estate taxes is they take from what you have managed to save after all the taxes, (property, income, sales, capital gains, employment) have been paid.
Not true. Most of the wealth held by the rich consists of assets that have never been taxed.
With great wealth comes great power. To this, I resolutely object. People should not have political power dropped in their lap just for winning the birth lottery.
The Aristocracy of Wealth is a social crime.
The nature of estate taxes is they take from what you have managed to save after all the taxes, (property, income, sales, capital gains, employment) have been paid.
Not true. Most of the wealth held by the rich consists of assets that have never been taxed.
With great wealth comes great power. To this, I resolutely object. People should not have political power dropped in their lap just for winning the birth lottery.
The Aristocracy of Wealth is a social crime.
Reading yet another thread (I read all comments, it’s ethnography) at the evil place
1) Sanders/Warren 2020? Lol. RotFLOL. There is no way the Party will allow that ticket.
2) Looks like the Evil Crew has decided on Gillibrand, cause Sanders is a man, Harris is the wrong color, and Warren is whatever.
3) Mostly of course cause Gillibrand is NYC and Wall Street. She will be as much bullshit as Clinton and Obama. All of her leftism will disappear on inauguration day and she will be making grand bargains like crazy.
These will look good like Obamacare of course, or use hostage taking (give billions to Wall Street of this patient will die!)or leave it deliberately vulnerable to reversal by the first Republican administration.
I could vote for Warren. I am not voting for my enemy, one who will wreck my life and make me homeless, even if the alternative is worse.
Reading yet another thread (I read all comments, it’s ethnography) at the evil place
1) Sanders/Warren 2020? Lol. RotFLOL. There is no way the Party will allow that ticket.
2) Looks like the Evil Crew has decided on Gillibrand, cause Sanders is a man, Harris is the wrong color, and Warren is whatever.
3) Mostly of course cause Gillibrand is NYC and Wall Street. She will be as much bullshit as Clinton and Obama. All of her leftism will disappear on inauguration day and she will be making grand bargains like crazy.
These will look good like Obamacare of course, or use hostage taking (give billions to Wall Street of this patient will die!)or leave it deliberately vulnerable to reversal by the first Republican administration.
I could vote for Warren. I am not voting for my enemy, one who will wreck my life and make me homeless, even if the alternative is worse.
Oh I forgot
Gillibrand will be very very good for a certain class of women, including women of color, who will get rich during her administration.
The Democratic Party is just as much a looting operation as Republicans, just different pirates.
You measure people by their bank accounts. Wealth is evil.
Oh I forgot
Gillibrand will be very very good for a certain class of women, including women of color, who will get rich during her administration.
The Democratic Party is just as much a looting operation as Republicans, just different pirates.
You measure people by their bank accounts. Wealth is evil.
Copy editor fix:
A few years ago the average after-tax income of the bottom quintile of American households (125 million or so) was about $15,000
should say “25 million or so”
Copy editor fix:
A few years ago the average after-tax income of the bottom quintile of American households (125 million or so) was about $15,000
should say “25 million or so”
I am not voting for my enemy, one who will wreck my life and make me homeless, even if the alternative is worse.
Maybe you could explain how Gillibrand, or any other possible Democratic nominee, would wreck your life and make you homeless.
Did Obama do that?
I am not voting for my enemy, one who will wreck my life and make me homeless, even if the alternative is worse.
Maybe you could explain how Gillibrand, or any other possible Democratic nominee, would wreck your life and make you homeless.
Did Obama do that?
At ideological “extremes”, the amount of energy expended to attack erstwhile ideological allies is inversely proportional to the political distance separating them.
…thus the useless food fight we observe characterized by “kicking down” (I’m looking at you, Mr. J. Chiat), and “purity leftism” (Jill, ‘they’re all the same!’, Stein).
Popular Front politics defeated fascism. We are fighting fascism today. Think about this.
At ideological “extremes”, the amount of energy expended to attack erstwhile ideological allies is inversely proportional to the political distance separating them.
…thus the useless food fight we observe characterized by “kicking down” (I’m looking at you, Mr. J. Chiat), and “purity leftism” (Jill, ‘they’re all the same!’, Stein).
Popular Front politics defeated fascism. We are fighting fascism today. Think about this.
Did Obama do that?
You have already forgotten the tens of thousands, mostly minorities, who lost their homes, their equity, and their futures while Obama and his appointee Bernanke funneled trillions to the banks? Or has that history been erased already?
They missed me, although Medicare got hit and God knows Obama tried to go after entitlements. Simpson-Bowles also erased.
And there is the austerity Obama enthusiastically jumped onto after 2009, lots of gov’t layoffs (no help to states) which again hurt blacks, and freeze on hires.
Or….NOT OBAMA’S FAULT!!! Of course.
Did Obama do that?
You have already forgotten the tens of thousands, mostly minorities, who lost their homes, their equity, and their futures while Obama and his appointee Bernanke funneled trillions to the banks? Or has that history been erased already?
They missed me, although Medicare got hit and God knows Obama tried to go after entitlements. Simpson-Bowles also erased.
And there is the austerity Obama enthusiastically jumped onto after 2009, lots of gov’t layoffs (no help to states) which again hurt blacks, and freeze on hires.
Or….NOT OBAMA’S FAULT!!! Of course.
But Obama did great, worth at least 9 figures already, and growing. Not even counting the foundations which are power.
But Obama did great, worth at least 9 figures already, and growing. Not even counting the foundations which are power.
Finally, looking at G7 and that perfect picture:
I don’t like it either. China is gonna win. Waiting until most of the competitive economies were past-mature to go full-bore development was geopolitical genius. That’s how it’s done, America Japan they all got to the top by being luckily in a position to use latest technologies while being able to ignore sunk costs and vested interests. China did it deliberately.
China, Russia, and their allies are going to take over and rule. India has a hard choice.
The only thing that will stop this, which has been predicted for 150 years, is nuclear war.
Which is why the Russophobia of the Democratic Party is so terrifying.
Finally, looking at G7 and that perfect picture:
I don’t like it either. China is gonna win. Waiting until most of the competitive economies were past-mature to go full-bore development was geopolitical genius. That’s how it’s done, America Japan they all got to the top by being luckily in a position to use latest technologies while being able to ignore sunk costs and vested interests. China did it deliberately.
China, Russia, and their allies are going to take over and rule. India has a hard choice.
The only thing that will stop this, which has been predicted for 150 years, is nuclear war.
Which is why the Russophobia of the Democratic Party is so terrifying.
Popular Front politics defeated fascism.
It always strikes me that the Soviet army gets short shrift in discussions of defeating mid-20th C fascism.
Not a defense of Soviet Russia, just an observation.
China did it deliberately.
I always figured it was that other thing not working out that got the Chinese to move toward development and a market-ish economy.
You could be right, they could just be truly world-historical chess players.
Popular Front politics defeated fascism.
It always strikes me that the Soviet army gets short shrift in discussions of defeating mid-20th C fascism.
Not a defense of Soviet Russia, just an observation.
China did it deliberately.
I always figured it was that other thing not working out that got the Chinese to move toward development and a market-ish economy.
You could be right, they could just be truly world-historical chess players.
Sure the estate might last through a few not so productive kids or grandkids etc but usually only if they don’t have access to the principal in the first place.
Let’s consider Lukas Walton, who I mentioned above. (Again, I know nothing about Mr. Walton, and choose him only to provide a numerical example.)
He is worth $25 billion. Let’s say he has five children, each of whom inherits $5 billion. Being wastrels, their estates are worth only $2.5 billion when they die. Since they each have five children the next generation inherits $500 million each. Repeat. The next generation gets $50 million each. The next $5 million.
So the seventh generation of Walton descendants are entitled to $5 million by virtue of being Sam Walton’s great-great-great-great-grandchildren. But hey, they worked for it. Right?
Look. The economic system works in a context of law, custom, history, institutions, etc. Economic behavior does not take place in an abstract space unrelated to these things, no matter what the textbooks say.
It is far from unreasonable to think that, when someone accumulates a massive fortune, that this is at least a little bit due to the system being tilted their way. Untilting it slightly, in a way that does no real damage to the individual with the fortune, and not much to their heirs, doesn’t strike me as evil.
Sure the estate might last through a few not so productive kids or grandkids etc but usually only if they don’t have access to the principal in the first place.
Let’s consider Lukas Walton, who I mentioned above. (Again, I know nothing about Mr. Walton, and choose him only to provide a numerical example.)
He is worth $25 billion. Let’s say he has five children, each of whom inherits $5 billion. Being wastrels, their estates are worth only $2.5 billion when they die. Since they each have five children the next generation inherits $500 million each. Repeat. The next generation gets $50 million each. The next $5 million.
So the seventh generation of Walton descendants are entitled to $5 million by virtue of being Sam Walton’s great-great-great-great-grandchildren. But hey, they worked for it. Right?
Look. The economic system works in a context of law, custom, history, institutions, etc. Economic behavior does not take place in an abstract space unrelated to these things, no matter what the textbooks say.
It is far from unreasonable to think that, when someone accumulates a massive fortune, that this is at least a little bit due to the system being tilted their way. Untilting it slightly, in a way that does no real damage to the individual with the fortune, and not much to their heirs, doesn’t strike me as evil.
The US (fuck Europe, collapsing before our eyes) is now in the position, maybe, that Japan and Germany were in the 1920s. Looking to become vassal states of an alien culture. Or go for broke.
You like gay rights, feminism, free press, democracy? Japan and Germany liked their cultures too, even if we disapprove of them.
You think your culture is the right one for everybody alltime, that’s exceptionalism and imperialism, and not even looking at the bad stuff.
Thing is, we’re gonna lose, just like them. You wanna go out like them? You wanna take everybody with you?
Hows it feel to be losing a war? The night they drove ole dixie down.
The US (fuck Europe, collapsing before our eyes) is now in the position, maybe, that Japan and Germany were in the 1920s. Looking to become vassal states of an alien culture. Or go for broke.
You like gay rights, feminism, free press, democracy? Japan and Germany liked their cultures too, even if we disapprove of them.
You think your culture is the right one for everybody alltime, that’s exceptionalism and imperialism, and not even looking at the bad stuff.
Thing is, we’re gonna lose, just like them. You wanna go out like them? You wanna take everybody with you?
Hows it feel to be losing a war? The night they drove ole dixie down.
So Bob, to whom, to what culture, do you see us losing?
So Bob, to whom, to what culture, do you see us losing?
fuck Europe, collapsing before our eyes
the problem with the big theories is that they have to, at a minimum, save the phenomena. actually accounting for and explaining reality is also nice, but at a minimum, claims have to at least resemble the phenomena that are actually before our eyes, and as a bonus offer some predictive ability.
I have a number of friends who, from a wide variety of motivations, claim that Europe is all done. On its way out, a has-been continent, a dead letter.
FWIW, I’m not seeing it.
Were I to venture a claim, it would be that Europe is stepping up as the advocate of liberal democratic governance. We unfortunately seem to be letting that role slide, but that’s on us.
We’ll see what happens.
fuck Europe, collapsing before our eyes
the problem with the big theories is that they have to, at a minimum, save the phenomena. actually accounting for and explaining reality is also nice, but at a minimum, claims have to at least resemble the phenomena that are actually before our eyes, and as a bonus offer some predictive ability.
I have a number of friends who, from a wide variety of motivations, claim that Europe is all done. On its way out, a has-been continent, a dead letter.
FWIW, I’m not seeing it.
Were I to venture a claim, it would be that Europe is stepping up as the advocate of liberal democratic governance. We unfortunately seem to be letting that role slide, but that’s on us.
We’ll see what happens.
China has its own problems that are likely to get worse in the next couple of decades.
It has demographic problems. Its one-child policy is biting it back. Even though there’s a shortage of women, the cultural bias against marrying older women with fewer childbearing years is so strong that it is leaving a lot of women and even more mem unmarried.
As its middle class grows, it will demand more amenities, like a clean environment, that the government will likely have trouble delivering on. The current economic and policial systems have already picked most of the low-hanging fruit.
China has its own problems that are likely to get worse in the next couple of decades.
It has demographic problems. Its one-child policy is biting it back. Even though there’s a shortage of women, the cultural bias against marrying older women with fewer childbearing years is so strong that it is leaving a lot of women and even more mem unmarried.
As its middle class grows, it will demand more amenities, like a clean environment, that the government will likely have trouble delivering on. The current economic and policial systems have already picked most of the low-hanging fruit.
Charles, my thought as well. At most, I would see us experiencing a temporary (although possibly rather long) setback to our own worse natures. But that’s not the same as “losing a war.”
Charles, my thought as well. At most, I would see us experiencing a temporary (although possibly rather long) setback to our own worse natures. But that’s not the same as “losing a war.”
Besides, to finance an actual war with China, the US would have to borrow money from, well, the Chinese.
Besides, to finance an actual war with China, the US would have to borrow money from, well, the Chinese.
Looks like the Evil Crew has decided on Gillibrand…
I’ll bet right now that, if nominated, she loses the general. The Dems (and I’m a registered Dem) seem to have reached the point where they need the Dem- and Dem-leaning voters to get excited about the candidate, and in much of the country those voters refuse to get excited about a Dem candidate from the NE urban corridor. I don’t know why, I just point it out. In 2016, Clinton got 104 EC votes in the NE urban corridor, 98 in the Census Bureau-defined West (ignoring faithless electors like whoever from Washington voted for Faith Spotted Eagle), and 30 from the rest of the country. It’s that “rest of the country” that terrifies me.
Looks like the Evil Crew has decided on Gillibrand…
I’ll bet right now that, if nominated, she loses the general. The Dems (and I’m a registered Dem) seem to have reached the point where they need the Dem- and Dem-leaning voters to get excited about the candidate, and in much of the country those voters refuse to get excited about a Dem candidate from the NE urban corridor. I don’t know why, I just point it out. In 2016, Clinton got 104 EC votes in the NE urban corridor, 98 in the Census Bureau-defined West (ignoring faithless electors like whoever from Washington voted for Faith Spotted Eagle), and 30 from the rest of the country. It’s that “rest of the country” that terrifies me.
You have already forgotten the tens of thousands, mostly minorities, who lost their homes, their equity, and their futures while Obama and his appointee Bernanke funneled trillions to the banks? Or has that history been erased already?
They missed me, although Medicare got hit and God knows Obama tried to go after entitlements. Simpson-Bowles also erased.
And there is the austerity Obama enthusiastically jumped onto after 2009, lots of gov’t layoffs (no help to states) which again hurt blacks, and freeze on hires.
So Obama didn’t make you homeless. And you have provided no reason to think a future Democratic President would either. Nor do you explain why you think Obama was responsible for a financial crisis that hit while Bush was still in office.
I’m not clear on your combined complaints about austerity and Simpson-Bowles. They seem to contradict one another, and I’d say it’s a good thing Simpson-Bowles was abandoned.
You have already forgotten the tens of thousands, mostly minorities, who lost their homes, their equity, and their futures while Obama and his appointee Bernanke funneled trillions to the banks? Or has that history been erased already?
They missed me, although Medicare got hit and God knows Obama tried to go after entitlements. Simpson-Bowles also erased.
And there is the austerity Obama enthusiastically jumped onto after 2009, lots of gov’t layoffs (no help to states) which again hurt blacks, and freeze on hires.
So Obama didn’t make you homeless. And you have provided no reason to think a future Democratic President would either. Nor do you explain why you think Obama was responsible for a financial crisis that hit while Bush was still in office.
I’m not clear on your combined complaints about austerity and Simpson-Bowles. They seem to contradict one another, and I’d say it’s a good thing Simpson-Bowles was abandoned.
For anyone interested in Chinese minutia, here’re some video blog links:
ADVChina: Adventure Talk Show on Two Wheels
SerpentZA: The Original China VLogger
laowhy86: Videos about Living in China
Vivi Vlog
Hu Knows
For anyone interested in Chinese minutia, here’re some video blog links:
ADVChina: Adventure Talk Show on Two Wheels
SerpentZA: The Original China VLogger
laowhy86: Videos about Living in China
Vivi Vlog
Hu Knows
Michael Cain: … they need the Dem- and Dem-leaning voters to get excited about the candidate, and in much of the country those voters refuse to get excited about a Dem candidate from the NE urban corridor …
I suppose that’s one difference between Dem- and Dem-leaning voters, and the Rep- and Rep-leaning voters who voted for He, Trump. Is NY, NY not part of the NE urban corridor all of a sudden?
You may be right that politicians from the NE urban corridor will be poison for some time to come, though. The sturdy yeomen of the heartland may catch on to where He, Trump is from, eventually.
–TP
Michael Cain: … they need the Dem- and Dem-leaning voters to get excited about the candidate, and in much of the country those voters refuse to get excited about a Dem candidate from the NE urban corridor …
I suppose that’s one difference between Dem- and Dem-leaning voters, and the Rep- and Rep-leaning voters who voted for He, Trump. Is NY, NY not part of the NE urban corridor all of a sudden?
You may be right that politicians from the NE urban corridor will be poison for some time to come, though. The sturdy yeomen of the heartland may catch on to where He, Trump is from, eventually.
–TP
Is NY, NY not part of the NE urban corridor all of a sudden?
Staten Island appears to be the outlier. Suffolk County, too, out on Long Island. Suffolk is basically NY’s Orange County, and I’m glad I no longer call it home.
Looking beyond NY, NY, to plain old NY, and there’s a lot of red.
Gillibrand is from one of those patches of blue up along the Hudson valley.
Is NY, NY not part of the NE urban corridor all of a sudden?
Staten Island appears to be the outlier. Suffolk County, too, out on Long Island. Suffolk is basically NY’s Orange County, and I’m glad I no longer call it home.
Looking beyond NY, NY, to plain old NY, and there’s a lot of red.
Gillibrand is from one of those patches of blue up along the Hudson valley.
Both sides need to stop running campaigns based on candidates and issues from the last century.
Both sides need to stop running campaigns based on candidates and issues from the last century.
Just a random odd thought. The last few Democratic Presidents, going back 2/3 of a century**, were from:
– Illinois
– Arkansas
– Georgia
– Texas
Notice a commong thread there? Pretty much all from what are currentlt red states. (Although Illinois is arguably a marginal case, depending on just which office one focuses on.) Whereas Democratic presidential candidates from blue states have routinely lost.
Anyone arguing for a candidate from a solid blue state ought to at least be asked why he thinks this time is going to be different.
** I.e. since before the “Southern Strategy” came along.
Just a random odd thought. The last few Democratic Presidents, going back 2/3 of a century**, were from:
– Illinois
– Arkansas
– Georgia
– Texas
Notice a commong thread there? Pretty much all from what are currentlt red states. (Although Illinois is arguably a marginal case, depending on just which office one focuses on.) Whereas Democratic presidential candidates from blue states have routinely lost.
Anyone arguing for a candidate from a solid blue state ought to at least be asked why he thinks this time is going to be different.
** I.e. since before the “Southern Strategy” came along.
I’d rather not look at one of the 540 US billionaires. Seems an amazingly small number of people to determine tax policy based on.
Do we think Lukas Walton has an outsized impact on our elections?
I’d rather not look at one of the 540 US billionaires. Seems an amazingly small number of people to determine tax policy based on.
Do we think Lukas Walton has an outsized impact on our elections?
I’d rather not look at one of the 540 US billionaires.
me neither.
I’d rather not look at one of the 540 US billionaires.
me neither.
Seems an amazingly small number of people to determine tax policy based on.
Seems an amazingly large percentage of the country’s resources to be concentrated in such a small # of hands.
Do we think Lukas Walton has an outsized impact on our elections?
Maybe directly, maybe not, but anyone with that outsized a proportion of the country’s resources can hardly help having an outsized influence on any number of things, just by virtue of having decision-making control over an outsized proportion of our collective resources.
If 99% of the wealth was concentrated in one oligarch’s hands, would you say that was just too amazingly small a number to worry about?
Seems an amazingly small number of people to determine tax policy based on.
Seems an amazingly large percentage of the country’s resources to be concentrated in such a small # of hands.
Do we think Lukas Walton has an outsized impact on our elections?
Maybe directly, maybe not, but anyone with that outsized a proportion of the country’s resources can hardly help having an outsized influence on any number of things, just by virtue of having decision-making control over an outsized proportion of our collective resources.
If 99% of the wealth was concentrated in one oligarch’s hands, would you say that was just too amazingly small a number to worry about?
CharlesWT: Both sides need to stop running campaigns based on candidates and issues from the last century.
Issues from the last century have all been resolved, have they?
Another brand name I object to: New Ideas(TM)
Democracy is an old idea. Any “side” that wants to offer a New Idea(TM) in its place can bite me.
International trade is an even older idea. Any “side” that proposes to replace it had better be able to grow enough coffee domestically.
Civil rights is a pretty old idea at this point. One “side” (okay, the GOP) proposes New Ideas(TM) like it’s okay to make it harder for black people to vote, or to base congressional districts on citizens rather than persons, so long as you have a good cover story. (Racism, alas, is an old idea too.)
“Nothing is ever settled until it’s settled right.” Millennia come and go. Certain “issues” linger.
–TP
CharlesWT: Both sides need to stop running campaigns based on candidates and issues from the last century.
Issues from the last century have all been resolved, have they?
Another brand name I object to: New Ideas(TM)
Democracy is an old idea. Any “side” that wants to offer a New Idea(TM) in its place can bite me.
International trade is an even older idea. Any “side” that proposes to replace it had better be able to grow enough coffee domestically.
Civil rights is a pretty old idea at this point. One “side” (okay, the GOP) proposes New Ideas(TM) like it’s okay to make it harder for black people to vote, or to base congressional districts on citizens rather than persons, so long as you have a good cover story. (Racism, alas, is an old idea too.)
“Nothing is ever settled until it’s settled right.” Millennia come and go. Certain “issues” linger.
–TP
I’d rather not look at one of the 540 US billionaires. Seems an amazingly small number of people to determine tax policy based on.
Yet you are screaming about them being treated unfairly. Which is it?
Do we think Lukas Walton has an outsized impact on our elections?
I doubt it, but I don’t see the relevance of the question. Billionaires in general do have an outsized impact of course, but again that’s not relevant.
I raise Mr. Walton and his hypothetical descendants to explain that your argument about how we are taking away hard-earned money is nonsense.
I might add that wealth, aside from its main value as money, also confers a lot of advantages in terms of opportunities, quality of education available, and so on. If your father has $5 million you will be be able to go to a nice private school, or a very well funded public one, and take that unpaid internship, for example. If he has 50 cents you’ll go to an underfunded public school and flip burgers instead. And on and on.
I’d rather not look at one of the 540 US billionaires. Seems an amazingly small number of people to determine tax policy based on.
Yet you are screaming about them being treated unfairly. Which is it?
Do we think Lukas Walton has an outsized impact on our elections?
I doubt it, but I don’t see the relevance of the question. Billionaires in general do have an outsized impact of course, but again that’s not relevant.
I raise Mr. Walton and his hypothetical descendants to explain that your argument about how we are taking away hard-earned money is nonsense.
I might add that wealth, aside from its main value as money, also confers a lot of advantages in terms of opportunities, quality of education available, and so on. If your father has $5 million you will be be able to go to a nice private school, or a very well funded public one, and take that unpaid internship, for example. If he has 50 cents you’ll go to an underfunded public school and flip burgers instead. And on and on.
anyone with that outsized a proportion of the country’s resources can hardly help having an outsized influence on any number of things
do we think that Lukas Walton will be treated in the same way, in any context whether public private or in-between, as anyone whose personal net worth has fewer commas in it?
do we think that, if any member of the Walton family makes a call to the office of their US Senator, US House Rep, governor, state Senator or House Rep, country commissioner, local mayor or dogcatcher, their call will not be returned within a day?
money talks. if you have billions, you can be really loud.
go ahead and try to tell us it ain’t so.
anyone with that outsized a proportion of the country’s resources can hardly help having an outsized influence on any number of things
do we think that Lukas Walton will be treated in the same way, in any context whether public private or in-between, as anyone whose personal net worth has fewer commas in it?
do we think that, if any member of the Walton family makes a call to the office of their US Senator, US House Rep, governor, state Senator or House Rep, country commissioner, local mayor or dogcatcher, their call will not be returned within a day?
money talks. if you have billions, you can be really loud.
go ahead and try to tell us it ain’t so.
Let’s assume that the “death tax” so detested by the Martys of the world accounts for a measly 1% of US government revenue.
Let’s assume that reducing the “national” debt, as advocated by the McKinneys of the world, is a worthy goal.
Combining the two assumptions, let’s agree that the Luke Waltons of the world should inherit tax-free and every bit of federal spending should be reduced by 1%. Every federal employee, armed or not, gets a 1% pay cut. Every recipient of Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, LIHEAP, Pell Grant, or NIH research funding gets 1% less federal money. Every federal supplier, from Lockheed to Staples, gets 1% less for the “goods and services” they contract to provide.
It may seem like a lot of fuss and bother to make all those 1% cuts, but “fairness” demands it, right?
–TP
Let’s assume that the “death tax” so detested by the Martys of the world accounts for a measly 1% of US government revenue.
Let’s assume that reducing the “national” debt, as advocated by the McKinneys of the world, is a worthy goal.
Combining the two assumptions, let’s agree that the Luke Waltons of the world should inherit tax-free and every bit of federal spending should be reduced by 1%. Every federal employee, armed or not, gets a 1% pay cut. Every recipient of Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, LIHEAP, Pell Grant, or NIH research funding gets 1% less federal money. Every federal supplier, from Lockheed to Staples, gets 1% less for the “goods and services” they contract to provide.
It may seem like a lot of fuss and bother to make all those 1% cuts, but “fairness” demands it, right?
–TP
I don’t care if we tax inheritances or not. Taxation is primarily about raising revenue, and secondarily about regulating stuff while pretending that we’re not doing so.
I personally am fine with both of those things, the first in principle, and the second as a practical matter.
Do them in whatever way achieves the desired end with the least amount of overall pain, unfairness, and difficulty.
At present, if you inherit five and a half million bucks, or eleven million if from two parties (i.e., both parents), you pay no tax whatsoever. Lucky you, you are filthy stinking rich. Not Donald J Trump, shit in a gold toilet rich, just do whatever the hell you like, never have another minute of financial anxiety, never have to work another freaking day in your life rich.
Which is about as rich as anyone needs to be. Beyond that, it’s all noise. I am 100% with wj on that point.
Anything above that, you pay almost exactly what anyone who works for a living makes on whatever they earn above $418K.
In my very humble opinion, that’s a pretty damned good deal. As mentioned upthread, I’d take it and run in a heartbeat. All of my future ObWi posts would be from Barcelona or maybe the Cote D’Azur. And oh yeah, I will be driving a 1973 Alfa Veloce GTV or maybe an early 60’s Giulia if I can find one in good shape. Not with Anouk Aimee, with my wife, and I will be one very very very happy fella.
Come visit, I’ll buy you a Bellini.
In any case, as far as I can tell you have to squint pretty hard to make it look like injustice in any way shape or form.
Compared to all of the other horrifying bullshit going on, it simply does not register on the outrage-o-meter. Mine, anyway.
Not a blip. Undetectable. Non-existent.
We’re all entitled to our opinions, that’s mine.
Take the money and run. It’s exceedingly bad form for very very very lucky people to bitch about not getting to have all the cookies. Lots of folks don’t have any.
I don’t care if we tax inheritances or not. Taxation is primarily about raising revenue, and secondarily about regulating stuff while pretending that we’re not doing so.
I personally am fine with both of those things, the first in principle, and the second as a practical matter.
Do them in whatever way achieves the desired end with the least amount of overall pain, unfairness, and difficulty.
At present, if you inherit five and a half million bucks, or eleven million if from two parties (i.e., both parents), you pay no tax whatsoever. Lucky you, you are filthy stinking rich. Not Donald J Trump, shit in a gold toilet rich, just do whatever the hell you like, never have another minute of financial anxiety, never have to work another freaking day in your life rich.
Which is about as rich as anyone needs to be. Beyond that, it’s all noise. I am 100% with wj on that point.
Anything above that, you pay almost exactly what anyone who works for a living makes on whatever they earn above $418K.
In my very humble opinion, that’s a pretty damned good deal. As mentioned upthread, I’d take it and run in a heartbeat. All of my future ObWi posts would be from Barcelona or maybe the Cote D’Azur. And oh yeah, I will be driving a 1973 Alfa Veloce GTV or maybe an early 60’s Giulia if I can find one in good shape. Not with Anouk Aimee, with my wife, and I will be one very very very happy fella.
Come visit, I’ll buy you a Bellini.
In any case, as far as I can tell you have to squint pretty hard to make it look like injustice in any way shape or form.
Compared to all of the other horrifying bullshit going on, it simply does not register on the outrage-o-meter. Mine, anyway.
Not a blip. Undetectable. Non-existent.
We’re all entitled to our opinions, that’s mine.
Take the money and run. It’s exceedingly bad form for very very very lucky people to bitch about not getting to have all the cookies. Lots of folks don’t have any.
Recent Republican presidents:
He, Trump — NY (lost popular vote)
Dubya Bush — TX (lost popular vote)
Poppy Bush — TX (or was it really ME?)
St. Reagan — CA (what color was CA back then?)
I’m not sure I see a pattern there except “from a big state”. You have to go back to Gerald Ford to find a GOP president from the heartland, but you gotta keep in mind he was not actually elected.
Nixon (CA, again) would be ancient history if not for his re-incarnation (except dumber and less honest) as He, Trump — the non-NE non-urban-corridor heartthrob of the heartland.
–TP
Recent Republican presidents:
He, Trump — NY (lost popular vote)
Dubya Bush — TX (lost popular vote)
Poppy Bush — TX (or was it really ME?)
St. Reagan — CA (what color was CA back then?)
I’m not sure I see a pattern there except “from a big state”. You have to go back to Gerald Ford to find a GOP president from the heartland, but you gotta keep in mind he was not actually elected.
Nixon (CA, again) would be ancient history if not for his re-incarnation (except dumber and less honest) as He, Trump — the non-NE non-urban-corridor heartthrob of the heartland.
–TP
Anything above that, you pay almost exactly what anyone who works for a living makes on whatever they earn above $418K.
Assuming there is only one offspring or other beneficiary. Apparently, you would treat each estate according to size rather than how thinly it gets sliced. Not criticizing, but it seems to defeat the purpose breaking up estates at some point if we don’t view it as a pie. A pie breaks itself up. No need to tax it. For example, we have three grandchildren. We will fund three college trust funds before either of our children inherit anything. If there is only one recipient, well, I offer–modestly–a solution below.
From the get go, the estate beneficiary has inherited free and clear of all taxes, meaning that beneficiaries got and get the estate net of taxes. Maybe that needs to be rethought–tax the recipient–natural or corporate–above X level at graduated rates maxing out around 50%. For large estates with a small number of recipients, they will pay tax on the money they inherit.
For liquid estates. For going concerns–the family farm, the family store, what have you–I would treat the “business”, i.e. the capital asset, like any other capital asset and tax it if and when a gain is realized on the sale. If Dead Founding Daddy didn’t sell it and if Dead Inheriting Siblings don’t sell it, but if Living Deadbeat Grandbabies sell it and move to Barcelona, that’s when you tax it. Why? Because as a going concern, it’s an economic player, consuming and growing (hopefully), employing others and paying earned income tax on every dollar in excess of deductions. So, let the business keep operating. Leave it alone. Even if it’s a big-ass business. That means more people have a job. That’s good.
In principle, I’m of the school that objects on fairness grounds to taxing an earned dollar twice notwithstanding BP’s belief that there are large, unrealized and therefore untaxed components of large estates. Those unrealized gains are taxed when the asset is sold. The competing view is that–beyond a certain point–it can be a bit much. It’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes. OTOH, if everything Richie Rich gets over 5M is taxed at 50%, Richie may have to start flying commercial. Into each life and all that.
So, I’d condition my compromise on principles with an iron-clad deal: all side agree on an estate tax regime and that is that for 50 years. No moving the goal line thereafter.
Anything above that, you pay almost exactly what anyone who works for a living makes on whatever they earn above $418K.
Assuming there is only one offspring or other beneficiary. Apparently, you would treat each estate according to size rather than how thinly it gets sliced. Not criticizing, but it seems to defeat the purpose breaking up estates at some point if we don’t view it as a pie. A pie breaks itself up. No need to tax it. For example, we have three grandchildren. We will fund three college trust funds before either of our children inherit anything. If there is only one recipient, well, I offer–modestly–a solution below.
From the get go, the estate beneficiary has inherited free and clear of all taxes, meaning that beneficiaries got and get the estate net of taxes. Maybe that needs to be rethought–tax the recipient–natural or corporate–above X level at graduated rates maxing out around 50%. For large estates with a small number of recipients, they will pay tax on the money they inherit.
For liquid estates. For going concerns–the family farm, the family store, what have you–I would treat the “business”, i.e. the capital asset, like any other capital asset and tax it if and when a gain is realized on the sale. If Dead Founding Daddy didn’t sell it and if Dead Inheriting Siblings don’t sell it, but if Living Deadbeat Grandbabies sell it and move to Barcelona, that’s when you tax it. Why? Because as a going concern, it’s an economic player, consuming and growing (hopefully), employing others and paying earned income tax on every dollar in excess of deductions. So, let the business keep operating. Leave it alone. Even if it’s a big-ass business. That means more people have a job. That’s good.
In principle, I’m of the school that objects on fairness grounds to taxing an earned dollar twice notwithstanding BP’s belief that there are large, unrealized and therefore untaxed components of large estates. Those unrealized gains are taxed when the asset is sold. The competing view is that–beyond a certain point–it can be a bit much. It’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes. OTOH, if everything Richie Rich gets over 5M is taxed at 50%, Richie may have to start flying commercial. Into each life and all that.
So, I’d condition my compromise on principles with an iron-clad deal: all side agree on an estate tax regime and that is that for 50 years. No moving the goal line thereafter.
“Those who’ve received subsidies over the years…include a who’s who of famous rich Americans who aren’t farmers, including Paul Allen, Charles Schwab, Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, and Scottie Pippen.
…, the family farm owned by former Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.), averaged nearly the $100,000 per year in subsidies during the nine years Berry was in Washington,…
Former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example, ‘received $251,000 in farm payments between 1995 and 2006,’…”
The Farm Bill for Billionaires: Farm subsidies are a menace, especially when they line the pockets of the wealthy.
“Those who’ve received subsidies over the years…include a who’s who of famous rich Americans who aren’t farmers, including Paul Allen, Charles Schwab, Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, and Scottie Pippen.
…, the family farm owned by former Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.), averaged nearly the $100,000 per year in subsidies during the nine years Berry was in Washington,…
Former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example, ‘received $251,000 in farm payments between 1995 and 2006,’…”
The Farm Bill for Billionaires: Farm subsidies are a menace, especially when they line the pockets of the wealthy.
McTX: For going concerns–the family farm, the family store, what have you–I would treat the “business”, i.e. the capital asset, like any other capital asset and tax it if and when a gain is realized on the sale.
GAIN = SALES_PROCEEDS – COST_BASIS
Straight-up question: what cost basis do you propose? Grandpa’s outlay to start up the family store 50 years ago? The amount Grandpa could have sold the store for, the day before he died?
Also a straight-up question: are we talking “cap gains rates” here? If so, “very favorable” rates compared to “earned income”, or not?
McTX again: So, I’d condition my compromise on principles with an iron-clad deal: all side agree on an estate tax regime and that is that for 50 years.
McKinney, much as I wish you a long life, you are no more likely to be around in 50 years than I am. Yet you seem fixated on setting policy for those Americans who will be trying to muddle through life and politics in the “out years”. You sure you’re not lying about your age?
BTW, many of the Americans of 2068 will be people who remember that, in their youth, Americans elected a president and a party that reveled in cruelty toward the children of refugees, asylum seekers, and “illegal aliens”, along with denouncing the “death tax”. It may well influence their thinking.
–TP
McTX: For going concerns–the family farm, the family store, what have you–I would treat the “business”, i.e. the capital asset, like any other capital asset and tax it if and when a gain is realized on the sale.
GAIN = SALES_PROCEEDS – COST_BASIS
Straight-up question: what cost basis do you propose? Grandpa’s outlay to start up the family store 50 years ago? The amount Grandpa could have sold the store for, the day before he died?
Also a straight-up question: are we talking “cap gains rates” here? If so, “very favorable” rates compared to “earned income”, or not?
McTX again: So, I’d condition my compromise on principles with an iron-clad deal: all side agree on an estate tax regime and that is that for 50 years.
McKinney, much as I wish you a long life, you are no more likely to be around in 50 years than I am. Yet you seem fixated on setting policy for those Americans who will be trying to muddle through life and politics in the “out years”. You sure you’re not lying about your age?
BTW, many of the Americans of 2068 will be people who remember that, in their youth, Americans elected a president and a party that reveled in cruelty toward the children of refugees, asylum seekers, and “illegal aliens”, along with denouncing the “death tax”. It may well influence their thinking.
–TP
St. Reagan — CA (what color was CA back then?)
Then (actually from 1943 until 1999) all California governors not named Brown (father and son) were Republicans. If not for Pete Wilson’s stupidity in embracing Prop 187 (an anti illegal immigrant measure, quelle surprise), we might well have continued so.
St. Reagan — CA (what color was CA back then?)
Then (actually from 1943 until 1999) all California governors not named Brown (father and son) were Republicans. If not for Pete Wilson’s stupidity in embracing Prop 187 (an anti illegal immigrant measure, quelle surprise), we might well have continued so.
I’m of the school that objects on fairness grounds to taxing an earned dollar twice notwithstanding BP’s belief that there are large, unrealized and therefore untaxed components of large estates.
I don’t think anyone’s been suggesting taxing earned income — as defined by “what you pay Social Security taxes on”, I believe. It’s unearned income that’s in question.
But I definitely agree that inheritances should be taxed per recipient, not by the estate overall.
I’m of the school that objects on fairness grounds to taxing an earned dollar twice notwithstanding BP’s belief that there are large, unrealized and therefore untaxed components of large estates.
I don’t think anyone’s been suggesting taxing earned income — as defined by “what you pay Social Security taxes on”, I believe. It’s unearned income that’s in question.
But I definitely agree that inheritances should be taxed per recipient, not by the estate overall.
Apparently, you would treat each estate according to size rather than how thinly it gets sliced
if i’m not mistaken, that’s how the current law works.
i actually don’t care all that much either way if we tax inheritances or not. ditto gifts. i just find the claims that having to pay taxes on inherited income is somehow uniquely unfair to be less than persuasive.
likewise the “but that money was already taxed” thing seems like weak beer. to me. there is no concept of a dollar being some tangible, distictly identifiable thing whose magnitude is somehow reduced when it is taxed.
we tax the transfer of money or other things of value. it’s how we roll. it seems to work.
if we want to consider taxing wealth outright, ok with me. if we want to raise funds through tariffs and luxury taxes on cigars and madeira like the sainted founders did, ok with me. if we want to devote the entire computing capacity of the nation to bitcoin mining and pay our bills with that, ok with me, sort of.
i suspect none of those approaches would prove to be superior to what we do now. but i’m always open to a clever idea, if anyone has one.
we have bills. we need to pay them. raise the money in the most expeditious and least harnful way possible, and move on.
Apparently, you would treat each estate according to size rather than how thinly it gets sliced
if i’m not mistaken, that’s how the current law works.
i actually don’t care all that much either way if we tax inheritances or not. ditto gifts. i just find the claims that having to pay taxes on inherited income is somehow uniquely unfair to be less than persuasive.
likewise the “but that money was already taxed” thing seems like weak beer. to me. there is no concept of a dollar being some tangible, distictly identifiable thing whose magnitude is somehow reduced when it is taxed.
we tax the transfer of money or other things of value. it’s how we roll. it seems to work.
if we want to consider taxing wealth outright, ok with me. if we want to raise funds through tariffs and luxury taxes on cigars and madeira like the sainted founders did, ok with me. if we want to devote the entire computing capacity of the nation to bitcoin mining and pay our bills with that, ok with me, sort of.
i suspect none of those approaches would prove to be superior to what we do now. but i’m always open to a clever idea, if anyone has one.
we have bills. we need to pay them. raise the money in the most expeditious and least harnful way possible, and move on.
Poppy Bush — TX (or was it really ME?)
Well, I count him as NE urban corridor because he spent all but four years from 1967 working there (two years if you include the time when he worked for the Council on Foreign Relations). I count any candidate who spent most of two decades working in the NE urban corridor leading up to their run as NE urban corridor. In 1988 and 2016, someone from the urban corridor had to win, since both sides ran candidates from there — the (R) won both times. Otherwise, Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, Dubya, Obama — the outsider won.
I’ve probably said it here before, but I have been concerned for years that Supreme Court nominees’ prior judicial experience post-Reagan is overwhelmingly from courts in the NE urban corridor. I understand the reasons for some of that, but really wish my side were looking at opportunities to go a bit farther afield. In Arizona v. Arizona the eastern pundits all called it wrong, forgetting that Kennedy’s past had him hearing a wide variety of cases involving ballot initiatives, the only justice for which that was true.
An online acquaintance advocates moving Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS to North Platte, Nebraska (for the 48 contiguous states, almost exactly two full time zones west of there, and two east). I don’t think it would accomplish what he hopes, but I’d love to see what would happen to the NYTimes and WaPo coverage :^)
Poppy Bush — TX (or was it really ME?)
Well, I count him as NE urban corridor because he spent all but four years from 1967 working there (two years if you include the time when he worked for the Council on Foreign Relations). I count any candidate who spent most of two decades working in the NE urban corridor leading up to their run as NE urban corridor. In 1988 and 2016, someone from the urban corridor had to win, since both sides ran candidates from there — the (R) won both times. Otherwise, Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, Dubya, Obama — the outsider won.
I’ve probably said it here before, but I have been concerned for years that Supreme Court nominees’ prior judicial experience post-Reagan is overwhelmingly from courts in the NE urban corridor. I understand the reasons for some of that, but really wish my side were looking at opportunities to go a bit farther afield. In Arizona v. Arizona the eastern pundits all called it wrong, forgetting that Kennedy’s past had him hearing a wide variety of cases involving ballot initiatives, the only justice for which that was true.
An online acquaintance advocates moving Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS to North Platte, Nebraska (for the 48 contiguous states, almost exactly two full time zones west of there, and two east). I don’t think it would accomplish what he hopes, but I’d love to see what would happen to the NYTimes and WaPo coverage :^)
I have been concerned for years that Supreme Court nominees’ prior judicial experience post-Reagan is overwhelmingly from courts in the NE urban corridor.
I’d be at least as worried that they are overwhelmingly graduates of either Harvard or Yale law schools. Surely those aren’t the only places that do a decent job teaching the law.
I have been concerned for years that Supreme Court nominees’ prior judicial experience post-Reagan is overwhelmingly from courts in the NE urban corridor.
I’d be at least as worried that they are overwhelmingly graduates of either Harvard or Yale law schools. Surely those aren’t the only places that do a decent job teaching the law.
What about the fact that they’re all either Catholic* or Jewish at this point? May we assume that too many “Protestants” are home-schooling their kids so badly that no good law school would take them?
*Wikipedia says Gorsuch was raised Catholic but now attends an Episcopal Church. Not quite “same difference” but close.
As I have said before, I don’t expect to see the day when an avowed atheist can run for president as a credible candidate. Probably the same goes for the Court.
What about the fact that they’re all either Catholic* or Jewish at this point? May we assume that too many “Protestants” are home-schooling their kids so badly that no good law school would take them?
*Wikipedia says Gorsuch was raised Catholic but now attends an Episcopal Church. Not quite “same difference” but close.
As I have said before, I don’t expect to see the day when an avowed atheist can run for president as a credible candidate. Probably the same goes for the Court.
P.S. I say this as a parent who home-schooled, more or less.
P.S. I say this as a parent who home-schooled, more or less.
Interesting side note from Wikipedia: No professing atheist has ever been appointed to the Court, although some justices have declined to engage in religious activity, or affiliate with a denomination. As an adult, Benjamin Cardozo no longer practiced his faith and identified himself as an agnostic, though he remained proud of his Jewish heritage
Interesting side note from Wikipedia: No professing atheist has ever been appointed to the Court, although some justices have declined to engage in religious activity, or affiliate with a denomination. As an adult, Benjamin Cardozo no longer practiced his faith and identified himself as an agnostic, though he remained proud of his Jewish heritage
An online acquaintance advocates moving Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS to North Platte, Nebraska
Has anyone asked the residents of North Platte NE how they feel about it?
An online acquaintance advocates moving Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS to North Platte, Nebraska
Has anyone asked the residents of North Platte NE how they feel about it?
McK,
A few points on family farms and businesses.
First, there are vanishingly few of these that pay estate taxes. They are a nice rhetorical device for opponents of estate taxes, but in real life they barely exist.
This ought to be clear. Remember that when Mom and Pop own a business it passes to the heirs tax-free if worth less than $11 million. Say it’s worth $20M. Now the tax is $3.6M. And of course most businesses that have a value up in the range where estate tax is an issue have multiple owners.
Second, there is a provision of the Internal Revenue Code that permits the payment to be financed over fourteen years, at a favorable interest rate, with payments of interest-only for the first five years.
So spare us the tears over the small businesses and farms destroyed by the estate tax. It’s a lie.
Say the business is worth $20M. (Of course most businesses that have a value up in the range where estate tax is an issue have multiple owners, but let’s say that’s not so here). Now the tax is $3.6M. For five years you pay interest only. At 5% that’s $180K a year. I’ll take that deal as an heir.
Third, there is a very nice thing I’m sure you are familiar with called “step-up in basis.” Saying we should tax the gain when things are sold makes no sense unless we eliminate that.
I do agree that it would be better if the recipient were taxed, with a small exemption. But that should apply to all those semi-mythical going concerns threatened with destruction as well.
McK,
A few points on family farms and businesses.
First, there are vanishingly few of these that pay estate taxes. They are a nice rhetorical device for opponents of estate taxes, but in real life they barely exist.
This ought to be clear. Remember that when Mom and Pop own a business it passes to the heirs tax-free if worth less than $11 million. Say it’s worth $20M. Now the tax is $3.6M. And of course most businesses that have a value up in the range where estate tax is an issue have multiple owners.
Second, there is a provision of the Internal Revenue Code that permits the payment to be financed over fourteen years, at a favorable interest rate, with payments of interest-only for the first five years.
So spare us the tears over the small businesses and farms destroyed by the estate tax. It’s a lie.
Say the business is worth $20M. (Of course most businesses that have a value up in the range where estate tax is an issue have multiple owners, but let’s say that’s not so here). Now the tax is $3.6M. For five years you pay interest only. At 5% that’s $180K a year. I’ll take that deal as an heir.
Third, there is a very nice thing I’m sure you are familiar with called “step-up in basis.” Saying we should tax the gain when things are sold makes no sense unless we eliminate that.
I do agree that it would be better if the recipient were taxed, with a small exemption. But that should apply to all those semi-mythical going concerns threatened with destruction as well.
PS #1: I made the comment about the justices’ religions mostly because it’s such an amazing cultural change from when I was a ten-year-old Catholic child who had no grasp of why some people were so virulently against having a Catholic run for president. Catholics, as far as I could tell, were just folks. But there were a lot of people who were convinced that if Kennedy won, the country would be being governed from the Vatican about five minutes later.
PS #2: Not to defend the Yale/Harvard predominance (it rather resembles inherited wealth, doesn’t it? …), but there’s more than one way to teach/learn law, and more than one pathway even through a given law school to a legal career. I think there’s some degree of specialization, sort of like if you want to go to grad school in a given field, you want to end up at a place that has some faculty in your specialty. I say this not from direct experience but as someone who lived with one law student through the law school years (my ex, the other parent of my children) and raised another.
PS #1: I made the comment about the justices’ religions mostly because it’s such an amazing cultural change from when I was a ten-year-old Catholic child who had no grasp of why some people were so virulently against having a Catholic run for president. Catholics, as far as I could tell, were just folks. But there were a lot of people who were convinced that if Kennedy won, the country would be being governed from the Vatican about five minutes later.
PS #2: Not to defend the Yale/Harvard predominance (it rather resembles inherited wealth, doesn’t it? …), but there’s more than one way to teach/learn law, and more than one pathway even through a given law school to a legal career. I think there’s some degree of specialization, sort of like if you want to go to grad school in a given field, you want to end up at a place that has some faculty in your specialty. I say this not from direct experience but as someone who lived with one law student through the law school years (my ex, the other parent of my children) and raised another.
Janie, some of us recall that there was a time that the Supreme Court had a, single, “Jewish seat.” Clearly progress has been made.
For an amusing thought experiment, consider the reaction, should a president nominate a Muslim (even a mostly non-practicing one) to the Court. Given the reaction to our one Muslim member of Congress….
Janie, some of us recall that there was a time that the Supreme Court had a, single, “Jewish seat.” Clearly progress has been made.
For an amusing thought experiment, consider the reaction, should a president nominate a Muslim (even a mostly non-practicing one) to the Court. Given the reaction to our one Muslim member of Congress….
Besides, to finance an actual war with China, the US would have to borrow money from, well, the Chinese.
Com’on Charlie, that is a ridiculously incorrect claim, and you know it. Jeebus.
Besides, to finance an actual war with China, the US would have to borrow money from, well, the Chinese.
Com’on Charlie, that is a ridiculously incorrect claim, and you know it. Jeebus.
For an amusing thought experiment, consider the reaction, should a president nominate a Muslim (even a mostly non-practicing one) to the Court.
We once had a brief discussion on this blog about whether the first gay president would precede the first atheist president. I say gay, no question. So now I’ll ask: Muslim before atheist or v.v.?
Off the top of my head I’d bet the former. Muslims will eventually be as unremarkable as Catholics became. Atheists, not so much.
For an amusing thought experiment, consider the reaction, should a president nominate a Muslim (even a mostly non-practicing one) to the Court.
We once had a brief discussion on this blog about whether the first gay president would precede the first atheist president. I say gay, no question. So now I’ll ask: Muslim before atheist or v.v.?
Off the top of my head I’d bet the former. Muslims will eventually be as unremarkable as Catholics became. Atheists, not so much.
It’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes
Similarly, it it not hubristic to construct a tax regime that favors certain “kinds” of income over others? Is it not hubristic to erect tariffs and subsidies that favor one type of economic activity others? Is it not hubristic to claim we know what people 50 years from now will have to do with respect to fiscal policy? Is it not hubristic to construct social policies that promote virtual private dictatorships as “engines of growth”?
I can only conclude that this whole hubris thingie is a bit of a distraction.
Pardon me while I ignore it.
It’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes
Similarly, it it not hubristic to construct a tax regime that favors certain “kinds” of income over others? Is it not hubristic to erect tariffs and subsidies that favor one type of economic activity others? Is it not hubristic to claim we know what people 50 years from now will have to do with respect to fiscal policy? Is it not hubristic to construct social policies that promote virtual private dictatorships as “engines of growth”?
I can only conclude that this whole hubris thingie is a bit of a distraction.
Pardon me while I ignore it.
Has anyone asked the residents of North Platte NE how they feel about it?
Since at least the property owners would suddenly be multi-millionaires, easily able to move west to Ogallala or east to Kearney, I suspect that the large majority would be pleased.
Has anyone asked the residents of North Platte NE how they feel about it?
Since at least the property owners would suddenly be multi-millionaires, easily able to move west to Ogallala or east to Kearney, I suspect that the large majority would be pleased.
We once had a brief discussion on this blog about whether the first gay president would precede the first atheist president. I say gay, no question. So now I’ll ask: Muslim before atheist or v.v.?
but i thought obama was our first gay muslim atheist president? plus communist and kenyan
you telling me that was all a lie?
It’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes
people can do whatever the heck they want with their money, whether it was earned over a lifetime or over the last ten minutes, or not earned at all.
right after they pay their taxes.
We once had a brief discussion on this blog about whether the first gay president would precede the first atheist president. I say gay, no question. So now I’ll ask: Muslim before atheist or v.v.?
but i thought obama was our first gay muslim atheist president? plus communist and kenyan
you telling me that was all a lie?
It’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes
people can do whatever the heck they want with their money, whether it was earned over a lifetime or over the last ten minutes, or not earned at all.
right after they pay their taxes.
right after they pay their taxes.
and if they don’t want to do that, STFU and GTFO.
right after they pay their taxes.
and if they don’t want to do that, STFU and GTFO.
In principle, I’m of the school that objects on fairness grounds to taxing an earned dollar twice
Yet that is commonplace. Sales taxes do that. So do payroll taxes. So, under the GOP finger to the blue states, do state income taxes.
So I see no reason to shed tears for those who inherit millions.
In principle, I’m of the school that objects on fairness grounds to taxing an earned dollar twice
Yet that is commonplace. Sales taxes do that. So do payroll taxes. So, under the GOP finger to the blue states, do state income taxes.
So I see no reason to shed tears for those who inherit millions.
t’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes
I think is is hybristic for a person to think they can receive the benefits of living in a society while treating their membership dues as optional
t’s hubristic to some degree if not to a large degree to think that “we” have just the right “fairness” insight to dictate what others can and cannot do with what they’ve earned over their lifetimes
I think is is hybristic for a person to think they can receive the benefits of living in a society while treating their membership dues as optional
This is an interesting theory:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/toolmaking-language-brain/562385/
Are Chomsky and his acolytes ridiculous dogmatists in rejecting it out of hand ?
This is an interesting theory:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/toolmaking-language-brain/562385/
Are Chomsky and his acolytes ridiculous dogmatists in rejecting it out of hand ?
Chomsky has always rejected evolutionary explanations of language. I feel that is one of the reasons why Pinker has gone away from talking about language and talks about violence and evolution. The article suggests that Chomsky and Berwick suddenly came up with the argument that language popped out fully formed, but that has been implicit in everything that Chomsky’s ever written. I mean, he’s a Cartesian, so it comes with the territory. And as far as acolytes, there isn’t really a lot of people following Chomsky. If you look at Berwick, his degrees are in Computer Science from MIT, so there’s not a lot of diversity of thought involved.
Chomsky has always rejected evolutionary explanations of language. I feel that is one of the reasons why Pinker has gone away from talking about language and talks about violence and evolution. The article suggests that Chomsky and Berwick suddenly came up with the argument that language popped out fully formed, but that has been implicit in everything that Chomsky’s ever written. I mean, he’s a Cartesian, so it comes with the territory. And as far as acolytes, there isn’t really a lot of people following Chomsky. If you look at Berwick, his degrees are in Computer Science from MIT, so there’s not a lot of diversity of thought involved.
My observation is that there’s a fundamental difference in attitude to money which makes it problematic for left and right to understand each other when discussing tax.
To the right (I speak of what I’ve perceived), money is something to be accumulated and venerated. The more you can gather, the more worthy you are. Taxation means that the state is depriving a man of some part of himself. It’s at best a necessary evil.
To the left (I speak for myself), money is no more than a tool created by the state to make the economy function. Using it we can have a market economy in which people offer goods and services other people want. And we accept that some concentration of capital is necessary for large enterprises. However, on the demand side the concentration of wealth tends to misdirect resources, especially when supply is relatively inelastic. For example, an extra litre of water does less good on a rich man’s private golf course than when it gives a poor man enough to drink or wash in. Therefore, the left is keen to reduce private concentrations of wealth, by taxation.
The right sees any sort of inheritance tax as an assault on the rich man’s right to do as he pleases with his money. The left sees large inheritances as a misdirection of resources, and their taxation as good in itself. We’re pleased to raise some revenue in this good way, rather than by taxing ordinary people, which is not in itself good.
There’s no chance that Marty and I will agree about it. It doesn’t bother me if the idle rich are made much less rich. It doesn’t bother him that ordinary people pay much more tax on earned income than very rich people pay on unearned inherited income. We care about different things.
My observation is that there’s a fundamental difference in attitude to money which makes it problematic for left and right to understand each other when discussing tax.
To the right (I speak of what I’ve perceived), money is something to be accumulated and venerated. The more you can gather, the more worthy you are. Taxation means that the state is depriving a man of some part of himself. It’s at best a necessary evil.
To the left (I speak for myself), money is no more than a tool created by the state to make the economy function. Using it we can have a market economy in which people offer goods and services other people want. And we accept that some concentration of capital is necessary for large enterprises. However, on the demand side the concentration of wealth tends to misdirect resources, especially when supply is relatively inelastic. For example, an extra litre of water does less good on a rich man’s private golf course than when it gives a poor man enough to drink or wash in. Therefore, the left is keen to reduce private concentrations of wealth, by taxation.
The right sees any sort of inheritance tax as an assault on the rich man’s right to do as he pleases with his money. The left sees large inheritances as a misdirection of resources, and their taxation as good in itself. We’re pleased to raise some revenue in this good way, rather than by taxing ordinary people, which is not in itself good.
There’s no chance that Marty and I will agree about it. It doesn’t bother me if the idle rich are made much less rich. It doesn’t bother him that ordinary people pay much more tax on earned income than very rich people pay on unearned inherited income. We care about different things.
“It doesn’t bother him that ordinary people pay much more tax on earned income than very rich people pay on unearned inherited income”
If this were true it would bother me. But they don’t pay more. And, much more important, the only real way from point A to point B is to allow ordinary people lower percentage taxes on the income generated from money they manage to save.
There is a primary effect of lower cap gains taxes which is the creation of more savings and a secondary effect of a few rich people getting a big tax break.
I am for the first and not concerned about the second.
I would also quibble with the characterization of my view as generating money. I don’t think anyone’s worth is based on how much they are worth monetarily, nor does “the right” if I speak for them since you have. I do value the financial security, or would if I had it, and would be thrilled to provide it for my kids, their kids and as many generations as I could.
I think the right doesn’t understand why you wouldn’t.
Plus,Acquiring assets, which is what people do, doesn’t actually require money but it has proven a good way to facilitate commerce and provide a way to store their value. Taking chickens in payment was a less convenient store, gold was a vast improvement. So you quickly mix up money and assets,
“It doesn’t bother him that ordinary people pay much more tax on earned income than very rich people pay on unearned inherited income”
If this were true it would bother me. But they don’t pay more. And, much more important, the only real way from point A to point B is to allow ordinary people lower percentage taxes on the income generated from money they manage to save.
There is a primary effect of lower cap gains taxes which is the creation of more savings and a secondary effect of a few rich people getting a big tax break.
I am for the first and not concerned about the second.
I would also quibble with the characterization of my view as generating money. I don’t think anyone’s worth is based on how much they are worth monetarily, nor does “the right” if I speak for them since you have. I do value the financial security, or would if I had it, and would be thrilled to provide it for my kids, their kids and as many generations as I could.
I think the right doesn’t understand why you wouldn’t.
Plus,Acquiring assets, which is what people do, doesn’t actually require money but it has proven a good way to facilitate commerce and provide a way to store their value. Taking chickens in payment was a less convenient store, gold was a vast improvement. So you quickly mix up money and assets,
Venerating money not generating.
Venerating money not generating.
Well, the religious right at least has rehabilitated Mammon.
Imo, propsperity gospel churches should be required by law to always keep a supply of microcamels and meganeedles and to perform a passing test at the beginning and ending of all services. And all gold has to be stored in calf-shape.
Well, the religious right at least has rehabilitated Mammon.
Imo, propsperity gospel churches should be required by law to always keep a supply of microcamels and meganeedles and to perform a passing test at the beginning and ending of all services. And all gold has to be stored in calf-shape.
SF & Culture ..three quotes
“Despite the fact that most of us filter our world through popular culture, it’s very rare for characters in science fiction stories to do the same.”
“But I also think that, especially for SFF worldbuilders, caring about culture is perceived as dangerously feminized.”
“It certainly seems to be the reason why the few space operas that leave space for culture seem to be written by women.”
At which point the thread runs with the fun, listing and talking about good SF by women about “culture.”
And this is where I always get into trouble.
1) “Culture” for me includes forklifts and Krugman’s macroeconomic models, not art and music. It is a perspective on production and ideology.
2) Culture (leaving it to arts music manners) is “feminized?” Did that happen recently? Seems I remember a very heavily masculinized attitude toward cultural production. Seems to me gamergate shows there may still be a little.
She uses the word “dangerously” Does this mean the “feminization of culture” is a very bad thing? Than why are we celebrating this submission to the patriarchy for page after page of comments? Shouldn’t we rather push hard for women to write about tech, war, politics, economics rather than arts, manners, relationships? Or are those things “masculine”
(Or:”Of course women write about economics, 1 2 3, much better than men.”)
(Is Austen really more about manners and culture than Dickens and Balzac? Why do we think so?)
Or is this resistance rather than capitulation cause it is women choosing it? Isn’t that convenient and flattering?
Is this ghettoizing or siloing?
There is a lot more, but I go back to my contention that recent UMC liberal feminism is instrumentally re-embracing and embedding patriarchal forms recast as women’s liberation.
“Women are better at that domestic and artistic stuff.” is not progress and will get turned against them.
SF & Culture ..three quotes
“Despite the fact that most of us filter our world through popular culture, it’s very rare for characters in science fiction stories to do the same.”
“But I also think that, especially for SFF worldbuilders, caring about culture is perceived as dangerously feminized.”
“It certainly seems to be the reason why the few space operas that leave space for culture seem to be written by women.”
At which point the thread runs with the fun, listing and talking about good SF by women about “culture.”
And this is where I always get into trouble.
1) “Culture” for me includes forklifts and Krugman’s macroeconomic models, not art and music. It is a perspective on production and ideology.
2) Culture (leaving it to arts music manners) is “feminized?” Did that happen recently? Seems I remember a very heavily masculinized attitude toward cultural production. Seems to me gamergate shows there may still be a little.
She uses the word “dangerously” Does this mean the “feminization of culture” is a very bad thing? Than why are we celebrating this submission to the patriarchy for page after page of comments? Shouldn’t we rather push hard for women to write about tech, war, politics, economics rather than arts, manners, relationships? Or are those things “masculine”
(Or:”Of course women write about economics, 1 2 3, much better than men.”)
(Is Austen really more about manners and culture than Dickens and Balzac? Why do we think so?)
Or is this resistance rather than capitulation cause it is women choosing it? Isn’t that convenient and flattering?
Is this ghettoizing or siloing?
There is a lot more, but I go back to my contention that recent UMC liberal feminism is instrumentally re-embracing and embedding patriarchal forms recast as women’s liberation.
“Women are better at that domestic and artistic stuff.” is not progress and will get turned against them.
ok, let’s try it this way.
i’ve been working for 45 years, and full time for about 40. i have not earned one dime that has not been taxed. i have not *spent* one dime that has not been taxed.
that was true when i lived on about $10k a year, and it’s true now.
when i retire, if SS somehow still exists, my SS income will probably be taxed, because it will be supplemented by 401k income, which will be taxed when i receive it.
every time a dollar finds its way into or out of my hand, it is taxed. the hand from which it came to me, likewise. the hand to which it goes from me, likewise.
we’d all like to help our kids. if you have five and a half miilion, or eleven million, you can spread that around your progeny, before or after you go, and noone will pay a dime of tax on it.
that strikes me as a pretty freaking good deal.
beyond that, tax is due. unfair, not unfair, whatever. you got income, you are taxed on it, just like everyone else. join the club.
sapient, how did the immigration call go?
ok, let’s try it this way.
i’ve been working for 45 years, and full time for about 40. i have not earned one dime that has not been taxed. i have not *spent* one dime that has not been taxed.
that was true when i lived on about $10k a year, and it’s true now.
when i retire, if SS somehow still exists, my SS income will probably be taxed, because it will be supplemented by 401k income, which will be taxed when i receive it.
every time a dollar finds its way into or out of my hand, it is taxed. the hand from which it came to me, likewise. the hand to which it goes from me, likewise.
we’d all like to help our kids. if you have five and a half miilion, or eleven million, you can spread that around your progeny, before or after you go, and noone will pay a dime of tax on it.
that strikes me as a pretty freaking good deal.
beyond that, tax is due. unfair, not unfair, whatever. you got income, you are taxed on it, just like everyone else. join the club.
sapient, how did the immigration call go?
…they don’t pay more…
You’ll have to explain that to me. I see federal income and payroll taxes on median income amounting to about 10%. And federal tax on a $5m inheritance of zero.
…they don’t pay more…
You’ll have to explain that to me. I see federal income and payroll taxes on median income amounting to about 10%. And federal tax on a $5m inheritance of zero.
I think the right doesn’t understand why you wouldn’t [want to provide financial security for your children].
My children will get a financial head start in life. But if they want to maintain the living standard they have now, they’ll have to get good jobs.
I think they’ll be more fulfilled by that than if they spend their lives living off daddy’s trust.
I think the right doesn’t understand why you wouldn’t [want to provide financial security for your children].
My children will get a financial head start in life. But if they want to maintain the living standard they have now, they’ll have to get good jobs.
I think they’ll be more fulfilled by that than if they spend their lives living off daddy’s trust.
. the hand to which it goes from me, likewise.
Not so. You can give any or all of your money to any 501(c)(3) without limit and without tax. You can burn your money. You can gamble it away. You can spend it whenever and wherever you want. However, you cannot gift it to another human being except your spouse beyond what is allowed by the tax code.
. the hand to which it goes from me, likewise.
Not so. You can give any or all of your money to any 501(c)(3) without limit and without tax. You can burn your money. You can gamble it away. You can spend it whenever and wherever you want. However, you cannot gift it to another human being except your spouse beyond what is allowed by the tax code.
sapient, how did the immigration call go?
It ended up mostly being an explanation of what’s happening, and a plea to lobby Congressional reps. I found some information that I’ll mention below to be more helpful, and am going to be spending time keeping up with what’s happening, as well as doing what I can to volunteer locally.
Alida Garcia is someone who I’ve begun following, and this is a good immediate action thread for people who can donate: https://twitter.com/leedsgarcia/status/1005467102046834688 . In addition to donation opportunities, that thread mentions two bills that are worth calling Congress about: The Help Separated Children Act, and the Keep Families Together Act. I have little faith that either of these will be passed – Republicans seem not to be interested in kids, but swamping Congress with phone calls will at least ensure that it doesn’t drop from public consciousness.
I saw this in The Washington Post this morning, which makes me wonder whether there are children (or parents ripped from children) being incarcerated at a facility that is only an hour and a half away from me, in Farmville, VA (home of massive resistance to desegregation). I’m going to investigate that.
Our local legal aid organization, and IRC, does work with immigrant families. I’ve volunteered there some, and plan to do more after I finish some work commitments.
I feel that this issue is a red line. The comment section under the Post article is disturbing (even though many of the comments on other issues seem quite sane lately). The reason Republicans aren’t supporting these kids is because plenty of people just don’t see this as a problem.
Anyway, I’ll keep posting as I find things that might be useful. Thanks for asking, russell.
sapient, how did the immigration call go?
It ended up mostly being an explanation of what’s happening, and a plea to lobby Congressional reps. I found some information that I’ll mention below to be more helpful, and am going to be spending time keeping up with what’s happening, as well as doing what I can to volunteer locally.
Alida Garcia is someone who I’ve begun following, and this is a good immediate action thread for people who can donate: https://twitter.com/leedsgarcia/status/1005467102046834688 . In addition to donation opportunities, that thread mentions two bills that are worth calling Congress about: The Help Separated Children Act, and the Keep Families Together Act. I have little faith that either of these will be passed – Republicans seem not to be interested in kids, but swamping Congress with phone calls will at least ensure that it doesn’t drop from public consciousness.
I saw this in The Washington Post this morning, which makes me wonder whether there are children (or parents ripped from children) being incarcerated at a facility that is only an hour and a half away from me, in Farmville, VA (home of massive resistance to desegregation). I’m going to investigate that.
Our local legal aid organization, and IRC, does work with immigrant families. I’ve volunteered there some, and plan to do more after I finish some work commitments.
I feel that this issue is a red line. The comment section under the Post article is disturbing (even though many of the comments on other issues seem quite sane lately). The reason Republicans aren’t supporting these kids is because plenty of people just don’t see this as a problem.
Anyway, I’ll keep posting as I find things that might be useful. Thanks for asking, russell.
I do value the financial security, or would if I had it, and would be thrilled to provide it for my kids, their kids and as many generations as I could.
Who wouldn’t?
It would be nice to do that for *everyone’s* kids and their kids and down the line. I think we’d have a better shot if the wealth weren’t concentrated so unevenly. But then, that’s me wishing for lazy people to get a handout from their betters, so never mind.
I do value the financial security, or would if I had it, and would be thrilled to provide it for my kids, their kids and as many generations as I could.
Who wouldn’t?
It would be nice to do that for *everyone’s* kids and their kids and down the line. I think we’d have a better shot if the wealth weren’t concentrated so unevenly. But then, that’s me wishing for lazy people to get a handout from their betters, so never mind.
Not so.
My understanding of the federal gift tax code is as follows:
$14K, per year, per recipient, tax free, full stop.
Beyond that, it can be deducted from a lifetime gift tax exemption which is exactly equal to the inheritance tax exemption. So, above and beyond the $14K per person per annum, you can give away up to $5.49M over your lifetime. That will cause your inheritance tax exemption to be reduced by the amount of the gift.
So, you can do the $5.49M now, or later.
IANAL or accountant, so I could be mistaken. And, I’m only talking federal, states have their own thing going on.
But that’s my understanding. It all seems adequately generous, to me.
Not so.
My understanding of the federal gift tax code is as follows:
$14K, per year, per recipient, tax free, full stop.
Beyond that, it can be deducted from a lifetime gift tax exemption which is exactly equal to the inheritance tax exemption. So, above and beyond the $14K per person per annum, you can give away up to $5.49M over your lifetime. That will cause your inheritance tax exemption to be reduced by the amount of the gift.
So, you can do the $5.49M now, or later.
IANAL or accountant, so I could be mistaken. And, I’m only talking federal, states have their own thing going on.
But that’s my understanding. It all seems adequately generous, to me.
Thanks for asking, russell.
You’re welcome. Thanks for raising the issue, and thanks for the links etc.
Keep on keeping on.
Thanks for asking, russell.
You’re welcome. Thanks for raising the issue, and thanks for the links etc.
Keep on keeping on.
Burning your money is not a transaction (but it is illegal). No changing of hands.
The vast majority of exchanges of money involve tax. You can spend it however you like, but you’re going to pay sales tax in most places and cases. Even if you give your money to at 501(c)(3), sooner or later that money’s going to change hands and leave the tax-exempt realm.
The point being that, most of the time, money gets taxed as soon as it moves. This isn’t really in dispute, or shouldn’t be.
I’m sure all the double-taxation hawks are really upset about the limits placed on deductions for state and local taxes, since that seems to be a thing when discussing estate tax, given the (mostly, or at least partly) after-tax nature of estates.
Burning your money is not a transaction (but it is illegal). No changing of hands.
The vast majority of exchanges of money involve tax. You can spend it however you like, but you’re going to pay sales tax in most places and cases. Even if you give your money to at 501(c)(3), sooner or later that money’s going to change hands and leave the tax-exempt realm.
The point being that, most of the time, money gets taxed as soon as it moves. This isn’t really in dispute, or shouldn’t be.
I’m sure all the double-taxation hawks are really upset about the limits placed on deductions for state and local taxes, since that seems to be a thing when discussing estate tax, given the (mostly, or at least partly) after-tax nature of estates.
Sapient,
To borrow an often-misused phrase: “Thank you for your service.”
–TP
Sapient,
To borrow an often-misused phrase: “Thank you for your service.”
–TP
Bob’s link from 8:50 this morning includes this:
“try to remember the last time you encountered a character in a science fiction or fantasy story who had an artistic side, even just as a hobby.”
To which my personal, instantaneous, reactions was: Heinlein – Double Star. The central character in which is a professional (albeit not enormously successful) actor. I can think of others, but that one is just too obvious — how did they miss it?
Bob’s link from 8:50 this morning includes this:
“try to remember the last time you encountered a character in a science fiction or fantasy story who had an artistic side, even just as a hobby.”
To which my personal, instantaneous, reactions was: Heinlein – Double Star. The central character in which is a professional (albeit not enormously successful) actor. I can think of others, but that one is just too obvious — how did they miss it?
Someone way back up thread asked whether we would first have an atheist or a homosexual as President. But we may have already done the latter. See the rumors about President Buchanan.
Someone way back up thread asked whether we would first have an atheist or a homosexual as President. But we may have already done the latter. See the rumors about President Buchanan.
“try to remember the last time you encountered a character in a science fiction or fantasy story who had an artistic side, even just as a hobby.”
Mahrai Ziller in Banks’ Look To Windward was a composer.
“try to remember the last time you encountered a character in a science fiction or fantasy story who had an artistic side, even just as a hobby.”
Mahrai Ziller in Banks’ Look To Windward was a composer.
Someone way back up thread asked whether we would first have an atheist or a homosexual as President. But we may have already done the latter.
“Someone” was YVT.
The point, which I guess wasn’t as obvious as I thought it should be, was whether someone could run (and have any chance of winning) *openly* as an atheist or a gay person.
Someone way back up thread asked whether we would first have an atheist or a homosexual as President. But we may have already done the latter.
“Someone” was YVT.
The point, which I guess wasn’t as obvious as I thought it should be, was whether someone could run (and have any chance of winning) *openly* as an atheist or a gay person.
“try to remember the last time you encountered a character in a science fiction or fantasy story who had an artistic side, even just as a hobby.”
To me more interesting than contradicting or refuting her statement is examining why she presumably believes and says it…
…and why I feel any need to respond.
Besides all the other issues
Oh, she mentioned Heinlein, did she hate read him, but I remembered instantly after fifty years and just now discovered there are entire subcultures built around…
…Jubal Harshaw and the Fallen Caryatid.
“try to remember the last time you encountered a character in a science fiction or fantasy story who had an artistic side, even just as a hobby.”
To me more interesting than contradicting or refuting her statement is examining why she presumably believes and says it…
…and why I feel any need to respond.
Besides all the other issues
Oh, she mentioned Heinlein, did she hate read him, but I remembered instantly after fifty years and just now discovered there are entire subcultures built around…
…Jubal Harshaw and the Fallen Caryatid.
So, to put it all together: which kind of president do we expect first:
Atheist?
Homosexual?
NE urban corridor liberal?
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.
–TP
So, to put it all together: which kind of president do we expect first:
Atheist?
Homosexual?
NE urban corridor liberal?
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.
–TP
I’m sure all the double-taxation hawks are really upset about the limits placed on deductions for state and local taxes, since that seems to be a thing when discussing estate tax, given the (mostly, or at least partly) after-tax nature of estates.
If they aren’t, they should be and for two reasons. First, as a matter of simple fairness, it isn’t “income” if it’s been taken away as a tax. There’s nothing left to pay tax “on.” Second, double taxation hawks tend toward economic and other forms of federalism, e.g if MA citizens are ok with higher taxes in exchange for more gov’t services, fine. We should all be fine with that and be fine with not taxing MA citizens on the taxes they impose on themselves.
I guess there is a third reason: chicken-shitting blue states because you can just asks for repayment in kind when the worm turns. But that’s a practical objection. The issues on principle do it for me.
I’m sure all the double-taxation hawks are really upset about the limits placed on deductions for state and local taxes, since that seems to be a thing when discussing estate tax, given the (mostly, or at least partly) after-tax nature of estates.
If they aren’t, they should be and for two reasons. First, as a matter of simple fairness, it isn’t “income” if it’s been taken away as a tax. There’s nothing left to pay tax “on.” Second, double taxation hawks tend toward economic and other forms of federalism, e.g if MA citizens are ok with higher taxes in exchange for more gov’t services, fine. We should all be fine with that and be fine with not taxing MA citizens on the taxes they impose on themselves.
I guess there is a third reason: chicken-shitting blue states because you can just asks for repayment in kind when the worm turns. But that’s a practical objection. The issues on principle do it for me.
Janie, at the time, Buchanan’s relationship with William Rufus King was well known. And commented upon. They attended social functions together (sounds like a date), and Buchanan referred to their relationship as a “communion”.
It’s true that Buchanan never stood up and said “I am a homosexual.” (But then, the first known use of the term wasn’t until 1869, so he couldn’t have….) But the whole thing was pretty darned open.
Janie, at the time, Buchanan’s relationship with William Rufus King was well known. And commented upon. They attended social functions together (sounds like a date), and Buchanan referred to their relationship as a “communion”.
It’s true that Buchanan never stood up and said “I am a homosexual.” (But then, the first known use of the term wasn’t until 1869, so he couldn’t have….) But the whole thing was pretty darned open.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | June 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM
Agreed on all 3 points. (Not that I’m necessarily concerned with double taxation personally, but that consistency for those who are would dictate the reasoning you describe, at least on the first two. The third “is what it is” – to borrow a phrase that annoys a lot of people.)
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | June 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM
Agreed on all 3 points. (Not that I’m necessarily concerned with double taxation personally, but that consistency for those who are would dictate the reasoning you describe, at least on the first two. The third “is what it is” – to borrow a phrase that annoys a lot of people.)
“It doesn’t bother him that ordinary people pay much more tax on earned income than very rich people pay on unearned inherited income”
If this were true it would bother me. But they don’t pay more.
The average effective estate tax is 17%.
That’s just barely more than combined employee-employer payroll tax. So estate taxes do in fact take less than is paid by most workers. You have to get up to about a $9 million estate before the tax bite exceeds the payroll tax rate.
And, much more important, the only real way from point A to point B is to allow ordinary people lower percentage taxes on the income generated from money they manage to save.
There is a primary effect of lower cap gains taxes which is the creation of more savings and a secondary effect of a few rich people getting a big tax break.
I would like to see some amount of interest income be tax-exempt. Not a lot, maybe $1000. There used to be a $100 exemption, as I recall, a long time ago. It is interesting that dividends and capital gains, forms of capital income that go primarily to the wealthy, get favorable tax treatment, while the interest on savings accounts doesn’t.
And what happened to the elimination of the “carried interest” provision?
“It doesn’t bother him that ordinary people pay much more tax on earned income than very rich people pay on unearned inherited income”
If this were true it would bother me. But they don’t pay more.
The average effective estate tax is 17%.
That’s just barely more than combined employee-employer payroll tax. So estate taxes do in fact take less than is paid by most workers. You have to get up to about a $9 million estate before the tax bite exceeds the payroll tax rate.
And, much more important, the only real way from point A to point B is to allow ordinary people lower percentage taxes on the income generated from money they manage to save.
There is a primary effect of lower cap gains taxes which is the creation of more savings and a secondary effect of a few rich people getting a big tax break.
I would like to see some amount of interest income be tax-exempt. Not a lot, maybe $1000. There used to be a $100 exemption, as I recall, a long time ago. It is interesting that dividends and capital gains, forms of capital income that go primarily to the wealthy, get favorable tax treatment, while the interest on savings accounts doesn’t.
And what happened to the elimination of the “carried interest” provision?
McKinney: as a matter of simple fairness, it isn’t “income” if it’s been taken away as a tax. There’s nothing left to pay tax “on.”
And yet, isn’t that exactly what is being done when the Congress removed the deductibility of state income taxes?
McKinney: as a matter of simple fairness, it isn’t “income” if it’s been taken away as a tax. There’s nothing left to pay tax “on.”
And yet, isn’t that exactly what is being done when the Congress removed the deductibility of state income taxes?
The third “is what it is” – to borrow a phrase that annoys a lot of people.)
I will start getting nervous when it isn’t what it is. That will be bad, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.
And yet, isn’t that exactly what is being done when the Congress removed the deductibility of state income taxes?
Yes, and that was the point I was making. Also, FYI, The 8-9K they take out for FICA–you pay tax on that too. Chickenshit IMO, but I’m an outlier in thinking that’s a bit too much.
The third “is what it is” – to borrow a phrase that annoys a lot of people.)
I will start getting nervous when it isn’t what it is. That will be bad, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.
And yet, isn’t that exactly what is being done when the Congress removed the deductibility of state income taxes?
Yes, and that was the point I was making. Also, FYI, The 8-9K they take out for FICA–you pay tax on that too. Chickenshit IMO, but I’m an outlier in thinking that’s a bit too much.
For anyone who hadn’t realized quite how one-of-a-kind President Trump is:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164
The mind truly boggles.
For anyone who hadn’t realized quite how one-of-a-kind President Trump is:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164
The mind truly boggles.
McKinney,
I’m still interested to know your answer to my question at 6:08PM yesterday, regarding your 5:27PM offer on estate taxes: what cost basis do you propose?
–TP
McKinney,
I’m still interested to know your answer to my question at 6:08PM yesterday, regarding your 5:27PM offer on estate taxes: what cost basis do you propose?
–TP
I go away for a bit and here people are discussing taxes without me!
The SALT itemized deduction at the federal level is, other things being equal bad tax policy. That said, they should have phased out the deduction rather than chopping it right to $10k.
I wouldn’t quite think of it as a double tax, you are paying for federal and state government services. Two different services, so you pay for one and the other. Think of it as a single tax at a higher rate, if you prefer.
If you want to talk about people avoiding tax, foreign investors in publicly traded US equities are arguably the biggest beneficiary of the TCJA as they have seen a run up in stock prices combined with share buybacks. Neither of which is subject to US tax (might be subject to tax in the investors’ home countries).
I go away for a bit and here people are discussing taxes without me!
The SALT itemized deduction at the federal level is, other things being equal bad tax policy. That said, they should have phased out the deduction rather than chopping it right to $10k.
I wouldn’t quite think of it as a double tax, you are paying for federal and state government services. Two different services, so you pay for one and the other. Think of it as a single tax at a higher rate, if you prefer.
If you want to talk about people avoiding tax, foreign investors in publicly traded US equities are arguably the biggest beneficiary of the TCJA as they have seen a run up in stock prices combined with share buybacks. Neither of which is subject to US tax (might be subject to tax in the investors’ home countries).
To follow up on wj’s last, this seems double plus ungood. To me.
Stuff is getting broken that took generations to build. It got built in the first place in no small part as a response to our apparently natural human habit of slaughtering each other.
Trust and respect cannot be commanded. They can only be earned. They can, however, be lost quite easily.
We are governed by children.
To follow up on wj’s last, this seems double plus ungood. To me.
Stuff is getting broken that took generations to build. It got built in the first place in no small part as a response to our apparently natural human habit of slaughtering each other.
Trust and respect cannot be commanded. They can only be earned. They can, however, be lost quite easily.
We are governed by children.
We are governed by children.
We are children. Or at least, enough of us are to elect one of their kind President.
We’re America! We’re invincible! And scared of the monster under the bed….
We are governed by children.
We are children. Or at least, enough of us are to elect one of their kind President.
We’re America! We’re invincible! And scared of the monster under the bed….
We are governed by children.
Make that “petulant and badly raised children” and you might have a point. Otherwise you are slandering an enormous number of children who are better than these characters.
We are governed by children.
Make that “petulant and badly raised children” and you might have a point. Otherwise you are slandering an enormous number of children who are better than these characters.
Mahrai Ziller in Banks’ Look To Windward was a composer….
Not to mention the four armed cellist Vyr Cossont in Hydrogen Sonata…
Mahrai Ziller in Banks’ Look To Windward was a composer….
Not to mention the four armed cellist Vyr Cossont in Hydrogen Sonata…
The mind truly boggles.
I’m all boggled out.
The mind truly boggles.
I’m all boggled out.
To follow up on sapient’s series of posts on immigration policy….
I was trying to think of concrete, tangible things to do. Contacting Senators and House Reps is a very good thing to do, but can be frustratingly indirect and inefficient.
Maybe have all undocumented workers stay home for a week? Then we’d see the value that they actually create for us. But, then they wouldn’t get paid. Plus, it will call attention to who is, and who isn’t, undocumented.
Maybe everyone who works in industries where undocumented labor is common could stay home as well, as a show of support? But then, nobody gets paid.
This popped up in my news feed, and seems like it could make a dent, however small.
You mess with the undocumented workers, you get no food. Extend that to all of the other services that are provided by undocumented people in this country.
Time to get creative. These folks are being abused, in our name. There have to be ways to turn it around.
To follow up on sapient’s series of posts on immigration policy….
I was trying to think of concrete, tangible things to do. Contacting Senators and House Reps is a very good thing to do, but can be frustratingly indirect and inefficient.
Maybe have all undocumented workers stay home for a week? Then we’d see the value that they actually create for us. But, then they wouldn’t get paid. Plus, it will call attention to who is, and who isn’t, undocumented.
Maybe everyone who works in industries where undocumented labor is common could stay home as well, as a show of support? But then, nobody gets paid.
This popped up in my news feed, and seems like it could make a dent, however small.
You mess with the undocumented workers, you get no food. Extend that to all of the other services that are provided by undocumented people in this country.
Time to get creative. These folks are being abused, in our name. There have to be ways to turn it around.
I’m still interested to know your answer to my question at 6:08PM yesterday, regarding your 5:27PM offer on estate taxes: what cost basis do you propose?
Because it’s a going concern, the basis is its equity at the time of sale. It’s not like a share of Microft purchased in 1998 (or whenever) that is passed down after 4 decades. Otherwise, you’d calculate–I assume this is what you are getting at–the value of the business on date of death for one tax and the net value of the business after date of death for tax number two. I would add both values together and tax as a single transaction.
I’m still interested to know your answer to my question at 6:08PM yesterday, regarding your 5:27PM offer on estate taxes: what cost basis do you propose?
Because it’s a going concern, the basis is its equity at the time of sale. It’s not like a share of Microft purchased in 1998 (or whenever) that is passed down after 4 decades. Otherwise, you’d calculate–I assume this is what you are getting at–the value of the business on date of death for one tax and the net value of the business after date of death for tax number two. I would add both values together and tax as a single transaction.
I don’t understand. Someone buys a business for $10,000.
They keep it for decades and are successful.
When they die it is worth $5 million. Their daughter inherits and after
Another ten years sells for $20 million.
How should this be taxed?
I don’t understand. Someone buys a business for $10,000.
They keep it for decades and are successful.
When they die it is worth $5 million. Their daughter inherits and after
Another ten years sells for $20 million.
How should this be taxed?
I don’t understand. Someone buys a business for $10,000.
They keep it for decades and are successful.
When they die it is worth $5 million. Their daughter inherits and after
Another ten years sells for $20 million.
How should this be taxed?
“Worth”?
It will have a book value on both dates (date of death and date of sale) which will have no relation, or not much of a relation to the selling price. Because it’s a closely held asset, you don’t have market data that can tell you what it was worth on date of death, just book value. Whatever the ultimate sale price is, it will be some multiples of EBDITA, not book value. The basis in the business is what is subtracted from the sales price to determine taxable income. You could, in theory, determine the basis on date of death and subtract that from book value and impose a tax, or have the business appraised for sale and subtract the basis from that and charge a tax effective on date of death. I would not do that. I would let the basis in the business increase over time as the business presumably grows and then tax the entire gain at the time of sale at cap gains rates, i.e. 20%.
I don’t understand. Someone buys a business for $10,000.
They keep it for decades and are successful.
When they die it is worth $5 million. Their daughter inherits and after
Another ten years sells for $20 million.
How should this be taxed?
“Worth”?
It will have a book value on both dates (date of death and date of sale) which will have no relation, or not much of a relation to the selling price. Because it’s a closely held asset, you don’t have market data that can tell you what it was worth on date of death, just book value. Whatever the ultimate sale price is, it will be some multiples of EBDITA, not book value. The basis in the business is what is subtracted from the sales price to determine taxable income. You could, in theory, determine the basis on date of death and subtract that from book value and impose a tax, or have the business appraised for sale and subtract the basis from that and charge a tax effective on date of death. I would not do that. I would let the basis in the business increase over time as the business presumably grows and then tax the entire gain at the time of sale at cap gains rates, i.e. 20%.
Under the current estate tax you are required to pay tax on the “fair market value” of your assets. “Fair market value” is defined as “he price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.”
For closely held assets, such as a non-publicly traded business, this requires things like appraisals.
Under the current estate tax you are required to pay tax on the “fair market value” of your assets. “Fair market value” is defined as “he price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.”
For closely held assets, such as a non-publicly traded business, this requires things like appraisals.
Note that the TCJA increased the individual estate tax exemption for 2018 to $11.18M, twice that if you are married and can use your spouse’s exemption.
Note that the TCJA increased the individual estate tax exemption for 2018 to $11.18M, twice that if you are married and can use your spouse’s exemption.
“Sessions asylum”
“Sessions asylum”
McKinney,
Maybe Bernie understands your reply, but I don’t. Why mention “book value” only to say it doesn’t have much relevance? Let’s take it one step at a time:
1) Grandpa buys a business 40 years ago for $10K. He diligently operates it, expands it, and finally gets sick of it. He sells it for $5M today. What is his “capital gain” per your definition of “capital gain”?
2) What tax, if any, should Grandpa (still alive and kicking) pay on the above cap gain?
3) Alternatively, Grandpa drops in harness while pondering the $5M offer for his “going concern”. Daughter inherits the business and chooses to turn down the offer; she prefers to keep operating the business. What is the value of her inheritance, in dollars, according to you?
4) Assuming you do NOT want Daughter to pay an inheritance tax at that point, fast forward another decade or so. Daughter, having grown the business some more, sells it for $20M. What do you consider her capital gain on the sale to be? Is it $19,990,000? Or $15M? Or what?
5) What tax rate should she pay? After what exemption? If it’s a cap gain and not an inheritance tax, should there even be an exemption?
6) Suppose Daughter inherits Grandpa’s “going concern” but sells it for $10M less than 1 year afterward. What is her cap gain? Is it $5M of short-term gain? Is it $9,990,000 of long-term gain? Or what?
Please note: I have assiduously avoided “book value” (which you say is pretty irrelevant anyway) and I have avoided “cost basis” because you seem to use the term differently from how I, if not Bernie, understand it.
–TP
McKinney,
Maybe Bernie understands your reply, but I don’t. Why mention “book value” only to say it doesn’t have much relevance? Let’s take it one step at a time:
1) Grandpa buys a business 40 years ago for $10K. He diligently operates it, expands it, and finally gets sick of it. He sells it for $5M today. What is his “capital gain” per your definition of “capital gain”?
2) What tax, if any, should Grandpa (still alive and kicking) pay on the above cap gain?
3) Alternatively, Grandpa drops in harness while pondering the $5M offer for his “going concern”. Daughter inherits the business and chooses to turn down the offer; she prefers to keep operating the business. What is the value of her inheritance, in dollars, according to you?
4) Assuming you do NOT want Daughter to pay an inheritance tax at that point, fast forward another decade or so. Daughter, having grown the business some more, sells it for $20M. What do you consider her capital gain on the sale to be? Is it $19,990,000? Or $15M? Or what?
5) What tax rate should she pay? After what exemption? If it’s a cap gain and not an inheritance tax, should there even be an exemption?
6) Suppose Daughter inherits Grandpa’s “going concern” but sells it for $10M less than 1 year afterward. What is her cap gain? Is it $5M of short-term gain? Is it $9,990,000 of long-term gain? Or what?
Please note: I have assiduously avoided “book value” (which you say is pretty irrelevant anyway) and I have avoided “cost basis” because you seem to use the term differently from how I, if not Bernie, understand it.
–TP
1) Grandpa buys a business 40 years ago for $10K. He diligently operates it, expands it, and finally gets sick of it. He sells it for $5M today. What is his “capital gain” per your definition of “capital gain”?
What is his basis,i.e. how much does he have invested in the business? Subtract that from the total sales price and the difference is taxed as a capital gain.
3) Alternatively, Grandpa drops in harness while pondering the $5M offer for his “going concern”. Daughter inherits the business and chooses to turn down the offer; she prefers to keep operating the business. What is the value of her inheritance, in dollars, according to you?
If I were writing the rules, she would pay nothing until the business is sold, at which time, she’d pay the difference between the basis and sales price, taxed as a capital gain, i.e. 20%.
4) Assuming you do NOT want Daughter to pay an inheritance tax at that point, fast forward another decade or so. Daughter, having grown the business some more, sells it for $20M. What do you consider her capital gain on the sale to be? Is it $19,990,000? Or $15M? Or what?
It’s never anything other than sales price minus basis X .20%. It’s not an inheritance, so it’s taxed at first net dollar above basis.
6) Suppose Daughter inherits Grandpa’s “going concern” but sells it for $10M less than 1 year afterward. What is her cap gain? Is it $5M of short-term gain? Is it $9,990,000 of long-term gain? Or what?
For me, it’s still the sale of a capital asset and taxed as such. You only tax the gain. A CPA or tax lawyer could tell you how basis is determined in an closely held entity. Whatever the process is what yields the “basis”. Conceptually, it is the owner’s total investment less depreciation or something like that.
1) Grandpa buys a business 40 years ago for $10K. He diligently operates it, expands it, and finally gets sick of it. He sells it for $5M today. What is his “capital gain” per your definition of “capital gain”?
What is his basis,i.e. how much does he have invested in the business? Subtract that from the total sales price and the difference is taxed as a capital gain.
3) Alternatively, Grandpa drops in harness while pondering the $5M offer for his “going concern”. Daughter inherits the business and chooses to turn down the offer; she prefers to keep operating the business. What is the value of her inheritance, in dollars, according to you?
If I were writing the rules, she would pay nothing until the business is sold, at which time, she’d pay the difference between the basis and sales price, taxed as a capital gain, i.e. 20%.
4) Assuming you do NOT want Daughter to pay an inheritance tax at that point, fast forward another decade or so. Daughter, having grown the business some more, sells it for $20M. What do you consider her capital gain on the sale to be? Is it $19,990,000? Or $15M? Or what?
It’s never anything other than sales price minus basis X .20%. It’s not an inheritance, so it’s taxed at first net dollar above basis.
6) Suppose Daughter inherits Grandpa’s “going concern” but sells it for $10M less than 1 year afterward. What is her cap gain? Is it $5M of short-term gain? Is it $9,990,000 of long-term gain? Or what?
For me, it’s still the sale of a capital asset and taxed as such. You only tax the gain. A CPA or tax lawyer could tell you how basis is determined in an closely held entity. Whatever the process is what yields the “basis”. Conceptually, it is the owner’s total investment less depreciation or something like that.
basis in the business depends in part on the form in which you run it. E.g., if you capitalized a C-corporation with $50k in 1991, never put in any more $$, and reinvested all the C-Corps profits for 20 years such that the C-Corp stock FMV was $50 million in 2011, if you sold your stock your capital gain for tax purposes would be $49.95M.
If you ran the business as a pass-through or sole proprietorship, the analysis would differ – essentially, your basis in the pass-through/sole proprietorship would increase along the way, but you’d also be paying tax (personally – as opposed to the entity paying tax) along the way.
The difficulty in keeping track of basis is one of the big reasons why there is a “step-up” in basis of assets at death to FMV.
basis in the business depends in part on the form in which you run it. E.g., if you capitalized a C-corporation with $50k in 1991, never put in any more $$, and reinvested all the C-Corps profits for 20 years such that the C-Corp stock FMV was $50 million in 2011, if you sold your stock your capital gain for tax purposes would be $49.95M.
If you ran the business as a pass-through or sole proprietorship, the analysis would differ – essentially, your basis in the pass-through/sole proprietorship would increase along the way, but you’d also be paying tax (personally – as opposed to the entity paying tax) along the way.
The difficulty in keeping track of basis is one of the big reasons why there is a “step-up” in basis of assets at death to FMV.
McTX: What is his basis,i.e. how much does he have invested in the business?
The stipulation was that he bought “the business” for $10K.
Over 40 years, he surely bought some equipment, or his own building, say. Are you suggesting that outlays like that somehow “increased his cost basis” even though he took depreciation and amortization deductions for them, against his gross revenue, on his annual tax returns? If you’re not, what does your question mean?
–TP
McTX: What is his basis,i.e. how much does he have invested in the business?
The stipulation was that he bought “the business” for $10K.
Over 40 years, he surely bought some equipment, or his own building, say. Are you suggesting that outlays like that somehow “increased his cost basis” even though he took depreciation and amortization deductions for them, against his gross revenue, on his annual tax returns? If you’re not, what does your question mean?
–TP
This popped up in my news feed, and seems like it could make a dent, however small.
I agree that calling Congresspeople is the absolute minimum, and isn’t very satisfying for those of us who are outraged. But it’s still worth something. An organized boycott or strike might be really effective, especially locally. In order to be effective on the level of federal policy, it would have to approach general strike levels (it seems to me, anyway).
I know that most people here are with me on this issue, but here again comes Jeff Sessions today. This really has to be our first priority. We need to stand with these kids. That includes the recognition 1) that they should be with their parents, if possible, and 2) that many of them will be murdered at home, so asylum must be made available.
What is your immigration story, people? My family has several. Most families do. What’s different now?
This popped up in my news feed, and seems like it could make a dent, however small.
I agree that calling Congresspeople is the absolute minimum, and isn’t very satisfying for those of us who are outraged. But it’s still worth something. An organized boycott or strike might be really effective, especially locally. In order to be effective on the level of federal policy, it would have to approach general strike levels (it seems to me, anyway).
I know that most people here are with me on this issue, but here again comes Jeff Sessions today. This really has to be our first priority. We need to stand with these kids. That includes the recognition 1) that they should be with their parents, if possible, and 2) that many of them will be murdered at home, so asylum must be made available.
What is your immigration story, people? My family has several. Most families do. What’s different now?
Thanks for weighing in, ugh. I posted before I saw your last comment. Maybe you can give me an idea of how a sole prop increases his “cost basis”.
Frex: Does buying (and depreciating or expensing) a $20K milling machine for the machine shop business I originally paid $10K for make my cost basis $30K now?
–TP
Thanks for weighing in, ugh. I posted before I saw your last comment. Maybe you can give me an idea of how a sole prop increases his “cost basis”.
Frex: Does buying (and depreciating or expensing) a $20K milling machine for the machine shop business I originally paid $10K for make my cost basis $30K now?
–TP
If as a sole proprietor you paid $10k for a machine shop business also operated as a sole P you’d allocate that $ to each asset according to FMV (I believe). If “you” as the business owner purchased a $20k milling machine with your own funds, your basis in the machine would be $20k (obviously). Plus the $10k you originally invested (unless you have been depreciating the assets) your basis “in the business” would be $30k. But that would then go down as you depreciated the asset – or would be zero originally if you expensed the purchase of the milling machine.
As you make $ in the sole P you pay tax on the profits, but that alone does not increase your basis in the business. If you “reinvested” the after-tax profits in additional equipment, your basis would go up based on purchase price.
If, after all this, you sold the business for $100k, you would get to subtract the remaining basis in all the assets from the purchase price to calculate your gain, which then would be taxed at both ordinary and capital gain rates.
Not sure that makes any sense.
If as a sole proprietor you paid $10k for a machine shop business also operated as a sole P you’d allocate that $ to each asset according to FMV (I believe). If “you” as the business owner purchased a $20k milling machine with your own funds, your basis in the machine would be $20k (obviously). Plus the $10k you originally invested (unless you have been depreciating the assets) your basis “in the business” would be $30k. But that would then go down as you depreciated the asset – or would be zero originally if you expensed the purchase of the milling machine.
As you make $ in the sole P you pay tax on the profits, but that alone does not increase your basis in the business. If you “reinvested” the after-tax profits in additional equipment, your basis would go up based on purchase price.
If, after all this, you sold the business for $100k, you would get to subtract the remaining basis in all the assets from the purchase price to calculate your gain, which then would be taxed at both ordinary and capital gain rates.
Not sure that makes any sense.
Ugh,
Thanks for the detail, but my objective was to construct a simple example for discussion. So let’s just say it was and is a C corporation and the $10K purchased the stock, so that is the basis. (Even if there are possible complexities).
I, like Tony, do not understand McK’s answer. Book value has no relevance here, only market value.
Fortunately, we have two very concrete market values: the $10K we started our adventure with and the $20 million we ended up with. I arbitrarily assumed that market value at the time of death was $5 million, but it doesn’t actually matter. Assume what you like and explain the proposed tax treatment of the estate and the final $20M sale.
Ugh,
Thanks for the detail, but my objective was to construct a simple example for discussion. So let’s just say it was and is a C corporation and the $10K purchased the stock, so that is the basis. (Even if there are possible complexities).
I, like Tony, do not understand McK’s answer. Book value has no relevance here, only market value.
Fortunately, we have two very concrete market values: the $10K we started our adventure with and the $20 million we ended up with. I arbitrarily assumed that market value at the time of death was $5 million, but it doesn’t actually matter. Assume what you like and explain the proposed tax treatment of the estate and the final $20M sale.
McK’s answer seems clear to me, so perhaps I’ve misunderstood it.
He wants to levy no tax on a business at the time of its inheritance. If it’s later sold he wants to treat the realised value minus ‘basis’ as capital gain. Where ‘basis’ is the capital invested in the business, including before it was inherited.
Which seems reasonable enough to me, except that I don’t see why money invested by the ancestors should be subtracted.
McK’s answer seems clear to me, so perhaps I’ve misunderstood it.
He wants to levy no tax on a business at the time of its inheritance. If it’s later sold he wants to treat the realised value minus ‘basis’ as capital gain. Where ‘basis’ is the capital invested in the business, including before it was inherited.
Which seems reasonable enough to me, except that I don’t see why money invested by the ancestors should be subtracted.
wj: To enforce the Presidential Records Act, in this age of Terrible Toddler Trump, I suggest that all official papers int he White House be printed on Kevlar.
Extra fun: don’t bother informing the Dotard in Chief, but video the results for posting on youtube.
wj: To enforce the Presidential Records Act, in this age of Terrible Toddler Trump, I suggest that all official papers int he White House be printed on Kevlar.
Extra fun: don’t bother informing the Dotard in Chief, but video the results for posting on youtube.
Kevlar seems rather like overkill. Perhaps just something (fiberglass threads, maybe?) that is impossible to tear? Of course, the frustration of being unable to do what he wants might bring on a stroke….
Kevlar seems rather like overkill. Perhaps just something (fiberglass threads, maybe?) that is impossible to tear? Of course, the frustration of being unable to do what he wants might bring on a stroke….
Pro Bono: If it’s later sold he wants to treat the realised value minus ‘basis’ as capital gain. Where ‘basis’ is the capital invested in the business, including before it was inherited.
It’s what “basis” means to McKinney that we’re trying to nail down. If he would simply and straightforwardly acknowledge that in Bernie’s example the “cost basis” to be subtracted from the daughter’s $20M sale proceeds is the $10K Grandpa paid for “the business” originally, we’d be done defining terms and could proceed to discuss the merits or lack thereof of McKinney’s proposed taxation plan.
But McKinney seems reluctant to stipulate that. “Seems”, I say; I can’t read his mind, only his text.
What I can understand is why anyone who dislikes the “death tax” might wish to argue that Grandpa should be treated as having “invested” more than that $10K in the “going concern” which ended up being worth $5M at the time of his death and selling for $20M a decade later.
–TP
Pro Bono: If it’s later sold he wants to treat the realised value minus ‘basis’ as capital gain. Where ‘basis’ is the capital invested in the business, including before it was inherited.
It’s what “basis” means to McKinney that we’re trying to nail down. If he would simply and straightforwardly acknowledge that in Bernie’s example the “cost basis” to be subtracted from the daughter’s $20M sale proceeds is the $10K Grandpa paid for “the business” originally, we’d be done defining terms and could proceed to discuss the merits or lack thereof of McKinney’s proposed taxation plan.
But McKinney seems reluctant to stipulate that. “Seems”, I say; I can’t read his mind, only his text.
What I can understand is why anyone who dislikes the “death tax” might wish to argue that Grandpa should be treated as having “invested” more than that $10K in the “going concern” which ended up being worth $5M at the time of his death and selling for $20M a decade later.
–TP
Tony,
Don’t overlook the inestimable value of “good will”, the magical and malleable asset impervious to depreciation.
Tony,
Don’t overlook the inestimable value of “good will”, the magical and malleable asset impervious to depreciation.
Not sure what to make of this (for a long article it’s notably light on detail), but it is interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/06/11/feature/the-quest-of-laurene-powell-jobs/?utm_term=.c81c9050f2cc
If nothing else, it secures the future of the Atlantic, which is indubitably a good thing.
Not sure what to make of this (for a long article it’s notably light on detail), but it is interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/06/11/feature/the-quest-of-laurene-powell-jobs/?utm_term=.c81c9050f2cc
If nothing else, it secures the future of the Atlantic, which is indubitably a good thing.
“good will”, the magical and malleable asset impervious to depreciation.
Impervious? And yet, Bobby, do we not see our nation’s stock of good will depreciating rapidly before our eyes? With sufficiently bad management, so might any business.
“good will”, the magical and malleable asset impervious to depreciation.
Impervious? And yet, Bobby, do we not see our nation’s stock of good will depreciating rapidly before our eyes? With sufficiently bad management, so might any business.
Let’s go back to genuine vellum for the WH. That herds of baby cattle have to die for it could be sold as a plus to His Donaldship.
Hmm, is vellum compatible with standard printers or would plotters be necessary?
Let’s go back to genuine vellum for the WH. That herds of baby cattle have to die for it could be sold as a plus to His Donaldship.
Hmm, is vellum compatible with standard printers or would plotters be necessary?
scribes!
scribes!
“good will”, the magical and malleable asset impervious to depreciation.
Until it’s written off.
And I thought we were over the Great Vellum Controversy of 2017…
http://www.williamcowley.co.uk/news/house-of-lords-over-turn-the-vote/
“good will”, the magical and malleable asset impervious to depreciation.
Until it’s written off.
And I thought we were over the Great Vellum Controversy of 2017…
http://www.williamcowley.co.uk/news/house-of-lords-over-turn-the-vote/
Tyvek, I say.
Tyvek, I say.
Nigel’s like was blocked under the category of “network errors.” That’s a new one.
It’s usually “advocacy groups.” Sometimes “gaming.”
Nigel’s like was blocked under the category of “network errors.” That’s a new one.
It’s usually “advocacy groups.” Sometimes “gaming.”
It’s what “basis” means to McKinney that we’re trying to nail down. If he would simply and straightforwardly acknowledge that in Bernie’s example the “cost basis” to be subtracted from the daughter’s $20M sale proceeds is the $10K Grandpa paid for “the business” originally, we’d be done defining terms and could proceed to discuss the merits or lack thereof of McKinney’s proposed taxation plan.
There are some oversimplification problems at your end. It is unlikely–extremely unlikely–that someone puts 10K into a business and grows that to a business “worth” (what does “worth” mean in this context?–you never say) 5 million without additional investment. Much of that additional investment will be expensed items that do not add to the basis, but capital expansion/acquisition does add to the basis–which others, including Pro Bono, seem to understand. If you read my comments carefully, you would note that calculating basis is complex and I don’t know how to do it. I do know that basis is subtracted from gain to yield taxable income, whether it’s realized as a capital or ordinary income gain.
The magic is in determining FMV (fair market value) which, thanks to Ugh’s memory jog, is how the value of a business is generally characterized. FMV is theoretical, usually based on a appraisal (which involves gaming the system depending on the point of the appraisal), actual selling price is not.
My position is pretty straightforward, but I’ll repeat it one more time: if a going concern passes from one generation to the next, I would not tax the concern at its FMV or any other valuation at date of death. Instead, I would tax it at the time of sale as a capital gain with the cap gain tax applying to the first dollar realized over basis. If that’s too complicated, I apologize for my lack of clarity.
Or, putting it another way, the going concern is never taxed as part of an estate. Rather, it is taxed like any other capital asset at the time of its sale. If it is sold three generations later for a net over basis of 5M, then rather than be exempt under current estate law, the owner would pay a cap gain of 1M or 20%.
It’s what “basis” means to McKinney that we’re trying to nail down. If he would simply and straightforwardly acknowledge that in Bernie’s example the “cost basis” to be subtracted from the daughter’s $20M sale proceeds is the $10K Grandpa paid for “the business” originally, we’d be done defining terms and could proceed to discuss the merits or lack thereof of McKinney’s proposed taxation plan.
There are some oversimplification problems at your end. It is unlikely–extremely unlikely–that someone puts 10K into a business and grows that to a business “worth” (what does “worth” mean in this context?–you never say) 5 million without additional investment. Much of that additional investment will be expensed items that do not add to the basis, but capital expansion/acquisition does add to the basis–which others, including Pro Bono, seem to understand. If you read my comments carefully, you would note that calculating basis is complex and I don’t know how to do it. I do know that basis is subtracted from gain to yield taxable income, whether it’s realized as a capital or ordinary income gain.
The magic is in determining FMV (fair market value) which, thanks to Ugh’s memory jog, is how the value of a business is generally characterized. FMV is theoretical, usually based on a appraisal (which involves gaming the system depending on the point of the appraisal), actual selling price is not.
My position is pretty straightforward, but I’ll repeat it one more time: if a going concern passes from one generation to the next, I would not tax the concern at its FMV or any other valuation at date of death. Instead, I would tax it at the time of sale as a capital gain with the cap gain tax applying to the first dollar realized over basis. If that’s too complicated, I apologize for my lack of clarity.
Or, putting it another way, the going concern is never taxed as part of an estate. Rather, it is taxed like any other capital asset at the time of its sale. If it is sold three generations later for a net over basis of 5M, then rather than be exempt under current estate law, the owner would pay a cap gain of 1M or 20%.
As usual, Hartmut has me wikipedia diving. And loving it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellum
Vellum is prepared animal skin or “membrane” used as a material for writing on. The term is derived from the Latin word vitulinum meaning “made from calf”, leading to Old French velin for “calfskin”.[1] Parchment is another term for this material category. If vellum is distinguished, it is by vellum being made from calf skin, as opposed to that from other animals,[2] or otherwise being of higher quality.[3] Vellum is prepared as a surface for writing (or printing) to produce scrolls, single pages, codices or books.
Modern scholars and custodians increasingly use only the safe, if confusing, term “membrane”.[3][4] Depending on factors such as the method of preparation it may be very hard to determine the animal species involved (let alone its age) without using a laboratory,[5] and the term avoids the need to distinguish between vellum and parchment.[3][4]
Vellum is generally smooth and durable, although there are great variations depending on preparation and the quality of the skin. The manufacture involves the cleaning, bleaching, stretching on a frame (a “herse”), and scraping of the skin with a crescent-shaped knife (a “lunarium” or “lunellum”). To create tension, scraping is alternated with wetting and drying. A final finish may be achieved by abrading the surface with pumice, and treating with a preparation of lime or chalk to make it accept writing or printing ink.[2]
Modern “paper vellum” is a made of synthetic plant material, and is called such for its usage and quality similarities. Paper vellum is used for a variety of purposes including tracing, technical drawings, plans and blueprints.[6][7][8]
and
In Europe, from Roman times, the term “vellum” was used for the best quality of prepared skin, regardless of the animal from which the hide was obtained, calf, sheep, and goat all being commonly used (other animals, including pig, deer, donkey, horse, or camel have been used). Although the term derives from the French for “calf”, animal vellum can include hide from virtually any other mammal. The best quality, “uterine vellum”,[9] was said to be made from the skins of stillborn or unborn animals, although the term was also applied to fine quality skins made from young animals.[3] There has long been, however, much blurring of the boundaries between these terms. In 1519, William Horman could write in his Vulgaria: “That stouffe that we wrytte upon, and is made of beestis skynnes, is somtyme called parchement, somtyme velem, somtyme abortyve, somtyme membraan.”[10] Writing in 1936, Lee Ustick explained that:
To-day the distinction, among collectors of manuscripts, is that vellum is a highly refined form of skin, parchment a cruder form, usually thick, harsh, less highly polished than vellum, but with no distinction between skin of calf, or sheep, or of goat.[11]
French sources, closer to the original etymology, tend to define velin as from calf only, while the British Standards Institution defines parchment as made from the split skin of several species, and vellum from the unsplit skin.[12] In the usage of modern practitioners of the artistic crafts of writing, illuminating, lettering, and bookbinding, “vellum” is normally reserved for calfskin, while any other skin is called “parchment”.[13]
As usual, Hartmut has me wikipedia diving. And loving it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellum
Vellum is prepared animal skin or “membrane” used as a material for writing on. The term is derived from the Latin word vitulinum meaning “made from calf”, leading to Old French velin for “calfskin”.[1] Parchment is another term for this material category. If vellum is distinguished, it is by vellum being made from calf skin, as opposed to that from other animals,[2] or otherwise being of higher quality.[3] Vellum is prepared as a surface for writing (or printing) to produce scrolls, single pages, codices or books.
Modern scholars and custodians increasingly use only the safe, if confusing, term “membrane”.[3][4] Depending on factors such as the method of preparation it may be very hard to determine the animal species involved (let alone its age) without using a laboratory,[5] and the term avoids the need to distinguish between vellum and parchment.[3][4]
Vellum is generally smooth and durable, although there are great variations depending on preparation and the quality of the skin. The manufacture involves the cleaning, bleaching, stretching on a frame (a “herse”), and scraping of the skin with a crescent-shaped knife (a “lunarium” or “lunellum”). To create tension, scraping is alternated with wetting and drying. A final finish may be achieved by abrading the surface with pumice, and treating with a preparation of lime or chalk to make it accept writing or printing ink.[2]
Modern “paper vellum” is a made of synthetic plant material, and is called such for its usage and quality similarities. Paper vellum is used for a variety of purposes including tracing, technical drawings, plans and blueprints.[6][7][8]
and
In Europe, from Roman times, the term “vellum” was used for the best quality of prepared skin, regardless of the animal from which the hide was obtained, calf, sheep, and goat all being commonly used (other animals, including pig, deer, donkey, horse, or camel have been used). Although the term derives from the French for “calf”, animal vellum can include hide from virtually any other mammal. The best quality, “uterine vellum”,[9] was said to be made from the skins of stillborn or unborn animals, although the term was also applied to fine quality skins made from young animals.[3] There has long been, however, much blurring of the boundaries between these terms. In 1519, William Horman could write in his Vulgaria: “That stouffe that we wrytte upon, and is made of beestis skynnes, is somtyme called parchement, somtyme velem, somtyme abortyve, somtyme membraan.”[10] Writing in 1936, Lee Ustick explained that:
To-day the distinction, among collectors of manuscripts, is that vellum is a highly refined form of skin, parchment a cruder form, usually thick, harsh, less highly polished than vellum, but with no distinction between skin of calf, or sheep, or of goat.[11]
French sources, closer to the original etymology, tend to define velin as from calf only, while the British Standards Institution defines parchment as made from the split skin of several species, and vellum from the unsplit skin.[12] In the usage of modern practitioners of the artistic crafts of writing, illuminating, lettering, and bookbinding, “vellum” is normally reserved for calfskin, while any other skin is called “parchment”.[13]
McTX: (what does “worth” mean in this context?–you never say)
Come, come McKinney: when I stipulate a willing buyer offering $5M for “the business”, what do you think I’m saying?
(In general, what is a house, a painting, or a share of stock “worth” other than what a willing buyer is ready to pay for it?)
You reject Bernie’s scenario as improbable? Fine: negligibly few people ever turned a $10K investment into millions of dollars. You insist that “cost basis” in “the business” can increase? Okay: Grandpa bought several stores before he died and those stores are part of the same “going concern” his daughter inherits. Let’s not quibble about those things.
Your offer is indeed clear: no “death tax” when the “asset” is a “going concern” like Grandpa’s chain of stores (as opposed to shares of stock in a publicly-traded supermarket conglomerate?) and in exchange we tax the cap gain (sales price minus Grandpa’s cost basis) when Daughter sells the business — with no exemption, but at the same “very favorable” rate as any other cap gain. Got it.
Playing He, Trump to your Kim Jong-un, I am willing to make a big show of agreeing with you in principle. Your people can work out the details with my people.
–TP
McTX: (what does “worth” mean in this context?–you never say)
Come, come McKinney: when I stipulate a willing buyer offering $5M for “the business”, what do you think I’m saying?
(In general, what is a house, a painting, or a share of stock “worth” other than what a willing buyer is ready to pay for it?)
You reject Bernie’s scenario as improbable? Fine: negligibly few people ever turned a $10K investment into millions of dollars. You insist that “cost basis” in “the business” can increase? Okay: Grandpa bought several stores before he died and those stores are part of the same “going concern” his daughter inherits. Let’s not quibble about those things.
Your offer is indeed clear: no “death tax” when the “asset” is a “going concern” like Grandpa’s chain of stores (as opposed to shares of stock in a publicly-traded supermarket conglomerate?) and in exchange we tax the cap gain (sales price minus Grandpa’s cost basis) when Daughter sells the business — with no exemption, but at the same “very favorable” rate as any other cap gain. Got it.
Playing He, Trump to your Kim Jong-un, I am willing to make a big show of agreeing with you in principle. Your people can work out the details with my people.
–TP
Tyvek, I say.
Tyvek always seems, to me, like the name of the wayward son in a Yiddish Theater production.
Tyvek, I say.
Tyvek always seems, to me, like the name of the wayward son in a Yiddish Theater production.
Let me offer a simplified version of McKT’s proposal.
Any company without publicly traded shares can be inherited in whole or part without paying tax at the time. If the company is subsequently sold, in whole or part, that sale, net of any capital invested by the seller in the company since inheriting it, is treated as a capital gain.
That is, the capital which is gained by the seller is treated as a capital gain.
Let me offer a simplified version of McKT’s proposal.
Any company without publicly traded shares can be inherited in whole or part without paying tax at the time. If the company is subsequently sold, in whole or part, that sale, net of any capital invested by the seller in the company since inheriting it, is treated as a capital gain.
That is, the capital which is gained by the seller is treated as a capital gain.
Here’s my take:
If you impose estate or inheritance tax (or can in theory, though the estate or inheritance might be below the exempt amount), the basis [at least the initial basis, potentially subject to increase depending on further un-depreciated/non-gain-offsetting investment by the heir(s)], and however otherwise arrived at, is set at time of death for the purpose of later taxing the heir(s), be it capital gain or otherwise, at the time of sale. The heir(s) is/are only responsible for any gains after having received the asset.
If there is no estate or inheritance tax, or even potential estate or inheritance tax, the basis is whatever it was at the original acquisition prior to death [potentially subject to increase based on further un-depreciated/non-gain-offsetting investment thereafter, be it by the original owner or the heir(s)].
If the asset is something that would normally be subject to capital gains, it would be subject to the applicable rate (long-term or short-term). Determining long- v. short-term would be based on the original time of acquisition by the original owner.
If, say, Daddy Warbucks bought a railroad a month before he died, left it to Little Orphan Annie, who sold in a month after he died, she’d be paying on a short-term capital gain (which I assume is taxed as regular income). If there was estate or inheritance tax, or the potential for it, the basis would be at the time of death. If not, it would be at the time of purchase, one month before death.
So the potential imposition of estate or inheritance tax only affects the point in time of figuring the basis (potentially subject to increase by later investment not already tax-advantaged). Short or long-term capital gains rates are determined based on original acquisition regardless, even if the heir sells the day after receiving the asset.
As stated above, I have taken no position on whether or not estate or inheritance tax should be imposed on, for lack of a better term, illiquid assets.
What I am taking a position on is that, if you don’t (or can’t, even potentially) impose estate or inheritance tax, the basis is as figured at the time of original acquisition by the decedent (plus subsequent investment not having already received tax advantage).
Here’s my take:
If you impose estate or inheritance tax (or can in theory, though the estate or inheritance might be below the exempt amount), the basis [at least the initial basis, potentially subject to increase depending on further un-depreciated/non-gain-offsetting investment by the heir(s)], and however otherwise arrived at, is set at time of death for the purpose of later taxing the heir(s), be it capital gain or otherwise, at the time of sale. The heir(s) is/are only responsible for any gains after having received the asset.
If there is no estate or inheritance tax, or even potential estate or inheritance tax, the basis is whatever it was at the original acquisition prior to death [potentially subject to increase based on further un-depreciated/non-gain-offsetting investment thereafter, be it by the original owner or the heir(s)].
If the asset is something that would normally be subject to capital gains, it would be subject to the applicable rate (long-term or short-term). Determining long- v. short-term would be based on the original time of acquisition by the original owner.
If, say, Daddy Warbucks bought a railroad a month before he died, left it to Little Orphan Annie, who sold in a month after he died, she’d be paying on a short-term capital gain (which I assume is taxed as regular income). If there was estate or inheritance tax, or the potential for it, the basis would be at the time of death. If not, it would be at the time of purchase, one month before death.
So the potential imposition of estate or inheritance tax only affects the point in time of figuring the basis (potentially subject to increase by later investment not already tax-advantaged). Short or long-term capital gains rates are determined based on original acquisition regardless, even if the heir sells the day after receiving the asset.
As stated above, I have taken no position on whether or not estate or inheritance tax should be imposed on, for lack of a better term, illiquid assets.
What I am taking a position on is that, if you don’t (or can’t, even potentially) impose estate or inheritance tax, the basis is as figured at the time of original acquisition by the decedent (plus subsequent investment not having already received tax advantage).
It is unlikely–extremely unlikely–that someone puts 10K into a business and grows that to a business “worth” (what does “worth” mean in this context?–you never say) 5 million without additional investment.
That may be true is a traditional manufacturing business. However in, for example, a software company it is entirely possible to get to $5 million in value without putting in much more than the initial $10K. Actually, you can probably get to rather more than that by the time you get bought out.
You do probably spend money on salaries — although I’m currently working for a company where pretty much everybody gets paid in “sweat equity.” But anything resembling capital expenditures? Unless you are going to count licensing fees for some of the software development tools (and I don’t think you can, since you are not actually buying them, just renting), there simply isn’t much.
It is unlikely–extremely unlikely–that someone puts 10K into a business and grows that to a business “worth” (what does “worth” mean in this context?–you never say) 5 million without additional investment.
That may be true is a traditional manufacturing business. However in, for example, a software company it is entirely possible to get to $5 million in value without putting in much more than the initial $10K. Actually, you can probably get to rather more than that by the time you get bought out.
You do probably spend money on salaries — although I’m currently working for a company where pretty much everybody gets paid in “sweat equity.” But anything resembling capital expenditures? Unless you are going to count licensing fees for some of the software development tools (and I don’t think you can, since you are not actually buying them, just renting), there simply isn’t much.
I have never been able to make cleek’s instructions for posting images work, but this is a link to a picture of the room in the House of Commons (the Act Room) which houses the rolls of vellum on which (I thought) were recorded all the statutes passed by parliament since 1497, and still in pretty perfect nick.
http://www.planetslade.com/parliamentary-archive1.html
However, I was rather disappointed to discover that since 1849 they’ve been in book rather than scroll form, but they’re all on vellum. The controversy which Nigel linked did impinge on my consciousness slightly, but I thought the move to paper had been defeated. I can’t help wishing it had been.
On a separate note, for those who enjoy our arcana, the 2nd most senior judge in England and Wales is still called the Master of the Rolls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Rolls
I have never been able to make cleek’s instructions for posting images work, but this is a link to a picture of the room in the House of Commons (the Act Room) which houses the rolls of vellum on which (I thought) were recorded all the statutes passed by parliament since 1497, and still in pretty perfect nick.
http://www.planetslade.com/parliamentary-archive1.html
However, I was rather disappointed to discover that since 1849 they’ve been in book rather than scroll form, but they’re all on vellum. The controversy which Nigel linked did impinge on my consciousness slightly, but I thought the move to paper had been defeated. I can’t help wishing it had been.
On a separate note, for those who enjoy our arcana, the 2nd most senior judge in England and Wales is still called the Master of the Rolls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Rolls
It appears that estate and inheritance taxes are a full employment scam for accountants and lawyers.
It appears that estate and inheritance taxes are a full employment scam for accountants and lawyers.
A question on appraisals. In some places, property is taxed on the “appraised valuation”. Which is adjusted (mostly upwards) on a regular basis. Do you see those as “gamed” as well?
California changed the law here (Prop 13) to only revalue property when it is sold. I.e., we followed McKinney’s preferred approach. This has led to a number of unintended negative consequences.
For example, retired people staying in their (now massively oversized) family home, rather than selling and moving to something more appropriate, simply because the tax on the new, smaller, home would be substantially higher. And new families unable to purchase large enough homes in the area, because they are all tied up by the aforesaid retired couples. Not to mention that governments that depend on property taxes (e.g. schools) become seriously underfunded, thanks to inflation that impacts their costs, but not their revenue.
In short, it isn’t as clear cut a choice as suggested.
P.S. McKinney, are you going to adjust the cost basis for inflation? Or is the heir just stuck?
A question on appraisals. In some places, property is taxed on the “appraised valuation”. Which is adjusted (mostly upwards) on a regular basis. Do you see those as “gamed” as well?
California changed the law here (Prop 13) to only revalue property when it is sold. I.e., we followed McKinney’s preferred approach. This has led to a number of unintended negative consequences.
For example, retired people staying in their (now massively oversized) family home, rather than selling and moving to something more appropriate, simply because the tax on the new, smaller, home would be substantially higher. And new families unable to purchase large enough homes in the area, because they are all tied up by the aforesaid retired couples. Not to mention that governments that depend on property taxes (e.g. schools) become seriously underfunded, thanks to inflation that impacts their costs, but not their revenue.
In short, it isn’t as clear cut a choice as suggested.
P.S. McKinney, are you going to adjust the cost basis for inflation? Or is the heir just stuck?
In Dallas, last I noticed, your property taxes are based not only on the value of your home but also the values of the homes around it. You’ll pay a high tax on your hovel if it’s surrounded by McMansions.
In Dallas, last I noticed, your property taxes are based not only on the value of your home but also the values of the homes around it. You’ll pay a high tax on your hovel if it’s surrounded by McMansions.
I suggested Kevlar, simply because of it’s reputation of toughness. Tyvek is also good.
A google search of “untearable paper” produces some interesting products. They might be getting some big government contracts, so … worth investing in?
I suggested Kevlar, simply because of it’s reputation of toughness. Tyvek is also good.
A google search of “untearable paper” produces some interesting products. They might be getting some big government contracts, so … worth investing in?
Tyvek always seems, to me, like the name of the wayward son in a Yiddish Theater production.
Great comment, Russell.
Tyvek always seems, to me, like the name of the wayward son in a Yiddish Theater production.
Great comment, Russell.
CharlesWT: It appears that estate and inheritance taxes are a full employment scam for accountants and lawyers.
Now, now, Charles. Let us remember that accountants and lawyers are also God’s creatures and they have to eat too. If law and business were too simple to keep them busy and off the streets, who knows what trouble they’d get up to.
Now for some philosophy — or BS if you prefer.
You have to pay interest when you borrow because of the “time value of money”. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, even with zero inflation. That applies to all dollars, including dollars you have to pay in taxes. A dollar of tax you have to pay today hurts worse than a dollar of tax you get to defer until tomorrow. Hence the accountant-and-lawyer adage that “a tax deferred is a tax avoided”. McKinney might not subscribe to that, but his proposal does feature deferral of taxes to a later date.
And WHY is there a time value of money? Because humans are mortal. Whether you think life is short or not, it is certainly finite and you can’t really enjoy money after you die. Its “utility” gets to be mighty small.
This has some relevance to the CA property tax situation too, I think.
–TP
CharlesWT: It appears that estate and inheritance taxes are a full employment scam for accountants and lawyers.
Now, now, Charles. Let us remember that accountants and lawyers are also God’s creatures and they have to eat too. If law and business were too simple to keep them busy and off the streets, who knows what trouble they’d get up to.
Now for some philosophy — or BS if you prefer.
You have to pay interest when you borrow because of the “time value of money”. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, even with zero inflation. That applies to all dollars, including dollars you have to pay in taxes. A dollar of tax you have to pay today hurts worse than a dollar of tax you get to defer until tomorrow. Hence the accountant-and-lawyer adage that “a tax deferred is a tax avoided”. McKinney might not subscribe to that, but his proposal does feature deferral of taxes to a later date.
And WHY is there a time value of money? Because humans are mortal. Whether you think life is short or not, it is certainly finite and you can’t really enjoy money after you die. Its “utility” gets to be mighty small.
This has some relevance to the CA property tax situation too, I think.
–TP
You have to pay interest when you borrow because of the “time value of money”.
I suspect that most economists would agree that price fixing is almost always a bad idea. But that’s what the Fed does. By setting interest rates, it’s price fixing the future value of money.
You have to pay interest when you borrow because of the “time value of money”.
I suspect that most economists would agree that price fixing is almost always a bad idea. But that’s what the Fed does. By setting interest rates, it’s price fixing the future value of money.
OK. Thanks, McK.
What was confusing me was all the ornamentation around value and so on. But I guess that’s what you get from a lawyer. I have a friend who is simply unable to give a one-sentence answer to a question.
Anyway, to respond, I see a few flaws.
First, it’s going to be hard to figure out the basis going back several decades. So if we did something like that I’d set it at zero, both for that reason and because the beneficiary didn’t put any money at risk. She just got it. Grow it from $5M to $20M? Good for you, but why do you get the initial investment free of charge?
Second, for similar reasons, I think the standard capital gains rate is too low. Why is it so low, anyway? I suppose it’s to reward risk-taking, investment, etc. That didn’t happen here. The heir gets a business worth $5 Million, whose growth – that’s income after all – has never been taxed.
Third, private companies can get quite large. Ford did not go public until 1956. There has to be a limit, otherwise you are simply entitling a family to build multi-generational wealth tax-free.
So if there has to be a limit how do you handle that? Are you one day going to have to pay 20%, or 30%, or 40% of the market value of the business in tax? You are unlikely to be able to do that, so you’ll need an installment plan. Like the generous one already in place.
So leave well enough alone and tax it when it passes to the heirs.
The whole “going concern” and “destroys small businesses” argument is hooey anyway.
OK. Thanks, McK.
What was confusing me was all the ornamentation around value and so on. But I guess that’s what you get from a lawyer. I have a friend who is simply unable to give a one-sentence answer to a question.
Anyway, to respond, I see a few flaws.
First, it’s going to be hard to figure out the basis going back several decades. So if we did something like that I’d set it at zero, both for that reason and because the beneficiary didn’t put any money at risk. She just got it. Grow it from $5M to $20M? Good for you, but why do you get the initial investment free of charge?
Second, for similar reasons, I think the standard capital gains rate is too low. Why is it so low, anyway? I suppose it’s to reward risk-taking, investment, etc. That didn’t happen here. The heir gets a business worth $5 Million, whose growth – that’s income after all – has never been taxed.
Third, private companies can get quite large. Ford did not go public until 1956. There has to be a limit, otherwise you are simply entitling a family to build multi-generational wealth tax-free.
So if there has to be a limit how do you handle that? Are you one day going to have to pay 20%, or 30%, or 40% of the market value of the business in tax? You are unlikely to be able to do that, so you’ll need an installment plan. Like the generous one already in place.
So leave well enough alone and tax it when it passes to the heirs.
The whole “going concern” and “destroys small businesses” argument is hooey anyway.
Nigel’s like was blocked under the category of “network errors.” That’s a new one
Apologies – it was an English vellum manufacturer complaining bitterly about the decision of Parliament no longer to print legislation on vellum (which in the ordinary course of things is good for at least a thousand years).
These days we have other matters to divert us.
Nigel’s like was blocked under the category of “network errors.” That’s a new one
Apologies – it was an English vellum manufacturer complaining bitterly about the decision of Parliament no longer to print legislation on vellum (which in the ordinary course of things is good for at least a thousand years).
These days we have other matters to divert us.
First, it’s going to be hard to figure out the basis going back several decades. So if we did something like that I’d set it at zero, both for that reason and because the beneficiary didn’t put any money at risk. She just got it. Grow it from $5M to $20M? Good for you, but why do you get the initial investment free of charge?
The obvious option would be to tax the initial $5M at the time of inheritance. And, since we are doing things that way, there’s no obvious reason to have a humongous exemption on inheritances — it’s income, so it gets taxed just like any other income.
If you want, you can argue that it ought to get capital gains treatment instead. But then, the arguments for having separate treatment for capital gains seem pretty bogus to me. We never seemed to lack for capital investment when we were treating it just like other income.
First, it’s going to be hard to figure out the basis going back several decades. So if we did something like that I’d set it at zero, both for that reason and because the beneficiary didn’t put any money at risk. She just got it. Grow it from $5M to $20M? Good for you, but why do you get the initial investment free of charge?
The obvious option would be to tax the initial $5M at the time of inheritance. And, since we are doing things that way, there’s no obvious reason to have a humongous exemption on inheritances — it’s income, so it gets taxed just like any other income.
If you want, you can argue that it ought to get capital gains treatment instead. But then, the arguments for having separate treatment for capital gains seem pretty bogus to me. We never seemed to lack for capital investment when we were treating it just like other income.
wj,
The obvious option would be to tax the initial $5M at the time of inheritance.
That’s where I was going, as my next-to-last sentence says.
The whole privileged treatment of capital gains is a bit dubious, though maybe not for founding investments in startups. Remember when the 1986 tax reform equalized the rates on gains and ordinary income?
One overlooked aspect is that the treatment lets you essentially defer taxes on income until you sell. Now, that makes sense from a liquidity standpoint, but that has nothing to do with rates.
wj,
The obvious option would be to tax the initial $5M at the time of inheritance.
That’s where I was going, as my next-to-last sentence says.
The whole privileged treatment of capital gains is a bit dubious, though maybe not for founding investments in startups. Remember when the 1986 tax reform equalized the rates on gains and ordinary income?
One overlooked aspect is that the treatment lets you essentially defer taxes on income until you sell. Now, that makes sense from a liquidity standpoint, but that has nothing to do with rates.
Remember when the 1986 tax reform equalized the rates on gains and ordinary income?
The politicians have to periodically reform the tax code so they can resale the loopholes all over again.
Remember when the 1986 tax reform equalized the rates on gains and ordinary income?
The politicians have to periodically reform the tax code so they can resale the loopholes all over again.
The politicians have to periodically reform the tax code so they can resale the loopholes all over again.
This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our particular form government works in the actually observed world.
The politicians have to periodically reform the tax code so they can resale the loopholes all over again.
This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our particular form government works in the actually observed world.
But that’s what the Fed does. By setting interest rates, it’s price fixing the future value of money.
The Fed controls short term interest rates. Long term rates are market rates.
But that’s what the Fed does. By setting interest rates, it’s price fixing the future value of money.
The Fed controls short term interest rates. Long term rates are market rates.
Why is it (cap gains tax rate) so low, anyway?
LOL! I’d say, “Follow the money.”
Why is it (cap gains tax rate) so low, anyway?
LOL! I’d say, “Follow the money.”
Since we all need a little something to lighten the mood:
https://twitter.com/jenzhuscott/status/1005821493782212608/photo/1
Since we all need a little something to lighten the mood:
https://twitter.com/jenzhuscott/status/1005821493782212608/photo/1
It appears that estate and inheritance taxes are a full employment scam for accountants and lawyers.
Nah, with the current exemption amount there aren’t enough clients to go around. The newly enacted “Tax Cuts & Jobs Act” OTOH….
It appears that estate and inheritance taxes are a full employment scam for accountants and lawyers.
Nah, with the current exemption amount there aren’t enough clients to go around. The newly enacted “Tax Cuts & Jobs Act” OTOH….
I can’t believe Democrats are becoming Merkel and Macron fans.
Trump is Right on sunsetting Nafta, George Monbiot, Guardian. What a sane commenter looks like
“In seeking to update the treaty, governments in the three countries have candidly sought to thwart the will of the people. Their stated intention was to finish the job before Mexico’s presidential election in July. The leading candidate, Andrés Lopez Obrador, has expressed hostility to Nafta, so it had to be done before the people cast their vote. They might wonder why so many have lost faith in democracy.”
Etc. Trump is horrible, but Obama and Clinton and the Democratic Party and their neoliberal allies want slaves. Forever. A lot of their desperate fans are putting on a collar that will get tightened by the next Dem Pres.
I can’t believe Democrats are becoming Merkel and Macron fans.
Trump is Right on sunsetting Nafta, George Monbiot, Guardian. What a sane commenter looks like
“In seeking to update the treaty, governments in the three countries have candidly sought to thwart the will of the people. Their stated intention was to finish the job before Mexico’s presidential election in July. The leading candidate, Andrés Lopez Obrador, has expressed hostility to Nafta, so it had to be done before the people cast their vote. They might wonder why so many have lost faith in democracy.”
Etc. Trump is horrible, but Obama and Clinton and the Democratic Party and their neoliberal allies want slaves. Forever. A lot of their desperate fans are putting on a collar that will get tightened by the next Dem Pres.
i do not have he macroeconomic chops to have a strong opinion about nafta one way or the other. it’s fine with me if it has a sunset clause.
there are a number of positions trump took over the course of his campaign that i approximately agreed with.
all of that said, there is no basis of comparison between trump and obama or either clinton. they are arguably flawed individuals.
he is toxic.
there is no “but” after “trump is horrible”.
i do not have he macroeconomic chops to have a strong opinion about nafta one way or the other. it’s fine with me if it has a sunset clause.
there are a number of positions trump took over the course of his campaign that i approximately agreed with.
all of that said, there is no basis of comparison between trump and obama or either clinton. they are arguably flawed individuals.
he is toxic.
there is no “but” after “trump is horrible”.
if you really want to cut through the BS, here is your guy.
instead NY got Cuomo. more’s the pity.
if you really want to cut through the BS, here is your guy.
instead NY got Cuomo. more’s the pity.
i unpied you for this?
but Obama and Clinton and the Democratic Party and their neoliberal allies want slaves. Forever.
WTF is wrong with you?
i unpied you for this?
but Obama and Clinton and the Democratic Party and their neoliberal allies want slaves. Forever.
WTF is wrong with you?
The difference as always, is not about how bad Trump is, but how bad the neoliberal Democrats and their globalist allies are.
Arabs and Austerity
Positive Money
You think someday you will get a Keynesian admin that will fix the roads and help student loans. Neoliberals want to make it politically impossible. Obama and Clinton should have taught that. Or the disaster that is Brexit or Italy.
MMT is not gonna happen.
They also want to make violent revolution the only means of change, and then make revolution impossible thru surveillance. When I say slaves or serfs, I mean it it.
Except for the 10-20%
The difference as always, is not about how bad Trump is, but how bad the neoliberal Democrats and their globalist allies are.
Arabs and Austerity
Positive Money
You think someday you will get a Keynesian admin that will fix the roads and help student loans. Neoliberals want to make it politically impossible. Obama and Clinton should have taught that. Or the disaster that is Brexit or Italy.
MMT is not gonna happen.
They also want to make violent revolution the only means of change, and then make revolution impossible thru surveillance. When I say slaves or serfs, I mean it it.
Except for the 10-20%
McManus: Trump is Right on sunsetting Nafta
What, exactly, is your problem with NAFTA? The main weakness that I see is that it doesn’t cover everything (dairy, to take one of the more prominent exceptions).
If you think that somehow free trade is a bad thing, do you support adding tariffs between states in the US? And if not, what is the difference — after all, there are cost differences (labor and resources) between the several states which are at least as great as the differences between the US and Canada overall.
McManus: Trump is Right on sunsetting Nafta
What, exactly, is your problem with NAFTA? The main weakness that I see is that it doesn’t cover everything (dairy, to take one of the more prominent exceptions).
If you think that somehow free trade is a bad thing, do you support adding tariffs between states in the US? And if not, what is the difference — after all, there are cost differences (labor and resources) between the several states which are at least as great as the differences between the US and Canada overall.
This just in from the “family values” party:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/13/nevada-pimp-dennis-hof-gop-republican-primary/
This just in from the “family values” party:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/13/nevada-pimp-dennis-hof-gop-republican-primary/
From bob’s 2nd 10:53 AM link:
What is your thinking on this, bob, from your more radically leftist perspective? This sounds like a very growth-oriented statement, and not something I would necessarily think you would find appealing.
Is this something you’re putting forth for the rest of us who don’t necessarily share your political and economic views, or is this something you actually endorse?
From bob’s 2nd 10:53 AM link:
What is your thinking on this, bob, from your more radically leftist perspective? This sounds like a very growth-oriented statement, and not something I would necessarily think you would find appealing.
Is this something you’re putting forth for the rest of us who don’t necessarily share your political and economic views, or is this something you actually endorse?
Having read Bob’s second link, I have no idea what the man is proposing.
Oh, and the writer says,
I object to any unelected committee taking control of our economic policy.
I don’t. I would no more want politicians making monetary policy than I would want them taking out my appendix. Paul Ryan in charge? No thanks.
You think someday you will get a Keynesian admin that will fix the roads and help student loans. Neoliberals want to make it politically impossible.
Yes. I do think we will have a Keynesian administration. I also think we had one in Obama. I don’t know who these neoliberals are who you think will stop it. As I recall it was conservatives who limited the size and effectiveness of Obama’s stimulus.
Having read Bob’s second link, I have no idea what the man is proposing.
Oh, and the writer says,
I object to any unelected committee taking control of our economic policy.
I don’t. I would no more want politicians making monetary policy than I would want them taking out my appendix. Paul Ryan in charge? No thanks.
You think someday you will get a Keynesian admin that will fix the roads and help student loans. Neoliberals want to make it politically impossible.
Yes. I do think we will have a Keynesian administration. I also think we had one in Obama. I don’t know who these neoliberals are who you think will stop it. As I recall it was conservatives who limited the size and effectiveness of Obama’s stimulus.
Having read Bob’s second link, I have no idea what the man is proposing.
I think the Positive Money organization is for only the central banks creating new money and against fractional reserve banking, which, in a sense, allows banks to create money out of thin air.
Having read Bob’s second link, I have no idea what the man is proposing.
I think the Positive Money organization is for only the central banks creating new money and against fractional reserve banking, which, in a sense, allows banks to create money out of thin air.
Fractional reserve banking does not allow banks to create money out of thin air.
The banking system does create money, in a sense, but that’s a different matter.
Fractional reserve banking does not allow banks to create money out of thin air.
The banking system does create money, in a sense, but that’s a different matter.
What, exactly, is your problem with NAFTA? The main weakness that I see is that it doesn’t cover everything (dairy, to take one of the more prominent exceptions).
I’m still expecting Trump to wait until hard Brexit is looming, and the UK’s economy is tanking*, then twist Canada’s arm and ride in to form a new NAFTA, where the A is for Atlantic. Because of his distaste for brown people speaking Spanish.
Followed soon thereafter by a new NATO with the same three members.
* I was reading the other day that two critical dates are hard no-deal Brexit minus 180 days, and minus 90 days, when companies doing major exports to the EU have to decide whether to renew shipping contracts that use the UK as their EU entry point.
What, exactly, is your problem with NAFTA? The main weakness that I see is that it doesn’t cover everything (dairy, to take one of the more prominent exceptions).
I’m still expecting Trump to wait until hard Brexit is looming, and the UK’s economy is tanking*, then twist Canada’s arm and ride in to form a new NAFTA, where the A is for Atlantic. Because of his distaste for brown people speaking Spanish.
Followed soon thereafter by a new NATO with the same three members.
* I was reading the other day that two critical dates are hard no-deal Brexit minus 180 days, and minus 90 days, when companies doing major exports to the EU have to decide whether to renew shipping contracts that use the UK as their EU entry point.
“I’m still expecting Trump to wait until hard Brexit is looming, and the UK’s economy is tanking*, then twist Canada’s arm and ride in to form a new NAFTA”
Assumes intelligence and creativity not in evidence.
“I’m still expecting Trump to wait until hard Brexit is looming, and the UK’s economy is tanking*, then twist Canada’s arm and ride in to form a new NAFTA”
Assumes intelligence and creativity not in evidence.
Fractional reserve banking does not allow banks to create money out of thin air.
Well, if everyone suddenly decided to withdraw all the money from their checking accounts…
Fractional reserve banking does not allow banks to create money out of thin air.
Well, if everyone suddenly decided to withdraw all the money from their checking accounts…
Well, if everyone suddenly decided to withdraw all the money from their checking accounts…
Yup, a real disaster.
And if all the oxygen molecules in the atmosphere suddenly moved to 1000 feet above the ground, that would be pretty grim, too. Fortunately, if you are dealing with sufficiently large numbers, random behavior will keep you out of trouble on any time scale worth considering.
Well, if everyone suddenly decided to withdraw all the money from their checking accounts…
Yup, a real disaster.
And if all the oxygen molecules in the atmosphere suddenly moved to 1000 feet above the ground, that would be pretty grim, too. Fortunately, if you are dealing with sufficiently large numbers, random behavior will keep you out of trouble on any time scale worth considering.
Assumes intelligence and creativity not in evidence.
I assume that the idea is not beyond, and is attractive to, some of Trump’s keepers. And that they can pitch it as a save the English-centric countries notion at the right time.
Assumes intelligence and creativity not in evidence.
I assume that the idea is not beyond, and is attractive to, some of Trump’s keepers. And that they can pitch it as a save the English-centric countries notion at the right time.
fed chair is puzzled.
i’m not
fed chair is puzzled.
i’m not
also, is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
also, is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
perhaps Trump (or his team) thinks our current alliances will survive, and that it’s worth roughing them up temporarily if it helps bring other countries into our circle.
more likely, the unnamed source who said “no friends. no enemies” was speaking the truth and the Trump Doctrine is purely transactional: if you can help Trump today, he’ll praise you. but he’ll soon find a reason to push you away, e.g., his wives, his porn star hookups, his ever-shuffling administration, his A.G..
perhaps Trump (or his team) thinks our current alliances will survive, and that it’s worth roughing them up temporarily if it helps bring other countries into our circle.
more likely, the unnamed source who said “no friends. no enemies” was speaking the truth and the Trump Doctrine is purely transactional: if you can help Trump today, he’ll praise you. but he’ll soon find a reason to push you away, e.g., his wives, his porn star hookups, his ever-shuffling administration, his A.G..
also, is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
somewhatextremely disturbedIt really is the first time, despite two years of lunacy, that I’ve felt like leaving for Canada or Ireland might make sense. Not that that’s a practical path, all things considered.
But what developments have I missed? Yesterday we were fighting with Canada and the rest of the G7, some of which are English-speaking countries. Conversely, North Korea?
The administration now going after naturalized citizens, in case anyone missed it.
also, is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
somewhatextremely disturbedIt really is the first time, despite two years of lunacy, that I’ve felt like leaving for Canada or Ireland might make sense. Not that that’s a practical path, all things considered.
But what developments have I missed? Yesterday we were fighting with Canada and the rest of the G7, some of which are English-speaking countries. Conversely, North Korea?
The administration now going after naturalized citizens, in case anyone missed it.
And if all the oxygen molecules in the atmosphere suddenly moved to 1000 feet above the ground, that would be pretty grim, too.
Though oxygen molecules are not so frequently susceptible to mass panics…
And if all the oxygen molecules in the atmosphere suddenly moved to 1000 feet above the ground, that would be pretty grim, too.
Though oxygen molecules are not so frequently susceptible to mass panics…
more likely, the unnamed source who said “no friends. no enemies” was speaking the truth and the Trump Doctrine is purely transactional: if you can help Trump today, he’ll praise you. but he’ll soon find a reason to push you away, e.g., his wives, his porn star hookups, his ever-shuffling administration, his A.G..
This. He’s on his own side and his own side only.
Also, that Stephen Miller is still a survivor in the WH tells you all you need to know.
more likely, the unnamed source who said “no friends. no enemies” was speaking the truth and the Trump Doctrine is purely transactional: if you can help Trump today, he’ll praise you. but he’ll soon find a reason to push you away, e.g., his wives, his porn star hookups, his ever-shuffling administration, his A.G..
This. He’s on his own side and his own side only.
Also, that Stephen Miller is still a survivor in the WH tells you all you need to know.
Also, that Stephen Miller is still a survivor in the WH tells you all you need to know.
How so? He’s uniquely slippery enough to keep sliding through the obstacle course? Uniquely in sympathy with Clickbait? Or…?
Also, that Stephen Miller is still a survivor in the WH tells you all you need to know.
How so? He’s uniquely slippery enough to keep sliding through the obstacle course? Uniquely in sympathy with Clickbait? Or…?
All that, and uniquely poisonous too. I’m sure I’ve quoted this before, but possibly not about Miller (about whom it nonetheless seems perfectly apposite):
the smiler with the knife under the cloak
All that, and uniquely poisonous too. I’m sure I’ve quoted this before, but possibly not about Miller (about whom it nonetheless seems perfectly apposite):
the smiler with the knife under the cloak
perhaps Trump (or his team) thinks our current alliances will survive, and that it’s worth roughing them up temporarily if it helps bring other countries into our circle.
It is, after all, how he treats the people who work for him. (And “allies” are people who are supposed to be working for us, right?) Constant stream of insults and such, yet they still work there — see Sessions, for example. So why wouldn’t that work with other countries as well…?
perhaps Trump (or his team) thinks our current alliances will survive, and that it’s worth roughing them up temporarily if it helps bring other countries into our circle.
It is, after all, how he treats the people who work for him. (And “allies” are people who are supposed to be working for us, right?) Constant stream of insults and such, yet they still work there — see Sessions, for example. So why wouldn’t that work with other countries as well…?
The administration now going after naturalized citizens, in case anyone missed it.
I saw something on that. I have to wonder, does someone getting a green card under the false pretense that she is someone of “extraordinary ability” (aka an “Einstein visa”) get this treatment? And if not, why not? I mean, does being First Lady somehow get you a pass…?
The administration now going after naturalized citizens, in case anyone missed it.
I saw something on that. I have to wonder, does someone getting a green card under the false pretense that she is someone of “extraordinary ability” (aka an “Einstein visa”) get this treatment? And if not, why not? I mean, does being First Lady somehow get you a pass…?
is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
Obviously that lets Canada out….
is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
Obviously that lets Canada out….
the smiler with the knife under the cloak
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the guy smile.
The administration now going after naturalized citizens
As noxious as this seems to be, my understanding is that they are pursuing people for whom there was a pre-existing deportation order, but who subsequently obtained citizenship under false pretences.
I could be wrong.
In any case, the obsessive focus on identifying, criminalizing, and removing people who are here without proper documents, but who are otherwise harmless, seems bizarre. To me. It’s hysterical, a mania.
Overstaying a visa is a civil misdemeanor.
Entering the country surreptitiously is a civil misdemeanor.
Seeking asylum once in the country is not only not illegal, it is a privilege guaranteed under international law, if I’m not mistaken.
Seeking to enter the country as a refugee, likewise.
We are being systematically harsh, to the point of deliberate cruelty, to people who have no ill intent toward us, and who simply want to enter the country to (a) join family members or (b) find work.
It’s unnecessary, and it’s wrong.
the smiler with the knife under the cloak
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the guy smile.
The administration now going after naturalized citizens
As noxious as this seems to be, my understanding is that they are pursuing people for whom there was a pre-existing deportation order, but who subsequently obtained citizenship under false pretences.
I could be wrong.
In any case, the obsessive focus on identifying, criminalizing, and removing people who are here without proper documents, but who are otherwise harmless, seems bizarre. To me. It’s hysterical, a mania.
Overstaying a visa is a civil misdemeanor.
Entering the country surreptitiously is a civil misdemeanor.
Seeking asylum once in the country is not only not illegal, it is a privilege guaranteed under international law, if I’m not mistaken.
Seeking to enter the country as a refugee, likewise.
We are being systematically harsh, to the point of deliberate cruelty, to people who have no ill intent toward us, and who simply want to enter the country to (a) join family members or (b) find work.
It’s unnecessary, and it’s wrong.
Then there’s this:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/13/california-woman-in-shock-after-ice-agents-detain-father-a-legal-resident-outside-home/
Catch that. Eight ICE agents to handcuff and detain a man who is a legal resident . . . because of a decades old misdemeanor conviction. Which, they say, means he can be deported. The mind boggles. Or would, except he’s Latino and this is the Trump administration.
Then there’s this:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/13/california-woman-in-shock-after-ice-agents-detain-father-a-legal-resident-outside-home/
Catch that. Eight ICE agents to handcuff and detain a man who is a legal resident . . . because of a decades old misdemeanor conviction. Which, they say, means he can be deported. The mind boggles. Or would, except he’s Latino and this is the Trump administration.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the guy smile.
He doesn’t do it often, but it’s sinister when he does:
https://forward.com/fast-forward/379470/stephen-miller-trump-is-most-gifted-politician-of-our-time/
https://politics.theonion.com/stephen-miller-rewards-self-after-day-of-speechwriting-1822562453
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the guy smile.
He doesn’t do it often, but it’s sinister when he does:
https://forward.com/fast-forward/379470/stephen-miller-trump-is-most-gifted-politician-of-our-time/
https://politics.theonion.com/stephen-miller-rewards-self-after-day-of-speechwriting-1822562453
Dozens of attorneys being hired.
When it comes to keeping people out, we’re rolling in resources.
I wonder how many generations back they’ll go. Like, were dad’s parents legal? They were pretty dark-skinned, after all.
Dozens of attorneys being hired.
When it comes to keeping people out, we’re rolling in resources.
I wonder how many generations back they’ll go. Like, were dad’s parents legal? They were pretty dark-skinned, after all.
The mind boggles.
It shouldn’t.
It’s what he ran on, it’s what he said he would do, it’s what he’s doing.
The promise of doing it was tremendously appealing to a lot of people, so they voted for him.
Assume that it will continue and increase.
The mind boggles.
It shouldn’t.
It’s what he ran on, it’s what he said he would do, it’s what he’s doing.
The promise of doing it was tremendously appealing to a lot of people, so they voted for him.
Assume that it will continue and increase.
I wonder how many generations back they’ll go.
Real opportunity here. I’ll bet all those slaves being shipped in from Africa didn’t have immigration papers. (Never mind that “immigration papers” didn’t exist then.) And anyone who escaped slavery was guilty of breaking the law. So deport all of their descendants, too! MAWA!*
* Make America White Again — even though it never was….
I wonder how many generations back they’ll go.
Real opportunity here. I’ll bet all those slaves being shipped in from Africa didn’t have immigration papers. (Never mind that “immigration papers” didn’t exist then.) And anyone who escaped slavery was guilty of breaking the law. So deport all of their descendants, too! MAWA!*
* Make America White Again — even though it never was….
oxygen molecules are not so frequently susceptible to mass panics…
True. Which is why we don’t need a way to deal with that contingency, but do need one for the case where everyone wants to withdraw their money from the bank.
Fortunately there actually is one in place.
As an aside, I have heard rumors that in late 1999, fearing a Y2K-related panic (remember that?) the FDIC had large piles of cash secretly and strategically located around the country.
oxygen molecules are not so frequently susceptible to mass panics…
True. Which is why we don’t need a way to deal with that contingency, but do need one for the case where everyone wants to withdraw their money from the bank.
Fortunately there actually is one in place.
As an aside, I have heard rumors that in late 1999, fearing a Y2K-related panic (remember that?) the FDIC had large piles of cash secretly and strategically located around the country.
also, is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
I am extremely disturbed, and am also extremely disturbed by his immigration/asylum policies, and his roundups, and the whole vicious, bigoted attitude of the administration.
I also am extremely disturbed at Congress’ refusal to pass a Dreamers’ bill. This is something that is favored by a large majority of the public. Yet somehow Paul Ryan refuses to bring it up because a lunatic right-wing segment of his caucus doesn’t like it.
WTF is going on? We are rapidly becoming a badly undemocratic country. It will not end well.
also, is anyone other than me somewhat disturbed by the idea of us bailing on our current alliances to forge new ones composed only of english-speaking countries?
I am extremely disturbed, and am also extremely disturbed by his immigration/asylum policies, and his roundups, and the whole vicious, bigoted attitude of the administration.
I also am extremely disturbed at Congress’ refusal to pass a Dreamers’ bill. This is something that is favored by a large majority of the public. Yet somehow Paul Ryan refuses to bring it up because a lunatic right-wing segment of his caucus doesn’t like it.
WTF is going on? We are rapidly becoming a badly undemocratic country. It will not end well.
WTF is going on?
on-going devastation wrought by Gingrich rumbles on.
WTF is going on?
on-going devastation wrought by Gingrich rumbles on.
because a lunatic right-wing segment of his caucus doesn’t like it….
No, the Republican party is Trump’s party now.
That might not be true of all Republicans, but it is effectively true of Congress, barring a few who are retiring.
because a lunatic right-wing segment of his caucus doesn’t like it….
No, the Republican party is Trump’s party now.
That might not be true of all Republicans, but it is effectively true of Congress, barring a few who are retiring.
Gingrich was a bomb thrower, rather than a builder. And, apparently, proud of it.
Gingrich was a bomb thrower, rather than a builder. And, apparently, proud of it.
How can you not love this?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/13/trumps-vino-vixen-compiles-loyalty-list-of-u-s-employees-at-u-n-state-mari-stull-political-appointee-state-department-international-organization-united-nations-political-retribution-chaos-dysfunction/
Money quote:
Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
How can you not love this?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/13/trumps-vino-vixen-compiles-loyalty-list-of-u-s-employees-at-u-n-state-mari-stull-political-appointee-state-department-international-organization-united-nations-political-retribution-chaos-dysfunction/
Money quote:
Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
How can you not love this?
Let me count the ways.
How can you not love this?
Let me count the ways.
Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
i bet Lois Lerner can.
Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
i bet Lois Lerner can.
wj: Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
We don’t have to imagine it, we can ask a Republican.
wj, what would have been your reaction of Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
IOW, why are you still………. 😉
wj: Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
We don’t have to imagine it, we can ask a Republican.
wj, what would have been your reaction of Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
IOW, why are you still………. 😉
wj, what would have been your reaction of Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
Exactly what it is to Trump doing so:
Are you out of your minds??? These people are professionals**, representing the nation; not political appointees representing a political view.
In short, it is totally unacceptable, no matter who is doing so.
** for those ambassadors who are not career diplomats, I might we willing to accept that the President could consider politics in naming them. Although once in office I would expect that (unlike the current ambassador to Germany) they would leave politics at home.
wj, what would have been your reaction of Obama had even been rumored to be considering such a thing?
Exactly what it is to Trump doing so:
Are you out of your minds??? These people are professionals**, representing the nation; not political appointees representing a political view.
In short, it is totally unacceptable, no matter who is doing so.
** for those ambassadors who are not career diplomats, I might we willing to accept that the President could consider politics in naming them. Although once in office I would expect that (unlike the current ambassador to Germany) they would leave politics at home.
According to some people, perhaps even someone who comments here, everyone in the executive branch works for the president in very much the same sense that any employee typically works for a boss and/or business owner. I’m going to assume federal employees are at-will.
In that case, it’s just stupid of all the previous administrations that these employees may have worked under not to have vetted employees for personal loyalty to whoever was president at the time, I would assume for purposes of firing (or at least putting some kind of pressure on) the disloyal ones. And it’s pretty unlikely that everyone is going to be personally loyal to every president, so there’s probably a lot of employees in need of firing at any point in time, especially after there’s a change in party in the White House.
You have to keep HR very busy if you want things to run smoothly. That’s like Business/Government 101.
According to some people, perhaps even someone who comments here, everyone in the executive branch works for the president in very much the same sense that any employee typically works for a boss and/or business owner. I’m going to assume federal employees are at-will.
In that case, it’s just stupid of all the previous administrations that these employees may have worked under not to have vetted employees for personal loyalty to whoever was president at the time, I would assume for purposes of firing (or at least putting some kind of pressure on) the disloyal ones. And it’s pretty unlikely that everyone is going to be personally loyal to every president, so there’s probably a lot of employees in need of firing at any point in time, especially after there’s a change in party in the White House.
You have to keep HR very busy if you want things to run smoothly. That’s like Business/Government 101.
I’m going to assume federal employees are at-will.
Which, of course, they are not. We got rid of the spoils system, and instituted the Civil Service, for a reason.
I’m going to assume federal employees are at-will.
Which, of course, they are not. We got rid of the spoils system, and instituted the Civil Service, for a reason.
Which, of course, they are not. We got rid of the spoils system, and instituted the Civil Service, for a reason.
Duly noted. It appears, though, that the particular set of employees mentioned in the article as being reviewed for loyalty to Trump are (at least in part) in the excepted service. Still probably not at-will, but not civil service, either.
Which, of course, they are not. We got rid of the spoils system, and instituted the Civil Service, for a reason.
Duly noted. It appears, though, that the particular set of employees mentioned in the article as being reviewed for loyalty to Trump are (at least in part) in the excepted service. Still probably not at-will, but not civil service, either.
Which, of course, they are not. We got rid of the spoils system, and instituted the Civil Service, for a reason.
One of the consequences, though — and by far the lesser evil, please don’t bring back the spoils system — is that it becomes increasingly common to hire contractors rather than regular employees. Anecdata… My son’s girlfriend works for NOAA/NCAR, who have a contract with DOD to do specific climate change studies. NOAA/NCAR has a small core of experts; most of the actual work is done by contractors, who can be let go if/when necessary. On a smaller scale, when I was part of my state legislature’s budget staff, there was a huge push to force agencies to hire temps and contractors rather than regular employees because the state’s civil service rules made it hard to cut employees when there was a budget crisis (eg, in the 2008 legislative session).
How was it I put it when I had to deal with legislators who wanted to equate the state budget with household budgets? Something along the lines of “It’s all well and good to say we should tighten our belts when revenue falls. Unfortunately, the state constitution and a ton of existing statute require that we do the equivalent of moving into a much larger house with a bigger mortgage instead.” Counter-cyclical programs do not mix well with state government balanced-budget requirements; debt taken on for operating expenses is even worse as states can’t print money.
Which, of course, they are not. We got rid of the spoils system, and instituted the Civil Service, for a reason.
One of the consequences, though — and by far the lesser evil, please don’t bring back the spoils system — is that it becomes increasingly common to hire contractors rather than regular employees. Anecdata… My son’s girlfriend works for NOAA/NCAR, who have a contract with DOD to do specific climate change studies. NOAA/NCAR has a small core of experts; most of the actual work is done by contractors, who can be let go if/when necessary. On a smaller scale, when I was part of my state legislature’s budget staff, there was a huge push to force agencies to hire temps and contractors rather than regular employees because the state’s civil service rules made it hard to cut employees when there was a budget crisis (eg, in the 2008 legislative session).
How was it I put it when I had to deal with legislators who wanted to equate the state budget with household budgets? Something along the lines of “It’s all well and good to say we should tighten our belts when revenue falls. Unfortunately, the state constitution and a ton of existing statute require that we do the equivalent of moving into a much larger house with a bigger mortgage instead.” Counter-cyclical programs do not mix well with state government balanced-budget requirements; debt taken on for operating expenses is even worse as states can’t print money.
The AG shows how to give Christianity a bad name:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/14/jeff-sessions-points-to-the-bible-in-defense-of-separating-immigrant-families/
The headline says it all.
The AG shows how to give Christianity a bad name:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/14/jeff-sessions-points-to-the-bible-in-defense-of-separating-immigrant-families/
The headline says it all.
if you are familiar with the bible, you will be familiar with the idea that the standard that you claim for yourself is the standard by which you will be judged.
claim the bible as the justification for your behavior, and your actions will be judged by what the bible demands.
no small thing.
if you are familiar with the bible, you will be familiar with the idea that the standard that you claim for yourself is the standard by which you will be judged.
claim the bible as the justification for your behavior, and your actions will be judged by what the bible demands.
no small thing.
It’s confusing to keep up with what to be outraged about.
For example:
https://twitter.com/commondefense/status/1007283917307744256
But, I’m sticking with the kids on the border for the time being. Their lives will be changed forever, and probably not in a good way. Sarah Sanders today was a piece of work. Sitting at home and rolling our eyes isn’t enough though. If someone near you is in the streets about this, go out and say hi.
It’s confusing to keep up with what to be outraged about.
For example:
https://twitter.com/commondefense/status/1007283917307744256
But, I’m sticking with the kids on the border for the time being. Their lives will be changed forever, and probably not in a good way. Sarah Sanders today was a piece of work. Sitting at home and rolling our eyes isn’t enough though. If someone near you is in the streets about this, go out and say hi.
Or, attention! Dahlia Lithwick.
Or, attention! Dahlia Lithwick.
It isn’t just Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/14/french-border-police-accused-of-cutting-soles-off-migrant-childrens-shoes
There are similar stories from various parts of Europe.
Interestingly, in the UK, – where the Brexit vote was at the very least partially, if not largely, motivated by anti-immigration sentiment – the Windrush affair, and the awareness of just how dependent our Health Service is on overseas staff, seem to have ameliorated immigration enforcement in some small degree.
It isn’t just Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/14/french-border-police-accused-of-cutting-soles-off-migrant-childrens-shoes
There are similar stories from various parts of Europe.
Interestingly, in the UK, – where the Brexit vote was at the very least partially, if not largely, motivated by anti-immigration sentiment – the Windrush affair, and the awareness of just how dependent our Health Service is on overseas staff, seem to have ameliorated immigration enforcement in some small degree.
Ending the Korean War
“Consider the women in our research. Many of the women who worked in the government-installed camptowns, serving the sexual and recreational needs of US soldiers, never found their way back to their families because of their status as “fallen women.”
In the absence of social welfare, hundreds of thousands of working class women put their children in orphanages, sometimes as a temporary measure, and surrendered them to adoption as a means of survival. This was the pathway to international adoption — first conceived as a war-time relief program, then developed into a much larger scale as Korea’s war prolonged. Two hundred thousand Korean children were separated from their birth families. Due to the associated stigma of women’s sex work and child abandonment, the causes of family separation have remained secret, and the ruptures in the family may never be claimable.”
Also done for Americans in Japan post-war. Remember this when talk of “comfort women” comes up. And let me know when Sessions hits 200k.
Can’t find the story where South Koreans cheered the meeting while Americans were horrified, but the urge to rule and kill and torture children (Iraq sanctions? how are kids doing in Libya?)is bipartisan and American as Apple pie.
What so Bad About Peace
“As the mainstream liberal reaction to Trump’s overtures to Pyongyang makes clear, demanding peace and disarmament is not part of their standard agenda”
Hell, I have absolutely no evidence that Democrats aren’t as bloodthirsty as Republicans. Dems just want blacks, gays and women forcing the Sophie choices and administering the Zyklon B. Freedom!
Ending the Korean War
“Consider the women in our research. Many of the women who worked in the government-installed camptowns, serving the sexual and recreational needs of US soldiers, never found their way back to their families because of their status as “fallen women.”
In the absence of social welfare, hundreds of thousands of working class women put their children in orphanages, sometimes as a temporary measure, and surrendered them to adoption as a means of survival. This was the pathway to international adoption — first conceived as a war-time relief program, then developed into a much larger scale as Korea’s war prolonged. Two hundred thousand Korean children were separated from their birth families. Due to the associated stigma of women’s sex work and child abandonment, the causes of family separation have remained secret, and the ruptures in the family may never be claimable.”
Also done for Americans in Japan post-war. Remember this when talk of “comfort women” comes up. And let me know when Sessions hits 200k.
Can’t find the story where South Koreans cheered the meeting while Americans were horrified, but the urge to rule and kill and torture children (Iraq sanctions? how are kids doing in Libya?)is bipartisan and American as Apple pie.
What so Bad About Peace
“As the mainstream liberal reaction to Trump’s overtures to Pyongyang makes clear, demanding peace and disarmament is not part of their standard agenda”
Hell, I have absolutely no evidence that Democrats aren’t as bloodthirsty as Republicans. Dems just want blacks, gays and women forcing the Sophie choices and administering the Zyklon B. Freedom!
I could drop links all day, cause I am not huddling for warmth and comfort with the other Trump and Russia obsessed.
Blackstone Buys Spain
“Blackstone also owns 1,800 social housing units, which it acquired from Madrid City Hall…Since its purchase of the properties, Blackstone has hiked rents on the flats by 49%. Those who can’t pay have been evicted.
Central banks and financial regulators gave a big helping hand by driving the cost of borrowing, especially for well-connected Wall Street funds, to heretofore unimaginable depths, as well as by passing regulations that made it easier for the funds to issue rent-backed securities.”
Gotta be a way to blame Putin for this.
I could drop links all day, cause I am not huddling for warmth and comfort with the other Trump and Russia obsessed.
Blackstone Buys Spain
“Blackstone also owns 1,800 social housing units, which it acquired from Madrid City Hall…Since its purchase of the properties, Blackstone has hiked rents on the flats by 49%. Those who can’t pay have been evicted.
Central banks and financial regulators gave a big helping hand by driving the cost of borrowing, especially for well-connected Wall Street funds, to heretofore unimaginable depths, as well as by passing regulations that made it easier for the funds to issue rent-backed securities.”
Gotta be a way to blame Putin for this.
Like this one
Smearing of Peterson
“Two weeks ago, we learned that BBC historian, Dan Snow, lied to his daughters when he told them that the Spitfires were piloted by women flying combat missions during WWII in order to encourage them to “follow their dreams.”
First: There were important women artists oppressed by the Patiarchy
Then: There were women artists better than Rembrandt
Soon: Rembrandt who? Saskia did all the painting.
Like this one
Smearing of Peterson
“Two weeks ago, we learned that BBC historian, Dan Snow, lied to his daughters when he told them that the Spitfires were piloted by women flying combat missions during WWII in order to encourage them to “follow their dreams.”
First: There were important women artists oppressed by the Patiarchy
Then: There were women artists better than Rembrandt
Soon: Rembrandt who? Saskia did all the painting.
if not putin, then at least we can blame the dialectic.
people are shitty to other people. some folks here are disturbed by our immigration policies, including but not limited to how kids are treated.
you see our immigration outrage, and raise us an iraq and a korean comfort woman camp.
i bet i can top that with a native american genocide and 4 or 5 centuries of plantation economy slavery.
what else you got?
i’ve yet to hear a concrete suggestion from you about how to fix any of this. not that we’re all obliged to offer solutions to everything, these are difficult problems.
but the holier-than-thou thing gets old.
if not putin, then at least we can blame the dialectic.
people are shitty to other people. some folks here are disturbed by our immigration policies, including but not limited to how kids are treated.
you see our immigration outrage, and raise us an iraq and a korean comfort woman camp.
i bet i can top that with a native american genocide and 4 or 5 centuries of plantation economy slavery.
what else you got?
i’ve yet to hear a concrete suggestion from you about how to fix any of this. not that we’re all obliged to offer solutions to everything, these are difficult problems.
but the holier-than-thou thing gets old.
from the smearing of peterson thing:
the dynamic here is:
* social justice warriors are wrong, or at least partly wrong, about X Y or Z
* I’d like to engage in a discussion with them, but if I do they will yell at me. on their phones.
* so instead I’m going to write articles and blog posts about how much they suck.
this isn’t discourse, it’s junior high school.
gird up your loins, o ye Quillette contributors. you have nothing to lose but your sense of self-righteous aggrievement.
maybe you’ll even get a TED talk out of it.
from the smearing of peterson thing:
the dynamic here is:
* social justice warriors are wrong, or at least partly wrong, about X Y or Z
* I’d like to engage in a discussion with them, but if I do they will yell at me. on their phones.
* so instead I’m going to write articles and blog posts about how much they suck.
this isn’t discourse, it’s junior high school.
gird up your loins, o ye Quillette contributors. you have nothing to lose but your sense of self-righteous aggrievement.
maybe you’ll even get a TED talk out of it.
Everyone is holier than now. It’s what blogs are for. Go to any political blog and you find people being holier than now— the thing is they each carve the world into good vs evil along different lines.
My objection to Bob’s style is tactical. That Zyklon B paragraph is just going to annoy people for no good purpose. It’s better just to post links.
Here is one on Korea which is making the point Bob’s link above makes, but much more directly imo.
https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-meets-kim-averting-threat-nuclear-war-us-pundits-furious/
I don’t have to link to something about Yemen. Even the mainstream press has noticed Trump is supporting a strategy that might cause 250,000 people to die of starvation.
Everyone is holier than now. It’s what blogs are for. Go to any political blog and you find people being holier than now— the thing is they each carve the world into good vs evil along different lines.
My objection to Bob’s style is tactical. That Zyklon B paragraph is just going to annoy people for no good purpose. It’s better just to post links.
Here is one on Korea which is making the point Bob’s link above makes, but much more directly imo.
https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-meets-kim-averting-threat-nuclear-war-us-pundits-furious/
I don’t have to link to something about Yemen. Even the mainstream press has noticed Trump is supporting a strategy that might cause 250,000 people to die of starvation.
In terms of something practical, people could call their representative and Senators and demand that Congress put a stop to the war on Yemen or our role in it. Or at least stop our support for the assault on Hodeida. Here is recent letter from some Representatives. Or rather, a link which contains a link to the letter.
https://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-leads-bipartisan-letter-calling-on-pentagon-to-withhold-us-support
In terms of something practical, people could call their representative and Senators and demand that Congress put a stop to the war on Yemen or our role in it. Or at least stop our support for the assault on Hodeida. Here is recent letter from some Representatives. Or rather, a link which contains a link to the letter.
https://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-leads-bipartisan-letter-calling-on-pentagon-to-withhold-us-support
Another Korea link.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/21210/liberals-are-attacking-trump-from-the-right-on-north-korea.-heres-why-they
Another Korea link.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/21210/liberals-are-attacking-trump-from-the-right-on-north-korea.-heres-why-they
i’ve yet to hear a concrete suggestion from you about how to fix any of this.
Got one
Having just finished a chapter on Peterloo, in which the workers variously protested, lost their jobs, starved, were beaten and hung in dozens for fifty goddamn years the answer is simple tho not easy
a million pink pussyhats at the borders, a million pink pussyhats at the white house. The first ten thousand die.
If they can break away from leaning in, using metoo for personal advancement, and memphis bachelorette parties
Get a few hundred thousand on their way, and I’ll do point. But damn if I am gonna do it on my own, saving and protecting women.
i’ve yet to hear a concrete suggestion from you about how to fix any of this.
Got one
Having just finished a chapter on Peterloo, in which the workers variously protested, lost their jobs, starved, were beaten and hung in dozens for fifty goddamn years the answer is simple tho not easy
a million pink pussyhats at the borders, a million pink pussyhats at the white house. The first ten thousand die.
If they can break away from leaning in, using metoo for personal advancement, and memphis bachelorette parties
Get a few hundred thousand on their way, and I’ll do point. But damn if I am gonna do it on my own, saving and protecting women.
there actually were some tens or low hundreds of thousands of pink pussyhats at the white house, fwiw. so, assuming you weren’t there, you missed your opportunity to do point.
regarding korea – I think people are inclined to criticize Trump for anything he does, good bad or indifferent. because he is a bigoted old asshole and a horror show as POTUS.
it’s true, the guy can’t get a break. because, in general, he sucks, and doesn’t deserve one.
All of that said, IMO diplomatic contact with NK is a good thing. they’re not likely to give up the nukes without getting a lot back in return. I’m not even sure what guarantees would be sufficient.
Ivanka as hostage?
but in general, well done, a good initial effort (which is to say, an initial effort). lots of grandstanding, but it’s Trump and Kim. Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics. Hopefully they will now hand it over to the pros to sort out details.
Nixon went to China. He was still a crook, and he should have gone to jail. That’s what I think of the NK summit.
there actually were some tens or low hundreds of thousands of pink pussyhats at the white house, fwiw. so, assuming you weren’t there, you missed your opportunity to do point.
regarding korea – I think people are inclined to criticize Trump for anything he does, good bad or indifferent. because he is a bigoted old asshole and a horror show as POTUS.
it’s true, the guy can’t get a break. because, in general, he sucks, and doesn’t deserve one.
All of that said, IMO diplomatic contact with NK is a good thing. they’re not likely to give up the nukes without getting a lot back in return. I’m not even sure what guarantees would be sufficient.
Ivanka as hostage?
but in general, well done, a good initial effort (which is to say, an initial effort). lots of grandstanding, but it’s Trump and Kim. Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics. Hopefully they will now hand it over to the pros to sort out details.
Nixon went to China. He was still a crook, and he should have gone to jail. That’s what I think of the NK summit.
Was curious, but apparently Dan Snow took his daughters to a museum when he decided to change history.
Curious because an anime is currently streaming globally on Netflix, though you can’t tell about particular country licenses, Hisone to Misotan that is about women pilots. A prominent subplot has a young woman who struggled against sexism for years to become a fighter pilot and is heartbroken that she is commanded to pilot a dragon instead. She learns to love her dragon.
As usual, and different from third wave Anglo feminism, piloting here is not about the glories of killing people, the equal chance to bomb schools and hospitals.
Was curious, but apparently Dan Snow took his daughters to a museum when he decided to change history.
Curious because an anime is currently streaming globally on Netflix, though you can’t tell about particular country licenses, Hisone to Misotan that is about women pilots. A prominent subplot has a young woman who struggled against sexism for years to become a fighter pilot and is heartbroken that she is commanded to pilot a dragon instead. She learns to love her dragon.
As usual, and different from third wave Anglo feminism, piloting here is not about the glories of killing people, the equal chance to bomb schools and hospitals.
Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics.
Too bad for him he’s too stupid not to drag attention away from that and toward his feud with the FBI and his ill-conceived trade war with China (and Europe and Canada and Mexico).
Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics.
Too bad for him he’s too stupid not to drag attention away from that and toward his feud with the FBI and his ill-conceived trade war with China (and Europe and Canada and Mexico).
But the story on Korea also includes the fact that the US has remained fairly popular – Protestantism introduced by US missionaries being the largest religion in South Korea – and that the latter has travelled from being one of the poorest nations in the world to one of the richer ones, in the space of a couple of generations, while moving from effective dictatorship to democracy.
I’m not sure what Bob’s alternative fix might be, either.
But the story on Korea also includes the fact that the US has remained fairly popular – Protestantism introduced by US missionaries being the largest religion in South Korea – and that the latter has travelled from being one of the poorest nations in the world to one of the richer ones, in the space of a couple of generations, while moving from effective dictatorship to democracy.
I’m not sure what Bob’s alternative fix might be, either.
bob’s job here, AFAICT, is to make people think about things they otherwise might not think about. It’s not so much about answers as about different questions. (Granted, at least for me, the question is sometimes “WTF does that even mean?”)
bob’s job here, AFAICT, is to make people think about things they otherwise might not think about. It’s not so much about answers as about different questions. (Granted, at least for me, the question is sometimes “WTF does that even mean?”)
EP Thompson, page after page, day after day
“In the neighbourhood of Glasgow small parties of weavers rose on 5th and 6th April (with their famous banner, “Scotland Free or
a Desart”), there was a sharp encounter with the military at the “Battle of Bonnymuir”, and in the outcome three men were executed.”
there actually were some tens or low hundreds of thousands of pink pussyhats at the white house
It was a freaking party.
Resistance is measured in blood not selfies, at Amritsar, the Winter Palace, Selma, Chicago 68.
EP Thompson, page after page, day after day
“In the neighbourhood of Glasgow small parties of weavers rose on 5th and 6th April (with their famous banner, “Scotland Free or
a Desart”), there was a sharp encounter with the military at the “Battle of Bonnymuir”, and in the outcome three men were executed.”
there actually were some tens or low hundreds of thousands of pink pussyhats at the white house
It was a freaking party.
Resistance is measured in blood not selfies, at Amritsar, the Winter Palace, Selma, Chicago 68.
hsh: bob’s job here…
bob who?
hsh: bob’s job here…
bob who?
but in general, well done, a good initial effort (which is to say, an initial effort). lots of grandstanding, but it’s Trump and Kim. Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics. Hopefully they will now hand it over to the pros to sort out details…
I think it fairly likely that that’s about it already, as far as progress goes, for the next couple of years.
Which hopefully gets us to the end of Trump’s term without war.
A positive outcome, in my book.
but in general, well done, a good initial effort (which is to say, an initial effort). lots of grandstanding, but it’s Trump and Kim. Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics. Hopefully they will now hand it over to the pros to sort out details…
I think it fairly likely that that’s about it already, as far as progress goes, for the next couple of years.
Which hopefully gets us to the end of Trump’s term without war.
A positive outcome, in my book.
“that the latter has travelled from being one of the poorest nations in the world to one of the richer ones, in the space of a couple of generations, while moving from effective dictatorship to democracy.”
That was because we kept the North Koreans out, though also committing one of the greatest mass slaughters of civilians in the post WWII era. The bombing campaign— well, there are no reliable figures but it might have killed millions.
But while we kept the Stalinists out, South Korea went from fascism to democracy in spite of us.
https://www.thenation.com/article/kwangju-uprising-and-american-hypocrisy-one-reporters-quest-truth-and-justice-korea/
“that the latter has travelled from being one of the poorest nations in the world to one of the richer ones, in the space of a couple of generations, while moving from effective dictatorship to democracy.”
That was because we kept the North Koreans out, though also committing one of the greatest mass slaughters of civilians in the post WWII era. The bombing campaign— well, there are no reliable figures but it might have killed millions.
But while we kept the Stalinists out, South Korea went from fascism to democracy in spite of us.
https://www.thenation.com/article/kwangju-uprising-and-american-hypocrisy-one-reporters-quest-truth-and-justice-korea/
bob who?
mcmanus. And I don’t mean that he actually has anything remotely like a literal job here, just that he seems to fill that role (for me, anyway).
bob who?
mcmanus. And I don’t mean that he actually has anything remotely like a literal job here, just that he seems to fill that role (for me, anyway).
A positive outcome, in my book.
Yes, but (there’s always a “but”!) a positive outcome relative to the negative outcome Trump spent some amount of time making significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.
It’s like antagonizing the mildly belligerent drunk at the party, making him far more belligerent, and then taking credit for having to calm him down afterwards.
Aside from all his other problems, Trump seems to me to be just a really weird guy who’s so all over the place that he lands on something good once in a while.
A positive outcome, in my book.
Yes, but (there’s always a “but”!) a positive outcome relative to the negative outcome Trump spent some amount of time making significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.
It’s like antagonizing the mildly belligerent drunk at the party, making him far more belligerent, and then taking credit for having to calm him down afterwards.
Aside from all his other problems, Trump seems to me to be just a really weird guy who’s so all over the place that he lands on something good once in a while.
bob’s job here, AFAICT, is to make people think about things they otherwise might not think about.
I have no problem with bob. Hopefully he has no problem with me giving him shit because of his apparent inability to make a point without giving the rest of us a lecture about our blindness to the way things really are, and/or our failure to really put our asses on the line to bring about the revolution.
Resistance is measured in blood not selfies
I pretty much agree with this.
Bleed much lately? Or, are you waiting for tens of thousands of the rest of us to go first before you “do point”?
Talk is cheap. Right?
bob’s job here, AFAICT, is to make people think about things they otherwise might not think about.
I have no problem with bob. Hopefully he has no problem with me giving him shit because of his apparent inability to make a point without giving the rest of us a lecture about our blindness to the way things really are, and/or our failure to really put our asses on the line to bring about the revolution.
Resistance is measured in blood not selfies
I pretty much agree with this.
Bleed much lately? Or, are you waiting for tens of thousands of the rest of us to go first before you “do point”?
Talk is cheap. Right?
and, manafort goes to jail. bail revoked due to witness tampering attempts.
and, manafort goes to jail. bail revoked due to witness tampering attempts.
It was a freaking party.
Resistance is measured in blood not selfies
So are you saying that nothing is worth doing in protest if it doesn’t result in bloodshed? That change doesn’t count, somehow, unless it comes with violence?
Not arguing that violence isn’t sometimes required. But I just can’t see that it’s the only approach. Did gay marriage come as a result of riots in the streets? Not noticeably — there were some acts of violence against gays, but I don’t recall any big organized acts of violence in favor of it. And yet that massive bit of social change happened.
It was a freaking party.
Resistance is measured in blood not selfies
So are you saying that nothing is worth doing in protest if it doesn’t result in bloodshed? That change doesn’t count, somehow, unless it comes with violence?
Not arguing that violence isn’t sometimes required. But I just can’t see that it’s the only approach. Did gay marriage come as a result of riots in the streets? Not noticeably — there were some acts of violence against gays, but I don’t recall any big organized acts of violence in favor of it. And yet that massive bit of social change happened.
and Trump’s foundation lawsuit looks legit.
swing, Donny, swing.
and Trump’s foundation lawsuit looks legit.
swing, Donny, swing.
So are you saying that nothing is worth doing in protest if it doesn’t result in bloodshed? That change doesn’t count, somehow, unless it comes with violence?
We’re talking about stopping Trump and Sessions.
I’m willing to listen to other methods, but so far so far in the meantime are your tactics stopping Trump and Sessions?
Maybe success (and taking huge credit) in 2024?
100k pink pussyhats could have torn down the fences, broke into the white house and done a Mussolini on the guys. Or die trying, and get political power.
For some meaning of “could”
I respect the Palestinians. Brazilians. Venezuelans.
Bleed much lately? Or, are you waiting for tens of thousands of the rest of us to go first before you “do point”?
And here we go. My fault, not their fault, because I am not, see next post, leading and telling women what to do. I am just watching in disappointment, especially at that lie of “sanctuary cities.” Hell, the blues are fighting harder for pot.
Frankly, after the catastrophic failure of Clinton and the feminists, the pink pussyhats were almost entirely about “Not our Fault” in order to maintain control of the Democratic Party and resist Sanders.
So are you saying that nothing is worth doing in protest if it doesn’t result in bloodshed? That change doesn’t count, somehow, unless it comes with violence?
We’re talking about stopping Trump and Sessions.
I’m willing to listen to other methods, but so far so far in the meantime are your tactics stopping Trump and Sessions?
Maybe success (and taking huge credit) in 2024?
100k pink pussyhats could have torn down the fences, broke into the white house and done a Mussolini on the guys. Or die trying, and get political power.
For some meaning of “could”
I respect the Palestinians. Brazilians. Venezuelans.
Bleed much lately? Or, are you waiting for tens of thousands of the rest of us to go first before you “do point”?
And here we go. My fault, not their fault, because I am not, see next post, leading and telling women what to do. I am just watching in disappointment, especially at that lie of “sanctuary cities.” Hell, the blues are fighting harder for pot.
Frankly, after the catastrophic failure of Clinton and the feminists, the pink pussyhats were almost entirely about “Not our Fault” in order to maintain control of the Democratic Party and resist Sanders.
What I take away from bob’s ‘Resistance is measured in blood’ comment is not that people who want change need to be violent in their pursuit of it, but that making substantial change often requires people who want it to be willing to suffer violence.
So, yes, gay marriage did not come from riots in the streets, but the recognition of gay people as a class of people who deserved equal protection under law (to the degree that that exists at all even now) required Stonewall.
Civil rights act required Selma and Bull Connor.
Women’s vote required suffragettes getting the crap kicked out of them, and jail.
Labor advances required open warfare, in that case with violence from both sides.
It appears to be a pattern. Lots of peaceful action involved, as well, in all the cases I’ve named, but upsetting the apple cart sufficient to create a context for change frequently seems to require people being willing to take a beating for it.
I neither condemn nor endorse it, it’s just an observation. I wish change could come from simple, reasonable dialog. I just don’t see it.
My issue with bob is his persistence in haranguing all of us for not getting out their and taking it to the streets, when as far as I can tell he has done nothing of the sort either.
If tens of thousands of the rest of us go first, he’ll join in. That’s an understandable position, but not really one that earns him the right to lecture all the rest of us. IMO.
What I take away from bob’s ‘Resistance is measured in blood’ comment is not that people who want change need to be violent in their pursuit of it, but that making substantial change often requires people who want it to be willing to suffer violence.
So, yes, gay marriage did not come from riots in the streets, but the recognition of gay people as a class of people who deserved equal protection under law (to the degree that that exists at all even now) required Stonewall.
Civil rights act required Selma and Bull Connor.
Women’s vote required suffragettes getting the crap kicked out of them, and jail.
Labor advances required open warfare, in that case with violence from both sides.
It appears to be a pattern. Lots of peaceful action involved, as well, in all the cases I’ve named, but upsetting the apple cart sufficient to create a context for change frequently seems to require people being willing to take a beating for it.
I neither condemn nor endorse it, it’s just an observation. I wish change could come from simple, reasonable dialog. I just don’t see it.
My issue with bob is his persistence in haranguing all of us for not getting out their and taking it to the streets, when as far as I can tell he has done nothing of the sort either.
If tens of thousands of the rest of us go first, he’ll join in. That’s an understandable position, but not really one that earns him the right to lecture all the rest of us. IMO.
me: bob who?
hsh: mcmanus. And I don’t mean that he actually has anything remotely like a literal job here, just that he seems to fill that role (for me, anyway).
I was joking, but it was a bad joke.
Ideas are a dime a million on the internet, and even in the library (where they’re free), so it’s easy as pie to encounter them without the poisonous additives, and much healthier.
IOW, I sort of agree with Donald about tactics, though I don’t think Donald’s and bob’s goals are really aligned anyhow. (And I don’t mean politically.)
Back to my regularly scheduled pie.
me: bob who?
hsh: mcmanus. And I don’t mean that he actually has anything remotely like a literal job here, just that he seems to fill that role (for me, anyway).
I was joking, but it was a bad joke.
Ideas are a dime a million on the internet, and even in the library (where they’re free), so it’s easy as pie to encounter them without the poisonous additives, and much healthier.
IOW, I sort of agree with Donald about tactics, though I don’t think Donald’s and bob’s goals are really aligned anyhow. (And I don’t mean politically.)
Back to my regularly scheduled pie.
yes, gay marriage did not come from riots in the streets, but the recognition of gay people as a class of people who deserved equal protection under law (to the degree that that exists at all even now) required Stonewall.
I would argue that the length of time (over four decades) between the Stonewall riots and gay marriage becoming legal shows that violence was NOT what led to the change. Violence got us nowhere.
Does violence sometime work? Sure. The Civil War got us the end of slavery. But it’s not the only path, and not IMHO the best path most of the time.
yes, gay marriage did not come from riots in the streets, but the recognition of gay people as a class of people who deserved equal protection under law (to the degree that that exists at all even now) required Stonewall.
I would argue that the length of time (over four decades) between the Stonewall riots and gay marriage becoming legal shows that violence was NOT what led to the change. Violence got us nowhere.
Does violence sometime work? Sure. The Civil War got us the end of slavery. But it’s not the only path, and not IMHO the best path most of the time.
the pink pussyhats were almost entirely about…
The pink pussyhats were “about” a thousand different things. People participated from an extraordinarily broad range of motivations. “Control of the Democratic party” was not foremost among them.
All different kinds of people. Not all that much in common, really, other than wanting to express a general “Do Not Want” for the Trump presidency and all that looked likely to bring.
Were you there? At any of places where the “pink pussyhats” showed up? Or did you just watch on TV, and wait for the folks at Counterpunch to interpret it all for you?
If you couldn’t even bother to show up, you don’t get to tell me what it was about, because I at least showed up.
Try it next time. Get out of your house and show the hell up. Then I’ll have a higher regard for your point of view on “what it was all about”.
the pink pussyhats were almost entirely about…
The pink pussyhats were “about” a thousand different things. People participated from an extraordinarily broad range of motivations. “Control of the Democratic party” was not foremost among them.
All different kinds of people. Not all that much in common, really, other than wanting to express a general “Do Not Want” for the Trump presidency and all that looked likely to bring.
Were you there? At any of places where the “pink pussyhats” showed up? Or did you just watch on TV, and wait for the folks at Counterpunch to interpret it all for you?
If you couldn’t even bother to show up, you don’t get to tell me what it was about, because I at least showed up.
Try it next time. Get out of your house and show the hell up. Then I’ll have a higher regard for your point of view on “what it was all about”.
and Trump’s foundation lawsuit looks legit.
It’s a civil, rather than criminal, suit. What can happen? The Trumps have to cough up some money? The foundation loses its New York State tax exempt status?
and Trump’s foundation lawsuit looks legit.
It’s a civil, rather than criminal, suit. What can happen? The Trumps have to cough up some money? The foundation loses its New York State tax exempt status?
The Trumps have to cough up some money?
Works for me.
The Trumps have to cough up some money?
Works for me.
The Trump Foundation suit is civil . . . for now. But if the facts alleged are confirmed, criminal charges (e.g. for violating election law) may follow.
And note that the fact that it’s civil means that settled law, ruling by the Supreme Court and everything, means that Trump can be subpoenaed to testify.
The Trump Foundation suit is civil . . . for now. But if the facts alleged are confirmed, criminal charges (e.g. for violating election law) may follow.
And note that the fact that it’s civil means that settled law, ruling by the Supreme Court and everything, means that Trump can be subpoenaed to testify.
Violence got us nowhere.
In the case of Stonewall, what violence “got” was a demonstration that gay men, in a gay bar, in a gay community, were not going to put up with cops harassing them, arresting them, and subjecting them to violence and abuse.
It was a marker. A line in the sand. A statement that that particular community would no longer accept being persecuted for being who they were. They had had enough.
And without that initial line in the sand, I do not think we would have, 40 years later, an acceptance of gay marriage.
Basically, I disagree with you on this point.
If we could have gotten there without Stonewall, all the better. Maybe we would have, absent Stonewall. But in the actual history, the path to gay marriage, and general acceptance of gay people as a population who should be afforded basic civil rights, went through Stonewall.
Violence got us nowhere.
In the case of Stonewall, what violence “got” was a demonstration that gay men, in a gay bar, in a gay community, were not going to put up with cops harassing them, arresting them, and subjecting them to violence and abuse.
It was a marker. A line in the sand. A statement that that particular community would no longer accept being persecuted for being who they were. They had had enough.
And without that initial line in the sand, I do not think we would have, 40 years later, an acceptance of gay marriage.
Basically, I disagree with you on this point.
If we could have gotten there without Stonewall, all the better. Maybe we would have, absent Stonewall. But in the actual history, the path to gay marriage, and general acceptance of gay people as a population who should be afforded basic civil rights, went through Stonewall.
and, manafort goes to jail. bail revoked due to witness tampering attempts.
Not that it will surprise anyone here, but it ought to be asked for the record:
Who engages in witness tampering, multiple attempts at witness tampering, if they are innocent? Seems almost as good as a guilty plea.
and, manafort goes to jail. bail revoked due to witness tampering attempts.
Not that it will surprise anyone here, but it ought to be asked for the record:
Who engages in witness tampering, multiple attempts at witness tampering, if they are innocent? Seems almost as good as a guilty plea.
Who engages in witness tampering, multiple attempts at witness tampering, if they are innocent?
I’m not sure it has as much to do with guilt as with the belief in untouchability, in his own ability to wrangle every situation to his own advantage one way or another.
I think these people (hopefully more of them every day) have run into a brick wall they didn’t know was there, which is that there are people in the world, and contexts, where they can’t actually bully their way through to getting their own way.
I was listening to the radio in the car the other day and heard snatches of a talk with Cecile Richards (president of Planned Parenthood, and I didn’t know this, the daughter of Ann Richards). She was talking about how after the election Ivanka called her and asked for a meeting. CR refused at first, but after several phone calls, finally gave in. Then Ivanka told her Jared was coming , so CR brought her own husband. (She was — surprising me, because I knew nothing about her — quite funny in relating all this.)
Jared offered to forestall the defunding of PP if PP would stop doing abortions. CR said no way (at length, I’m sure). They pushed. She stood firm — not surprisingly.
The meeting ended, and later Ivanka called her (more than once IIRC) to see if she’d “thought about” the offer.
I told this to a friend of mine who has worked in real estate, from the POV of the idea that I didn’t think J and I understood that there are things in life that some people actually value more than $.
My friend said said: classic sales person’s mindset. You just keep nagging and pushing, and pushing and nagging, until at the very worst (from your POV), they give in to shut you up. The thing is, I don’t think people like that grasp that some people actually have principles, and reasons……and that they are not going to cave no matter how hard you push.
This is obviously not directly relevant to Manafort, but I think in terms of attitude there’s some similarity. The attitude is: there’s no one I can’t push hard enough to get my way, and no context where I can’t be clever enough to beat my opponents, and there’s no context where I will get called to account for it. After all, what’s there to get called to account for?
Who engages in witness tampering, multiple attempts at witness tampering, if they are innocent?
I’m not sure it has as much to do with guilt as with the belief in untouchability, in his own ability to wrangle every situation to his own advantage one way or another.
I think these people (hopefully more of them every day) have run into a brick wall they didn’t know was there, which is that there are people in the world, and contexts, where they can’t actually bully their way through to getting their own way.
I was listening to the radio in the car the other day and heard snatches of a talk with Cecile Richards (president of Planned Parenthood, and I didn’t know this, the daughter of Ann Richards). She was talking about how after the election Ivanka called her and asked for a meeting. CR refused at first, but after several phone calls, finally gave in. Then Ivanka told her Jared was coming , so CR brought her own husband. (She was — surprising me, because I knew nothing about her — quite funny in relating all this.)
Jared offered to forestall the defunding of PP if PP would stop doing abortions. CR said no way (at length, I’m sure). They pushed. She stood firm — not surprisingly.
The meeting ended, and later Ivanka called her (more than once IIRC) to see if she’d “thought about” the offer.
I told this to a friend of mine who has worked in real estate, from the POV of the idea that I didn’t think J and I understood that there are things in life that some people actually value more than $.
My friend said said: classic sales person’s mindset. You just keep nagging and pushing, and pushing and nagging, until at the very worst (from your POV), they give in to shut you up. The thing is, I don’t think people like that grasp that some people actually have principles, and reasons……and that they are not going to cave no matter how hard you push.
This is obviously not directly relevant to Manafort, but I think in terms of attitude there’s some similarity. The attitude is: there’s no one I can’t push hard enough to get my way, and no context where I can’t be clever enough to beat my opponents, and there’s no context where I will get called to account for it. After all, what’s there to get called to account for?
Nevertheless, I fervently hope Manafort is scared shitless. Someone on BJ wrote that his wife looked stunned when he was led from the courtroom. So did he think he could weasel his way through this one too? Or just not bother to prepare her? Or maybe it was his lawyers…….
Nevertheless, I fervently hope Manafort is scared shitless. Someone on BJ wrote that his wife looked stunned when he was led from the courtroom. So did he think he could weasel his way through this one too? Or just not bother to prepare her? Or maybe it was his lawyers…….
JanieM:I am disappoint you don’t block my comments.
there’s no one I can’t push hard enough to get my way
I am also disappoint that for all the insults and comparisons for Trump, no one has brought up Kingsley in Sexy Beast
But Trumphobia is boring.
though I don’t think Donald’s and bob’s goals are really aligned anyhow. (And I don’t mean politically.
Oooh, how cryptic and mysterious.
Ok, I confess, I am a Putin puppet paid with Bubba Kush and Durban Poison. Trying to bargain up to Chernobyl.
Manafort and Cohen aren’t getting any of my attention. I have also, within memory, never heard Trump’s voice.
JanieM:I am disappoint you don’t block my comments.
there’s no one I can’t push hard enough to get my way
I am also disappoint that for all the insults and comparisons for Trump, no one has brought up Kingsley in Sexy Beast
But Trumphobia is boring.
though I don’t think Donald’s and bob’s goals are really aligned anyhow. (And I don’t mean politically.
Oooh, how cryptic and mysterious.
Ok, I confess, I am a Putin puppet paid with Bubba Kush and Durban Poison. Trying to bargain up to Chernobyl.
Manafort and Cohen aren’t getting any of my attention. I have also, within memory, never heard Trump’s voice.
What can happen?
a different set of prosecutors get to start digging around in Trump’s finances.
What can happen?
a different set of prosecutors get to start digging around in Trump’s finances.
So did he think he could weasel his way through this one too?
Just to take russell’s ball and run a little further with it, I think part of the problem is that, not only do they not appreciate that some people have principles they won’t violate, they don’t appreciate that they’re now in a very different environment than they once were.
It’s like being the smartest kid in your Podunk high school and heading off to Princeton, where your roommate is not only as good at math as you are, but plays the violin, can translate texts in ancient Greek, and has climbed the Matterhorn. (At least you’re still better at soccer, maybe.)
But the real problem for the people in the Trump circle isn’t just that they aren’t the biggest fish. It’s that they still haven’t figured out that they aren’t. They’re dealing with people and institutions and levels of responsibility and scrutiny that are unlike anything they’ve previously encountered. Regardless, they keep plugging along as though the same, old rules apply.
So did he think he could weasel his way through this one too?
Just to take russell’s ball and run a little further with it, I think part of the problem is that, not only do they not appreciate that some people have principles they won’t violate, they don’t appreciate that they’re now in a very different environment than they once were.
It’s like being the smartest kid in your Podunk high school and heading off to Princeton, where your roommate is not only as good at math as you are, but plays the violin, can translate texts in ancient Greek, and has climbed the Matterhorn. (At least you’re still better at soccer, maybe.)
But the real problem for the people in the Trump circle isn’t just that they aren’t the biggest fish. It’s that they still haven’t figured out that they aren’t. They’re dealing with people and institutions and levels of responsibility and scrutiny that are unlike anything they’ve previously encountered. Regardless, they keep plugging along as though the same, old rules apply.
You go first or you’re a hypocrite
No, you go first or you’re a liar
You first
You first
Can’t say I am overwhelmed by your argument, russell
Let’s say that those who are loudest and most publicly outraged by Trump should take the lead in resisting him. That’s the haranguing, I would love to talk about Haydn or anime or Nancy Fraser, but I get this full-voice hysteria wherever I go.
If you think you deserve power and responsibility, then get the shit done. Failure and performative victimhood does not get my empathy or respect.
You go first or you’re a hypocrite
No, you go first or you’re a liar
You first
You first
Can’t say I am overwhelmed by your argument, russell
Let’s say that those who are loudest and most publicly outraged by Trump should take the lead in resisting him. That’s the haranguing, I would love to talk about Haydn or anime or Nancy Fraser, but I get this full-voice hysteria wherever I go.
If you think you deserve power and responsibility, then get the shit done. Failure and performative victimhood does not get my empathy or respect.
Dammit! That first sentence should be in italics.
Dammit! That first sentence should be in italics.
Can’t say I am overwhelmed by your argument, russell
can’t say I’m surprised by this news.
Failure and performative victimhood does not get my empathy or respect.
I’ll just have to muddle along with them.
Can’t say I am overwhelmed by your argument, russell
can’t say I’m surprised by this news.
Failure and performative victimhood does not get my empathy or respect.
I’ll just have to muddle along with them.
I’ll just have to muddle along with them..
Didn’t you mean without them?
There’s something in there about the pot and the kettle, but the analogy isn’t quite right, since russell is about the last person anyone with any sense would accuse of “failure and performative victimhood.” I can’t imagine whom he’s quoting. 😉
Or why he bothers.
*****
hsh — the Princeton analogy is good. I don’t think they’ll ever “figure it out,” not really.
I’ll just have to muddle along with them..
Didn’t you mean without them?
There’s something in there about the pot and the kettle, but the analogy isn’t quite right, since russell is about the last person anyone with any sense would accuse of “failure and performative victimhood.” I can’t imagine whom he’s quoting. 😉
Or why he bothers.
*****
hsh — the Princeton analogy is good. I don’t think they’ll ever “figure it out,” not really.
Didn’t you mean without them?
yes.
to be honest, I don’t really know what “performative victimhood” even means.
I’m open to talking about Haydn. Don’t know much about anime.
If bob (or whoever) can explain monads to me – functional programming monads, not the biology ones or the leibniz ones – I’m all ears.
Didn’t you mean without them?
yes.
to be honest, I don’t really know what “performative victimhood” even means.
I’m open to talking about Haydn. Don’t know much about anime.
If bob (or whoever) can explain monads to me – functional programming monads, not the biology ones or the leibniz ones – I’m all ears.
Generic fucking “you” there as usual, no wait, I meant you JanieM, not Russell, you and that insane repulsive LGM crew, who have just enraged me again, making excuses and whining about 2016 being everybody’s fault but Clinton.
Worshiping and whining again and again and again what 18 months after the election? And why won’t the Berniebros stop talking about Clinton ?
She Can Take it umm, where can she take it?
“they shit on a woman, she’ll always be there to clean up the mess. And in fact, they wanted her to clean it up.”
Nah, I don’t want Clinton to clean up this mess, I want her to die.
Generic fucking “you” there as usual, no wait, I meant you JanieM, not Russell, you and that insane repulsive LGM crew, who have just enraged me again, making excuses and whining about 2016 being everybody’s fault but Clinton.
Worshiping and whining again and again and again what 18 months after the election? And why won’t the Berniebros stop talking about Clinton ?
She Can Take it umm, where can she take it?
“they shit on a woman, she’ll always be there to clean up the mess. And in fact, they wanted her to clean it up.”
Nah, I don’t want Clinton to clean up this mess, I want her to die.
russell is about the last person anyone with any sense would accuse of “failure and performative victimhood.”
How very true this is!
russell is about the last person anyone with any sense would accuse of “failure and performative victimhood.”
How very true this is!
Clinton endorses Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon.
Who the hell are you people? Not on my side.
She’s poison and still getting richer.
Clinton endorses Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon.
Who the hell are you people? Not on my side.
She’s poison and still getting richer.
Ok, I confess, I am a Putin puppet
Absolutely unbelievable. Absolutely and totally unbelievable.
For one, I’m pretty sure you believe the far left stuff you are putting out. And Putin doesn’t believe it for a minute. (And likely knew better, even back when he was with the Soviet secret police.)
Ok, I confess, I am a Putin puppet
Absolutely unbelievable. Absolutely and totally unbelievable.
For one, I’m pretty sure you believe the far left stuff you are putting out. And Putin doesn’t believe it for a minute. (And likely knew better, even back when he was with the Soviet secret police.)
Who are you people?
The enemies of Cynthia Nixon and her program, the enemies of Sanders,Warren and their supporters and the supporters of this avaricious smug warmongering failure and her gang of opportunistic incompetents.
There is still a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.
The Wall Street Democrats are winning.
Who are you people?
The enemies of Cynthia Nixon and her program, the enemies of Sanders,Warren and their supporters and the supporters of this avaricious smug warmongering failure and her gang of opportunistic incompetents.
There is still a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.
The Wall Street Democrats are winning.
Nah, I don’t want Clinton to clean up this mess, I want her to die.
Totally understand. Because if you believe the claptrap about “contradictions,” it becomes desirable that things get as bad as possible. The desire, in service of a long term end, is for the greater evil, not the lesser.
Nah, I don’t want Clinton to clean up this mess, I want her to die.
Totally understand. Because if you believe the claptrap about “contradictions,” it becomes desirable that things get as bad as possible. The desire, in service of a long term end, is for the greater evil, not the lesser.
I think we may be witnessing an extended breakdown of some kind. Or, at the very least, a breakdown of self-control which has up to now temporarily been preventing personal attacks. Stand by for pre-emptive accusations of imminent banning and exclusion…..
I think we may be witnessing an extended breakdown of some kind. Or, at the very least, a breakdown of self-control which has up to now temporarily been preventing personal attacks. Stand by for pre-emptive accusations of imminent banning and exclusion…..
I don’t understand why we’re supposed to be so wrapped up with Clinton, or at least why that’s the big deal right now. Who here wrote a thing about Clinton on this thread? Or is this just a rehash for general purposes?
I don’t understand why we’re supposed to be so wrapped up with Clinton, or at least why that’s the big deal right now. Who here wrote a thing about Clinton on this thread? Or is this just a rehash for general purposes?
Well, who other than bob wrote anything about Clinton, that is.
Well, who other than bob wrote anything about Clinton, that is.
it becomes desirable that things get as bad as possible.
Nah, the alternative is out there and obvious.
No, I want Warren and Sanders or some of their allies to clean up this mess created by Obama and Clinton. Clinton Obama Perez and you are in the way.
And yeah, I get baited and vicious. I, in case you haven’t noticed, am not trying to win a popularity contest.
it becomes desirable that things get as bad as possible.
Nah, the alternative is out there and obvious.
No, I want Warren and Sanders or some of their allies to clean up this mess created by Obama and Clinton. Clinton Obama Perez and you are in the way.
And yeah, I get baited and vicious. I, in case you haven’t noticed, am not trying to win a popularity contest.
I would love to see a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. I don’t know if they would win, but I’d certainly want them to.
I would love to see a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. I don’t know if they would win, but I’d certainly want them to.
I think we may be witnessing an extended breakdown of some kind.
So sorry I am the only one making personal attacks.
Who here wrote a thing about Clinton on this thread? Or is this just a rehash for general purposes?
Try reading LGM. The whole Manafort Russia Comey Berniebro kitchen sink thing has as its primary purpose:
Not her fault.
I think we may be witnessing an extended breakdown of some kind.
So sorry I am the only one making personal attacks.
Who here wrote a thing about Clinton on this thread? Or is this just a rehash for general purposes?
Try reading LGM. The whole Manafort Russia Comey Berniebro kitchen sink thing has as its primary purpose:
Not her fault.
And I don’t give a damn about any of that, even if true.
They stole the election in 2000 and Democrats let them.
Then they stole it again in 2016 and Democrats let them.
Cause Democratic leadership get rich, win or lose. And apparently loved and admired no matter the degree of fail.
Am I supposed to be outraged by Republican bad actions? If you think I hate some democrats…
No more, fix it, take care of it, or I stop caring.
Millions suffered and died, and yes, it is Democrats fault.
And I don’t give a damn about any of that, even if true.
They stole the election in 2000 and Democrats let them.
Then they stole it again in 2016 and Democrats let them.
Cause Democratic leadership get rich, win or lose. And apparently loved and admired no matter the degree of fail.
Am I supposed to be outraged by Republican bad actions? If you think I hate some democrats…
No more, fix it, take care of it, or I stop caring.
Millions suffered and died, and yes, it is Democrats fault.
I would love to see a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. I don’t know if they would win, but I’d certainly want them to.
I, on the other hand, definitely wouldn’t want to see that. Secondarily because I have philosophical disagreements with them. But primarily and overwhelmingly because I think it would be a losing ticket.
There are a few Republicans I’d be fine with in the White House, but the prospect of more Trump, or of someone like Cruz? NOT attractive.
I would love to see a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. I don’t know if they would win, but I’d certainly want them to.
I, on the other hand, definitely wouldn’t want to see that. Secondarily because I have philosophical disagreements with them. But primarily and overwhelmingly because I think it would be a losing ticket.
There are a few Republicans I’d be fine with in the White House, but the prospect of more Trump, or of someone like Cruz? NOT attractive.
They stole the election in 2000 and Democrats let them.
Then they stole it again in 2016 and Democrats let them.
Cause Democratic leadership get rich, win or lose.
I can agree that the 2000 election was stolen. Although I’m not clear how you figure the Democrats “let them.”
And I don’t see how the 2016 election was “stolen.” I don’t like the Electoral College. But it’s the way the rules are, and everybody knew it going in.
Or are you arguing the the Democrats tried to lose? In which case, some evidence would seem to be in order.
They stole the election in 2000 and Democrats let them.
Then they stole it again in 2016 and Democrats let them.
Cause Democratic leadership get rich, win or lose.
I can agree that the 2000 election was stolen. Although I’m not clear how you figure the Democrats “let them.”
And I don’t see how the 2016 election was “stolen.” I don’t like the Electoral College. But it’s the way the rules are, and everybody knew it going in.
Or are you arguing the the Democrats tried to lose? In which case, some evidence would seem to be in order.
The Wall Street Democrats are winning.
I don’t disagree with this.
The Wall Street Democrats are winning.
I don’t disagree with this.
I’ve been away, so apologies if this is a bit late.
I’m still processing North Korea. But it seems to me it is like that the story about the Chinese historian being asked if the French Revolution was a good thing and he said it was too soon too tell. What Trump has done is like an earthquake or some other act of god. People don’t rant about how earthquakes or typhoons are ‘evil’. So people who are ranting about it, both from the ‘ha ha Trump is wrong’ side and from the ‘ha ha, you think Trump is wrong but you are wrong’, are basically being distracted. Some should be smart enough to realize it while others, not so much.
If you want to argue that because Trump’s decision to meet Kim means that Peterson is right, I think you have bigger problems than can be addressed in a blog comment.
I’ve been away, so apologies if this is a bit late.
I’m still processing North Korea. But it seems to me it is like that the story about the Chinese historian being asked if the French Revolution was a good thing and he said it was too soon too tell. What Trump has done is like an earthquake or some other act of god. People don’t rant about how earthquakes or typhoons are ‘evil’. So people who are ranting about it, both from the ‘ha ha Trump is wrong’ side and from the ‘ha ha, you think Trump is wrong but you are wrong’, are basically being distracted. Some should be smart enough to realize it while others, not so much.
If you want to argue that because Trump’s decision to meet Kim means that Peterson is right, I think you have bigger problems than can be addressed in a blog comment.
wj: There are a few Republicans I’d be fine with in the White House
Name two.
I’d spot you Eisenhower, but let’s limit ourselves to currently active Republicans we might both have heard of.
BTW, wj, your suggestions need not pass muster with either bob mcmanus or the RNC. I do not ask for the impossible.
–TP
wj: There are a few Republicans I’d be fine with in the White House
Name two.
I’d spot you Eisenhower, but let’s limit ourselves to currently active Republicans we might both have heard of.
BTW, wj, your suggestions need not pass muster with either bob mcmanus or the RNC. I do not ask for the impossible.
–TP
Hey bob mcmanus,
Thanks for advertising LGM, and their spectacular front pagers and commenters. Good people there! Very much my folks.
XXOO
sapient
Hey bob mcmanus,
Thanks for advertising LGM, and their spectacular front pagers and commenters. Good people there! Very much my folks.
XXOO
sapient
Also, I saw, but don’t want to look again for GftNC’s comment about the breakdown in process.
I guess we’re all old people here, trying to figure out McKinney’s estate plan and such. Maybe we should also all be caring for folks who are losing it.
Hard to tell though, these days, who should be coddled (and talked about later), and who should be shunned. We’re living in a very dark time.
I try to think nice things about people, but there are a whole lot of people who need to be put down.
The person in question is probably not dangerous. But giving him a forum? Really? hairshirt, you’re such an openminded human, and good on you. But how are you informed by any of this? Please explain in what way you’ve been enlightened.
Also, I saw, but don’t want to look again for GftNC’s comment about the breakdown in process.
I guess we’re all old people here, trying to figure out McKinney’s estate plan and such. Maybe we should also all be caring for folks who are losing it.
Hard to tell though, these days, who should be coddled (and talked about later), and who should be shunned. We’re living in a very dark time.
I try to think nice things about people, but there are a whole lot of people who need to be put down.
The person in question is probably not dangerous. But giving him a forum? Really? hairshirt, you’re such an openminded human, and good on you. But how are you informed by any of this? Please explain in what way you’ve been enlightened.
i could live with charlie baker in the white house, fwiw. but i’m not sure he counts as a (R) anywhere but here in MA.
It’s like being the smartest kid in your Podunk high school and heading off to Princeton
i think it’s more like being a sleazy chiseling crook, and suddenly being expected to be resposible for something other than your own personal advantage.
except you can leave out the word “like”.
and yeah, i know bill clinton was a triangulating horndog and he, hillary, and obama have all made bundles. i’m not looking for heroes, just basic competence and a due regard for the obligations of the office.
i could live with charlie baker in the white house, fwiw. but i’m not sure he counts as a (R) anywhere but here in MA.
It’s like being the smartest kid in your Podunk high school and heading off to Princeton
i think it’s more like being a sleazy chiseling crook, and suddenly being expected to be resposible for something other than your own personal advantage.
except you can leave out the word “like”.
and yeah, i know bill clinton was a triangulating horndog and he, hillary, and obama have all made bundles. i’m not looking for heroes, just basic competence and a due regard for the obligations of the office.
Tony P.: Name two.
Susan Collins
Charlie Baker
Just off the top of my head.
Tony P.: Name two.
Susan Collins
Charlie Baker
Just off the top of my head.
Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob.
Been here before.
Look, the LGM crowd and my crowd, Counterpunch Jacobin etc really really hate each other. I had hoped this place wasn’t a wholly owned subsidiary of Lemieux.
You want deranged, vicious and violent? And much more profane than anything here.
Leave this space open, I’ll start quoting comments from LGM.
They are used to having their way, and banning people who disagree.
Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob.
Been here before.
Look, the LGM crowd and my crowd, Counterpunch Jacobin etc really really hate each other. I had hoped this place wasn’t a wholly owned subsidiary of Lemieux.
You want deranged, vicious and violent? And much more profane than anything here.
Leave this space open, I’ll start quoting comments from LGM.
They are used to having their way, and banning people who disagree.
Oh, and don’t bother to bring up Marty and your Republican pets here. They love being punching bags.
Oh, and don’t bother to bring up Marty and your Republican pets here. They love being punching bags.
Again, care. Or swear.
Again, care. Or swear.
Here’s Counterpunch
And LGM
Take some time, just scroll thru some titles, compare as to reason, sanity, fairness, civility, depth, breadth
Loomis is ok, except for the company he keeps. He does get in trouble when he pushes back on the hate and bigotry over there.
Ps: LGM has banned its black male commenters
Here’s Counterpunch
And LGM
Take some time, just scroll thru some titles, compare as to reason, sanity, fairness, civility, depth, breadth
Loomis is ok, except for the company he keeps. He does get in trouble when he pushes back on the hate and bigotry over there.
Ps: LGM has banned its black male commenters
fwiw, i share hairshirt’s view of mcmanus. he has a different point of view, i appreciate that he shares it here. i’m somewhat impatient with the whole “your feeble attempts to effect change do not meet my standards for praxis” thing because, well, it’s annoying. i’m sure my mental and verbal tics annoy people as well. they annoy me sometimes.
i’m not sure obwi is about “giving people forums”. it’s kind of an open mike, if someone wants to talk, they can talk, they don’t need permission. there are limits, but they mostly have to do with not being abusive or plain old creepily weird (anyone remember irumator?).
i find counterpunch interesting but doctrinaire, therefore limited. fwiw. if it suits you, enjoy.
fwiw, i share hairshirt’s view of mcmanus. he has a different point of view, i appreciate that he shares it here. i’m somewhat impatient with the whole “your feeble attempts to effect change do not meet my standards for praxis” thing because, well, it’s annoying. i’m sure my mental and verbal tics annoy people as well. they annoy me sometimes.
i’m not sure obwi is about “giving people forums”. it’s kind of an open mike, if someone wants to talk, they can talk, they don’t need permission. there are limits, but they mostly have to do with not being abusive or plain old creepily weird (anyone remember irumator?).
i find counterpunch interesting but doctrinaire, therefore limited. fwiw. if it suits you, enjoy.
I needed escape.
Innocent Sorcerers, Wajda 1962, script by Skolimowski. Minimal new wave two hand, both gorgeous doctor and actress meet, go to his apartment, flirt hyper intelligently for sixty movie minutes, no sex, guy won’t commit. Lotta jazz, arty shit.
Polanski has a bit part, the funny/sad thing is that Polanski is not short in his Polish movies. War is hell and Americans suck. Do I have to explain this? About nutrition.
What does it feel like to come to America and see that your entire people is stunted? Imamura plays with this in Pigs and Battleships 1959 by hiring short Japanese and all the Americans are freaking linebackers. Hilarious.
Such a tiny movie with a lot of chiaroscuro, it feels more like a Skolimowski than a Wajda. Directors usually don’t like to give up control, but gotta wonder.
Looked up some reviews, and people agree with me. Nice of Wajda.
I needed escape.
Innocent Sorcerers, Wajda 1962, script by Skolimowski. Minimal new wave two hand, both gorgeous doctor and actress meet, go to his apartment, flirt hyper intelligently for sixty movie minutes, no sex, guy won’t commit. Lotta jazz, arty shit.
Polanski has a bit part, the funny/sad thing is that Polanski is not short in his Polish movies. War is hell and Americans suck. Do I have to explain this? About nutrition.
What does it feel like to come to America and see that your entire people is stunted? Imamura plays with this in Pigs and Battleships 1959 by hiring short Japanese and all the Americans are freaking linebackers. Hilarious.
Such a tiny movie with a lot of chiaroscuro, it feels more like a Skolimowski than a Wajda. Directors usually don’t like to give up control, but gotta wonder.
Looked up some reviews, and people agree with me. Nice of Wajda.
russell: i could live with charlie baker in the white house, fwiw. but i’m not sure he counts as a (R) anywhere but here in MA.
A governor who chooses to be a Republican would presumably support Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the US House, support Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader of the US Senate, appoint a Republican (i.e. McConnell supporter) to fill a vacant Senate seat if it were in his power, and nominate “conservative” Justices if he ever got into the White House. As I will never tire of pointing out, this is the one and only operative definition of “Republican”, in MA or any other state.
wj: Susan Collins
Same as with Charlie Baker. Party affiliation is voluntary, and it has practical consequences.
Of course, I acknowledge that in some alternate universe wherein the national GOP was not the party of He, Trump and his idolaters and lickspittles, a President Collins or a President Baker might be merely disagreeable rather than downright dangerous. But I can’t see how we get to that alternate universe from here as long as decent people are willing to call themselves “Republicans”.
–TP
russell: i could live with charlie baker in the white house, fwiw. but i’m not sure he counts as a (R) anywhere but here in MA.
A governor who chooses to be a Republican would presumably support Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the US House, support Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader of the US Senate, appoint a Republican (i.e. McConnell supporter) to fill a vacant Senate seat if it were in his power, and nominate “conservative” Justices if he ever got into the White House. As I will never tire of pointing out, this is the one and only operative definition of “Republican”, in MA or any other state.
wj: Susan Collins
Same as with Charlie Baker. Party affiliation is voluntary, and it has practical consequences.
Of course, I acknowledge that in some alternate universe wherein the national GOP was not the party of He, Trump and his idolaters and lickspittles, a President Collins or a President Baker might be merely disagreeable rather than downright dangerous. But I can’t see how we get to that alternate universe from here as long as decent people are willing to call themselves “Republicans”.
–TP
But Tony, as we are seeing every day, those Congressional Republicans are willing to abandon everything they have ever said, everything they have claimed for decades to believe, if a Republican President says something different. So why do you assume either of these individuals would suddenly change their beliefs to cater to those same Congressional Republicans?
I’ll grant that you still might not love all of their politics. But that wasn’t the question.
But Tony, as we are seeing every day, those Congressional Republicans are willing to abandon everything they have ever said, everything they have claimed for decades to believe, if a Republican President says something different. So why do you assume either of these individuals would suddenly change their beliefs to cater to those same Congressional Republicans?
I’ll grant that you still might not love all of their politics. But that wasn’t the question.
i could vote for a fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal Republican over a truly terrible Democrat. to me, fiscal conservatism is a disagreement about where to put money – i can handle that; i understand the logic; it doesn’t offend me. but social conservatism is a menace. it’s the antithesis of what makes small-government fiscal conservatism seem like a valid ideology, to me. and it’s rarely more than demagoguery (since basically all of its boosters end being unmasked as hypocrites). i’ll never vote for a social conservative.
i could vote for a fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal Republican over a truly terrible Democrat. to me, fiscal conservatism is a disagreement about where to put money – i can handle that; i understand the logic; it doesn’t offend me. but social conservatism is a menace. it’s the antithesis of what makes small-government fiscal conservatism seem like a valid ideology, to me. and it’s rarely more than demagoguery (since basically all of its boosters end being unmasked as hypocrites). i’ll never vote for a social conservative.
i could vote for a fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal Republican over a truly terrible Democrat.
I’ve never seen that happen in my voting experience.
Susan Collins has thrown her lot in with the Nazi child grabbers.
i could vote for a fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal Republican over a truly terrible Democrat.
I’ve never seen that happen in my voting experience.
Susan Collins has thrown her lot in with the Nazi child grabbers.
fwiw, i share hairshirt’s view of mcmanus.
He’s a misogynist. I don’t see how that’s any better than being a racist.
fwiw, i share hairshirt’s view of mcmanus.
He’s a misogynist. I don’t see how that’s any better than being a racist.
Just one of many examples of the misogyny: Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob.
By the way, I’m the one who has been banned from here, more than once. As far as I know, Big Bad Bob hasn’t. I’m fine with my pie filter (and obviously I look underneath it), so I rarely ask that anyone be banned.
I would love it if people would explain to me why they think a misogynist perspective is better than, say, one by a white supremacist. If you think it’s fine, okay, but offer some excuses at least.
Just one of many examples of the misogyny: Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob.
By the way, I’m the one who has been banned from here, more than once. As far as I know, Big Bad Bob hasn’t. I’m fine with my pie filter (and obviously I look underneath it), so I rarely ask that anyone be banned.
I would love it if people would explain to me why they think a misogynist perspective is better than, say, one by a white supremacist. If you think it’s fine, okay, but offer some excuses at least.
He’s a misogynist.
And like an accusation of racism, that should be banning material.
Hey, I get along fine with the grocery checker and wave back at my neighbours.
Maybe its only when certain kinds of behavior, flattery and unconditional support, are expected of me that I disappoint.
And 1) accusations of racism and misogyny have become completely devalued since the last election.
2) 2008 was precisely when I started getting into trouble, and it has only gotten worse sine then. It never crossed anyone’s mind until racism started meaning not cheering Obama enough.
He’s a misogynist.
And like an accusation of racism, that should be banning material.
Hey, I get along fine with the grocery checker and wave back at my neighbours.
Maybe its only when certain kinds of behavior, flattery and unconditional support, are expected of me that I disappoint.
And 1) accusations of racism and misogyny have become completely devalued since the last election.
2) 2008 was precisely when I started getting into trouble, and it has only gotten worse sine then. It never crossed anyone’s mind until racism started meaning not cheering Obama enough.
mcmanus spews. You decide.
mcmanus spews. You decide.
Although, of course, we have to wonder whether if we don’t give him a forum here, he’ll go shoot up a yoga class or something. They guy is bent. Which, of course, is fine.
Although, of course, we have to wonder whether if we don’t give him a forum here, he’ll go shoot up a yoga class or something. They guy is bent. Which, of course, is fine.
3) That the accusations of misogyny, meaning supporting Sanders over Clinton, started flying in the spring of 2016, and I am very far from being the only person so defamed. I did notice that the accusations were coming from a specific type or character and I became a little hostile, wary, and okay stereotyping.
Not all women. Nancy Fraser, Zillah Eisenstein, Wendy Brown, I can list dozens of strong women I admire and even love. They were for the most part, socialists and Hillary opponents.
So not all women. Just you.
3) That the accusations of misogyny, meaning supporting Sanders over Clinton, started flying in the spring of 2016, and I am very far from being the only person so defamed. I did notice that the accusations were coming from a specific type or character and I became a little hostile, wary, and okay stereotyping.
Not all women. Nancy Fraser, Zillah Eisenstein, Wendy Brown, I can list dozens of strong women I admire and even love. They were for the most part, socialists and Hillary opponents.
So not all women. Just you.
and even love
I’m afraid for them.
and even love
I’m afraid for them.
And opposed to many male commenters when encountering this stuff, I fight back rather than run away and hide. Sometimes nastily.
Too many sisters to be dependent on women’s approval and terrified of being accused of hurting.
And opposed to many male commenters when encountering this stuff, I fight back rather than run away and hide. Sometimes nastily.
Too many sisters to be dependent on women’s approval and terrified of being accused of hurting.
And opposed to many male commenters when encountering this stuff, I fight back rather than run away and hide. Sometimes nastily.
Very much so. I suggest that you seek help.
Quiverringly yours,
sapient
And opposed to many male commenters when encountering this stuff, I fight back rather than run away and hide. Sometimes nastily.
Very much so. I suggest that you seek help.
Quiverringly yours,
sapient
he’ll go shoot up a yoga class or something.
Okay, now I am getting scared of what might be done to me offline.
he’ll go shoot up a yoga class or something.
Okay, now I am getting scared of what might be done to me offline.
Okay, now I am getting scared of what might be done to me offline.
Be vigilant, but never quiver.
Okay, now I am getting scared of what might be done to me offline.
Be vigilant, but never quiver.
I use my real name with a certain amount of trust, even while knowing there are vicious stalkers.
I have already threatened with being reported to the FBI, by someone at Ezra Klein’s old blog who didn’t agree my anti-war rhetoric. Back when Exra was for the war before he was always already against it and a really great guy who swooned at Obama and cried over Hillary.
Its the liberals that are always dangerous, the ones with support structures that make them confidant and arrogant.
I use my real name with a certain amount of trust, even while knowing there are vicious stalkers.
I have already threatened with being reported to the FBI, by someone at Ezra Klein’s old blog who didn’t agree my anti-war rhetoric. Back when Exra was for the war before he was always already against it and a really great guy who swooned at Obama and cried over Hillary.
Its the liberals that are always dangerous, the ones with support structures that make them confidant and arrogant.
I use my real name with a certain amount of trust, even while knowing there are vicious stalkers.
Am I stalking you by answering you? That’s an interesting perspective from someone who is wanting people to step up.
Sorry that you’re a complete mess. I’ll pie filter you again, but would ask others to acknowledge what we have here. Probably a very human human. But not necessarily somebody whose logic we want to pursue.
XXOO, bob!
I use my real name with a certain amount of trust, even while knowing there are vicious stalkers.
Am I stalking you by answering you? That’s an interesting perspective from someone who is wanting people to step up.
Sorry that you’re a complete mess. I’ll pie filter you again, but would ask others to acknowledge what we have here. Probably a very human human. But not necessarily somebody whose logic we want to pursue.
XXOO, bob!
If someone wants to change the subject back to McKinney’s estate planning, I’m totally fine with that!
Although I’d rether talk about what each of us can do about this Nazi bullshit on the border,
Stand with a sign? Obviously contact Congresspeople.
Maybe bob is right – we can gather enough people to bullrush a place with some of us willing to die in the fight? I might be up for that, but I certainly don’t want to be bullrushing by myself. It would end pretty quickly.
If someone wants to change the subject back to McKinney’s estate planning, I’m totally fine with that!
Although I’d rether talk about what each of us can do about this Nazi bullshit on the border,
Stand with a sign? Obviously contact Congresspeople.
Maybe bob is right – we can gather enough people to bullrush a place with some of us willing to die in the fight? I might be up for that, but I certainly don’t want to be bullrushing by myself. It would end pretty quickly.
Just one of many examples of the misogyny: Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery
actually, you have a point. that was a pretty bullshit comment. most definitely bad form.
if we don’t give him a forum here, he’ll go shoot up a yoga class or something
ok, maybe bad form.
Be vigilant, but never quiver.
this however was hilarious. well played.
bob, nobody here is coming after you. nobody cares if you’re marxist except maybe mckinney. don’t be a jerk and we’ll be all good.
Just one of many examples of the misogyny: Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery
actually, you have a point. that was a pretty bullshit comment. most definitely bad form.
if we don’t give him a forum here, he’ll go shoot up a yoga class or something
ok, maybe bad form.
Be vigilant, but never quiver.
this however was hilarious. well played.
bob, nobody here is coming after you. nobody cares if you’re marxist except maybe mckinney. don’t be a jerk and we’ll be all good.
bob’s misogyny goes back ages, and seems to have gone unnoticed by most of you among his frequent spurts of more generalised poisonous misanthropy. His occasional self-aggrandising justifications (he alone among men resists the pressure to flatter and give obeisance to women – apparently the only way to propitiate them and avoid their fiendish behaviour) would be laughable if they weren’t so disturbing, and the temptation to psychoanalyse at a distance is certainly hard to resist (and I do not always resist it). But I see how many of the commentariat value his contribution, and despite his absurd pre-emptive claims of imminent banning (imposed or manipulated by those sneaky women, or “the ladies”, or “the little girls”) I have never personally been disposed to request that he should be banned. For those that like a reminder of their more radical youth, or the occasional introduction of abstruse political or social theory, to quote the orange peril: enjoy. However, let us not pretend that there is no misogyny there.
sapient, you and I often disagree, about terminology and other things. But the bottom line is this: you put your money (and more importantly your time and energy) where your mouth is, to prevent egregious abuses and to support the causes you believe in, and I believe in them too. More power to you.
bob’s misogyny goes back ages, and seems to have gone unnoticed by most of you among his frequent spurts of more generalised poisonous misanthropy. His occasional self-aggrandising justifications (he alone among men resists the pressure to flatter and give obeisance to women – apparently the only way to propitiate them and avoid their fiendish behaviour) would be laughable if they weren’t so disturbing, and the temptation to psychoanalyse at a distance is certainly hard to resist (and I do not always resist it). But I see how many of the commentariat value his contribution, and despite his absurd pre-emptive claims of imminent banning (imposed or manipulated by those sneaky women, or “the ladies”, or “the little girls”) I have never personally been disposed to request that he should be banned. For those that like a reminder of their more radical youth, or the occasional introduction of abstruse political or social theory, to quote the orange peril: enjoy. However, let us not pretend that there is no misogyny there.
sapient, you and I often disagree, about terminology and other things. But the bottom line is this: you put your money (and more importantly your time and energy) where your mouth is, to prevent egregious abuses and to support the causes you believe in, and I believe in them too. More power to you.
bob writes plenty of stuff that look misogynistic to me, but I generally reserve judgement on that point because I know he tends to write in an extremely pointed way. And I’m sure he knows a sh*t-ton more about feminism than I do, so I assume he’s parsing in ways I don’t really get. Maybe he is a misogynist. He definitely can be an a$$hole, and I doubt even he would dispute that. Either way, I’m pushed to google things I otherwise wouldn’t because of the things he writes. That’s why I like having him around. It doesn’t mean I endorse everything he writes or that I think he’s a great guy.
Surprisingly enough, I have reasons and motiviations for things that don’t always align with everyone else’s. To be blunt about it, tough sh*t if that doesn’t please you (the general “you”).
bob writes plenty of stuff that look misogynistic to me, but I generally reserve judgement on that point because I know he tends to write in an extremely pointed way. And I’m sure he knows a sh*t-ton more about feminism than I do, so I assume he’s parsing in ways I don’t really get. Maybe he is a misogynist. He definitely can be an a$$hole, and I doubt even he would dispute that. Either way, I’m pushed to google things I otherwise wouldn’t because of the things he writes. That’s why I like having him around. It doesn’t mean I endorse everything he writes or that I think he’s a great guy.
Surprisingly enough, I have reasons and motiviations for things that don’t always align with everyone else’s. To be blunt about it, tough sh*t if that doesn’t please you (the general “you”).
So hsh, as to this: sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob
“Maybe” he is a misogynist? If that attack were racially framed, would you say “maybe” he’s a racist? And let it go because you assume he knows more about racial politics than you do?
Or what about this sustained sneer at #metoo? I mean, there’s plenty of room for discussion about #metoo, but that’s not discussion, it’s just bomb-throwing, or as you would rather put it, “extremely pointed.”
Okay.
So hsh, as to this: sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob
“Maybe” he is a misogynist? If that attack were racially framed, would you say “maybe” he’s a racist? And let it go because you assume he knows more about racial politics than you do?
Or what about this sustained sneer at #metoo? I mean, there’s plenty of room for discussion about #metoo, but that’s not discussion, it’s just bomb-throwing, or as you would rather put it, “extremely pointed.”
Okay.
And let it go because you assume he knows more about racial politics than you do?
I don’t really know what letting it go is supposed mean. Yes, that’s certainly a misogynistic thing to write. But I find bob to be far more inscrutable than most people. (He’s a total weirdo AFAICT.) If you think he’s a misogynist, I’m not going to try to talk you out of it. (What are his policy positions as concerns women’s rights issues? Serious question out of genuine curiosity. I could see that going any number of ways.) And if he were to be banned, I wouldn’t argue against it, even if it meant I would no longer get to read and try to figure what he had to write. He’s probably earned it, based on my understanding of the posting rules.
sapient asked upthread for me to explain what it was I got out of bob’s comments, so I did, with some acknowlegement of GFTNC’s comment just before mine. It hasn’t gone beyond my notice what he writes about women. It’s not what I enjoy about what he writes.
And let it go because you assume he knows more about racial politics than you do?
I don’t really know what letting it go is supposed mean. Yes, that’s certainly a misogynistic thing to write. But I find bob to be far more inscrutable than most people. (He’s a total weirdo AFAICT.) If you think he’s a misogynist, I’m not going to try to talk you out of it. (What are his policy positions as concerns women’s rights issues? Serious question out of genuine curiosity. I could see that going any number of ways.) And if he were to be banned, I wouldn’t argue against it, even if it meant I would no longer get to read and try to figure what he had to write. He’s probably earned it, based on my understanding of the posting rules.
sapient asked upthread for me to explain what it was I got out of bob’s comments, so I did, with some acknowlegement of GFTNC’s comment just before mine. It hasn’t gone beyond my notice what he writes about women. It’s not what I enjoy about what he writes.
hsh, I reacted strongly in part because:
All this time, all our lives until recently, we have had some men being shits to women, and people saying, out loud or quietly, oh, nothing can be done about that, and anyhow, we need the great movies he makes, or the great books he writes, or the great (?) laws he passes, or the great ideas he brings to the blog, and furthermore we might ruin his life if we name what’s really happening (Brock Turner, e.g.), so we’ll just shrug and let it go. (“Reserve judgment” was your phrase, “let it go” was mine. I mean by it: not challenge it; praise him for other things while ignoring the poison; …)
Yes, humans are shits to humans in general; men get abused too, not to mention children. That doesn’t mean that specific patterns can’t be called out and untangled from the mess.
We squabble a lot here. People are mean to other people and sometimes they reconcile and are friends again. But as russell said in this very thread, there are limits.
I don’t care what bob mcmanus knows about feminism (I actually don’t call myself a feminist anyhow, FWIW) or what his policy positions might be in relation to women’s rights. There’s that old “actions speak louder than words” thing at play.
hsh, I reacted strongly in part because:
All this time, all our lives until recently, we have had some men being shits to women, and people saying, out loud or quietly, oh, nothing can be done about that, and anyhow, we need the great movies he makes, or the great books he writes, or the great (?) laws he passes, or the great ideas he brings to the blog, and furthermore we might ruin his life if we name what’s really happening (Brock Turner, e.g.), so we’ll just shrug and let it go. (“Reserve judgment” was your phrase, “let it go” was mine. I mean by it: not challenge it; praise him for other things while ignoring the poison; …)
Yes, humans are shits to humans in general; men get abused too, not to mention children. That doesn’t mean that specific patterns can’t be called out and untangled from the mess.
We squabble a lot here. People are mean to other people and sometimes they reconcile and are friends again. But as russell said in this very thread, there are limits.
I don’t care what bob mcmanus knows about feminism (I actually don’t call myself a feminist anyhow, FWIW) or what his policy positions might be in relation to women’s rights. There’s that old “actions speak louder than words” thing at play.
It has been pointed out to me that the link in my 11:33 comment isn’t working. I’ve checked and it seems like linking to the timestamp sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. If I figure out why that’s happening I’ll fix it, and offer details to anyone else who might want to link to a previous comment.
It’s typepad, so who knows.
It has been pointed out to me that the link in my 11:33 comment isn’t working. I’ve checked and it seems like linking to the timestamp sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. If I figure out why that’s happening I’ll fix it, and offer details to anyone else who might want to link to a previous comment.
It’s typepad, so who knows.
One could try temporary conditional bannig or a string warning—no more misogynistic comments or else.
I think bob plays an important role here or could do so but spoils it to some degree with his um issues. He is more hardline than me, which is good, and I agree with what hsh says on that. I try to do the same things, but have lost my taste for getting into internet arguments, so I am not going to be doing what bob does.
If you could scrape away the misogynistic aspect ( which bob doesn’t seem to be aware of in his writing), it would be, I think, a critique of middle class white Clinton style feminism from a more leftwing perspective. This isn’t something I am going to touch because I am a white male. But you can get it from, say, Katie Halper, who is a young Jewish self described female Berniebro. I think there are people of color who do it too, but I am not very knowledgeable here
Ironically, some of the organizers of the women’s march that bob criticizes were themselves young female people of color, like Linda Sarsour, who was trashed by Bari Weiss in the NYT for being too radical and sympathizing with an alleged cop killer and saying nasty things about Zionism. Imagine a Palestinian American saying nasty things about Zionism. Horrors.
One could try temporary conditional bannig or a string warning—no more misogynistic comments or else.
I think bob plays an important role here or could do so but spoils it to some degree with his um issues. He is more hardline than me, which is good, and I agree with what hsh says on that. I try to do the same things, but have lost my taste for getting into internet arguments, so I am not going to be doing what bob does.
If you could scrape away the misogynistic aspect ( which bob doesn’t seem to be aware of in his writing), it would be, I think, a critique of middle class white Clinton style feminism from a more leftwing perspective. This isn’t something I am going to touch because I am a white male. But you can get it from, say, Katie Halper, who is a young Jewish self described female Berniebro. I think there are people of color who do it too, but I am not very knowledgeable here
Ironically, some of the organizers of the women’s march that bob criticizes were themselves young female people of color, like Linda Sarsour, who was trashed by Bari Weiss in the NYT for being too radical and sympathizing with an alleged cop killer and saying nasty things about Zionism. Imagine a Palestinian American saying nasty things about Zionism. Horrors.
Strong warning, not string warning.
Strong warning, not string warning.
Katie Halper—
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/a-feminist-millennial-explains-feminism-to-a-femin.html
Katie Halper—
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/a-feminist-millennial-explains-feminism-to-a-femin.html
Bari Weiss and Linda Sarsour—
https://jezebel.com/the-demonization-of-linda-sarsour-1797537513
Bari Weiss and Linda Sarsour—
https://jezebel.com/the-demonization-of-linda-sarsour-1797537513
Ironically, some of the organizers of the women’s march that bob criticizes were themselves young female people of color, like Linda Sarsour, who was trashed by Bari Weiss in the NYT for being too radical and sympathizing with an alleged cop killer and saying nasty things about Zionism. Imagine a Palestinian American saying nasty things about Zionism. Horrors.
Yes. Everyone fights with everyone. I even fight with myself on a regular basis.
the misogynistic aspect ( which bob doesn’t seem to be aware of in his writing)
You can’t possibly be serious…….?
Can you read the comment in the first page of this thread, on June 09, 2018 at 02:17 PM (the link I can’t make work) — and tell me he isn’t aware of exactly what he’s doing, and doing it on purpose? And over and over and over again, year after year.
Throw in calling Obama “Barry” in that sneering way…
Aiy.
Ironically, some of the organizers of the women’s march that bob criticizes were themselves young female people of color, like Linda Sarsour, who was trashed by Bari Weiss in the NYT for being too radical and sympathizing with an alleged cop killer and saying nasty things about Zionism. Imagine a Palestinian American saying nasty things about Zionism. Horrors.
Yes. Everyone fights with everyone. I even fight with myself on a regular basis.
the misogynistic aspect ( which bob doesn’t seem to be aware of in his writing)
You can’t possibly be serious…….?
Can you read the comment in the first page of this thread, on June 09, 2018 at 02:17 PM (the link I can’t make work) — and tell me he isn’t aware of exactly what he’s doing, and doing it on purpose? And over and over and over again, year after year.
Throw in calling Obama “Barry” in that sneering way…
Aiy.
For anybody who can’t be bothered to search, Aiy indeed:
For anybody who can’t be bothered to search, Aiy indeed:
I meant that I think bob believes that he is fighting the privileged and uses misogynistic language, rationalizing to himself that this is justified because in his mind he is striking at the privileged and doesn’t mean that that he really is a misogynist. Is he a misogynist? Yes.
I put up that other stuff because I was thinking of what the conversation could be about if it wasn’t being pushed by bob. I apologize. This was the wrong time for that.
I meant that I think bob believes that he is fighting the privileged and uses misogynistic language, rationalizing to himself that this is justified because in his mind he is striking at the privileged and doesn’t mean that that he really is a misogynist. Is he a misogynist? Yes.
I put up that other stuff because I was thinking of what the conversation could be about if it wasn’t being pushed by bob. I apologize. This was the wrong time for that.
Donald, thank you for the apology, and also for your (habitual) clarity and calm.
“What the conversation could be about if it wasn’t being pushed by bob” is one of the reasons it dismays me that people bite the hooks and thereby enable him to push it.
As to this: One could try temporary conditional bannig or a string warning—no more misogynistic comments or else.
That would be fine with me. I don’t know if we can get the challenging ideas without the abuse, but if we can’t, I’m not interested in being the punching bag.
We’ll see.
Donald, thank you for the apology, and also for your (habitual) clarity and calm.
“What the conversation could be about if it wasn’t being pushed by bob” is one of the reasons it dismays me that people bite the hooks and thereby enable him to push it.
As to this: One could try temporary conditional bannig or a string warning—no more misogynistic comments or else.
That would be fine with me. I don’t know if we can get the challenging ideas without the abuse, but if we can’t, I’m not interested in being the punching bag.
We’ll see.
bob’s misogyny goes back ages
being a guy, and probably kind of a guy-ish guy, i am more than open to the idea that a lot of women are obliged to put up with goes clear over my head. my wife spends no small amount of time hipping me to how things i do, or say, or think, will be and are perceived and received by women.
it is illuminating.
so when sapient, and gftnc, and janie, take the trouble to all point out, yes, this is a thing, i am inclined to believe them. and, to try to pay better attention.
i’ll also say that i don’t always read bob’s stuff entirely closely, because it’s dense and somewhat recherche. so i think i miss stuff that way.
long story short, this is me as a front-pager saying to the women here yes, i believe you, and asking bob to moderate language and tone when talking about women. this is not a prelude to banning, it’s just a request that you be respectful of others who participate here.
bob’s misogyny goes back ages
being a guy, and probably kind of a guy-ish guy, i am more than open to the idea that a lot of women are obliged to put up with goes clear over my head. my wife spends no small amount of time hipping me to how things i do, or say, or think, will be and are perceived and received by women.
it is illuminating.
so when sapient, and gftnc, and janie, take the trouble to all point out, yes, this is a thing, i am inclined to believe them. and, to try to pay better attention.
i’ll also say that i don’t always read bob’s stuff entirely closely, because it’s dense and somewhat recherche. so i think i miss stuff that way.
long story short, this is me as a front-pager saying to the women here yes, i believe you, and asking bob to moderate language and tone when talking about women. this is not a prelude to banning, it’s just a request that you be respectful of others who participate here.
I meant that I think bob believes that he is fighting the privileged and uses misogynistic language, rationalizing to himself that this is justified because in his mind he is striking at the privileged and doesn’t mean that that he really is a misogynist.
What I have long (“long” as in in the half century starting in college) found fascinating is just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be even more misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right. If you look just at what you see on the usual span from conservative to liberal, you might reasonably expect otherwise. But it seems to happen with startling (at least to me) consistency.
Anybody have any speculations as to why? Or, I suppose, experience to suggest that what I think I’m seeing is just a statistical fluke?
I meant that I think bob believes that he is fighting the privileged and uses misogynistic language, rationalizing to himself that this is justified because in his mind he is striking at the privileged and doesn’t mean that that he really is a misogynist.
What I have long (“long” as in in the half century starting in college) found fascinating is just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be even more misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right. If you look just at what you see on the usual span from conservative to liberal, you might reasonably expect otherwise. But it seems to happen with startling (at least to me) consistency.
Anybody have any speculations as to why? Or, I suppose, experience to suggest that what I think I’m seeing is just a statistical fluke?
“just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be even more misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right.”
I am not going to take the bait here for a number of reasons. First, I just got caught displaying my own male privilege and I would rather spend more time thinking about that. But second, it just makes me angry. Yes, there is some racism and misogyny and antisemitism on the far left, but outside of say Pol Pot or Stalin it doesn’t come close to the far right, certainly not in America. And centrists are way way too self blinded and complacent to see their own flaws.
It’s partly why we can murder people overseas without blinking an eye.
Anyway, signing out.
“just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be even more misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right.”
I am not going to take the bait here for a number of reasons. First, I just got caught displaying my own male privilege and I would rather spend more time thinking about that. But second, it just makes me angry. Yes, there is some racism and misogyny and antisemitism on the far left, but outside of say Pol Pot or Stalin it doesn’t come close to the far right, certainly not in America. And centrists are way way too self blinded and complacent to see their own flaws.
It’s partly why we can murder people overseas without blinking an eye.
Anyway, signing out.
Donald, speaking for myself, thank you for your perceptive and interesting comments.
Donald, speaking for myself, thank you for your perceptive and interesting comments.
in my experience, your radical arm-chair revolutionaries might not be into leftist politics for the social justice and equality aspects. they might be in it for the Marxist revolutionary Bern-it-down-ism. they don’t find any use for mainstream liberalism because mainstream liberalism isn’t helping them destroy the state, or whatever. all that stuff is small-ball. they want the revolution.
they’re really of a different breed than your everyday lefty.
in my experience, your radical arm-chair revolutionaries might not be into leftist politics for the social justice and equality aspects. they might be in it for the Marxist revolutionary Bern-it-down-ism. they don’t find any use for mainstream liberalism because mainstream liberalism isn’t helping them destroy the state, or whatever. all that stuff is small-ball. they want the revolution.
they’re really of a different breed than your everyday lefty.
What I have long (“long” as in in the half century starting in college) found fascinating is just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be
even morejust as misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right.I might go along with this with the editorial fix I made, but I don’t pay enough attention to the extremes to judge if one is worse than the other. In the abstract, it’s not that surprising that people at the extremes would be…extreme…in more ways than one.
What I have long (“long” as in in the half century starting in college) found fascinating is just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be
even morejust as misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right.I might go along with this with the editorial fix I made, but I don’t pay enough attention to the extremes to judge if one is worse than the other. In the abstract, it’s not that surprising that people at the extremes would be…extreme…in more ways than one.
Misogyny comes naturally to a misanthrope. But enough about mcmanus.
Is wj correct that misogyny, race bigotry, and other manifestations of misanthropy are to be found on the extreme left as much as on the extreme right? I figure yes — for properly chosen values of “extreme”, “left”, and “right” of course.
–TP
Misogyny comes naturally to a misanthrope. But enough about mcmanus.
Is wj correct that misogyny, race bigotry, and other manifestations of misanthropy are to be found on the extreme left as much as on the extreme right? I figure yes — for properly chosen values of “extreme”, “left”, and “right” of course.
–TP
I am not going to take the bait here for a number of reasons. First, I just got caught displaying my own male privilege and I would rather spend more time thinking about that. But second, it just makes me angry. Yes, there is some racism and misogyny and antisemitism on the far left, but outside of say Pol Pot or Stalin it doesn’t come close to the far right, certainly not in America.
Donald, no offense intended. And FYI you don’t come close to my definition of far left. (Sorry) Bob does; you don’t.
I am not going to take the bait here for a number of reasons. First, I just got caught displaying my own male privilege and I would rather spend more time thinking about that. But second, it just makes me angry. Yes, there is some racism and misogyny and antisemitism on the far left, but outside of say Pol Pot or Stalin it doesn’t come close to the far right, certainly not in America.
Donald, no offense intended. And FYI you don’t come close to my definition of far left. (Sorry) Bob does; you don’t.
At the risk of dragging “what about bob?” out even further beyond its expiration date, I’d say that sapient, GFTNC, and JanieM are like Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl (not necessarily respectively) being faced with a villain of some sort, and I may as well be Elmer Fudd.
At the risk of dragging “what about bob?” out even further beyond its expiration date, I’d say that sapient, GFTNC, and JanieM are like Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl (not necessarily respectively) being faced with a villain of some sort, and I may as well be Elmer Fudd.
They used to say that one of the things that made Seinfeld so special was “No hugging, no learning.”
It wasn’t something I watched, but I got the drift, and liked the motto, often finding “heartwarming” or “uplifting” stuff a bit icky and offputting. But, at the risk of breaching the terms, on learning at least, I’d just like to say that being believed is great, but having one’s comrades see it for themselves before it’s pointed out is even better. Onward and upward!
They used to say that one of the things that made Seinfeld so special was “No hugging, no learning.”
It wasn’t something I watched, but I got the drift, and liked the motto, often finding “heartwarming” or “uplifting” stuff a bit icky and offputting. But, at the risk of breaching the terms, on learning at least, I’d just like to say that being believed is great, but having one’s comrades see it for themselves before it’s pointed out is even better. Onward and upward!
Misogyny comes naturally to a misanthrope.
ding ding ding
Misogyny comes naturally to a misanthrope.
ding ding ding
hsh: Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl
My son brought me a present from the Portland Pride parade on Saturday, which he participated in as a contra dancer:
As culturally challenged as I am, I had to have it explained to me. But now that I’ve got it, I’ll put it on the shelf with my Davy Crockett hat. 😉
(JK, I didn’t keep the hat for 63 years. Even my mother isn’t that much of a pack rat.)
And speaking of culture, how many Pride parades do we suppose have contra dance contingents?!?
hsh: Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl
My son brought me a present from the Portland Pride parade on Saturday, which he participated in as a contra dancer:
As culturally challenged as I am, I had to have it explained to me. But now that I’ve got it, I’ll put it on the shelf with my Davy Crockett hat. 😉
(JK, I didn’t keep the hat for 63 years. Even my mother isn’t that much of a pack rat.)
And speaking of culture, how many Pride parades do we suppose have contra dance contingents?!?
Oh,that reminds me. The Stonewall Riot came up a few days ago. I was drinking this from our local brew pub:
https://untappd.com/b/eight-and-sand-beer-co-stonewall-uprising/2691434/photos
Oh,that reminds me. The Stonewall Riot came up a few days ago. I was drinking this from our local brew pub:
https://untappd.com/b/eight-and-sand-beer-co-stonewall-uprising/2691434/photos
From hsh’s link: Stonewall Uprising is a Bavarian style Hefeweizen infused with organic hibiscus, imparting a tart berry note.
It’s almost worth trying it, just to find out what organic hibiscus with a tart berry note tastes like. 🙂
From hsh’s link: Stonewall Uprising is a Bavarian style Hefeweizen infused with organic hibiscus, imparting a tart berry note.
It’s almost worth trying it, just to find out what organic hibiscus with a tart berry note tastes like. 🙂
mods: sapient informs me that she has been unable to post comments, even after trying other names.
could someone look into this?
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28089#comments
mods: sapient informs me that she has been unable to post comments, even after trying other names.
could someone look into this?
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28089#comments
All this time, all our lives until recently, we have had some men being shits to women, and people saying, out loud or quietly, oh, nothing can be done about that, and anyhow, we need the great movies he makes, or the great books he writes, or the great (?) laws he passes, or the great ideas he brings to the blog, and furthermore we might ruin his life if we name what’s really happening (Brock Turner, e.g.), so we’ll just shrug and let it go. (“Reserve judgment” was your phrase, “let it go” was mine. I mean by it: not challenge it; praise him for other things while ignoring the poison; …)
MeeToo certainly opened my eyes a little further than hitherto, but what really drove the lesson home was the pushback against it.
All this time, all our lives until recently, we have had some men being shits to women, and people saying, out loud or quietly, oh, nothing can be done about that, and anyhow, we need the great movies he makes, or the great books he writes, or the great (?) laws he passes, or the great ideas he brings to the blog, and furthermore we might ruin his life if we name what’s really happening (Brock Turner, e.g.), so we’ll just shrug and let it go. (“Reserve judgment” was your phrase, “let it go” was mine. I mean by it: not challenge it; praise him for other things while ignoring the poison; …)
MeeToo certainly opened my eyes a little further than hitherto, but what really drove the lesson home was the pushback against it.
On the topic of Clinton hatred and double standards, this is another very interesting Emptywheel post:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/17/the-most-irresponsible-thing-michael-horowitz-has-done-as-doj-ig/
On the topic of Clinton hatred and double standards, this is another very interesting Emptywheel post:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/17/the-most-irresponsible-thing-michael-horowitz-has-done-as-doj-ig/
sapient informs me that she has been unable to post comments, even after trying other names.
could someone look into this?
Considering how Sapient and Bob M were going on earlier, maybe they’re having a timeout.
sapient informs me that she has been unable to post comments, even after trying other names.
could someone look into this?
Considering how Sapient and Bob M were going on earlier, maybe they’re having a timeout.
Even people who don’t like beer much liked it. It’s a pleasantly refreshing but still flavorful beer. I was skeptical of the brewery having much success in the area where I live, but it’s really popular, and community oriented to boot.
I think I’ve been underestimating the potential of my local surroundings. I’m coming to find a surprisingly cosmopolitan contingent. Not just because we have a good brew pub, of course. That’s just one part of it. Anyway,
it helps me keep my sanity when the national climate seems so dysfunctional.
Even people who don’t like beer much liked it. It’s a pleasantly refreshing but still flavorful beer. I was skeptical of the brewery having much success in the area where I live, but it’s really popular, and community oriented to boot.
I think I’ve been underestimating the potential of my local surroundings. I’m coming to find a surprisingly cosmopolitan contingent. Not just because we have a good brew pub, of course. That’s just one part of it. Anyway,
it helps me keep my sanity when the national climate seems so dysfunctional.
Just to restate what I did over at cleek’s (thank you, cleek), I appreciate people backing me up. I’m going to take my own time-out from ObWi, because the situation at the border deserves my total attention. There’s a lot more on my mind, but you probably can guess after all these years what that is.
Anyway, thanks so much, especially GftNC and JanieM.
Later.
Just to restate what I did over at cleek’s (thank you, cleek), I appreciate people backing me up. I’m going to take my own time-out from ObWi, because the situation at the border deserves my total attention. There’s a lot more on my mind, but you probably can guess after all these years what that is.
Anyway, thanks so much, especially GftNC and JanieM.
Later.
I’d say that sapient, GFTNC, and JanieM are like Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl (not necessarily respectively) being faced with a villain of some sort, and I may as well be Elmer Fudd.
I feel you.
being believed is great, but having one’s comrades see it for themselves before it’s pointed out is even better.
we all do our best.
fail better is my motto.
I’d say that sapient, GFTNC, and JanieM are like Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl (not necessarily respectively) being faced with a villain of some sort, and I may as well be Elmer Fudd.
I feel you.
being believed is great, but having one’s comrades see it for themselves before it’s pointed out is even better.
we all do our best.
fail better is my motto.
It’s almost worth trying it, just to find out what organic hibiscus with a tart berry note tastes like.
From a restaurant menu description of a sauvignon blanc:
“flavors of lemon gummy bears and pressed linen”
??
It’s almost worth trying it, just to find out what organic hibiscus with a tart berry note tastes like.
From a restaurant menu description of a sauvignon blanc:
“flavors of lemon gummy bears and pressed linen”
??
I just dropped in before I head off to real life, and saw this
I’d say that sapient, GFTNC, and JanieM are like Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl (not necessarily respectively) being faced with a villain of some sort, and I may as well be Elmer Fudd.
I’ve pictured myself as a cross between Pepe Le Pew and Foghorn Leghorn…
I just dropped in before I head off to real life, and saw this
I’d say that sapient, GFTNC, and JanieM are like Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Supergirl (not necessarily respectively) being faced with a villain of some sort, and I may as well be Elmer Fudd.
I’ve pictured myself as a cross between Pepe Le Pew and Foghorn Leghorn…
hsh, russell: thank you.
sapient: may the force be with you.
hsh, russell: thank you.
sapient: may the force be with you.
my comment crossed with lj’s, about whom I need only say:
the force is strong with this one
my comment crossed with lj’s, about whom I need only say:
the force is strong with this one
All this food and beer talk is making me remember Calvin Trillin’s caution against eating in a restaurant called La Maison de la Casa House.
He also does a great imitation of menus that describe food the way we now (thirty or so years later) describe beer and wine. There’s some kind of a cautionary tale there, too.
I need to dig out my Calvin Trillin for when I need some laughs and a reminder to lighten up.
All this food and beer talk is making me remember Calvin Trillin’s caution against eating in a restaurant called La Maison de la Casa House.
He also does a great imitation of menus that describe food the way we now (thirty or so years later) describe beer and wine. There’s some kind of a cautionary tale there, too.
I need to dig out my Calvin Trillin for when I need some laughs and a reminder to lighten up.
hsh, russell: thank you.
sapient: may the force be with you.
Seconded.
hsh, russell: thank you.
sapient: may the force be with you.
Seconded.
Cheryl Rofer at BJ has a post up that lists ways to contribute to or participate in the fight against what’s going on at the border. It probably overlaps with outfits mentioned in sapient’s link(s) recently, but I thought I’d flag it anyhow, especially because, since it’s so recent, it may have new info about protests. Those BJ people keep up a pace of commenting and information flow that I can’t hope to keep up with, but it’s all the more useful as a resource for that reason.
Cheryl Rofer at BJ has a post up that lists ways to contribute to or participate in the fight against what’s going on at the border. It probably overlaps with outfits mentioned in sapient’s link(s) recently, but I thought I’d flag it anyhow, especially because, since it’s so recent, it may have new info about protests. Those BJ people keep up a pace of commenting and information flow that I can’t hope to keep up with, but it’s all the more useful as a resource for that reason.
I need to dig out my Calvin Trillin for when I need some laughs and a reminder to lighten up.
I have a complete set. If you have trouble finding an item let me know. The man is a genius.
I need to dig out my Calvin Trillin for when I need some laughs and a reminder to lighten up.
I have a complete set. If you have trouble finding an item let me know. The man is a genius.
I can list dozens of strong women I admire and even love.
The “some of my best friends are…” argument doesn’t work. Do we need to explain why not?
I can list dozens of strong women I admire and even love.
The “some of my best friends are…” argument doesn’t work. Do we need to explain why not?
“I need to dig out my Calvin Trillin for when I need some laughs and a reminder to lighten up.”
Tepper Isn’t Going Out helped me tremendously in that regard. It isn’t great, but it’s a constant stream of Trillin-speak that didn’t require much brain. Hit the spot.
“I need to dig out my Calvin Trillin for when I need some laughs and a reminder to lighten up.”
Tepper Isn’t Going Out helped me tremendously in that regard. It isn’t great, but it’s a constant stream of Trillin-speak that didn’t require much brain. Hit the spot.
The “some of my best friends are…” argument doesn’t work. Do we need to explain why not?
I thought it was because the “best friends” were actually household servants in the context in which that particular argument came to be (or at least came to be noteworthy as a bad argument).
The “some of my best friends are…” argument doesn’t work. Do we need to explain why not?
I thought it was because the “best friends” were actually household servants in the context in which that particular argument came to be (or at least came to be noteworthy as a bad argument).
Tepper Isn’t Going Out
I had almost forgotten about Tepper and was thinking of the tummy trilogy when I wrote the comment. I looked forward to Tepper when I heard Trillin was writing a novel, but when it finally came out I found it exactly as you said: not that great, but funny and satisfying.
Interestingly, I am right now sitting at my desk and almost laughing out loud at the memory of Tepper and his parking space….
Trillin’s non-fiction is great too; I have a collection of his New Yorker pieces somewhere. But they are not comic relief for difficult times, to say the least.
Tepper Isn’t Going Out
I had almost forgotten about Tepper and was thinking of the tummy trilogy when I wrote the comment. I looked forward to Tepper when I heard Trillin was writing a novel, but when it finally came out I found it exactly as you said: not that great, but funny and satisfying.
Interestingly, I am right now sitting at my desk and almost laughing out loud at the memory of Tepper and his parking space….
Trillin’s non-fiction is great too; I have a collection of his New Yorker pieces somewhere. But they are not comic relief for difficult times, to say the least.
Misanthropy:
I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.
Samuel Johnson
Misogyny:
Marry an outdoors woman. That way, if you have to throw her into the yard at night at night, she can still survive.
W.C. Fields
The federal government under mp is just now processing grants to train doctors in a new medical field: Gynomisogyny
Misanthropy:
I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.
Samuel Johnson
Misogyny:
Marry an outdoors woman. That way, if you have to throw her into the yard at night at night, she can still survive.
W.C. Fields
The federal government under mp is just now processing grants to train doctors in a new medical field: Gynomisogyny
I’ll have to get Tepper, funny and satisfying is just what the doctor ordered at the moment, and I adored the Tummy Trilogy, (and, on a totally different note, About Alice).
hsh: The “some of my best friends are…” construction has a much older and more notorious lineage than the recent Mrs Roy Moore or Rick Santorum cases. Although, come to think of it, in those cases household servants weren’t involved. I wonder which case you are thinking of? Some of its history is referred to here:
https://newrepublic.com/article/90059/gop-rick-santorum-best-friend-defense
I’ll have to get Tepper, funny and satisfying is just what the doctor ordered at the moment, and I adored the Tummy Trilogy, (and, on a totally different note, About Alice).
hsh: The “some of my best friends are…” construction has a much older and more notorious lineage than the recent Mrs Roy Moore or Rick Santorum cases. Although, come to think of it, in those cases household servants weren’t involved. I wonder which case you are thinking of? Some of its history is referred to here:
https://newrepublic.com/article/90059/gop-rick-santorum-best-friend-defense
This might be a classic case:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/588363/As-end-nears-3-blacks-attend-Wallace.html
And so many years after this, from the very same man:
https://pastdaily.com/2014/07/21/best-friends-negroes-july-21-1963/
This might be a classic case:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/588363/As-end-nears-3-blacks-attend-Wallace.html
And so many years after this, from the very same man:
https://pastdaily.com/2014/07/21/best-friends-negroes-july-21-1963/
I just lost an argument with myself and, over my own violent objections, find myself drawn back in with two related questions
Preface to both questions: Communism/socialism have a historical and ongoing body count(PRC, USSR, Cambodia, N Korea) at least as high, if not considerably higher, than fascism, depending on how one keeps score (pre-emptively, I expect some degree of quibbling over score-keeping, which misses the main point), and provides us with ongoing examples of its evil every day (PRC, N Korea, Cuba and Venezuela), so:
1. Why is it that Bob M gets called out for his misogyny, but not his communism?
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
I just lost an argument with myself and, over my own violent objections, find myself drawn back in with two related questions
Preface to both questions: Communism/socialism have a historical and ongoing body count(PRC, USSR, Cambodia, N Korea) at least as high, if not considerably higher, than fascism, depending on how one keeps score (pre-emptively, I expect some degree of quibbling over score-keeping, which misses the main point), and provides us with ongoing examples of its evil every day (PRC, N Korea, Cuba and Venezuela), so:
1. Why is it that Bob M gets called out for his misogyny, but not his communism?
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
Oops. Left one out: Nicargua, yet another Worker’s Paradise.
Oops. Left one out: Nicargua, yet another Worker’s Paradise.
Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
I have a speculation — I admit it is no more than that.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals. The same cannot be said for fascism (or misogyny).
As a result, someone who espouses those ideals may get the benefit of the doubt. I, for one, regard anyone espousing either as utterly blind to the way real human beings behave. But that’s (possibly willful) ignorance/stupidity; not necessarily evil.
Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
I have a speculation — I admit it is no more than that.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals. The same cannot be said for fascism (or misogyny).
As a result, someone who espouses those ideals may get the benefit of the doubt. I, for one, regard anyone espousing either as utterly blind to the way real human beings behave. But that’s (possibly willful) ignorance/stupidity; not necessarily evil.
let us know when bob kills anyone.
let us know when bob kills anyone.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals. The same cannot be said for fascism (or misogyny).
So if we had a kinder, gentler fascism, say we leave out the racism and declare the goal to be good jobs, education and healthcare, fascists would be received as civilly as communists and socialists on the left?
let us know when bob kills anyone.
Well there you go, again, completely disarming my point with a simple but brilliant riposte. So, fascists who have not yet murdered anyone are welcome here, just another point of view? Good to know.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals. The same cannot be said for fascism (or misogyny).
So if we had a kinder, gentler fascism, say we leave out the racism and declare the goal to be good jobs, education and healthcare, fascists would be received as civilly as communists and socialists on the left?
let us know when bob kills anyone.
Well there you go, again, completely disarming my point with a simple but brilliant riposte. So, fascists who have not yet murdered anyone are welcome here, just another point of view? Good to know.
oh let go your of pearls. bob’s an internet crackpot, not the reincarnation of Stalin.
oh let go your of pearls. bob’s an internet crackpot, not the reincarnation of Stalin.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals
communism as implemented is not much like communism as defined in the spec.
likewise, religion has piled-up a pretty good sized mound of corpses over the centuries, despite the fact that they all contain explicit instructions to not kill other people.
but, people are gonna people. and tyrants will use whatever rationale they can get their hands on.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals
communism as implemented is not much like communism as defined in the spec.
likewise, religion has piled-up a pretty good sized mound of corpses over the centuries, despite the fact that they all contain explicit instructions to not kill other people.
but, people are gonna people. and tyrants will use whatever rationale they can get their hands on.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals
I once put exactly this argument to you, McKinney, and you admitted that the ideal was an essentially benevolent one.
FWIW, on the other hand, I just googled “What exactly is the fascist ideology?”, and the answer was:
Fascism is a political ideology characterized by strong nationalism, an extreme level of authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards democracy, liberalism and Marxism
If we accept this definition, or one very like it, it’s rather hard to see how you could have, in your words, “a kinder gentler fascism”.
It is possible to believe in the ideal embodied in communism or socialism, while abhorring the behavior of those who claim (inaccurately in most cases) to be implementing those ideals
I once put exactly this argument to you, McKinney, and you admitted that the ideal was an essentially benevolent one.
FWIW, on the other hand, I just googled “What exactly is the fascist ideology?”, and the answer was:
Fascism is a political ideology characterized by strong nationalism, an extreme level of authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards democracy, liberalism and Marxism
If we accept this definition, or one very like it, it’s rather hard to see how you could have, in your words, “a kinder gentler fascism”.
oh let go your of pearls. bob’s an internet crackpot, not the reincarnation of Stalin.
I got that part. So was Brett. So are most extremists–they are full of shit but don’t act on it. What I don’t get is why communists/socialists get the pass they get here and elsewhere on the left. Why not address that? It’s a fair question.
oh let go your of pearls. bob’s an internet crackpot, not the reincarnation of Stalin.
I got that part. So was Brett. So are most extremists–they are full of shit but don’t act on it. What I don’t get is why communists/socialists get the pass they get here and elsewhere on the left. Why not address that? It’s a fair question.
Does Pol Pot get a pass? Does Stalin get a pass? Does Mao get a pass? Do people on the left glorify them? Or do some of them look to places like, say, modern-day Sweden as an example of democratic socialism? Do others, even further left, look to the writings of Marx?
Give me an admirable fascist to discuss.
Does Pol Pot get a pass? Does Stalin get a pass? Does Mao get a pass? Do people on the left glorify them? Or do some of them look to places like, say, modern-day Sweden as an example of democratic socialism? Do others, even further left, look to the writings of Marx?
Give me an admirable fascist to discuss.
Also, good point about religion cleek.
Also, good point about religion cleek.
ObWi’s basic MO is tolerance of viewpoints. that’s how i see it at least. i’ve never thought anyone who was arguing in good faith needed banning.
and i don’t think communism gets as much of a pass on the left. certainly communism as-practiced has very very few defenders. some people find the ideals interesting, but there aren’t a lot of people seriously interested in actually implementing it (or if there are, they do a good job of hiding).
ObWi’s basic MO is tolerance of viewpoints. that’s how i see it at least. i’ve never thought anyone who was arguing in good faith needed banning.
and i don’t think communism gets as much of a pass on the left. certainly communism as-practiced has very very few defenders. some people find the ideals interesting, but there aren’t a lot of people seriously interested in actually implementing it (or if there are, they do a good job of hiding).
I once put exactly this argument to you, McKinney, and you admitted that the ideal was an essentially benevolent one.
I concede that elements of socialism give the impression of altruism. If communism stands for anything beneficial, that is in the eyes of the beholder. But, all of that is theoretical. It overlooks the reality of the body count, not to mention all of the other horrors. At what point do lefties say, “you know, that’s been tried, repeatedly, and it’s awful. Just as bad as anything else, so no more of that and no more enabling assholes who espouse it.”
Fascism is a political ideology characterized by strong nationalism, an extreme level of authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards democracy, liberalism and Marxism.
I reject this definition because that is not how it was pitched in the 1930’s. That wasn’t the “draw.” Fascism pitched to the common person’s desire to be a part of something larger and better. It was a suck-ass concept, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t attractive to a hell of a lot of people. Like communism.
Both had their enemies: Jews, capitalists, and so on.
I once put exactly this argument to you, McKinney, and you admitted that the ideal was an essentially benevolent one.
I concede that elements of socialism give the impression of altruism. If communism stands for anything beneficial, that is in the eyes of the beholder. But, all of that is theoretical. It overlooks the reality of the body count, not to mention all of the other horrors. At what point do lefties say, “you know, that’s been tried, repeatedly, and it’s awful. Just as bad as anything else, so no more of that and no more enabling assholes who espouse it.”
Fascism is a political ideology characterized by strong nationalism, an extreme level of authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards democracy, liberalism and Marxism.
I reject this definition because that is not how it was pitched in the 1930’s. That wasn’t the “draw.” Fascism pitched to the common person’s desire to be a part of something larger and better. It was a suck-ass concept, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t attractive to a hell of a lot of people. Like communism.
Both had their enemies: Jews, capitalists, and so on.
“Wallace notes, with only a slight hint of irony.”
What is the slight hint? Does he have a facial tic ..a tell? Or does he leap from his convalescence and start blocking the entrances, because as we know, so many of our problems in this country could be solved by getting rid of entrances.
“Why is it that Bob M. gets called out …..?”
When McManus consigns Janie, sapient, and GFTNC to the Gulag, or looses the Red Guard on them, or sends them fleeing northward to our southern border to have their children kidnapped from them, I suspect the moderators will step in on that as well.
There are all sorts of “How Comes? And “What the Hecks?” to be directed at our universally hypocritical selves.
One day, the fascists will catch up in the genocide sweepstakes, like the Cubbies and the Red Sox in baseball. To paraphrase mp, they’ll get tired of winning there’ll be so much of it. This always finishing second just won’t do.
The fascists have built a formidable farm system, while the communists are resting on their laurels.
In fact, some of the communists have changed teams and leagues out of sheer admiration for the grass-roots work the fascists have accomplished over the past few decades.
There is a player to be named later somewhere in there. I’m wagering his name is mp.
Anyway, I’m personally against banking.
That was spellcheck gone awry, yet another scourge.
Banning was the intended word, because in this instance I think sapient, Janie, and GNFNC can give it right back at whatever McManus is dishing.
“Wallace notes, with only a slight hint of irony.”
What is the slight hint? Does he have a facial tic ..a tell? Or does he leap from his convalescence and start blocking the entrances, because as we know, so many of our problems in this country could be solved by getting rid of entrances.
“Why is it that Bob M. gets called out …..?”
When McManus consigns Janie, sapient, and GFTNC to the Gulag, or looses the Red Guard on them, or sends them fleeing northward to our southern border to have their children kidnapped from them, I suspect the moderators will step in on that as well.
There are all sorts of “How Comes? And “What the Hecks?” to be directed at our universally hypocritical selves.
One day, the fascists will catch up in the genocide sweepstakes, like the Cubbies and the Red Sox in baseball. To paraphrase mp, they’ll get tired of winning there’ll be so much of it. This always finishing second just won’t do.
The fascists have built a formidable farm system, while the communists are resting on their laurels.
In fact, some of the communists have changed teams and leagues out of sheer admiration for the grass-roots work the fascists have accomplished over the past few decades.
There is a player to be named later somewhere in there. I’m wagering his name is mp.
Anyway, I’m personally against banking.
That was spellcheck gone awry, yet another scourge.
Banning was the intended word, because in this instance I think sapient, Janie, and GNFNC can give it right back at whatever McManus is dishing.
certainly communism as-practiced has very very few defenders…
The current leader of the Labour party remains an admirer of Hugo Chavez, and the Venezuelan experiment….
certainly communism as-practiced has very very few defenders…
The current leader of the Labour party remains an admirer of Hugo Chavez, and the Venezuelan experiment….
sometimes i forget the rest of the world exists.
i’m an American, you see.
sometimes i forget the rest of the world exists.
i’m an American, you see.
Does Pol Pot get a pass? Does Stalin get a pass? Does Mao get a pass? Do people on the left glorify them?
No. They virtually never talk about them. They talk about McCarthyism. They talk about Marx, overlooking the ongoing havoc he wreaks. And, they do give a pass to people who adopt the same ideological banner.
Or do some of them look to places like, say, modern-day Sweden as an example of democratic socialism?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with my questions: why does the left seem to have lockjaw when it comes to calling out modern day communists, socialists and, for that matter, any advocate of central economic planning, i.e. the core of socialism?
Do others, even further left, look to the writings of Marx?
Yes, including some who comment regularly here. They abhor the past–when asked–but seem to think the idea is still the future. Despite multiple examples to the contrary.
Give me an admirable fascist to discuss.
Not the question, not the proposition and not the issue.
ObWi’s basic MO is tolerance of viewpoints. that’s how i see it at least. i’ve never thought anyone who was arguing in good faith needed banning.
and i don’t think communism gets as much of a pass on the left. certainly communism as-practiced has very very few defenders. some people find the ideals interesting, but there aren’t a lot of people seriously interested in actually implementing it (or if there are, they do a good job of hiding).
Ok. I would agree that the community here–excepting me and a few others–is tolerant of other points of view, including communism, but I disagree it’s a matter of general tolerance. There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None. There is virtually no tolerance for Republicans. Conservatism generally is a pejorative here.
But thanks for answering the question.
Does Pol Pot get a pass? Does Stalin get a pass? Does Mao get a pass? Do people on the left glorify them?
No. They virtually never talk about them. They talk about McCarthyism. They talk about Marx, overlooking the ongoing havoc he wreaks. And, they do give a pass to people who adopt the same ideological banner.
Or do some of them look to places like, say, modern-day Sweden as an example of democratic socialism?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with my questions: why does the left seem to have lockjaw when it comes to calling out modern day communists, socialists and, for that matter, any advocate of central economic planning, i.e. the core of socialism?
Do others, even further left, look to the writings of Marx?
Yes, including some who comment regularly here. They abhor the past–when asked–but seem to think the idea is still the future. Despite multiple examples to the contrary.
Give me an admirable fascist to discuss.
Not the question, not the proposition and not the issue.
ObWi’s basic MO is tolerance of viewpoints. that’s how i see it at least. i’ve never thought anyone who was arguing in good faith needed banning.
and i don’t think communism gets as much of a pass on the left. certainly communism as-practiced has very very few defenders. some people find the ideals interesting, but there aren’t a lot of people seriously interested in actually implementing it (or if there are, they do a good job of hiding).
Ok. I would agree that the community here–excepting me and a few others–is tolerant of other points of view, including communism, but I disagree it’s a matter of general tolerance. There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None. There is virtually no tolerance for Republicans. Conservatism generally is a pejorative here.
But thanks for answering the question.
I don’t actually draw much distinction between communist and fascist dictatorships.
There is perhaps a more pertinent one to be drawn between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorial regimes.
I don’t actually draw much distinction between communist and fascist dictatorships.
There is perhaps a more pertinent one to be drawn between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorial regimes.
1. Why is it that Bob M gets called out for his misogyny, but not his communism?
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
I’ll give you my personal answer for (2), which will also answer (1). It’s my personal answer, because there is no official policy about any of this at ObWi.
I’ll tolerate a communist or a socialist before a fascist because fascism is fundamentally about the domination of some people, by other people, as a matter of principle. That’s what it is. Absent that, you don’t have fascism.
Lots of communist and socialist regimes have ended up being about the domination of some people by other people. Others have not.
There are also lots of non-communist and -socialist regimes that have ended up being about the domination of some people by other people, while others have not.
To my knowledge, there are no, zero, not one fascist regime that was not about some identifiable group of people dominating people who were not in that group, where that domination *was the point* of the regime. Because that is what fascism is.
So, I’ll listen to communists and will absolutely listen to socialists, but not to fascists. Fascists can kiss my keister.
Bob was banned less for his misogyny, and more for being a distracting PITA and making rude and demeaning comments. You will note that sapient, who is only a misogynist in Bizzaro world, was asked to stand down as well, mainly because bob was getting inside her head and she was unable to let it be.
both are welcome to return at some point. I don’t know exactly when, LJ has the skinny on that.
Hope that answers your questions.
1. Why is it that Bob M gets called out for his misogyny, but not his communism?
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
I’ll give you my personal answer for (2), which will also answer (1). It’s my personal answer, because there is no official policy about any of this at ObWi.
I’ll tolerate a communist or a socialist before a fascist because fascism is fundamentally about the domination of some people, by other people, as a matter of principle. That’s what it is. Absent that, you don’t have fascism.
Lots of communist and socialist regimes have ended up being about the domination of some people by other people. Others have not.
There are also lots of non-communist and -socialist regimes that have ended up being about the domination of some people by other people, while others have not.
To my knowledge, there are no, zero, not one fascist regime that was not about some identifiable group of people dominating people who were not in that group, where that domination *was the point* of the regime. Because that is what fascism is.
So, I’ll listen to communists and will absolutely listen to socialists, but not to fascists. Fascists can kiss my keister.
Bob was banned less for his misogyny, and more for being a distracting PITA and making rude and demeaning comments. You will note that sapient, who is only a misogynist in Bizzaro world, was asked to stand down as well, mainly because bob was getting inside her head and she was unable to let it be.
both are welcome to return at some point. I don’t know exactly when, LJ has the skinny on that.
Hope that answers your questions.
There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None.
Generally, not much, because he’s a fncking train wreck. But there were recently some tepidly positive comments here about his summit with Kim Jong Un.
I’m not even sure what tolerance is supposed to mean when I live in the country he presides over.
We just had a bit of discussion over the “some of my best friends are…” argument. While it might not work with regard to things like race, religion, sexuality, etc., I’d say the fact that Trump supporters are at least a very significant minority if not an outright majority of my close friends and family means I (just speaking for myself here) am doing a damned good job of tolerating them, even if I think they’re deeply and mind-bogglingly wrong.
There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None.
Generally, not much, because he’s a fncking train wreck. But there were recently some tepidly positive comments here about his summit with Kim Jong Un.
I’m not even sure what tolerance is supposed to mean when I live in the country he presides over.
We just had a bit of discussion over the “some of my best friends are…” argument. While it might not work with regard to things like race, religion, sexuality, etc., I’d say the fact that Trump supporters are at least a very significant minority if not an outright majority of my close friends and family means I (just speaking for myself here) am doing a damned good job of tolerating them, even if I think they’re deeply and mind-bogglingly wrong.
Fascism pitched to the common person’s desire to be a part of something larger and better
You could say this of almost any political ideology. And it’s hard to see how extreme authoritarianism and militarism wasn’t part of the Nazi “offering”. I leave out opposition to democracy and liberalism, because communism and fascism share these, and fascism’s opposition to Marxism is rather mirrored by communism’s opposition to fascism.
Count, an ability to give it right back does not address the issue of why mocking and poisonous ad feminam abuse would produce an atmosphere where women felt tempted to participate.
Fascism pitched to the common person’s desire to be a part of something larger and better
You could say this of almost any political ideology. And it’s hard to see how extreme authoritarianism and militarism wasn’t part of the Nazi “offering”. I leave out opposition to democracy and liberalism, because communism and fascism share these, and fascism’s opposition to Marxism is rather mirrored by communism’s opposition to fascism.
Count, an ability to give it right back does not address the issue of why mocking and poisonous ad feminam abuse would produce an atmosphere where women felt tempted to participate.
There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None.
right. because he’s a pile of wet garbage. if you can find some salvageable scraps underneath the corruption (both political and personal), you’re welcome to it. but you’re going to end up smelling like a landfill for quite a long time afterwards.
There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None.
right. because he’s a pile of wet garbage. if you can find some salvageable scraps underneath the corruption (both political and personal), you’re welcome to it. but you’re going to end up smelling like a landfill for quite a long time afterwards.
How would you characterise the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee in South Korea, russell ?
How would you characterise the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee in South Korea, russell ?
I reject this definition because that is not how it was pitched in the 1930’s.
As you wish.
The word, however, does actually have a meaning, and the rest of us will probably continue to proceed based on that.
I reject this definition because that is not how it was pitched in the 1930’s.
As you wish.
The word, however, does actually have a meaning, and the rest of us will probably continue to proceed based on that.
There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None.
If a Trump supporter wants to participate here, they are welcome.
There is virtually no tolerance for Republicans. Conservatism generally is a pejorative here.
And yet, here you are. And Marty, and wj. And, when he isn’t splitting hogs and has an interest in putting up with us, so is slarti.
Maybe we need a better definition of “tolerance”. It isn’t the same as “agreement”.
There is no tolerance for Trump or his supporters. None.
If a Trump supporter wants to participate here, they are welcome.
There is virtually no tolerance for Republicans. Conservatism generally is a pejorative here.
And yet, here you are. And Marty, and wj. And, when he isn’t splitting hogs and has an interest in putting up with us, so is slarti.
Maybe we need a better definition of “tolerance”. It isn’t the same as “agreement”.
For a second, I thought McKinney’s question might be the initiation of an interesting discussion. To the extent that it has let to such, it’s only because of the people who comment here. None the less, I’m coming to think it’s more of a rabbit hole, perhaps intentionally so.
For a second, I thought McKinney’s question might be the initiation of an interesting discussion. To the extent that it has let to such, it’s only because of the people who comment here. None the less, I’m coming to think it’s more of a rabbit hole, perhaps intentionally so.
How would you characterise the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee in South Korea, russell ?
I don’t, remotely, know enough about Park Chung-hee to have an opinion.
If it’s important to you, I can go find some stuff out and let you know. If it was more of a theoretical question, maybe we’ll let it pass.
How would you characterise the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee in South Korea, russell ?
I don’t, remotely, know enough about Park Chung-hee to have an opinion.
If it’s important to you, I can go find some stuff out and let you know. If it was more of a theoretical question, maybe we’ll let it pass.
Oh, and this, in response to my request for an admirable fascist to discuss:
Not the question, not the proposition and not the issue.
No? I thought you wrote this (emphasis mine):
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
Meanwhile, our president said there were good people on both sides of the Nazi/anti-Nazi conflict in Charlottesville.
Why is it okay to be openly fascist but socialism and communism are anathema?
Oh, and this, in response to my request for an admirable fascist to discuss:
Not the question, not the proposition and not the issue.
No? I thought you wrote this (emphasis mine):
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
Meanwhile, our president said there were good people on both sides of the Nazi/anti-Nazi conflict in Charlottesville.
Why is it okay to be openly fascist but socialism and communism are anathema?
Hope that answers your questions.
I does, in a way. I think fascism has a current meaning different from its past meaning, and the current meaning is used to differentiate between why C/S is more socially acceptable than F.
As for the general level of tolerance here, cleek pretty much makes my case at 2:59. Trump is a dumpster fire–I’ve said this from the get-go–but how one can tolerate communism/socialism as acceptable concepts in principle–I assume it’s only in principal–but find every single aspect of Trump and his supporters to be beyond the pale is beyond me.
But, that’s just me and thanks for tolerating my thread-jack. Back to it.
Hope that answers your questions.
I does, in a way. I think fascism has a current meaning different from its past meaning, and the current meaning is used to differentiate between why C/S is more socially acceptable than F.
As for the general level of tolerance here, cleek pretty much makes my case at 2:59. Trump is a dumpster fire–I’ve said this from the get-go–but how one can tolerate communism/socialism as acceptable concepts in principle–I assume it’s only in principal–but find every single aspect of Trump and his supporters to be beyond the pale is beyond me.
But, that’s just me and thanks for tolerating my thread-jack. Back to it.
For a second, I thought McKinney’s question might be the initiation of an interesting discussion.
Look, this isn’t the first time McK has taken exception to mcmanus being allowed to comment here.
First, if you actually read almost any comment thread where mcmanus posts, it will be almost immediately obvious that most people here – right, left, and otherwise – find him annoying and generally just about put up with him. I find him interesting until he gets either really obscure or really ad hominem (or both), hairshirt I think has a greater appetite for the obscurities. Maybe the count enjoys his stuff. Most folks here either pie filter him or just skip his stuff.
So, that’s the level of reception that a genuine Marxist receives here.
Trump supporters do occasionally pop up for a drive by, and generally contribute at the “why do you hate America” level. So they don’t get a lot of play. Marty claims he’s not a Trump supporter, he just plays one on TV sort of, and nobody kicks him out. If an honest-to-god Trump supporter shows up and wants to actually get into it at a level other than throwing turds, I’m sure nobody will kick them out.
That’s what “tolerance for other viewpoints” means.
ObWi at this point is definitely majority liberal, and I’m sure that is frustrating for conservative folks here. Some of us lefties have likewise spent time in conservative blogs, and understand what a royal PITA it can be to try to get even the most basic points across without feeling like a punching bag.
If you’re up for it, you’re welcome to jump in. If being outnumbered is just going to harsh your day more than you feel like dealing with, maybe this ain’t your place. All of that is your call. Rhetorical “you”, McK please do not receive this as my inviting you to leave, because I most definition am not.
Hope that’s helpful.
For a second, I thought McKinney’s question might be the initiation of an interesting discussion.
Look, this isn’t the first time McK has taken exception to mcmanus being allowed to comment here.
First, if you actually read almost any comment thread where mcmanus posts, it will be almost immediately obvious that most people here – right, left, and otherwise – find him annoying and generally just about put up with him. I find him interesting until he gets either really obscure or really ad hominem (or both), hairshirt I think has a greater appetite for the obscurities. Maybe the count enjoys his stuff. Most folks here either pie filter him or just skip his stuff.
So, that’s the level of reception that a genuine Marxist receives here.
Trump supporters do occasionally pop up for a drive by, and generally contribute at the “why do you hate America” level. So they don’t get a lot of play. Marty claims he’s not a Trump supporter, he just plays one on TV sort of, and nobody kicks him out. If an honest-to-god Trump supporter shows up and wants to actually get into it at a level other than throwing turds, I’m sure nobody will kick them out.
That’s what “tolerance for other viewpoints” means.
ObWi at this point is definitely majority liberal, and I’m sure that is frustrating for conservative folks here. Some of us lefties have likewise spent time in conservative blogs, and understand what a royal PITA it can be to try to get even the most basic points across without feeling like a punching bag.
If you’re up for it, you’re welcome to jump in. If being outnumbered is just going to harsh your day more than you feel like dealing with, maybe this ain’t your place. All of that is your call. Rhetorical “you”, McK please do not receive this as my inviting you to leave, because I most definition am not.
Hope that’s helpful.
Trump is a dumpster fire–I’ve said this from the get-go–but how one can tolerate communism/socialism as acceptable concepts in principle–I assume it’s only in principal–but find every single aspect of Trump and his supporters to be beyond the pale is beyond me.
Setting aside the hyperbole, you have heard that Trump is the President of the United States, right? We’ve never had a communist or socialist president, let along a really bad one right now.
People didn’t spend a lot of time here talking about him before he ran for and became president.
Trump is a dumpster fire–I’ve said this from the get-go–but how one can tolerate communism/socialism as acceptable concepts in principle–I assume it’s only in principal–but find every single aspect of Trump and his supporters to be beyond the pale is beyond me.
Setting aside the hyperbole, you have heard that Trump is the President of the United States, right? We’ve never had a communist or socialist president, let along a really bad one right now.
People didn’t spend a lot of time here talking about him before he ran for and became president.
It’s an interesting question to me, at least.
Obviously not a communist, but fascist ? If not, then what ?
It’s possible to consider non-totalitarian communists; is the same true of fascists, or do non-totalitarian, non-communist dictators belong in a different category ?
It’s an interesting question to me, at least.
Obviously not a communist, but fascist ? If not, then what ?
It’s possible to consider non-totalitarian communists; is the same true of fascists, or do non-totalitarian, non-communist dictators belong in a different category ?
I think fascism has a current meaning different from its past meaning, and the current meaning is used to differentiate between why C/S is more socially acceptable than F.
IMO “fascism” is generally used nowadays to mean authoritarian right-wing nationalism. Which it is, but it is also something simultaneously more specific, and broader in scope, than that.
Mussolini’s manifesto is kind of heavy going, but is probably the most specific articulation of what it is.
But, that’s just me and thanks for tolerating my thread-jack.
I think I speak for everyone when I say you’re always welcome here.
All the best.
I think fascism has a current meaning different from its past meaning, and the current meaning is used to differentiate between why C/S is more socially acceptable than F.
IMO “fascism” is generally used nowadays to mean authoritarian right-wing nationalism. Which it is, but it is also something simultaneously more specific, and broader in scope, than that.
Mussolini’s manifesto is kind of heavy going, but is probably the most specific articulation of what it is.
But, that’s just me and thanks for tolerating my thread-jack.
I think I speak for everyone when I say you’re always welcome here.
All the best.
Trump is an active, on-going disaster.
communism (in the US at least) is entirely hypothetical. there’s an official communist party in the US, there are something like 5000 members. they’re nothing. what’s the point in getting worked up over that ?
63M people voted for a guy who can’t go 20 minutes with telling a verifiable lie.
Trump is an active, on-going disaster.
communism (in the US at least) is entirely hypothetical. there’s an official communist party in the US, there are something like 5000 members. they’re nothing. what’s the point in getting worked up over that ?
63M people voted for a guy who can’t go 20 minutes with telling a verifiable lie.
Maybe we need a better definition of “tolerance”. It isn’t the same as “agreement”.
Good point along with my lack of clarity. ObWi welcomes pretty much anyone, although it was a stretch with Brett. I’m speaking in terms of tolerating advocates of C/S or C/S themselves. It may be a distinction that exists mostly in my mind.
When Marty comments, forex, he is constantly challenged not just for his specific view but also as a Trump apologist. No one dings Bob or anyone else around here for being a communist or a socialist, and the exception they take to his views–as I noted in the beginning–seems off center: being a misogynist is worse than being a communist? Really?
No? I thought you wrote this (emphasis mine):
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
To paraphrase my point immediately above: a common formulation here and elsewhere on the left is to respond to someone like Marty or whoever as a Trumpist or something similar as if that answers the question. Or, to identify someone as a Trumpist as a preamble to declaring their idea to be idiotic if not worse. That is, the mere state of being a Trumpist is, in and of itself, an argument refuting the speaker’s position. Not so with the very much more discredited histories of socialism and communism.
But, that’s just how I see it.
Maybe we need a better definition of “tolerance”. It isn’t the same as “agreement”.
Good point along with my lack of clarity. ObWi welcomes pretty much anyone, although it was a stretch with Brett. I’m speaking in terms of tolerating advocates of C/S or C/S themselves. It may be a distinction that exists mostly in my mind.
When Marty comments, forex, he is constantly challenged not just for his specific view but also as a Trump apologist. No one dings Bob or anyone else around here for being a communist or a socialist, and the exception they take to his views–as I noted in the beginning–seems off center: being a misogynist is worse than being a communist? Really?
No? I thought you wrote this (emphasis mine):
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
To paraphrase my point immediately above: a common formulation here and elsewhere on the left is to respond to someone like Marty or whoever as a Trumpist or something similar as if that answers the question. Or, to identify someone as a Trumpist as a preamble to declaring their idea to be idiotic if not worse. That is, the mere state of being a Trumpist is, in and of itself, an argument refuting the speaker’s position. Not so with the very much more discredited histories of socialism and communism.
But, that’s just how I see it.
It’s an interesting question to me, at least.
Apologies, when I said “maybe let it pass”, I just mean me.
I’m sure it is a topic worth discussing. If you would like to raise some of the particular points that make it of interest to you (which I see you have already done to some degree) maybe that will spur discussion.
Thanks Nigel!
It’s an interesting question to me, at least.
Apologies, when I said “maybe let it pass”, I just mean me.
I’m sure it is a topic worth discussing. If you would like to raise some of the particular points that make it of interest to you (which I see you have already done to some degree) maybe that will spur discussion.
Thanks Nigel!
That is, the mere state of being a Trumpist is, in and of itself, an argument refuting the speaker’s position
IMO, a valid point, and a deserved criticism.
That is, the mere state of being a Trumpist is, in and of itself, an argument refuting the speaker’s position
IMO, a valid point, and a deserved criticism.
McKinney, perhaps I am just oblivious. But I haven’t noticed anyone denouncing either of us as “Trump apologists”. Disagree with us, sure. But not that.
McKinney, perhaps I am just oblivious. But I haven’t noticed anyone denouncing either of us as “Trump apologists”. Disagree with us, sure. But not that.
Jesus was a communist. Stalin was an apparatchik.
Religious bigots outnumber “communists” in the US by such a wide margin that it ill-behooves the faithful to talk as if “communism” is a serious menace to The American Way of Life.
Jesus cannot be held responsible for the obscene cruelty perpetrated by his purported followers like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and that paragon of biblical scholarship He, Trump. So “christian” is not a dirty word like “communist” has become. Yet.
Anyway, to answer McKinney’s questions:
1. Why is it that Bob M gets called out for his misogyny, but not his communism?
You can be a misogynist individually; you can’t be a communist all by yourself. However serious a communist you are, you can’t hurt particular individuals with your commie opinions. Throwing insults at particular women may or may not be proof of a generalized misogyny, but it is deplorable — and actionable.
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
When somebody pipes up to champion fascism in these pages, we can find out what’s anathema and what’s just laughable.
–TP
Jesus was a communist. Stalin was an apparatchik.
Religious bigots outnumber “communists” in the US by such a wide margin that it ill-behooves the faithful to talk as if “communism” is a serious menace to The American Way of Life.
Jesus cannot be held responsible for the obscene cruelty perpetrated by his purported followers like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and that paragon of biblical scholarship He, Trump. So “christian” is not a dirty word like “communist” has become. Yet.
Anyway, to answer McKinney’s questions:
1. Why is it that Bob M gets called out for his misogyny, but not his communism?
You can be a misogynist individually; you can’t be a communist all by yourself. However serious a communist you are, you can’t hurt particular individuals with your commie opinions. Throwing insults at particular women may or may not be proof of a generalized misogyny, but it is deplorable — and actionable.
2. Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side, yet fascism is such an anathema?
When somebody pipes up to champion fascism in these pages, we can find out what’s anathema and what’s just laughable.
–TP
Look, this isn’t the first time McK has taken exception to mcmanus being allowed to comment here.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never called for anyone to be banned in any way, shape or form. I’m also fairly sure that, if I’ve engaged with Bob M, it was on a minor point. I’ve always thought he was a just a loud mouth with minimal social skills who could just as easily been a life long Ross Perot fan (he often sounds like the Perot supporters I would run into from time to time).
I’ve never been a fan of the far left and I’ve never understood why the middling left tolerates it. But it does. Or seems to, mostly by silence.
Trump as an asshole for not calling out the White Supremacists and Nazis. There is no moral relativism there. Nor is there between western liberal capitalism and anything on the C/S side that doesn’t include free elections.
Trump is an active, on-going disaster.
communism (in the US at least) is entirely hypothetical. there’s an official communist party in the US, there are something like 5000 members. they’re nothing. what’s the point in getting worked up over that ?
63M people voted for a guy who can’t go 20 minutes with telling a verifiable lie.
Communism is not hypothetical for over a quarter of the world’s population and it is not hypothetical historically. A good portion of the left has been ‘quiet/tolerant’ about C/S for decades. Trump happened two years ago.
You wrote initially, on the why of not calling out communists/socialists, about tolerance. It then unfolded that your tolerance does not extend to Trumpists/Trumpism. Ok, I get that but I think it makes my point.
Look, this isn’t the first time McK has taken exception to mcmanus being allowed to comment here.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never called for anyone to be banned in any way, shape or form. I’m also fairly sure that, if I’ve engaged with Bob M, it was on a minor point. I’ve always thought he was a just a loud mouth with minimal social skills who could just as easily been a life long Ross Perot fan (he often sounds like the Perot supporters I would run into from time to time).
I’ve never been a fan of the far left and I’ve never understood why the middling left tolerates it. But it does. Or seems to, mostly by silence.
Trump as an asshole for not calling out the White Supremacists and Nazis. There is no moral relativism there. Nor is there between western liberal capitalism and anything on the C/S side that doesn’t include free elections.
Trump is an active, on-going disaster.
communism (in the US at least) is entirely hypothetical. there’s an official communist party in the US, there are something like 5000 members. they’re nothing. what’s the point in getting worked up over that ?
63M people voted for a guy who can’t go 20 minutes with telling a verifiable lie.
Communism is not hypothetical for over a quarter of the world’s population and it is not hypothetical historically. A good portion of the left has been ‘quiet/tolerant’ about C/S for decades. Trump happened two years ago.
You wrote initially, on the why of not calling out communists/socialists, about tolerance. It then unfolded that your tolerance does not extend to Trumpists/Trumpism. Ok, I get that but I think it makes my point.
That is, the mere state of being a Trumpist is, in and of itself, an argument refuting the speaker’s position.
I’m more than happy to take the speaker’s position on in its own right, myself.
I guess I don’t understand why you equate a the political philosophies of socialism and communism with the dictators who espoused, perhaps even exploited, them – such that anyone who is a socialist or communist should be treated as the equivalent of someone who admires, say Stalin. Gulags aren’t inherent to communism.
People who support Trump aren’t supporting an abstract philosophy. They’re supporting a person – someone who had said and done things in real life. And they haven’t been good.
He’s a boorish, ignorant, egotistical, bigoted bully. That’s just what he is. Why should I like him (since I have no choice but to tolerate him)?
I don’t see the equivalency here.
That is, the mere state of being a Trumpist is, in and of itself, an argument refuting the speaker’s position.
I’m more than happy to take the speaker’s position on in its own right, myself.
I guess I don’t understand why you equate a the political philosophies of socialism and communism with the dictators who espoused, perhaps even exploited, them – such that anyone who is a socialist or communist should be treated as the equivalent of someone who admires, say Stalin. Gulags aren’t inherent to communism.
People who support Trump aren’t supporting an abstract philosophy. They’re supporting a person – someone who had said and done things in real life. And they haven’t been good.
He’s a boorish, ignorant, egotistical, bigoted bully. That’s just what he is. Why should I like him (since I have no choice but to tolerate him)?
I don’t see the equivalency here.
In cleek”s defense, when McKinney is not here to go after McManus (sounds like a Scots/Irish law firm)’, cleek does just that.
Obsidian Wings is more demolition derby at times, than salon.
I certainly wouldn’t step in if McKinney took on McManus directly right here for the latter’s Marxist theorizing, instead of expecting us to.
It would be kind of fun for the sheer argumentative spectacle of it.
I’d doubly enjoy it if the two of them, who are interestingly articulate in their own ways, as everyone is here, found some common ground going after the shortcomings of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton and it’s the rest of us who the two of them can barely tolerate, not personally, but politically.
It would be like fierce opponents John Wayne and Victor McLaughlin (in a couple of their movies together) heading off arm in arm drunkenly to have a final nightcap after cleaning our clocks and each others’ at Pub Obsidian.
In cleek”s defense, when McKinney is not here to go after McManus (sounds like a Scots/Irish law firm)’, cleek does just that.
Obsidian Wings is more demolition derby at times, than salon.
I certainly wouldn’t step in if McKinney took on McManus directly right here for the latter’s Marxist theorizing, instead of expecting us to.
It would be kind of fun for the sheer argumentative spectacle of it.
I’d doubly enjoy it if the two of them, who are interestingly articulate in their own ways, as everyone is here, found some common ground going after the shortcomings of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton and it’s the rest of us who the two of them can barely tolerate, not personally, but politically.
It would be like fierce opponents John Wayne and Victor McLaughlin (in a couple of their movies together) heading off arm in arm drunkenly to have a final nightcap after cleaning our clocks and each others’ at Pub Obsidian.
Come to think of it, I’ve seem plenty of condemnation of the “Bernie Bros” on this blog, as an example of the moderate left taking on the, well, less-moderate (though not extreme) left.
We generally discuss American politics here. Communism doesn’t figure into that much. And bob mcmanus isn’t the president.
Come to think of it, I’ve seem plenty of condemnation of the “Bernie Bros” on this blog, as an example of the moderate left taking on the, well, less-moderate (though not extreme) left.
We generally discuss American politics here. Communism doesn’t figure into that much. And bob mcmanus isn’t the president.
McKinney, perhaps I am just oblivious. But I haven’t noticed anyone denouncing either of us as “Trump apologists”. Disagree with us, sure. But not that.
I think that’s because both of us have been clear in our anti-Trump views. I commented here about the 25th amendment within days of the elections.
You can be a misogynist individually; you can’t be a communist all by yourself. However serious a communist you are, you can’t hurt particular individuals with your commie opinions. Throwing insults at particular women may or may not be proof of a generalized misogyny, but it is deplorable — and actionable.
Ok, my take away from this is that communism is a state of mind that is, for all practical purposes, harmless inside the US whereas misogyny is actively, to some degree and maybe to a very harmful degree, an immediate threat to woman in the misogynist’s path. My response is: why not call out the MF for both: for supporting a view that has millions in their graves AND being a shit to women?
I certainly agree that misogyny is shitty. Is it as shitty as being a communist? I suppose if you have family in Venezuela, you’d go with No. 2. If not, maybe No. 1.
That doesn’t mean I’m not getting at least part of your point. For example, I’d fire a misogynist just for popping off after being given a warning. Assuming I had a commie in my office, if he/she was doing his/her job and not setting my office on fire because of my revanchist ways, I’d leave him/her alone.
McKinney, perhaps I am just oblivious. But I haven’t noticed anyone denouncing either of us as “Trump apologists”. Disagree with us, sure. But not that.
I think that’s because both of us have been clear in our anti-Trump views. I commented here about the 25th amendment within days of the elections.
You can be a misogynist individually; you can’t be a communist all by yourself. However serious a communist you are, you can’t hurt particular individuals with your commie opinions. Throwing insults at particular women may or may not be proof of a generalized misogyny, but it is deplorable — and actionable.
Ok, my take away from this is that communism is a state of mind that is, for all practical purposes, harmless inside the US whereas misogyny is actively, to some degree and maybe to a very harmful degree, an immediate threat to woman in the misogynist’s path. My response is: why not call out the MF for both: for supporting a view that has millions in their graves AND being a shit to women?
I certainly agree that misogyny is shitty. Is it as shitty as being a communist? I suppose if you have family in Venezuela, you’d go with No. 2. If not, maybe No. 1.
That doesn’t mean I’m not getting at least part of your point. For example, I’d fire a misogynist just for popping off after being given a warning. Assuming I had a commie in my office, if he/she was doing his/her job and not setting my office on fire because of my revanchist ways, I’d leave him/her alone.
GftNC:
I get fully the poisoning of the atmosphere when Bob has a misogynist conniption.
I just have a thing about banning, which is not a thing at all, nor absolute, since I am not in charge of moderating.
I’ve been banned several times and deserved it every time, even the times I wasn’t banned.
GftNC:
I get fully the poisoning of the atmosphere when Bob has a misogynist conniption.
I just have a thing about banning, which is not a thing at all, nor absolute, since I am not in charge of moderating.
I’ve been banned several times and deserved it every time, even the times I wasn’t banned.
In cleek”s defense, when McKinney is not here to go after McManus (sounds like a Scots/Irish law firm)’, cleek does just that.
I have noticed that on a number of occasions, probably as much or more than anyone else here. And not just when Bob M is venting about HRC.
In cleek”s defense, when McKinney is not here to go after McManus (sounds like a Scots/Irish law firm)’, cleek does just that.
I have noticed that on a number of occasions, probably as much or more than anyone else here. And not just when Bob M is venting about HRC.
I certainly agree that misogyny is shitty. Is it as shitty as being a communist? I suppose if you have family in Venezuela, you’d go with No. 2. If not, maybe No. 1.
But you can be a communist and oppose what the Venezuelan government is doing. You don’t like Trump, even though he’s a Republican, right?
I certainly agree that misogyny is shitty. Is it as shitty as being a communist? I suppose if you have family in Venezuela, you’d go with No. 2. If not, maybe No. 1.
But you can be a communist and oppose what the Venezuelan government is doing. You don’t like Trump, even though he’s a Republican, right?
You wrote initially, on the why of not calling out communists/socialists, about tolerance. It then unfolded that your tolerance does not extend to Trumpists/Trumpism. Ok, I get that but I think it makes my point.
tolerance doesn’t mean you won’t have to work to prove your point. and it doesn’t mean that people here don’t already have opinions about Trump that might make you have to work even harder. it means you’re welcome to have your say and that people here will generally discuss it with you in good faith.
and for the record, i have never defended communism, here or anywhere. i think it’s hokum. i’ve even gone a few rounds with bob about it. i have him pied now because i don’t think he argues in good faith and i’m not interested in talking about political philosophy with him any more.
You wrote initially, on the why of not calling out communists/socialists, about tolerance. It then unfolded that your tolerance does not extend to Trumpists/Trumpism. Ok, I get that but I think it makes my point.
tolerance doesn’t mean you won’t have to work to prove your point. and it doesn’t mean that people here don’t already have opinions about Trump that might make you have to work even harder. it means you’re welcome to have your say and that people here will generally discuss it with you in good faith.
and for the record, i have never defended communism, here or anywhere. i think it’s hokum. i’ve even gone a few rounds with bob about it. i have him pied now because i don’t think he argues in good faith and i’m not interested in talking about political philosophy with him any more.
But you can be a communist and oppose what the Venezuelan government is doing. You don’t like Trump, even though he’s a Republican, right?
I don’t know about being a communist and opposing what is happening in Venezuela. I’m not a Republican. Just a conservative. Mostly conservative. When Bill White ran against Rick Perry, I give White 2K, which is the most I’ve ever given a candidate for any office.
But you can be a communist and oppose what the Venezuelan government is doing. You don’t like Trump, even though he’s a Republican, right?
I don’t know about being a communist and opposing what is happening in Venezuela. I’m not a Republican. Just a conservative. Mostly conservative. When Bill White ran against Rick Perry, I give White 2K, which is the most I’ve ever given a candidate for any office.
My problem with conservatives is that when they use the hyphenated Communist-Socialist lingo, all of a sudden I’m expected to argue in favor of both Stalin’s Gulag and Medicare.
And if folks don’t believe those two things, and many others, are not mistaken for each other in the conservative orthodoxy, then have fun reviewing the past 60 years of conservative scholarship, so-called journalism, and political platforms.
My problem with conservatives is that when they use the hyphenated Communist-Socialist lingo, all of a sudden I’m expected to argue in favor of both Stalin’s Gulag and Medicare.
And if folks don’t believe those two things, and many others, are not mistaken for each other in the conservative orthodoxy, then have fun reviewing the past 60 years of conservative scholarship, so-called journalism, and political platforms.
when they use the hyphenated Communist-Socialist lingo
the conservative-fascist brain is a fascinating device.
when they use the hyphenated Communist-Socialist lingo
the conservative-fascist brain is a fascinating device.
I don’t know about being a communist and opposing what is happening in Venezuela.
I guess that’s the problem we’re having in understanding each other.
So substitute conservative for Republican, unless you think Trump’s a liberal.
I don’t know about being a communist and opposing what is happening in Venezuela.
I guess that’s the problem we’re having in understanding each other.
So substitute conservative for Republican, unless you think Trump’s a liberal.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never called for anyone to be banned
not what I meant by “take exception to”. I just meant that every now and then, when bob is around, you ask us all why we find a communist to be an acceptable commenter, while some other kind of -ist is not.
you can’t be a communist all by yourself.
i suspect that many communists feel like they are doing exactly that.
at least here in the US.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never called for anyone to be banned
not what I meant by “take exception to”. I just meant that every now and then, when bob is around, you ask us all why we find a communist to be an acceptable commenter, while some other kind of -ist is not.
you can’t be a communist all by yourself.
i suspect that many communists feel like they are doing exactly that.
at least here in the US.
Just one example of how communists are not a single, undifferentiated mass, from the Wikipedia entry on Trotsky:
Just one example of how communists are not a single, undifferentiated mass, from the Wikipedia entry on Trotsky:
I’m glad to see that everyone is not discussing this, it indicates the earth-shattering power that comes with having the keys to the blog.
In short, bob mcmanus was given a 1 week cooling off period because I felt that he was making it ObWi inhospitable to women. McT, all of your attempted equivalencies between misygony and communism fail to acknowledge that the former was serving to cut off this blog from the participation of women, the latter never stopped anyone from participating.
If this becomes a concern that we are stopping Trump supporters from participating here, I don’t believe we have any here, nor have we ever had any here. You and Marty being the closest to that, and both of you profess to not like the man. So any harm to the ObWi commentariat is purely theoretical. On the other hand, if the place is made inhospitable to women, there is an actual harm.
Again, sorry for doing a drop in, and I’m away again this weekend, so carry on. Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
I’m glad to see that everyone is not discussing this, it indicates the earth-shattering power that comes with having the keys to the blog.
In short, bob mcmanus was given a 1 week cooling off period because I felt that he was making it ObWi inhospitable to women. McT, all of your attempted equivalencies between misygony and communism fail to acknowledge that the former was serving to cut off this blog from the participation of women, the latter never stopped anyone from participating.
If this becomes a concern that we are stopping Trump supporters from participating here, I don’t believe we have any here, nor have we ever had any here. You and Marty being the closest to that, and both of you profess to not like the man. So any harm to the ObWi commentariat is purely theoretical. On the other hand, if the place is made inhospitable to women, there is an actual harm.
Again, sorry for doing a drop in, and I’m away again this weekend, so carry on. Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
OK, here it is: At the rate he was going, Trump was going to kick off (blunder into?) a shooting war with North Korea. Which some of his advisors (specifically Bolton) have been calling for for some time. And, since the Korean War is technically not over, he wouldn’t have even needed permission from Congress for it, even on the strictest interpretation of the law.
Thanks to his “opening”, that looks substantially less likely. At least for the moment — when it becomes obvious that North Korea has played him big-time, that could change. If Trump can admit it to himself.
Sorry, that’s the best I can come up with. But compared to the alternative, I’ll take it.
Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
OK, here it is: At the rate he was going, Trump was going to kick off (blunder into?) a shooting war with North Korea. Which some of his advisors (specifically Bolton) have been calling for for some time. And, since the Korean War is technically not over, he wouldn’t have even needed permission from Congress for it, even on the strictest interpretation of the law.
Thanks to his “opening”, that looks substantially less likely. At least for the moment — when it becomes obvious that North Korea has played him big-time, that could change. If Trump can admit it to himself.
Sorry, that’s the best I can come up with. But compared to the alternative, I’ll take it.
Hyphenation run amok: “Judeo-Christian”.
If “communism” and “socialism” have a common ideology, it is this: a few oligarchs running everything because they own all the wealth is A Bad Thing. That’s a “value judgement” of course. Shame on us libruls for being so judgemental.
If McKinney has a valid point when he pounds on the “body count” business, it is the old (and valid) one: “it was tried and it didn’t work”. That point can be made about many things, including unregulated capitalism and every-man-for-himself social policy. We tried not having child labor laws, Social Security, and so forth, and it didn’t work. Well, by my definition of “work” anyway. McKinney may have a different definition.
–TP
Hyphenation run amok: “Judeo-Christian”.
If “communism” and “socialism” have a common ideology, it is this: a few oligarchs running everything because they own all the wealth is A Bad Thing. That’s a “value judgement” of course. Shame on us libruls for being so judgemental.
If McKinney has a valid point when he pounds on the “body count” business, it is the old (and valid) one: “it was tried and it didn’t work”. That point can be made about many things, including unregulated capitalism and every-man-for-himself social policy. We tried not having child labor laws, Social Security, and so forth, and it didn’t work. Well, by my definition of “work” anyway. McKinney may have a different definition.
–TP
Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
Because now, finally, we will be able to find vacation condo rentals on scenic Korea Bay.
Or, what wj said.
We’ll see what happens!
Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
Because now, finally, we will be able to find vacation condo rentals on scenic Korea Bay.
Or, what wj said.
We’ll see what happens!
Count: got it.
Count: got it.
My problem with conservatives is that when they use the hyphenated Communist-Socialist lingo, all of a sudden I’m expected to argue in favor of both Stalin’s Gulag and Medicare.
Fair point, undefined terms and all that. Socialism, traditionally, calls for the state to own and control the means of production. Here is some language I just lifted out of Merriam’s online:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
And then there is communism, also lifted from online Merriam’s:
a : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b : a theory advocating elimination of private property
2 capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
I don’t see one as any less malignant than the other since, in order to exist, it is implicit that anyone who does not agree to surrender everything they own has it taken away by force.
So whether someone is a Marxist, a socialist or a communist, they are either wrong about what they stand for or they stand, ultimately, for the use of force to deprive everyone of their property.
But, to your point: it is conservative hyperbole to equate Medicare with socialism. Less so ‘single payer’, but still a fairly severe over-statement. So, in reality, defending social welfare spending is not the same as defending socialism as formally defined and understood. I grant that, the farther to the right you go, the more any kind of gov’t program gets shot down as socialism, but that is no different that committed lefties equating any effort to control or reform social spending with ending it altogether.
the conservative-fascist brain is a fascinating device.
Good one. However, on the merits, there is considerable overlap between socialism and communism as defined formally compared to fascism/conservatism for which there is virtually no overlap, assuming you can find a useful, value-neutral definition of consveratism.
I guess that’s the problem we’re having in understanding each other.
So substitute conservative for Republican, unless you think Trump’s a liberal.
We are misunderstanding each other. I’m not aware of any avowed communists opposing what is happening in Venezuela. There may be some who superficially are unhappy with the current state of affairs there, but vanishingly few who were unhappy when Chavez took over the country or when Maduro succeeded him. So, to my point: communists tend to be perfectly fine with all manner of totalitarian activities so long as it serves the dialectic. There are many conservatives who can’t stand Trump. There are also some conservatives who are not Republicans even if there is more overlap with main-stream–or what was once main-stream–Republicanism and conservatism in general than with Democrats/liberalism.
My problem with conservatives is that when they use the hyphenated Communist-Socialist lingo, all of a sudden I’m expected to argue in favor of both Stalin’s Gulag and Medicare.
Fair point, undefined terms and all that. Socialism, traditionally, calls for the state to own and control the means of production. Here is some language I just lifted out of Merriam’s online:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
And then there is communism, also lifted from online Merriam’s:
a : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b : a theory advocating elimination of private property
2 capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
I don’t see one as any less malignant than the other since, in order to exist, it is implicit that anyone who does not agree to surrender everything they own has it taken away by force.
So whether someone is a Marxist, a socialist or a communist, they are either wrong about what they stand for or they stand, ultimately, for the use of force to deprive everyone of their property.
But, to your point: it is conservative hyperbole to equate Medicare with socialism. Less so ‘single payer’, but still a fairly severe over-statement. So, in reality, defending social welfare spending is not the same as defending socialism as formally defined and understood. I grant that, the farther to the right you go, the more any kind of gov’t program gets shot down as socialism, but that is no different that committed lefties equating any effort to control or reform social spending with ending it altogether.
the conservative-fascist brain is a fascinating device.
Good one. However, on the merits, there is considerable overlap between socialism and communism as defined formally compared to fascism/conservatism for which there is virtually no overlap, assuming you can find a useful, value-neutral definition of consveratism.
I guess that’s the problem we’re having in understanding each other.
So substitute conservative for Republican, unless you think Trump’s a liberal.
We are misunderstanding each other. I’m not aware of any avowed communists opposing what is happening in Venezuela. There may be some who superficially are unhappy with the current state of affairs there, but vanishingly few who were unhappy when Chavez took over the country or when Maduro succeeded him. So, to my point: communists tend to be perfectly fine with all manner of totalitarian activities so long as it serves the dialectic. There are many conservatives who can’t stand Trump. There are also some conservatives who are not Republicans even if there is more overlap with main-stream–or what was once main-stream–Republicanism and conservatism in general than with Democrats/liberalism.
Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
I’m not sure that it is, but time will tell. For sure, his incredibly self-centered tweets were over-the-top stupid. His affinity for dictators is in the top five of why I can’t watch the news anymore.
Perhaps someone can explain why Trump’s opening to North Korea is a good thing?
I’m not sure that it is, but time will tell. For sure, his incredibly self-centered tweets were over-the-top stupid. His affinity for dictators is in the top five of why I can’t watch the news anymore.
Alright now. I like to get my labels straight for purposes of generalization and demonization.
I am a liberal, as are most others here by matters of degree. McTX is a conservative, as are the remaining conservatives here, also by matters of degree.
wj, seems to be in transition, but hasn’t undergone the re
assignment surgery yet.. But I kid.
McManus, who can very well defend himself, is a Communist, though I’d rather hear that from his mouth.
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, but he has the money to disprove it.
That leaves mp, Ryan, Rick Perry, and a host of confederate others who now infest the Republican Party.
What to call them? God knows they have plenty of names to call us. Me, I’m a socialist and outside agitator. Wj is a downright traitor to the cause. McKinney, sad to say, is a RINO, what with his Democratic Houston Mayor fetish, his favorable leanings toward gay marriage and that multi-bracketed tax scheme he unleashed some weeks ago, which had the entire Forbes family, Grover Norquist, mp, and Mitch Mulvaney turning over in Trotsky’s grave, where I stowed them until I can move the bodies.
All of the other labels are taken except for fascist (sapient’s chosen label and mine too) and republican, and that last one, as with conservative, can’t mean what they think it means, unless we really hate Abraham Lincoln.
I say these ilk are something new and something terrible, some amalgamation of giddily sadistic bastardization, in American history.
We need a new label. Something suitably gutteral.
Nazi doesn’t do it for me. Those hopeless romantics had better uniforms and the funny walk.
These new ones, they are like vicious reptiles in badly tailored suits.
Viruses in shoes, as a late misanthropic comedian summed up the human race.
Alright now. I like to get my labels straight for purposes of generalization and demonization.
I am a liberal, as are most others here by matters of degree. McTX is a conservative, as are the remaining conservatives here, also by matters of degree.
wj, seems to be in transition, but hasn’t undergone the re
assignment surgery yet.. But I kid.
McManus, who can very well defend himself, is a Communist, though I’d rather hear that from his mouth.
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, but he has the money to disprove it.
That leaves mp, Ryan, Rick Perry, and a host of confederate others who now infest the Republican Party.
What to call them? God knows they have plenty of names to call us. Me, I’m a socialist and outside agitator. Wj is a downright traitor to the cause. McKinney, sad to say, is a RINO, what with his Democratic Houston Mayor fetish, his favorable leanings toward gay marriage and that multi-bracketed tax scheme he unleashed some weeks ago, which had the entire Forbes family, Grover Norquist, mp, and Mitch Mulvaney turning over in Trotsky’s grave, where I stowed them until I can move the bodies.
All of the other labels are taken except for fascist (sapient’s chosen label and mine too) and republican, and that last one, as with conservative, can’t mean what they think it means, unless we really hate Abraham Lincoln.
I say these ilk are something new and something terrible, some amalgamation of giddily sadistic bastardization, in American history.
We need a new label. Something suitably gutteral.
Nazi doesn’t do it for me. Those hopeless romantics had better uniforms and the funny walk.
These new ones, they are like vicious reptiles in badly tailored suits.
Viruses in shoes, as a late misanthropic comedian summed up the human race.
That point can be made about many things, including unregulated capitalism and every-man-for-himself social policy. We tried not having child labor laws, Social Security, and so forth, and it didn’t work. Well, by my definition of “work” anyway. McKinney may have a different definition.
I’m okay having a historical relativism discussion: at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
That point can be made about many things, including unregulated capitalism and every-man-for-himself social policy. We tried not having child labor laws, Social Security, and so forth, and it didn’t work. Well, by my definition of “work” anyway. McKinney may have a different definition.
I’m okay having a historical relativism discussion: at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
why does the left seem to have lockjaw when it comes to calling out modern day communists, socialists and, for that matter, any advocate of central economic planning, i.e. the core of socialism?
It strikes me as somewhat non-productive to get all hysterical about “the left” and start invoking the ghosts of Stalin and Mao without first defining your terms.
Some democrats call themselves “leftists”. Take cleek, for just one example. Beyond some basic stuff such as, you know, public services, universal health care, and public utilities, I am hard pressed to find a single “left” (in the classical late 19th century use of the term) bone in his writings. I have yet to see him renounce the system of private property, or call for the adoption of 5 year economic plans.
Yet you apparently demand that he join you in your lust to pile the hate on the “body count”.
My question to you would be: When does the straw man burning cease?
There are many kinds of leftists. Ask them. They denounce each other with extreme vehemence.
I think fascism has a current meaning different from its past meaning, and the current meaning is used to differentiate between why C/S is more socially acceptable than F.
The characteristics of fascism in practice are right there in their writings from the early 20th century. The “meaning” has remained pretty constant. Ask any WWII vet.
Socialism/communism is a bit more complex. In the olden days, Socialists were marxists. Not so much any more. Bernie sanders is not a marxist, but you demand we who espouse similar ideas join you in heaping scorn on Communism in practice (Mao, Stalin) vs. hybrid market (yes, I did say “market”) systems such as found in the Nordic countries.
That you do not wish to have the awareness of the historical differences as between marxism/socialism as an intellectual construct vs. some kind of reality you associate it with is understandable. I’m not at all that fond of Mao or Stalin. Nasty folks. But I’m sure Cromwell could be nasty at times, and Washington was a slaveholder. Perhaps you have forgotten this.
You might also bone up on the history of capitalism: The rape and exploitation of the Americas; Slavery (yes, that was capitalism); The social havoc and costs of the enclosure movement; the stink and oppression of the early days of the factory system; the Belgian Congo; India.(funny-defenders of capitalism NEVER BRING THIS UP!!!!!!!) That system as actually existed is quite different from the quiet economic humming of the neo-classical theory of the firm.
So there you go. I could go on.
It is striking that none of the “leftists” here start their conversations with you or Marty asking you first denounce the system of private property and the manifest shortcomings of corporate capitalism.
Maybe we should, eh?
why does the left seem to have lockjaw when it comes to calling out modern day communists, socialists and, for that matter, any advocate of central economic planning, i.e. the core of socialism?
It strikes me as somewhat non-productive to get all hysterical about “the left” and start invoking the ghosts of Stalin and Mao without first defining your terms.
Some democrats call themselves “leftists”. Take cleek, for just one example. Beyond some basic stuff such as, you know, public services, universal health care, and public utilities, I am hard pressed to find a single “left” (in the classical late 19th century use of the term) bone in his writings. I have yet to see him renounce the system of private property, or call for the adoption of 5 year economic plans.
Yet you apparently demand that he join you in your lust to pile the hate on the “body count”.
My question to you would be: When does the straw man burning cease?
There are many kinds of leftists. Ask them. They denounce each other with extreme vehemence.
I think fascism has a current meaning different from its past meaning, and the current meaning is used to differentiate between why C/S is more socially acceptable than F.
The characteristics of fascism in practice are right there in their writings from the early 20th century. The “meaning” has remained pretty constant. Ask any WWII vet.
Socialism/communism is a bit more complex. In the olden days, Socialists were marxists. Not so much any more. Bernie sanders is not a marxist, but you demand we who espouse similar ideas join you in heaping scorn on Communism in practice (Mao, Stalin) vs. hybrid market (yes, I did say “market”) systems such as found in the Nordic countries.
That you do not wish to have the awareness of the historical differences as between marxism/socialism as an intellectual construct vs. some kind of reality you associate it with is understandable. I’m not at all that fond of Mao or Stalin. Nasty folks. But I’m sure Cromwell could be nasty at times, and Washington was a slaveholder. Perhaps you have forgotten this.
You might also bone up on the history of capitalism: The rape and exploitation of the Americas; Slavery (yes, that was capitalism); The social havoc and costs of the enclosure movement; the stink and oppression of the early days of the factory system; the Belgian Congo; India.(funny-defenders of capitalism NEVER BRING THIS UP!!!!!!!) That system as actually existed is quite different from the quiet economic humming of the neo-classical theory of the firm.
So there you go. I could go on.
It is striking that none of the “leftists” here start their conversations with you or Marty asking you first denounce the system of private property and the manifest shortcomings of corporate capitalism.
Maybe we should, eh?
i suspect that many communists feel like they are doing exactly that.
LOL. I can understand.
-the other bob
i suspect that many communists feel like they are doing exactly that.
LOL. I can understand.
-the other bob
There are many conservatives who can’t stand Trump.
How many is many? By the tens of millions, they went into the voting booth and pulled the lever for this authoritarian piece of shit. I guess a Supreme Court pick and “shaking things up” was enough for them!
Roll out the tumbrils.
But as leftists, we are somehow not allowed to claim this is the inevitable outcome of capitalism….mostly because it is most likely not the case. Similarly, the rule of Hugo Chavez (who by the way did a good deal of good for his people when he could) is simply another tool to besmirch the mere idea of socialism.
Got it. Heads I win. Tails you lose. Typical capitalism exploitation if you ask me!
🙂
-the other bob
Funny that.
There are many conservatives who can’t stand Trump.
How many is many? By the tens of millions, they went into the voting booth and pulled the lever for this authoritarian piece of shit. I guess a Supreme Court pick and “shaking things up” was enough for them!
Roll out the tumbrils.
But as leftists, we are somehow not allowed to claim this is the inevitable outcome of capitalism….mostly because it is most likely not the case. Similarly, the rule of Hugo Chavez (who by the way did a good deal of good for his people when he could) is simply another tool to besmirch the mere idea of socialism.
Got it. Heads I win. Tails you lose. Typical capitalism exploitation if you ask me!
🙂
-the other bob
Funny that.
You might also bone up on the history of capitalism: The rape and exploitation of the Americas; Slavery (yes, that was capitalism); The social havoc and costs of the enclosure movement; the stink and oppression of the early days of the factory system; the Belgian Congo; India.(funny-defenders of capitalism NEVER BRING THIS UP!!!!!!!) That system as actually existed is quite different from the quiet economic humming of the neo-classical theory of the firm.
You might be missing my point or I might not be making it to your satisfaction. Regardless, I will try to address your critique of capitalism:
1. Your best points ended in the 19th century, in part due to the Civil War.
2. Communism/Socialism remain active and horrific today.
3. Lefties don’t call out communists/socialists notwithstanding the clear past and presence of what a train wreck it has all been.
4. That people like Sanders call themselves Socialists but really are just social spenders on steroids with no math skills doesn’t in any way excuse the unwillingness to hold C/S to account for the past and present sins of those ideologies.
5. As a bipartisan matter, the inexcusable enabling of Trump by many on the right who found fault with everything the Clintons or Obama did is of the same odor as lefty silence in the presence of C/S people.
You might also bone up on the history of capitalism: The rape and exploitation of the Americas; Slavery (yes, that was capitalism); The social havoc and costs of the enclosure movement; the stink and oppression of the early days of the factory system; the Belgian Congo; India.(funny-defenders of capitalism NEVER BRING THIS UP!!!!!!!) That system as actually existed is quite different from the quiet economic humming of the neo-classical theory of the firm.
You might be missing my point or I might not be making it to your satisfaction. Regardless, I will try to address your critique of capitalism:
1. Your best points ended in the 19th century, in part due to the Civil War.
2. Communism/Socialism remain active and horrific today.
3. Lefties don’t call out communists/socialists notwithstanding the clear past and presence of what a train wreck it has all been.
4. That people like Sanders call themselves Socialists but really are just social spenders on steroids with no math skills doesn’t in any way excuse the unwillingness to hold C/S to account for the past and present sins of those ideologies.
5. As a bipartisan matter, the inexcusable enabling of Trump by many on the right who found fault with everything the Clintons or Obama did is of the same odor as lefty silence in the presence of C/S people.
at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
ask your nearest native American
at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
ask your nearest native American
Similarly, the rule of Hugo Chavez (who by the way did a good deal of good for his people when he could) is simply another tool to besmirch the mere idea of socialism.
Maybe we have this chat another time, but what ‘good’ did he do for which people and at what cost and with what means?
Similarly, the rule of Hugo Chavez (who by the way did a good deal of good for his people when he could) is simply another tool to besmirch the mere idea of socialism.
Maybe we have this chat another time, but what ‘good’ did he do for which people and at what cost and with what means?
I’m not aware of any avowed communists opposing what is happening in Venezuela.
You’re a step ahead of me, because absent mcmanus, I’m not aware of any avowed communists.
🙂
communists tend to be perfectly fine with all manner of totalitarian activities so long as it serves the dialectic.
there is more than a little truth to this. IMO.
that said, the thing about “communist” is that it covers everything from Stalin to Habermas. Hard to say what those two actually have in common.
at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
please see bobbyp at 5:17.
I’m not aware of any avowed communists opposing what is happening in Venezuela.
You’re a step ahead of me, because absent mcmanus, I’m not aware of any avowed communists.
🙂
communists tend to be perfectly fine with all manner of totalitarian activities so long as it serves the dialectic.
there is more than a little truth to this. IMO.
that said, the thing about “communist” is that it covers everything from Stalin to Habermas. Hard to say what those two actually have in common.
at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
please see bobbyp at 5:17.
Or do some of them look to places like, say, modern-day Sweden as an example of democratic socialism?
Some Swedish leaders have objected to this characterization saying that Sweden is a capitalist country with a welfare state component. Are they wrong or lying? Sweden has been rated as being more economically free than the US.
Or do some of them look to places like, say, modern-day Sweden as an example of democratic socialism?
Some Swedish leaders have objected to this characterization saying that Sweden is a capitalist country with a welfare state component. Are they wrong or lying? Sweden has been rated as being more economically free than the US.
at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
If we’re looking at body count, the communists have the top spot. But if we are looking at percentages, what happened to the Native Americans, and the slaves in America, probably edge them out.
at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism produce a body count AND the level of dictatorship of any of the communist societies of the 20th and 21st centuries?
If we’re looking at body count, the communists have the top spot. But if we are looking at percentages, what happened to the Native Americans, and the slaves in America, probably edge them out.
If we’re looking at body count
It’s worth remembering that African slaves sent to north america represent only about 6% of the total that provided forced labor for the plantation system worldwide.
If we’re looking at body count
It’s worth remembering that African slaves sent to north america represent only about 6% of the total that provided forced labor for the plantation system worldwide.
ask your nearest native American
please see bobbyp at 5:17.
If we’re looking at body count, the communists have the top spot. But if we are looking at percentages, what happened to the Native Americans, and the slaves in America, probably edge them out.
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup. Ditto displacement of a Neolithic culture by a more advanced culture–all independent of economic model. Both are morally repugnant even as both were practiced by the victims themselves before being overcome by superior arms and organization, but neither was an outgrowth of capitalism. Not so the body count under communism. The Soviet and PRC model first established communism and then murdered millions of their own citizens maintaining it. There is nothing on the capitalist side even remotely comparable.
ask your nearest native American
please see bobbyp at 5:17.
If we’re looking at body count, the communists have the top spot. But if we are looking at percentages, what happened to the Native Americans, and the slaves in America, probably edge them out.
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup. Ditto displacement of a Neolithic culture by a more advanced culture–all independent of economic model. Both are morally repugnant even as both were practiced by the victims themselves before being overcome by superior arms and organization, but neither was an outgrowth of capitalism. Not so the body count under communism. The Soviet and PRC model first established communism and then murdered millions of their own citizens maintaining it. There is nothing on the capitalist side even remotely comparable.
If we’d like to dive deep into discussion of a wholesale condemnation all things classically big “L” Liberal going back to Hobbes’ Leviathan, John Locke, and Emmanuel Kant and a pox on both sides contemporary liberal and conservative on the political scale, give Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed” a read.
He’s a Catholic conservative.
I’m about half way through. It’s rather repetitive, but it will make everyone crinch, when you aren’t cheering on his condemnation of the other side.
It also moves to the fore something I’ve been noticing lately, which is how is it that poet and essayist/philosopher Gary Snyder got moved from a sort of leftish/hippy profile he occupied during the late 1950s mid 1970’s to the pantheon of a certain type of conservative like Deneen in 2018.
It’s probably Snyder’s genius that this could be so, not unlike how many us liberals here are moved by the writings of Walker Percy, who was very much a conservative.
Both were introduced to me in the same college philosophy class by my favorite professor, a former Jesuit priest. He’s gotta be close to 90 now. I need to look him up and say thanks, as he still lives in my little college town.
If we’d like to dive deep into discussion of a wholesale condemnation all things classically big “L” Liberal going back to Hobbes’ Leviathan, John Locke, and Emmanuel Kant and a pox on both sides contemporary liberal and conservative on the political scale, give Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed” a read.
He’s a Catholic conservative.
I’m about half way through. It’s rather repetitive, but it will make everyone crinch, when you aren’t cheering on his condemnation of the other side.
It also moves to the fore something I’ve been noticing lately, which is how is it that poet and essayist/philosopher Gary Snyder got moved from a sort of leftish/hippy profile he occupied during the late 1950s mid 1970’s to the pantheon of a certain type of conservative like Deneen in 2018.
It’s probably Snyder’s genius that this could be so, not unlike how many us liberals here are moved by the writings of Walker Percy, who was very much a conservative.
Both were introduced to me in the same college philosophy class by my favorite professor, a former Jesuit priest. He’s gotta be close to 90 now. I need to look him up and say thanks, as he still lives in my little college town.
I’d prefer all you golfers to explain about Phil Mickleson. I dare ya.
I’d prefer all you golfers to explain about Phil Mickleson. I dare ya.
Slavery is millennia old
and the American south built an economy around it.
Slavery is millennia old
and the American south built an economy around it.
I’d prefer all you golfers to explain about Phil Mickleson. I dare ya.
There is no excuse for making contact with a ball in motion in stroke play other than complete mental lapse. It would be ok in match play after conceding the hole as the ball rolled by it or if, by missing the initial stroke, the hole was irretrievably lost.
I’d prefer all you golfers to explain about Phil Mickleson. I dare ya.
There is no excuse for making contact with a ball in motion in stroke play other than complete mental lapse. It would be ok in match play after conceding the hole as the ball rolled by it or if, by missing the initial stroke, the hole was irretrievably lost.
McTX: … at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism …
… exist? According to either yours or Merriam’s definition, I mean.
Was the antebellum South a fair example of “free market capitalism”, for instance?
–TP
McTX: … at what point in time and in what country did free market capitalism …
… exist? According to either yours or Merriam’s definition, I mean.
Was the antebellum South a fair example of “free market capitalism”, for instance?
–TP
There is nothing on the capitalist side even remotely comparable.
European / American colonialism doesn’t count because… ?
There is nothing on the capitalist side even remotely comparable.
European / American colonialism doesn’t count because… ?
If we’re looking at body count, the communists have the top spot.
Well, if you start like McKinney did by excluding all the carnage wrought by the capitalist West, then perhaps.
My position is pretty simple: Any and all authoritarian regimes should be criticized. Yes, perhaps some leftist are “soft” on some regimes. Some righties were pretty damnned soft on Rhodesia and South Africa. Some don’t want to discuss too much about what is going on in Hungary or Poland these days. I’d bet a most of them didn’t spend a lot of time denouncing Churchill(viz. India) or Milosevic. Some won’t even let you discuss Israel, because you know, those pesky Palestinians are allowed to vote!
Why I dare say, you find is surprising that the political opponents of Madero are also allowed to vote. Mercy me.
It is pretty clear that authoritarians can seize power and conduct economic and political power in a variety of ways and employ a variety of justifications for their actions.
However, tying the political tyranny to a particular economic/political philosophy is….um….not easy. After all, Marx took the position that capitalist tyrannize and exploit workers as a class. Was he totally wrong?
-the other bob
If we’re looking at body count, the communists have the top spot.
Well, if you start like McKinney did by excluding all the carnage wrought by the capitalist West, then perhaps.
My position is pretty simple: Any and all authoritarian regimes should be criticized. Yes, perhaps some leftist are “soft” on some regimes. Some righties were pretty damnned soft on Rhodesia and South Africa. Some don’t want to discuss too much about what is going on in Hungary or Poland these days. I’d bet a most of them didn’t spend a lot of time denouncing Churchill(viz. India) or Milosevic. Some won’t even let you discuss Israel, because you know, those pesky Palestinians are allowed to vote!
Why I dare say, you find is surprising that the political opponents of Madero are also allowed to vote. Mercy me.
It is pretty clear that authoritarians can seize power and conduct economic and political power in a variety of ways and employ a variety of justifications for their actions.
However, tying the political tyranny to a particular economic/political philosophy is….um….not easy. After all, Marx took the position that capitalist tyrannize and exploit workers as a class. Was he totally wrong?
-the other bob
Was the antebellum South a fair example of “free market capitalism”, for instance?
Not when most of the labor force is chattel property. I would put it more on a par with Rome, but even that is a stretch.
and the American south built an economy around it.
Correct. An undeniably true fact.
Was the antebellum South a fair example of “free market capitalism”, for instance?
Not when most of the labor force is chattel property. I would put it more on a par with Rome, but even that is a stretch.
and the American south built an economy around it.
Correct. An undeniably true fact.
I’d prefer all you golfers to explain about Phil Mickleson. I dare ya.
He was a truly great player…now merely a good one.
He beat an insider trading rap. So he’s a bit greedy.
He seems to share the attitude of many top golf pros who believe their supreme dedication and thousands of hours of practice got him to where he is (true) and thus he “did it all by himself” (laughable).
He gambles.
He seems to be a very good father.
He tends to dissimulate at times.
He wore a really ugly black leather jacket for the recent David Ferhety interview.
He got a bit frustrated at the recent US Open.
He will do quite well on the Seniors Tour if he bothers to compete in it.
Just another guy worth 10’s of $millions.
I’d prefer all you golfers to explain about Phil Mickleson. I dare ya.
He was a truly great player…now merely a good one.
He beat an insider trading rap. So he’s a bit greedy.
He seems to share the attitude of many top golf pros who believe their supreme dedication and thousands of hours of practice got him to where he is (true) and thus he “did it all by himself” (laughable).
He gambles.
He seems to be a very good father.
He tends to dissimulate at times.
He wore a really ugly black leather jacket for the recent David Ferhety interview.
He got a bit frustrated at the recent US Open.
He will do quite well on the Seniors Tour if he bothers to compete in it.
Just another guy worth 10’s of $millions.
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup.
Not remotely true. American Slavery fed the Manchester mills with cotton and is intimately tied to the take-off stage of the Industrial Revolution.
To compare it with the slavery of Rome is simply to ignore history.
Unlike fascism, slavery was different under Tiberius than it was in the Antebellum South.
Take that!
Fore!
-the other bob
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup.
Not remotely true. American Slavery fed the Manchester mills with cotton and is intimately tied to the take-off stage of the Industrial Revolution.
To compare it with the slavery of Rome is simply to ignore history.
Unlike fascism, slavery was different under Tiberius than it was in the Antebellum South.
Take that!
Fore!
-the other bob
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup….
Plantati9n slavery was a relatively modern invention, and absolutely the product of a capitalist system.
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup….
Plantati9n slavery was a relatively modern invention, and absolutely the product of a capitalist system.
The Soviet and PRC model first established communism
It is reasonable to argue that they did not, because what the instituted was not communism in any meaningful sense, and nothing like what Marx envisioned. But they go the lingo down well.
and then murdered millions of their own citizens maintaining it.
That was a monstrous crime.
The Soviet and PRC model first established communism
It is reasonable to argue that they did not, because what the instituted was not communism in any meaningful sense, and nothing like what Marx envisioned. But they go the lingo down well.
and then murdered millions of their own citizens maintaining it.
That was a monstrous crime.
Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side?
Communism and socialism aren’t the same thing. There have been plenty of political parties in Europe which have described themselves as socialist but have respected democracy and individual rights. Socialism is acceptable because it doesn’t mean what McKT thinks it means.
Communism, as practised by 20th-century governments, has been a disaster for humanity. I, and i think most of the left, have no time for Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, or any other ism with a history of mass murder.
Libertarian marxism claims that communism is possible without dictatorship. I think that’s naive, but naivety is a different category of error from support for killing people.
Shorter version: we condemn totalitarianism. Economic theories we merely agree or disagree with to varying extents.
Why is being a communist or a socialist seemly socially acceptable–or at least tolerated–on much of the lefty side?
Communism and socialism aren’t the same thing. There have been plenty of political parties in Europe which have described themselves as socialist but have respected democracy and individual rights. Socialism is acceptable because it doesn’t mean what McKT thinks it means.
Communism, as practised by 20th-century governments, has been a disaster for humanity. I, and i think most of the left, have no time for Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, or any other ism with a history of mass murder.
Libertarian marxism claims that communism is possible without dictatorship. I think that’s naive, but naivety is a different category of error from support for killing people.
Shorter version: we condemn totalitarianism. Economic theories we merely agree or disagree with to varying extents.
McTX: Not when most of the labor force is chattel property.
Ah. That narrows your definition of “capitalism” down a bit: we know one thing that makes a place not “free market capitalist”.
We’d narrow our definitions down even more if you gave me an example of a place and time that WAS “free market capitalist”.
–TP
McTX: Not when most of the labor force is chattel property.
Ah. That narrows your definition of “capitalism” down a bit: we know one thing that makes a place not “free market capitalist”.
We’d narrow our definitions down even more if you gave me an example of a place and time that WAS “free market capitalist”.
–TP
I’m not aware of any avowed communists opposing what is happening in Venezuela.
Chomsky (illustrative example only–I do not know for sure if Chomsky is a “communist” in the classical sense) was initially quite taken by Chavez, but turned very critical as Chavez became increasingly authoritarian.
What good the Chavez do? See below for a quick review of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
http://theconversation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-hugo-chavez-and-the-international-left-12651
You had to ask.
-the other bob
I’m not aware of any avowed communists opposing what is happening in Venezuela.
Chomsky (illustrative example only–I do not know for sure if Chomsky is a “communist” in the classical sense) was initially quite taken by Chavez, but turned very critical as Chavez became increasingly authoritarian.
What good the Chavez do? See below for a quick review of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
http://theconversation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-hugo-chavez-and-the-international-left-12651
You had to ask.
-the other bob
The fact that both Russia and China had recently emerged from feudal pasts seems to also be lost in the discussion. So making the claim that it is about C/S (very clever signalling, so I guess I can use C/F to describe the other side?) nothing else enters into it is historically myopic.
The fact that both Russia and China had recently emerged from feudal pasts seems to also be lost in the discussion. So making the claim that it is about C/S (very clever signalling, so I guess I can use C/F to describe the other side?) nothing else enters into it is historically myopic.
To LJ’s point…
Capitalism took the west from feudalism to unheard of heights of material human prosperity over the course of approximately 200 years. In the course of that ascent, there were wars, pestilence, naked conquest, political oppression, colonialism, and millions upon millions of unnecessary deaths…the usual stuff. The marvels of modern carbon fueled technology enabled this horror on an industrial scale.
Bolshevik Russia and Communist China started one hundred and one hundred fifty years later and also raised living standards considerably in a brief, but brutal way. Just like the case of the West, the costs were unjustifiably insane.
Perhaps McKinney can expound on the newly freed to practice capitalist Russia and its declining standard of living. I have noticed a distinct reluctance on the part of conservatives to criticize Putin.
Show trials are obviously called for.
To LJ’s point…
Capitalism took the west from feudalism to unheard of heights of material human prosperity over the course of approximately 200 years. In the course of that ascent, there were wars, pestilence, naked conquest, political oppression, colonialism, and millions upon millions of unnecessary deaths…the usual stuff. The marvels of modern carbon fueled technology enabled this horror on an industrial scale.
Bolshevik Russia and Communist China started one hundred and one hundred fifty years later and also raised living standards considerably in a brief, but brutal way. Just like the case of the West, the costs were unjustifiably insane.
Perhaps McKinney can expound on the newly freed to practice capitalist Russia and its declining standard of living. I have noticed a distinct reluctance on the part of conservatives to criticize Putin.
Show trials are obviously called for.
Also to lj’s point, real Marxist theory (to my limited understanding) says that communism only happens after capitalism. It cannot, according to the theory, happen directly from feudalism. Which is what supposedly happened in Russia and China.
Also to lj’s point, real Marxist theory (to my limited understanding) says that communism only happens after capitalism. It cannot, according to the theory, happen directly from feudalism. Which is what supposedly happened in Russia and China.
the other bob
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RFj47Vnj9c
Some righties were pretty damnned soft on Rhodesia and South Africa
and, ya know, Russia.
plus, we’ve always been at war with Canada.
the other bob
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RFj47Vnj9c
Some righties were pretty damnned soft on Rhodesia and South Africa
and, ya know, Russia.
plus, we’ve always been at war with Canada.
when a self-described communist country does something, it does it because of communism. period.
when a self-described capitalist country does something, the causes are multiple and vague and definitely not related to anything about capitalism which is the lord’s perfect gift unto man. praise be.
when a self-described communist country does something, it does it because of communism. period.
when a self-described capitalist country does something, the causes are multiple and vague and definitely not related to anything about capitalism which is the lord’s perfect gift unto man. praise be.
I have a new dictionary definition for McKinney’s consideration:
Sado-Capitalism:
An ideology that considers corporate tax cuts worth any volume of brown children’s tears.
Sado-capitalists are not required to “support” He, Trump personally, but only His “(Republican)” policies. They can pretend to themselves that voting for He, Trump’s lickspittles in the mid-terms has nothing to do with enabling He, Trump’s cruelty, mendacity, or corruption, because tax cuts. Their conscience is clean, because they stand against “socialism”.
“If you don’t have borders you don’t have a country” proclaims the Tax Cutter in Chief. Whether it’s worth having a country that practices Sado-Capitalism is left unspecified.
–TP
I have a new dictionary definition for McKinney’s consideration:
Sado-Capitalism:
An ideology that considers corporate tax cuts worth any volume of brown children’s tears.
Sado-capitalists are not required to “support” He, Trump personally, but only His “(Republican)” policies. They can pretend to themselves that voting for He, Trump’s lickspittles in the mid-terms has nothing to do with enabling He, Trump’s cruelty, mendacity, or corruption, because tax cuts. Their conscience is clean, because they stand against “socialism”.
“If you don’t have borders you don’t have a country” proclaims the Tax Cutter in Chief. Whether it’s worth having a country that practices Sado-Capitalism is left unspecified.
–TP
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup.
ditto market economies.
others have covered it already, but the slavery associated with the colonial plantation is a specific thing.
prior to industrialization, it was one of the forms that capitalism took. and it killed a lot of people, and destroyed the lives of many more.
Slavery is millennia old and no more a proximate result of capitalism than is canned soup.
ditto market economies.
others have covered it already, but the slavery associated with the colonial plantation is a specific thing.
prior to industrialization, it was one of the forms that capitalism took. and it killed a lot of people, and destroyed the lives of many more.
There is no excuse for making contact with a ball in motion in stroke play other than complete mental lapse.
Not even the “complete mental lapse” can justify Phil’s decision, since he could have just declared the ball (when it finally came to rest) unplayable (Rule 28), taken a 1 stroke penalty, dropped the ball as per the rules, and played the same shot over, perhaps this time with a bit more caution.
This could be seen as a bit shady, but hey, there are a whole bunch of cheaters and drug takers in the baseball Hall of Fame.
Just sayin’
McKinney is free to weigh in after first denouncing, in the most severe terms, conservativism’s new position regarding CAPITALIST Russia seizing the Crimea.
-the other bob
There is no excuse for making contact with a ball in motion in stroke play other than complete mental lapse.
Not even the “complete mental lapse” can justify Phil’s decision, since he could have just declared the ball (when it finally came to rest) unplayable (Rule 28), taken a 1 stroke penalty, dropped the ball as per the rules, and played the same shot over, perhaps this time with a bit more caution.
This could be seen as a bit shady, but hey, there are a whole bunch of cheaters and drug takers in the baseball Hall of Fame.
Just sayin’
McKinney is free to weigh in after first denouncing, in the most severe terms, conservativism’s new position regarding CAPITALIST Russia seizing the Crimea.
-the other bob
Phil could have hit the ball in motion, taken the two stroke penalty required by the rules and then finished the hole. He could have then finished his round of 81 and felt awkward at his frustration.
It isn’t like he actually got away with something, like winning the game with a spitter. So he will still get my hof vote.
Phil could have hit the ball in motion, taken the two stroke penalty required by the rules and then finished the hole. He could have then finished his round of 81 and felt awkward at his frustration.
It isn’t like he actually got away with something, like winning the game with a spitter. So he will still get my hof vote.
Kobach got schooled
Kobach got schooled
I have edited Marty’s comment for clarity:
Phil could have hit the ball in motion(he did), taken the two stroke penalty required by the rules(he did) and then finished the hole (he did). He could have then finished his round of 81(he did) and felt awkward at his frustration.(assumes facts not in evidence)
It isn’t like he actually got away with something (tru ‘dat), like winning the game with a spitter. So he will still get my hof vote (mine, too!).
I have edited Marty’s comment for clarity:
Phil could have hit the ball in motion(he did), taken the two stroke penalty required by the rules(he did) and then finished the hole (he did). He could have then finished his round of 81(he did) and felt awkward at his frustration.(assumes facts not in evidence)
It isn’t like he actually got away with something (tru ‘dat), like winning the game with a spitter. So he will still get my hof vote (mine, too!).
Phil is a prick and a phony that pretends to be a nice guy for the teevee, he finally let that part of himself out at the US Open. The other PGA golfers dislike him for all that.
He does seem like a good dad though, which probably outweighs all of the above.
Phil is a prick and a phony that pretends to be a nice guy for the teevee, he finally let that part of himself out at the US Open. The other PGA golfers dislike him for all that.
He does seem like a good dad though, which probably outweighs all of the above.
others have covered it already, but the slavery associated with the colonial plantation is a specific thing.
prior to industrialization, it was one of the forms that capitalism took. and it killed a lot of people, and destroyed the lives of many more.
Capitalism’s role in slavery is incidental, IMO. Slavery pre-existed capitalism and every other ism. Pre-Columbian Indians practiced slavery and it was rampant throughout Asia. It was ubiquitous.
So too was war, famine, etc. All pre-existed capitalism etc. If you want cause and effect: Northern Capitalism overcame Southern Agrarian Slave Economy. US Capitalism overcame fascism and imperialism. (Yes, the Soviets played a huge role in defeating Hitler, after allying with him and splitting Poland down the middle).
Plantation slavery was different from slavery in the past? Yes, of course. Technology and society had evolved–some for the better, some not, granted–and Southern white slave owners–under attack (rightly) from Northern abolitionists–constructed their own self-justifying mythos. It was all bullshit, but no more a product of capitalism than the North which went to war over that very issue.
So, no, capitalism is not even remotely the moral equivalent of communism or socialism.
Back to work. It’s been fun.
others have covered it already, but the slavery associated with the colonial plantation is a specific thing.
prior to industrialization, it was one of the forms that capitalism took. and it killed a lot of people, and destroyed the lives of many more.
Capitalism’s role in slavery is incidental, IMO. Slavery pre-existed capitalism and every other ism. Pre-Columbian Indians practiced slavery and it was rampant throughout Asia. It was ubiquitous.
So too was war, famine, etc. All pre-existed capitalism etc. If you want cause and effect: Northern Capitalism overcame Southern Agrarian Slave Economy. US Capitalism overcame fascism and imperialism. (Yes, the Soviets played a huge role in defeating Hitler, after allying with him and splitting Poland down the middle).
Plantation slavery was different from slavery in the past? Yes, of course. Technology and society had evolved–some for the better, some not, granted–and Southern white slave owners–under attack (rightly) from Northern abolitionists–constructed their own self-justifying mythos. It was all bullshit, but no more a product of capitalism than the North which went to war over that very issue.
So, no, capitalism is not even remotely the moral equivalent of communism or socialism.
Back to work. It’s been fun.
One for McKT’s reading list:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/548047/empire-of-guns-by-priya-satia/9780735221864/
One for McKT’s reading list:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/548047/empire-of-guns-by-priya-satia/9780735221864/
McKinney could stay on site (so to speak) for a little reading.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2017/07/very-belated-juneteenth-book-review-a-tale-of-two-plantations.html
McKinney could stay on site (so to speak) for a little reading.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2017/07/very-belated-juneteenth-book-review-a-tale-of-two-plantations.html
It is impossible to read this and conclude that plantation slavery in the US was not, from the start, a capitalist enterprise:
http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-268
It is impossible to read this and conclude that plantation slavery in the US was not, from the start, a capitalist enterprise:
http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-268
I’ll quote Doc Sci’s quoted section in her post, quoted from the immediately below, just to save interested parties a bit of time:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14894629-the-half-has-never-been-told
Purely incidental to capitalism!
I’ll quote Doc Sci’s quoted section in her post, quoted from the immediately below, just to save interested parties a bit of time:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14894629-the-half-has-never-been-told
Purely incidental to capitalism!
If Capitalist states can be excused slavery because it existed before Capitalism, why cannot Communist states be excused murder because…
If they can’t, why should we not condemn Capitalism for the Indonesian genocide of the 1960s?
If Capitalist states can be excused slavery because it existed before Capitalism, why cannot Communist states be excused murder because…
If they can’t, why should we not condemn Capitalism for the Indonesian genocide of the 1960s?
Capitalism’s role in slavery is incidental, IMO
You can lead a horse to water, as they say.
Some conversations are basically over before they begin. This is one of them.
Let’s talk about golfers.
Capitalism’s role in slavery is incidental, IMO
You can lead a horse to water, as they say.
Some conversations are basically over before they begin. This is one of them.
Let’s talk about golfers.
Pro Bono: If Capitalist states can be excused slavery because it existed before Capitalism, why cannot Communist states be excused murder because…
Someone already said this, more or less, but the reason is that any bad thing that happens under capitalism happens despite capitalism’s perfection, while every bad thing that happens under communism happens because of communism’s failings.
See?
But in relation to your logic (which is actually logic, IMO), not just murder but mass murder was hardly unheard of before the twentieth century. Take Genghis Khan, for instance. From Wikipedia:
Also, the destructive effects of rapacious capitalism on, for example, Africa and Central America may not be as immediately obvious as mass murder in gulags, because they are more spread out over time. But they are there.
Pro Bono: If Capitalist states can be excused slavery because it existed before Capitalism, why cannot Communist states be excused murder because…
Someone already said this, more or less, but the reason is that any bad thing that happens under capitalism happens despite capitalism’s perfection, while every bad thing that happens under communism happens because of communism’s failings.
See?
But in relation to your logic (which is actually logic, IMO), not just murder but mass murder was hardly unheard of before the twentieth century. Take Genghis Khan, for instance. From Wikipedia:
Also, the destructive effects of rapacious capitalism on, for example, Africa and Central America may not be as immediately obvious as mass murder in gulags, because they are more spread out over time. But they are there.
Nigel’s Oxford Review piece at 10:15 seems very much on point.
But there needs to be interest, and a willingness to engage another point of view without a foregone conclusion in mind. In short, a willingness to be found wrong.
Nigel’s Oxford Review piece at 10:15 seems very much on point.
But there needs to be interest, and a willingness to engage another point of view without a foregone conclusion in mind. In short, a willingness to be found wrong.
Some conversations are basically over before they begin. This is one of them.
Indeed! So next time…….advice for the ages……don’t bite hooks. 😉
Let’s talk about golfers.
Go for it.
Some conversations are basically over before they begin. This is one of them.
Indeed! So next time…….advice for the ages……don’t bite hooks. 😉
Let’s talk about golfers.
Go for it.
Go for it.
Golfers wear the un-hippest clothes I have ever seen in my life. Seriously, like, Kelly green pants, and primary color plaids stuff.
Except for the sailboat dudes with the pastel madras shorts and belts with little whales on them. They are actually worse.
Plus, the golf club near me spans a local road and all summer long I have to stop to let the little carts cross the street. Take some of those country club fees and build a bridge, and get the heck out of my way.
That’s all I got on golfers.
🙂
Go for it.
Golfers wear the un-hippest clothes I have ever seen in my life. Seriously, like, Kelly green pants, and primary color plaids stuff.
Except for the sailboat dudes with the pastel madras shorts and belts with little whales on them. They are actually worse.
Plus, the golf club near me spans a local road and all summer long I have to stop to let the little carts cross the street. Take some of those country club fees and build a bridge, and get the heck out of my way.
That’s all I got on golfers.
🙂
Golfers’ clothing seems designed to be, not only “un-hip” but downright tacky. Not to mention flat out ugly.
At this point, it may be a tradition. But it has been true as far back as I’ve seen pictures. No idea why.
Golfers’ clothing seems designed to be, not only “un-hip” but downright tacky. Not to mention flat out ugly.
At this point, it may be a tradition. But it has been true as far back as I’ve seen pictures. No idea why.
Is golf to blame for capitalism, or is capitalism to blame for golf?
–TP
Is golf to blame for capitalism, or is capitalism to blame for golf?
–TP
Read The Half Has Never Been Told this past winter.
What enamel I didn’t wear off my teeth gritting them while reading, say, Wolf is Wolf To Man by Janusz Bardach, about the Soviet labor camps, or anything by Timothy Snyder, or Cormac McCarthy’s novel, “Blood Meridian”‘ came off reading that book.
A condemnation of slavery in the Confederacy and the disgrace of Reconstruction, and what African-Americans have put up with since, and I’m not leaving aside our genocide of Native Americans, nor Northern racism, must include not only capitalism’s enabling of all of it, but the fact that all of it was made quintiessentially American by Americans.
Stalin and Hitler had nothing to do with it. Nor did Genghis Khan or Mayan chieftains.
Who else but an enterprising fucking American could come up with the elaborate legal and financial joggers-pokery required to mortgage slaves to themselves.
And then call it a Culture. To be wistfully and nostalgically celebrated as something exceptional right down to this morning. To be minimized to this very day by conservative scum in power in America in 2018.
And the entire fucking thing turned around to make out the murderers as the victims.
I don’t worry about Stalin and Hitler so much. They’re dead. The Communists won the body count, but the fascists keep on trying, as if there is a lick of difference between them.
I worry about the undead running the country this minute calling the separation of children from their parents at the borders “summer camp”.
Or cutting prison budgets so drastically that secretaries and prison counsellors have to be forced into carrying weapons and patrolling the prisoners because conservative cocksuckers can’t tolerate guard unions and want to hand over the prison system and every other fucking legitimate government function to their corrupt vermin paymasters in the so-called private sector .. capitalists.
I worry about the filth on the Right who tell us well, at least the slaves were provided food and shelter.
Stalin and Hitler are dead. These fucks are alive.
Therein lies the problem with exceptional America.
We don’t kill our fascists.
We give them a talk show.
Read The Half Has Never Been Told this past winter.
What enamel I didn’t wear off my teeth gritting them while reading, say, Wolf is Wolf To Man by Janusz Bardach, about the Soviet labor camps, or anything by Timothy Snyder, or Cormac McCarthy’s novel, “Blood Meridian”‘ came off reading that book.
A condemnation of slavery in the Confederacy and the disgrace of Reconstruction, and what African-Americans have put up with since, and I’m not leaving aside our genocide of Native Americans, nor Northern racism, must include not only capitalism’s enabling of all of it, but the fact that all of it was made quintiessentially American by Americans.
Stalin and Hitler had nothing to do with it. Nor did Genghis Khan or Mayan chieftains.
Who else but an enterprising fucking American could come up with the elaborate legal and financial joggers-pokery required to mortgage slaves to themselves.
And then call it a Culture. To be wistfully and nostalgically celebrated as something exceptional right down to this morning. To be minimized to this very day by conservative scum in power in America in 2018.
And the entire fucking thing turned around to make out the murderers as the victims.
I don’t worry about Stalin and Hitler so much. They’re dead. The Communists won the body count, but the fascists keep on trying, as if there is a lick of difference between them.
I worry about the undead running the country this minute calling the separation of children from their parents at the borders “summer camp”.
Or cutting prison budgets so drastically that secretaries and prison counsellors have to be forced into carrying weapons and patrolling the prisoners because conservative cocksuckers can’t tolerate guard unions and want to hand over the prison system and every other fucking legitimate government function to their corrupt vermin paymasters in the so-called private sector .. capitalists.
I worry about the filth on the Right who tell us well, at least the slaves were provided food and shelter.
Stalin and Hitler are dead. These fucks are alive.
Therein lies the problem with exceptional America.
We don’t kill our fascists.
We give them a talk show.
Also, yeah, golf outfits are ridiculous.
Also, yeah, golf outfits are ridiculous.
I’m trying to wait this out, but McT’s breezy “It’s been fun.” has me chomping at the bit. So even though McT’s out showing his interns why his decisions are always correct and bob mcmanus is in his timeout mode, I feel compelled to make a few points here.
Has any parent kicked a child out of the house for reading Das Kapital? “Billy, that is the last time you say “the workers should control the means of production” under my roof!”
While I’m sure it is a possibility, most parents are not going to kick someone out of their “house” because of any beliefs they might hold, but they will kick them out for acting shitty to other people. Disrespecting them. Treating their opinions as worthless. Suggesting that they aren’t ‘strong enough’ to handle the manly back and forth of discussion. Even then, if the child does it to people who aren’t there, they probably aren’t going to get shown the door, it is only if they show their disrespect to people within the household. That is imho what bob mcmanus did.
So McT’s ‘gee, why is it misogyny and not communism’ is a fun way for him to ignore the rhetoric. Unfortunately, it ends up suggesting to any woman who didn’t like being told ‘fuck you’ that their comfort isn’t really anyone’s concern here, at least for McT, it is more about making liberals uncomfortable. Though I don’t know if McT realizes that or not, but that is what the pattern of participation suggests.
While I’m sure that McT wouldn’t ignore a a passenger on a flight haranguing a cabin attendant (‘You’ve enraged me for the last god damn time’), or a customer in front of him at a bank yelling at a female teller (‘look honey, why don’t you go find your manager so I can talk to a man about this cause you seem freaked out that I’m a big bad man’), that dynamic doesn’t seem to make any impact on him here, in this “house”, which suggests that either he just doesn’t notice, or that if it happens here, that’s really not as important as getting ‘C/S’ roundly denounced, or at least tied like a millstone around the liberal commentariat here.
And it is certainly possible that it was missed. Comments fly in and out and you come to a thread and you see you’ve not been following, these sorts of things may slip past notice. But once you see them, you really can’t unsee them.
I imagine the counsellor’s counterargument is that we (us liberals, though we seem to have all shades of liberals here) make this place inhospitable to conservatives and Trump supporters by the opinions we put out. That may be true, but those conservatives and Trump supporters are only potential participants. We know that there are women here and I’m not sure how they would not feel that this place is not for them if we said ‘wow, we don’t really agree with old bobby when he goes on these rants, but where would get get our esoteric Japanese manga references if he weren’t here?’
And certainly, unlike ‘C/S’, which, mirabile dictu, taints anyone who idly wonders why people freak out about unions or entertains the notion that certain industries are really too important to be privatized, I’m sure that McT feels he is totally insulated from any of bob mcmanus’ misogyny, because, well, it would be unfair to tar him with the same brush (despite it being fine for ObWi commenters and ‘C/S)’. I don’t, but that is probably out of some sense of Japanese giri and the fact that I have defended the notion that he has something to contribute. So yes, I wonder if I have ended up saying with my actions that Japanese manga references are more important than treating some participants here with some modicum of respect.
It also assumes that we can weigh the components of belief in some sort of way that is logical. Perhaps McT can, but I sure can’t. For me, it is at the point where their beliefs compel them to act toward others with malice. Fortunately or unfortunately, the set up of our society acts as a barrier for these things to happen. Which means that you can be in the same setting as some stone cold racist or some hair trigger misogynist and still go on about your business. But for me, the last meltdown crossed that line.
There are a number of other things that I’m still mulling over about all this, but that ‘it’s been fun’ pulled the cork on this rant.
I’m trying to wait this out, but McT’s breezy “It’s been fun.” has me chomping at the bit. So even though McT’s out showing his interns why his decisions are always correct and bob mcmanus is in his timeout mode, I feel compelled to make a few points here.
Has any parent kicked a child out of the house for reading Das Kapital? “Billy, that is the last time you say “the workers should control the means of production” under my roof!”
While I’m sure it is a possibility, most parents are not going to kick someone out of their “house” because of any beliefs they might hold, but they will kick them out for acting shitty to other people. Disrespecting them. Treating their opinions as worthless. Suggesting that they aren’t ‘strong enough’ to handle the manly back and forth of discussion. Even then, if the child does it to people who aren’t there, they probably aren’t going to get shown the door, it is only if they show their disrespect to people within the household. That is imho what bob mcmanus did.
So McT’s ‘gee, why is it misogyny and not communism’ is a fun way for him to ignore the rhetoric. Unfortunately, it ends up suggesting to any woman who didn’t like being told ‘fuck you’ that their comfort isn’t really anyone’s concern here, at least for McT, it is more about making liberals uncomfortable. Though I don’t know if McT realizes that or not, but that is what the pattern of participation suggests.
While I’m sure that McT wouldn’t ignore a a passenger on a flight haranguing a cabin attendant (‘You’ve enraged me for the last god damn time’), or a customer in front of him at a bank yelling at a female teller (‘look honey, why don’t you go find your manager so I can talk to a man about this cause you seem freaked out that I’m a big bad man’), that dynamic doesn’t seem to make any impact on him here, in this “house”, which suggests that either he just doesn’t notice, or that if it happens here, that’s really not as important as getting ‘C/S’ roundly denounced, or at least tied like a millstone around the liberal commentariat here.
And it is certainly possible that it was missed. Comments fly in and out and you come to a thread and you see you’ve not been following, these sorts of things may slip past notice. But once you see them, you really can’t unsee them.
I imagine the counsellor’s counterargument is that we (us liberals, though we seem to have all shades of liberals here) make this place inhospitable to conservatives and Trump supporters by the opinions we put out. That may be true, but those conservatives and Trump supporters are only potential participants. We know that there are women here and I’m not sure how they would not feel that this place is not for them if we said ‘wow, we don’t really agree with old bobby when he goes on these rants, but where would get get our esoteric Japanese manga references if he weren’t here?’
And certainly, unlike ‘C/S’, which, mirabile dictu, taints anyone who idly wonders why people freak out about unions or entertains the notion that certain industries are really too important to be privatized, I’m sure that McT feels he is totally insulated from any of bob mcmanus’ misogyny, because, well, it would be unfair to tar him with the same brush (despite it being fine for ObWi commenters and ‘C/S)’. I don’t, but that is probably out of some sense of Japanese giri and the fact that I have defended the notion that he has something to contribute. So yes, I wonder if I have ended up saying with my actions that Japanese manga references are more important than treating some participants here with some modicum of respect.
It also assumes that we can weigh the components of belief in some sort of way that is logical. Perhaps McT can, but I sure can’t. For me, it is at the point where their beliefs compel them to act toward others with malice. Fortunately or unfortunately, the set up of our society acts as a barrier for these things to happen. Which means that you can be in the same setting as some stone cold racist or some hair trigger misogynist and still go on about your business. But for me, the last meltdown crossed that line.
There are a number of other things that I’m still mulling over about all this, but that ‘it’s been fun’ pulled the cork on this rant.
dropping by to complain about how the libs are the real problem in whatever situation we’re talking about is classic McTx.
dropping by to complain about how the libs are the real problem in whatever situation we’re talking about is classic McTx.
In closing, “I’m right. You’re wrong. Bye! Too busy now!”
In closing, “I’m right. You’re wrong. Bye! Too busy now!”
For another perspective on mass killing i the modern era, Nick Turse’s Kill Anything That Moves is a sobering read.
For another perspective on mass killing i the modern era, Nick Turse’s Kill Anything That Moves is a sobering read.
Surfacing just to say …
Not for nothing, but McTX brings out the best of the regular ObWi posters. If I cruise by and see he’s posting, I generally stick around to read the whole thing.
And that’s not to say that I generally agree with him. I believe that socialism has proven to be objectively horrible and much worse than capitalism (warts and all), but I won’t automatically carry that indictment through to someone who professes to be a socialist/communist. If I give a random New England Patriots fan the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, he/she isn’t a tool, then I should extend that courtesy to your garden variety Marxist. Contrast that with the automatic permanent full body shunning that I reserve for anyone who displays misogyny. But just because I often disagree with McTX, that takes nothing away from his value as a poster here.
So before everyone starts taking shots at McTX now that he’s left the conversation, I just wanted to say that for my money, you guys post better when you have someone to play off of and McTX fills that role better than anyone. Not that increasing my lurk time around here should count for much, but take it for whatever it’s worth.
Surfacing just to say …
Not for nothing, but McTX brings out the best of the regular ObWi posters. If I cruise by and see he’s posting, I generally stick around to read the whole thing.
And that’s not to say that I generally agree with him. I believe that socialism has proven to be objectively horrible and much worse than capitalism (warts and all), but I won’t automatically carry that indictment through to someone who professes to be a socialist/communist. If I give a random New England Patriots fan the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, he/she isn’t a tool, then I should extend that courtesy to your garden variety Marxist. Contrast that with the automatic permanent full body shunning that I reserve for anyone who displays misogyny. But just because I often disagree with McTX, that takes nothing away from his value as a poster here.
So before everyone starts taking shots at McTX now that he’s left the conversation, I just wanted to say that for my money, you guys post better when you have someone to play off of and McTX fills that role better than anyone. Not that increasing my lurk time around here should count for much, but take it for whatever it’s worth.
ObWi could certainly use more representation from the conservative side of things. once upon a time, it had a lot more – front pagers, even.
ObWi could certainly use more representation from the conservative side of things. once upon a time, it had a lot more – front pagers, even.
So before everyone starts taking shots at McTX now that he’s left the conversation, I just wanted to say that for my money, you guys post better when you have someone to play off of and McTX fills that role better than anyone.
I agree. Taking shots, as opposed to simply disagreeing, is mostly a matter of a few annoying rhetorical ticks that make me, and I would assume others, a little nuts. It’s nothing remotely approaching personal dislike or thinking McT’s at all a bad guy.
It’s more fun when he’s around.
So before everyone starts taking shots at McTX now that he’s left the conversation, I just wanted to say that for my money, you guys post better when you have someone to play off of and McTX fills that role better than anyone.
I agree. Taking shots, as opposed to simply disagreeing, is mostly a matter of a few annoying rhetorical ticks that make me, and I would assume others, a little nuts. It’s nothing remotely approaching personal dislike or thinking McT’s at all a bad guy.
It’s more fun when he’s around.
While an unmitigated evil, slavery in the US was a mixed bag. Even from the viewpoint of the slaves. And a slave’s relatively secure and predictable life was envied by more than a few whites.
“Particularly interesting in this regard is Russell’s chapter on slavery. It is centered around his report that ‘a majority of [the 2,300] ex-slaves who offered an evaluation of slavery [to interviewers from the Federal Writers’ Project in the mid-1930s] — field hands and house slaves, men and women — had a positive view of the institution, and many unabashedly wished to return to their slave days.’
As Russell sees it, the ex-slaves looked back on their days as chattels so nostalgically because they felt they had greater ‘freedom’ as slaves than they later enjoyed after slavery had been abolished. He quotes the testimony of one former slave who told a Federal Writers’ Project interviewer in 1937 that he had worked harder since the abolition of slavery than he had ever worked on the plantation and that on the plantation he knew that Master would take care of him and provide him with food and warm clothing and warm housing in the winter months, even if, along with all or most of the other slaves, he shirked his work and played sick and devoted whatever resources he did have to pleasure — chiefly gambling, liquor, and sex.
As Russell himself puts it, ‘many and possibly most of the ex-slaves did not … restrain their personal freedoms, did not devote their lives to work, monogamy, frugality, and discipline.’ Instead they ‘created a uniquely liberated culture that valued pleasure over work and freedom over conformity.'”
A Renegade History of the United States
While an unmitigated evil, slavery in the US was a mixed bag. Even from the viewpoint of the slaves. And a slave’s relatively secure and predictable life was envied by more than a few whites.
“Particularly interesting in this regard is Russell’s chapter on slavery. It is centered around his report that ‘a majority of [the 2,300] ex-slaves who offered an evaluation of slavery [to interviewers from the Federal Writers’ Project in the mid-1930s] — field hands and house slaves, men and women — had a positive view of the institution, and many unabashedly wished to return to their slave days.’
As Russell sees it, the ex-slaves looked back on their days as chattels so nostalgically because they felt they had greater ‘freedom’ as slaves than they later enjoyed after slavery had been abolished. He quotes the testimony of one former slave who told a Federal Writers’ Project interviewer in 1937 that he had worked harder since the abolition of slavery than he had ever worked on the plantation and that on the plantation he knew that Master would take care of him and provide him with food and warm clothing and warm housing in the winter months, even if, along with all or most of the other slaves, he shirked his work and played sick and devoted whatever resources he did have to pleasure — chiefly gambling, liquor, and sex.
As Russell himself puts it, ‘many and possibly most of the ex-slaves did not … restrain their personal freedoms, did not devote their lives to work, monogamy, frugality, and discipline.’ Instead they ‘created a uniquely liberated culture that valued pleasure over work and freedom over conformity.'”
A Renegade History of the United States
Pdm,
I agree. McKinney is our Muse.
It was good of him, BTW, to admit that right-wingers pay no attention to dictionary definitions when they throw “socialist” and “communist” around as generalized invective against politicians and policies that stand for less-than-fullsome support of Sado-Capitalism.
–TP
Pdm,
I agree. McKinney is our Muse.
It was good of him, BTW, to admit that right-wingers pay no attention to dictionary definitions when they throw “socialist” and “communist” around as generalized invective against politicians and policies that stand for less-than-fullsome support of Sado-Capitalism.
–TP
Mises misses. Not clicking.
Maybe some Southern landowners managed to make sharecropping suck even more than slavery for some former slaves. That wouldn’t surprise me.
Mises misses. Not clicking.
Maybe some Southern landowners managed to make sharecropping suck even more than slavery for some former slaves. That wouldn’t surprise me.
I agree that our righties add to the snap and sparkle around here, despite the frustration when they take a deep dive and disappear. To (mis)quote that famous humanitarian Mao: let a thousand flowers bloom!
I agree that our righties add to the snap and sparkle around here, despite the frustration when they take a deep dive and disappear. To (mis)quote that famous humanitarian Mao: let a thousand flowers bloom!
I left off the most important bit, in the circumstances: Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend!
I left off the most important bit, in the circumstances: Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend!
And a slave’s relatively secure and predictable life was envied by more than a few whites.
Handouts!
And a slave’s relatively secure and predictable life was envied by more than a few whites.
Handouts!
While an unmitigated evil, slavery in the US was a mixed bag. Even from the viewpoint of the slaves.
you have to be shitting me.
While an unmitigated evil, slavery in the US was a mixed bag. Even from the viewpoint of the slaves.
you have to be shitting me.
Russell, you just have to have the right perspective. If you start from the premise that salvation is an absolute priority, and that it is only available via Christianity, then the fact that slavery provided Christianity to slaves (who otherwise wouldn’t have been exposed to it) has to be a big plus. Hence the “mixed bag.”
Granted, that requires accepting what many of us, including many Christians, would consider extreme (crazy?) assumptions. But that’s how someone could possibly get there in all good faith.
Russell, you just have to have the right perspective. If you start from the premise that salvation is an absolute priority, and that it is only available via Christianity, then the fact that slavery provided Christianity to slaves (who otherwise wouldn’t have been exposed to it) has to be a big plus. Hence the “mixed bag.”
Granted, that requires accepting what many of us, including many Christians, would consider extreme (crazy?) assumptions. But that’s how someone could possibly get there in all good faith.
My take on the “mixed bag” thing is that just about everything done in human history has been a mixed bag of some sort. Which means that saying something is/was a mixed bag is to say next to nothing.
I guess maybe it’s interesting, if true at all, that some number of former slaves might have felt like they were better off under slavery, given their particular circumstances. Though I would assume it was almost always because they ended up living a sh*t life after they were freed, having nothing and knowing nothing else.
In other words, their American experience was one of being f*cked over more than once, some badly enough the second time that it was even worse than the first.
Such a blessing.
My take on the “mixed bag” thing is that just about everything done in human history has been a mixed bag of some sort. Which means that saying something is/was a mixed bag is to say next to nothing.
I guess maybe it’s interesting, if true at all, that some number of former slaves might have felt like they were better off under slavery, given their particular circumstances. Though I would assume it was almost always because they ended up living a sh*t life after they were freed, having nothing and knowing nothing else.
In other words, their American experience was one of being f*cked over more than once, some badly enough the second time that it was even worse than the first.
Such a blessing.
Who will Catherine Baker vote for, for Speaker? The current Minority Leader, presumably.
So I just looked up Brian Dahle. From a very cursory glance, he is a mildly objectionable but not-insane Republican who seems to have been chastened by the hit’em-upside-the-head policy I advocate and which you Californians have wisely pursued in recent years.
But I’d like to know whether Dahle (or Baker) are content to share party affiliation with the likes of Nunes, Rohrbacher, or Issa. Has either of them endorsed anybody in those races?
–TP
Who will Catherine Baker vote for, for Speaker? The current Minority Leader, presumably.
So I just looked up Brian Dahle. From a very cursory glance, he is a mildly objectionable but not-insane Republican who seems to have been chastened by the hit’em-upside-the-head policy I advocate and which you Californians have wisely pursued in recent years.
But I’d like to know whether Dahle (or Baker) are content to share party affiliation with the likes of Nunes, Rohrbacher, or Issa. Has either of them endorsed anybody in those races?
–TP
Baker’s vote for (state) Assembly Speaker is irrelevant, since there is no way the Republicans get even close to a majority. (It’s quite possible that they, again, fail to even achieve 1/3 of the Assembly.)
To my knowledge, has never enthusiasm for anybody like Nunes, Rohrbacher, or Issa. Certainly their views are nothing like hers. Indeed, I see her as a Republican pretty much in my own mold: opposing the crazies from the inside — since there are lots of you opposing them from the outside already.
This, from the local paper’s endorsement of her:
Also this:
If you want to argue (as some of you have said of me) that this makes her somehow “not a real Republican,” fine. But she fits MY definition of what a Republican ought to be.
Baker’s vote for (state) Assembly Speaker is irrelevant, since there is no way the Republicans get even close to a majority. (It’s quite possible that they, again, fail to even achieve 1/3 of the Assembly.)
To my knowledge, has never enthusiasm for anybody like Nunes, Rohrbacher, or Issa. Certainly their views are nothing like hers. Indeed, I see her as a Republican pretty much in my own mold: opposing the crazies from the inside — since there are lots of you opposing them from the outside already.
This, from the local paper’s endorsement of her:
Also this:
If you want to argue (as some of you have said of me) that this makes her somehow “not a real Republican,” fine. But she fits MY definition of what a Republican ought to be.
Reading CharlesWT’s cited book review, I find this:
I’m sorry, but this is really just hogwash.
Nobody “fled” Europe to “live” in N America in the 16th C. People came here as the agents of European states and heads of state, to look for land and resources to exploit, for the mutual enrichment of both parties. “Living” here basically meant being here as part of either a military or a trading organization, or both. For the benefit of sponsors back home.
The Puritans were a distinct community in eastern MA, and by the end of the 17th C were basically no longer Puritans. They were Yankees, and their primary relationship to the folks back in England was via trade.
The other English speaking colonies were mostly plantations of some kind or other. Sponsored by, granted by, run for the enrichment of, people back in the good old England. Exceptions are NY, which was Dutch, and PA, which was also something of a religious experiment because William Penn owned it, but was also kind of a real estate deal, and was in neither case Puritan.
Also not mentioned are all of the people who came here as an alternative to imprisonment or hanging. Of whom there was no shortage. Maybe they fall under the category of “individualists”.
Reading CharlesWT’s cited book review, I find this:
I’m sorry, but this is really just hogwash.
Nobody “fled” Europe to “live” in N America in the 16th C. People came here as the agents of European states and heads of state, to look for land and resources to exploit, for the mutual enrichment of both parties. “Living” here basically meant being here as part of either a military or a trading organization, or both. For the benefit of sponsors back home.
The Puritans were a distinct community in eastern MA, and by the end of the 17th C were basically no longer Puritans. They were Yankees, and their primary relationship to the folks back in England was via trade.
The other English speaking colonies were mostly plantations of some kind or other. Sponsored by, granted by, run for the enrichment of, people back in the good old England. Exceptions are NY, which was Dutch, and PA, which was also something of a religious experiment because William Penn owned it, but was also kind of a real estate deal, and was in neither case Puritan.
Also not mentioned are all of the people who came here as an alternative to imprisonment or hanging. Of whom there was no shortage. Maybe they fall under the category of “individualists”.
Blazingly busy and getting ready for a trip, plus I have a headache. So take this with a grain of salt. If I don’t say it now, the discussion will have moved on and it won’t be the right time any more.
lj has said something I’ve been groping to say, along the lines of this: I don’t much care what bob mcmanus’s policy ideas about women are. I care about the rage and the violence of language directed at women, sometimes specific ones among us. If he wanted to propose that the 19th amendment be repealed, and people wanted to debate him on it, that wouldn’t make me feel threatened and unwelcome here, it would just make me bored. I might stick around to see what cool and funny things people had to say in response, or equally likely, I might just go wash the dishes.
If you-all like the sparkle McKinneyTexas provides, more power to you. Sometimes I find the discussion when he shows up interesting, more often I don’t. More often than not, I see a gauntlet laid down or a hook dangled, just like this time, and I roll my eyes and go do something else, because I know very well that what follows is likely to be exactly what russell said this morning: “Some conversations are basically over before they begin.” A rigged game, blurry definitions, shifting goalposts, rules changing as the game goes along, no one changing their minds. If it’s fun for you-all, whether lurkers or commenters, that’s great. The world is a big and varied place and I have plenty else to do. It’s like if you start to talk about jazz instead of folk music. I don’t feel unwelcome, the atmosphere isn’t hostile, it’s just not my thing. Sometimes I stick around and sometimes I even learn something! Sometimes not, on both counts.
bob mcmanus’s rage directed at me and other women here and elsewhere — that’s something else entirely. I would not have sat still for much more of it, so I’m glad lj stepped in.
IMHO bob stepped over the far line of what is mostly, unfortunately, a gray area where it’s hard to exactly say what should be done. lj used the word “comfortable” and that conjures the gray area for me. ObWi is often not “comfortable” – in that as I said several pages ago, people get mad at each other, sometimes we’re snarky with each other, some of us don’t actually like each other very much. It can be a rough and tumble place. But rough and tumble is different from hostile and threatening. Some people even like rough and tumble! Which, again, is fine. If I hated rough and tumble, or disapproved of it, or whatever, I feel that I should be the one to go find a more congenial place, just as I would be more likely to frequent a folk music blog than a jazz blog. But I don’t feel that I should have to go find a different place because of escalatingly violent language and emotion being directed my way. I would, if necessary, but I’m glad I didn’t have to, because I like it here, rough and tumble and all.
Blazingly busy and getting ready for a trip, plus I have a headache. So take this with a grain of salt. If I don’t say it now, the discussion will have moved on and it won’t be the right time any more.
lj has said something I’ve been groping to say, along the lines of this: I don’t much care what bob mcmanus’s policy ideas about women are. I care about the rage and the violence of language directed at women, sometimes specific ones among us. If he wanted to propose that the 19th amendment be repealed, and people wanted to debate him on it, that wouldn’t make me feel threatened and unwelcome here, it would just make me bored. I might stick around to see what cool and funny things people had to say in response, or equally likely, I might just go wash the dishes.
If you-all like the sparkle McKinneyTexas provides, more power to you. Sometimes I find the discussion when he shows up interesting, more often I don’t. More often than not, I see a gauntlet laid down or a hook dangled, just like this time, and I roll my eyes and go do something else, because I know very well that what follows is likely to be exactly what russell said this morning: “Some conversations are basically over before they begin.” A rigged game, blurry definitions, shifting goalposts, rules changing as the game goes along, no one changing their minds. If it’s fun for you-all, whether lurkers or commenters, that’s great. The world is a big and varied place and I have plenty else to do. It’s like if you start to talk about jazz instead of folk music. I don’t feel unwelcome, the atmosphere isn’t hostile, it’s just not my thing. Sometimes I stick around and sometimes I even learn something! Sometimes not, on both counts.
bob mcmanus’s rage directed at me and other women here and elsewhere — that’s something else entirely. I would not have sat still for much more of it, so I’m glad lj stepped in.
IMHO bob stepped over the far line of what is mostly, unfortunately, a gray area where it’s hard to exactly say what should be done. lj used the word “comfortable” and that conjures the gray area for me. ObWi is often not “comfortable” – in that as I said several pages ago, people get mad at each other, sometimes we’re snarky with each other, some of us don’t actually like each other very much. It can be a rough and tumble place. But rough and tumble is different from hostile and threatening. Some people even like rough and tumble! Which, again, is fine. If I hated rough and tumble, or disapproved of it, or whatever, I feel that I should be the one to go find a more congenial place, just as I would be more likely to frequent a folk music blog than a jazz blog. But I don’t feel that I should have to go find a different place because of escalatingly violent language and emotion being directed my way. I would, if necessary, but I’m glad I didn’t have to, because I like it here, rough and tumble and all.
PS #1 re: I care about the rage and the violence of language directed at women, sometimes specific ones among us.
I care about the rage and the violence of language, period. I hope I would notice in the same way if similar rage was directed at any other commenter. I do not, as I said above, consider this to be the same phenomenon as, let’s say, a throwaway line about how we have to burn it all down and start over. There’s performance art, there’s frustration, there’s carelessness…all different things. (All subject to gray areas and interpretations, of course.)
PS #2: if you find that sapient and I are overtly agreeing about something, pay attention. There’s probably something to it. 😉
PS #3: It’s not surprising that it was another lawyer who surfaced to say that things are more fun around here when McKinneyTexas starts an argument. I have been well supplied with lawyers in my personal life since about 1972. If I were of that temperament/mindset/skillset myself, I might enjoy the lawyerly back and forth more than I do. It’s a little too slippery for me.
PS #1 re: I care about the rage and the violence of language directed at women, sometimes specific ones among us.
I care about the rage and the violence of language, period. I hope I would notice in the same way if similar rage was directed at any other commenter. I do not, as I said above, consider this to be the same phenomenon as, let’s say, a throwaway line about how we have to burn it all down and start over. There’s performance art, there’s frustration, there’s carelessness…all different things. (All subject to gray areas and interpretations, of course.)
PS #2: if you find that sapient and I are overtly agreeing about something, pay attention. There’s probably something to it. 😉
PS #3: It’s not surprising that it was another lawyer who surfaced to say that things are more fun around here when McKinneyTexas starts an argument. I have been well supplied with lawyers in my personal life since about 1972. If I were of that temperament/mindset/skillset myself, I might enjoy the lawyerly back and forth more than I do. It’s a little too slippery for me.
PS #2: if you find that sapient and I are overtly agreeing about something, pay attention. There’s probably something to it. 😉
Haha! Thank you for what you’ve written here, JanieM.
PS #2: if you find that sapient and I are overtly agreeing about something, pay attention. There’s probably something to it. 😉
Haha! Thank you for what you’ve written here, JanieM.
JanieM worth listening to, as always.
If you-all like the sparkle McKinneyTexas provides, more power to you.
Speaking for myself, it’s more the sparkle that results when McKinney says something provocative, and the rest of our mostly liberal commenters pile in, and zippy back-and-forth ensues with no prisoners taken but interesting examples and links scattered around as far as the eye can see. And (this is important) with no, or at least minimal, ill-feeling. Personally, I like the craic of it, as the Irish would say (pronounced “crack”, and meaning fun and action), but YMMV.
JanieM worth listening to, as always.
If you-all like the sparkle McKinneyTexas provides, more power to you.
Speaking for myself, it’s more the sparkle that results when McKinney says something provocative, and the rest of our mostly liberal commenters pile in, and zippy back-and-forth ensues with no prisoners taken but interesting examples and links scattered around as far as the eye can see. And (this is important) with no, or at least minimal, ill-feeling. Personally, I like the craic of it, as the Irish would say (pronounced “crack”, and meaning fun and action), but YMMV.
I’d like to think that puts a period on it, but I’m sure it will come up again, if not in this form, in some other form.
But I can’t resist posting this link
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/19/west-point-commie-cadet-us-army-socialist-views-red-flags
I’d like to think that puts a period on it, but I’m sure it will come up again, if not in this form, in some other form.
But I can’t resist posting this link
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/19/west-point-commie-cadet-us-army-socialist-views-red-flags
sapient, lj, GftNC, and everyone — I am reminded of the immortal words of Jerry Taff, who was the evening news anchor when I lived in Milwaukee in the early eighties. He closed his report every night by wishing us all…
…Better tomorrows.
That wish applies far beyond the range of Obsidian Wings. We’re going to need it.
sapient, lj, GftNC, and everyone — I am reminded of the immortal words of Jerry Taff, who was the evening news anchor when I lived in Milwaukee in the early eighties. He closed his report every night by wishing us all…
…Better tomorrows.
That wish applies far beyond the range of Obsidian Wings. We’re going to need it.
PS #2: if you find that sapient and I are overtly agreeing about something, pay attention. There’s probably something to it. 😉
This is the 2 x 4 officially upside my head.
PS #2: if you find that sapient and I are overtly agreeing about something, pay attention. There’s probably something to it. 😉
This is the 2 x 4 officially upside my head.
This is the 2 x 4 officially upside my head.
likewise.
i read mcmanus’ comment, responded to it, and the condescending nastiness of it went right over my head.
i would likely have noticed right away if he made a comment of similar tone and (lack of) quality about other demographics. which is o say, other groups of people.
please accept my apologies.
This is the 2 x 4 officially upside my head.
likewise.
i read mcmanus’ comment, responded to it, and the condescending nastiness of it went right over my head.
i would likely have noticed right away if he made a comment of similar tone and (lack of) quality about other demographics. which is o say, other groups of people.
please accept my apologies.
I guess maybe it’s interesting, if true at all, that some number of former slaves might have felt like they were better off under slavery, given their particular circumstances.
Similarly, many older citizens of the country formally known as the Soviet Union pine for the what they call “the better days” under Stalin, thus proving that state socialism is superior to unbound free market capitalism.
Now a more or less rational person would most likely take this line of argument with a tad more than a grain of salt, not libertarians!
That’s how they roll.
I guess maybe it’s interesting, if true at all, that some number of former slaves might have felt like they were better off under slavery, given their particular circumstances.
Similarly, many older citizens of the country formally known as the Soviet Union pine for the what they call “the better days” under Stalin, thus proving that state socialism is superior to unbound free market capitalism.
Now a more or less rational person would most likely take this line of argument with a tad more than a grain of salt, not libertarians!
That’s how they roll.
please accept my apologies.
And mine. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 instances of someone changing my mind on the internet. Two of them were JanieM.
please accept my apologies.
And mine. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 instances of someone changing my mind on the internet. Two of them were JanieM.
hsh and russell: no need to apologise, we have all been guilty of similar lapses at times. Janie and I talk privately sometimes, and some time ago I apologised to her for something and then referred to it during the recent brouhaha thus:
And I then went on in ways that would embarass (probably in a good way!) some of you. Clearly, we’re all trying to put this to bed once and for all in as OK a way as possible, and I wouldn’t want to drag it out further (you’ll have to believe me!), but I just want to say one more thing. Janie and I had been marvelling at bob’s misogyny for quite a while, but sapient was the first person to name it out loud, and I think she deserves appreciation for it.
hsh and russell: no need to apologise, we have all been guilty of similar lapses at times. Janie and I talk privately sometimes, and some time ago I apologised to her for something and then referred to it during the recent brouhaha thus:
And I then went on in ways that would embarass (probably in a good way!) some of you. Clearly, we’re all trying to put this to bed once and for all in as OK a way as possible, and I wouldn’t want to drag it out further (you’ll have to believe me!), but I just want to say one more thing. Janie and I had been marvelling at bob’s misogyny for quite a while, but sapient was the first person to name it out loud, and I think she deserves appreciation for it.
Apologies are not at all necessary. I know that I can be insensitive to things that don’t affect me, and have blind spots that people here have observed many times. Something good has perhaps, for once, come from my bile.
Anyway, I’m glad we all had this little chat.
Apologies are not at all necessary. I know that I can be insensitive to things that don’t affect me, and have blind spots that people here have observed many times. Something good has perhaps, for once, come from my bile.
Anyway, I’m glad we all had this little chat.