GOP House Candidate Says Civil Rights is a ‘Local Issue’

Politics • Views: 2,895

Ohio Republican House candidate Jim Renacci thinks civil rights is a “local issue:” ‘We Need To Get Our Federal Government Out Of The Way’.

It’s amazing to hear Republican candidates saying things like this, but it does reveal the modern GOP’s agenda — to rewind all the social progress of the last 100 years, and return to some idealized hyper-religious version of America that never existed.

The entire point of the civil rights movement was that states and local governments should not be able to determine these things for themselves, because there are some states that will choose (and did choose) to violate the civil rights of minority groups. That’s why George Wallace’s pro-segregation rallying cry was: “state’s rights.”

And now the GOP is trying to re-fight that battle, and bring back those bad old days of racial discrimination — and they’re even resurrecting the same long-dead arguments to do it. This kind of atavistic thinking is incredibly common in today’s right wing and Republican Party, and it’s one reason why I seriously doubt I will ever vote for a Republican again.

Jump to bottom

281 comments
1 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:27:37am

I said it before in the previous thread. but it needs to be said again.

The Republican Party is more than willing to burn America down if it means they get to rule over the ashes.

2 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:28:35am

If you believe that government is always the problem then this is a logical next step.

3 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:28:45am

Next up, lets end Women's suffrage and bring back Prohibition.

4 Ghazicide  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:29:01am

Get to printing those 'Wallace 2010' bumper stickers with the stars and bars background. That's a winner.

5 Randall Gross  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:30:20am

Carryover comment from last thread

Yes, this neoconfederate agenda is their most important item too, which is exactly why we should not tip the balance of power to the GOP. It's why I will vote straight D instead of nearly straight R for the first time in my life this coming election, and it's why I found myself actually retweeting Markos' comment on this today.

6 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:34:17am

One of the Little Rock Nine died this week and all the news coverage has reminded me of how much local control of civil rights is just a bad, bad idea.
Human nature is what it is and it take a strong central government at times to force us to our better angels.

The majority should never have the right to vote on or control the civil rights of the minority.

7 RadicalModerate  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:34:49am

What next, GOP? The triumphant return of David Duke to your ranks after you ran him out of the party in the early 90s?

8 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:38:38am

re: #7 RadicalModerate

What next, GOP? The triumphant return of David Duke to your ranks after you ran him out of the party in the early 90s?

No, David Duke is waaaay too liberal for the GOP now. /

9 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:39:00am

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin Sept. 11 Event Ticket Price: $73 to $225

Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are appearing together in Anchorage, Alaska Saturday to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and tickets don't come cheap: The Ticketmaster page for the event lists regular adult tickets at between $73 and $130 and tickets plus a "meet & greet" at $225.


The event will also have a "dry section" where no alcohol is served and a "wet section" for those who want to drink.


Palin heralded the event on her Facebook page last night with a message beginning, "Glenn's coming to the Last Frontier!"


"I hope my fellow Alaskans (and anyone visiting from Outside) will join me this Saturday, September 11, 2010, at Anchorage's Dena'ina Center at 8:00 p.m. Glenn Beck will be there - you won't want to miss it," she wrote.


Added Palin: "We can count on Glenn to make the night interesting and inspiring, and I can think of no better way to commemorate 9/11 than to gather with patriots who will 'never forget.' Hope to see you there!"

10 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:40:03am

re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The wingularity must be approaching.

11 wee fury  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:40:42am

Alaska is a beautiful state.

12 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:42:34am

re: #11 wee fury

Alaska is a beautiful state.

Plus, I hear you can see Russia from there.

13 wee fury  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:44:31am

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Plus, I hear you can see Russia from there.

Well, I haven't. But, some people say they can.

14 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:44:36am

re: #7 RadicalModerate

What next, GOP? The triumphant return of David Duke to your ranks after you ran him out of the party in the early 90s?

There's very little difference these days between the arguments David Duke uses to excuse his racism, and the arguments made by mainstream Republicans. They both use the line that white people are the real victims of discrimination. If you read an article by Duke on this subject (he's written many), it's almost indistinguishable from the common rhetoric of the right.

15 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:45:31am

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Plus, I hear you can see Russia from there.

Image: 340x_Picture_704-1.jpg

16 Randall Gross  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:46:22am

re: #7 RadicalModerate

What next, GOP? The triumphant return of David Duke to your ranks after you ran him out of the party in the early 90s?

They heart RSM, so I don't see why they wouldn't...

17 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:47:11am

re: #14 Charles

There's very little difference these days between the arguments David Duke uses to excuse his racism, and the arguments made by mainstream Republicans. They both use the line that white people are the real victims of discrimination. If you read an article by Duke on this subject (he's written many), it's almost indistinguishable from the common rhetoric of the right.

It's classic divide and conquer stuff. Easy for poor white folk to be fed the lie that their troubles are all down to "affirmative action". After all, why would their white male CEO brethren betray them in that way?

18 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:47:32am

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Next up, lets end Women's suffrage and bring back Prohibition.

if the states want to, why should the Feds interfere?

//

19 RadicalModerate  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:48:50am

re: #14 Charles

There's very little difference these days between the arguments David Duke uses to excuse his racism, and the arguments made by mainstream Republicans. They both use the line that white people are the real victims of discrimination. If you read an article by Duke on this subject (he's written many), it's almost indistinguishable from the common rhetoric of the right.

Oh, I know of Duke quite well - I am originally from Louisiana, where he had his short rise to political fame, and the fact that he got so close to becoming Governor there was one of the reasons I moved out of state. The area I was from there were waaay too many people who agreed with his politics, and unfortunately things haven't changed that much over the past 20 years.

20 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:49:52am

re: #14 Charles

There's very little difference these days between the arguments David Duke uses to excuse his racism, and the arguments made by mainstream Republicans. They both use the line that white people are the real victims of discrimination. If you read an article by Duke on this subject (he's written many), it's almost indistinguishable from the common rhetoric of the right.

Dukes was a man ahead of his times.

21 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:50:15am

The video is pretty bad....
Renacci Civil Rights

Youtube Video

The only black man in the audience is asking the question and was basically told to fuck off.

22 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:50:40am

re: #4 BigPapa
A little history for those who were able to forgive the late Robert Byrd for his former Klan membership:
Near the end of his life George Wallace renounced his segregationist views and apologized for them.
[Link: findarticles.com...]

23 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:50:53am

re: #18 SanFranciscoZionist

if the states want to, why should the Feds interfere?

//

STATES RIGHTS! STATES RIGHTS!

/Funny how often than means "Fuck off, we'll do what we like."

24 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:50:55am

re: #17 iossarian

It's standard GOP tactics. Things are bad because of some "other". Things are bad because of liberals, gays, blacks, latinos. If one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters existed they'd blame it on them.

25 [deleted]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:51:15am
26 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:51:22am

I would say something snarky about Idaho, but my husband is from Idaho, and I know there are a lot of people there whose ancestors settled to farm potatoes, and who are not racists.

27 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:53:14am

Follow up interview....

Youtube Video
28 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:53:27am

re: #24 Dreggas

It's standard GOP tactics. Things are bad because of some "other". Things are bad because of liberals, gays, blacks, latinos. If one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters existed they'd blame it on them.

This guy definitely is fucking our shit up.

Youtube Video
29 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:54:14am

re: #28 Obdicut

Thinking about it, they may have a point in blaming him for some shit. After all he does eat people.

30 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:54:26am

re: #18 SanFranciscoZionist

Alcohol prohibition is both a State and County right.

31 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:54:43am

It's like the episode of southpark with the interdimensional beings and "They stole our jobs".

32 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:55:04am

re: #22 tradewind

A little history for those who were able to forgive the late Robert Byrd for his former Klan membership:
Near the end of his life George Wallace renounced his segregationist views and apologized for them.
[Link: findarticles.com...]

Knowing that will sure prevent me from bringing up George Wallace every time there's a discussion of racism in American politics, and throwing him the Republican's faces.

Wait...what?

33 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:55:05am

re: #4 BigPapa

Get to printing those 'Wallace 2010' bumper stickers with the stars and bars background. That's a winner.

How about Henry Wallace?

34 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:55:36am

re: #24 Dreggas

It's standard GOP tactics. Things are bad because of some "other". Things are bad because of liberals, gays, blacks, latinos. If one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters existed they'd blame it on them.

But then the purple people eaters would eat them, so that would solve that problem.

35 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:55:40am

re: #30 Bubblehead II

Yep, in fact the county where Jack Daniel's has its headquarters is a dry county.

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:56:25am

re: #26 EmmmieG

I would say something snarky about Idaho, but my husband is from Idaho, and I know there are a lot of people there whose ancestors settled to farm potatoes, and who are not racists.

Idaho is sort of an occupational hazard for Idahoans. The same conditions that make it a pleasant place to grow potatoes and raise kids also makes it ideal for crazies to hang out.

37 deranged cat  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:57:41am

re: #31 Dreggas

It's like the episode of southpark with the interdimensional beings and "They stole our jobs theyy turkkk uurrr jerrbbbss!".

Youtube Video

hahahahaha

38 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:58:07am

re: #26 EmmmieG

We cleaned the worst of them out

Shooting and lawsuit

In September 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center won a $6.3 million judgment against Aryan Nations from an Idaho jury who awarded punitive and compensatory damages to a woman and her son who were beaten with rifles by drunken Aryan Nations security guards in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho in July 1998.[5][6] The woman and her son were driving near the Aryan Nations compound when their car backfired, which the guards misinterpreted as gunfire[citation needed]. The guards fired at the car, striking it several times, leading the car to crash, after which one of the Aryan Nations guards held the Keenans at gunpoint.[6][7]

In February 2001, the group's Hayden Lake compound and intellectual property, including the names Aryan Nations and Church of Jesus Christ Christian, were transferred to the Keenans.[6] The Keenans sold the property to Greg Carr, a Southeastern Idaho philanthropist who donated the land to North Idaho College, which designated it as a peace park.[6][8] The watchtower was demolished, and the church and meeting hall were burned to the ground during a firefighting exercise. Now tours are occasionally given on the property.[8]

39 Randall Gross  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:00:24am

re: #21 Killgore Trout

Wow that candidate doesn't have a clue does he? He speaks of the Federal Government's role of protecting freedoms and then wants local control in the context of a civil rights question. What a miscreant.

40 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:00:40am

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist
Just trying to help you avoid an embarrassing bumper-sticker malfunction.//

41 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:01:07am

Gov. Barbour's civil rights fairy tale

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who may seek the Republican nomination for president, is trying to sell the biggest load of revisionist nonsense about race, politics and the South that I've ever heard. Ever.

He has the gall to try to portray Southern Republicans as having been enlightened supporters of the civil rights movement all along. I can't decide whether this exercise in rewriting history should be described as cynical or sinister. Whichever it is, the record has to be set straight.

In a recent interview with Human Events, a conservative magazine and Web site, Barbour gave his version of how the South, once a Democratic stronghold, became a Republican bastion. The 62-year-old Barbour claimed that it was "my generation" that led the switch: "my generation, who went to integrated schools. I went to integrated college -- never thought twice about it." The "old Democrats" fought integration tooth and nail, Barbour said, but "by my time, people realized that was the past, it was indefensible, it wasn't gonna be that way anymore. And so the people who really changed the South from Democrat to Republican was a different generation from those who fought integration."

Not a word of this is true.

42 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:02:25am

re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist

I may be bent, twisted, seriously warped and potentially cracked, but I am not crazy.

Says the man with the twitching shoulders.

43 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:02:56am

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist
Oh, sorry. That should have gone to the manufacturer, in # 4.
Disregard.

44 [deleted]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:03:03am
45 wrenchghaziwenchghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:03:49am

re: #41 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Gov. Barbour's civil rights fairy tale

The fact that Barbour gave an interview to Human Events in the first place says he's tone deaf (at best) on the subject of race relations.

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:04:17am

re: #40 tradewind

Just trying to help you avoid an embarrassing bumper-sticker malfunction.//

I don't have any bumper stickers featuring old Dixiecrats...actually, I don't have a car, but that is another story.

47 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:04:28am

re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin Sept. 11 Event Ticket Price: $73 to $225

They are getting PAID for a 9/11 event?
It cost money to go to an event that "commemorates" 9/11?

I am so not easily offended....oh, fuck that, this is OFFENSIVE.
Even, even if the money goes into some type of "9/11 victims fund".
If they want to raise cash then they can take up a "love offering" during the event.
ugh
and ugh....

48 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:04:33am

re: #39 Thanos

Wow that candidate doesn't have a clue does he? He speaks of the Federal Government's role of protecting freedoms and then wants local control in the context of a civil rights question. What a miscreant.

It's kinda like Sharron Angle's idea that it's not her responsibility to create jobs for her state because it should be a local issue. Republicans seem to be running for office with the agenda that they are actually going to make federal government smaller by doing less. I don't know if that's going to work out for them.

49 wrenchghaziwenchghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:04:37am

re: #44 MikeySDCA

I like to be able to vote against the dangerous ninnies in the Republican primaries.

You've been a busy man lately, I'm guessing.

50 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:05:00am

re: #41 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That certainly is an interesting take on history.

51 [deleted]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:05:06am
52 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:05:29am

It blows my mind that people are even still saying this shit in 2010. What the hell? Seriously.

I'd try to come up with something more profound, but I can't. The sheer ignorance on display is astonishing.

53 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:05:56am

re: #43 tradewind

Oh, sorry. That should have gone to the manufacturer, in # 4.
Disregard.

Ah. Now it makes sense.

54 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:06:29am

re: #48 Killgore Trout

they're going with the Norquist line of starving the beast. Don't fund anything and you'll have to start cutting it.

55 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:06:45am

re: #47 webevintage

Meanwhile, President Obama will be at the Pentagon, VP Biden will be at Ground Zero, and both current First Lady Michelle Obama and former First Lady Laura Bush will be at the Flight 93 memorial site paying their respects.

56 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:07:00am

re: #45 wrenchwench

The fact that Barbour gave an interview to Human Events in the first place says he's tone deaf (at best) on the subject of race relations.

There was some great Haley Barbour footage during Spike Lee's Katrina sequel. The shit he said was unbelievably creepy.

57 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:07:02am

re: #47 webevintage

They are getting PAID for a 9/11 event?
It cost money to go to an event that "commemorates" 9/11?

I am so not easily offended...oh, fuck that, this is OFFENSIVE.
Even, even if the money goes into some type of "9/11 victims fund".
If they want to raise cash then they can take up a "love offering" during the event.
ugh
and ugh...

The only September 11 events I go to are at local synagogues. They don't feature exciting speakers, but none of them have ever charged me.

58 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:07:10am

re: #52 Lidane

It blows my mind that people are even still saying this shit in 2010. What the hell? Seriously.

I'd try to come up with something more profound, but I can't. The sheer ignorance on display is astonishing.

The amazing thing is that a lot of folks don't think this is a bad thing to say.
These people might even win elections.....
The mind.
It boggles.

59 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:07:42am

re: #55 lawhawk

Meanwhile, President Obama will be at the Pentagon, VP Biden will be at Ground Zero, and both current First Lady Michelle Obama and former First Lady Laura Bush will be at the Flight 93 memorial site paying their respects.

I'm sure someone will get an outrageous outrage out of that.

60 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:08:31am

re: #54 Dreggas

they're going with the Norquist line of starving the beast. Don't fund anything and you'll have to start cutting it.

And yet down to a man, they all still believe in a strong military, strong immigration enforcement, and all sorts of other things that -- wait for it -- require government funding.

I can't imagine existing with that level of cognitive dissonance. The fact that any of these idiots can somehow manage to dress and feed themselves is amazing.

61 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:08:35am

re: #58 webevintage

The amazing thing is that a lot of folks don't think this is a bad thing to say.
These people might even win elections...
The mind.
It boggles.


There's a lot of racists in America :/

62 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:09:20am

re: #47 webevintage

They are getting PAID for a 9/11 event?
It cost money to go to an event that "commemorates" 9/11?

I am so not easily offended...oh, fuck that, this is OFFENSIVE.
Even, even if the money goes into some type of "9/11 victims fund".
If they want to raise cash then they can take up a "love offering" during the event.
ugh
and ugh...

You mean you wouldn't pay for the privilege of being in the same building as Glenn and Sarah, breathing the same rarefied air and having the chance to actually be in their presence? To bask in their majesty?

What are you? A communist?
///

63 SteveMcG  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:09:42am

re: #44 MikeySDCA

I am a conservative of the school of Edmund Burke. I am a registered Republican, having first so registered in order to vote against Ronald Reagan in the 1976 presidential primary. I like to be able to vote against the dangerous ninnies in the Republican primaries.

That's the only reason I switched back after the 2008 PA primary.

64 wrenchghaziwenchghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:10:00am

re: #56 garhighway

There was some great Haley Barbour footage during Spike Lee's Katrina sequel. The shit he said was unbelievably creepy.

I've been blissfully ignorant. Barbour has been touted as one of those rising Republican leaders. Now I see how he fits.

65 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:10:14am

re: #58 webevintage

The amazing thing is that a lot of folks don't think this is a bad thing to say.
These people might even win elections...
The mind.
It boggles.

When the vast majority of people don't know a fucking thing about history, it's not that hard to convince them of things that are obviously lies from the perspective of an educated person.

The Tea Party set is composed almost entirely of stupid, ignorant, uneducated people. You might even say their entire agenda has a strong selection bias against educated people.

66 RadicalModerate  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:10:15am

re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin Sept. 11 Event Ticket Price: $73 to $225

Palin heralded the event on her Facebook page last night with a message beginning, "Glenn's coming to the Last Frontier!"

So, we're finally going to shoot Glenn Beck into outer space?

67 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:10:26am

re: #48 Killgore Trout

It's kinda like Sharron Angle's idea that it's not her responsibility to create jobs for her state because it should be a local issue. Republicans seem to be running for office with the agenda that they are actually going to make federal government smaller by doing less. I don't know if that's going to work out for them.

There is certainly an audience for politicans who proclaim they won't be doing anything. I guess doing nothing is akin to doing the right thing in the eyes of some. Problem is that that attitude is likely to let problems grow until they're only solvable anymore with seemingly crazy ideas.

Whatever happened to people wanting smart ideas for governing, tackling specific problems with practical and working solutions?

68 ihateronpaul  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:11:47am

Of course he does. Fuck it, lets bring back the Confederate States of America while we are at it.

Great ideas from a great man.

69 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:12:18am

re: #66 RadicalModerate

So, we're finally going to shoot Glenn Beck into outer space?

Somebody needs to tell Beck that there is absolutely no regulation of any kind on the surface of the sun, and that Jesus lives there.

70 Randall Gross  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:12:28am

re: #41 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Gov. Barbour's civil rights fairy tale

This is the same Haley Barbour who has spoken at White Supremacist CCC "Blackhawk Rallies".

[Link: www.google.com...]

71 [deleted]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:12:41am
72 wrenchghaziwenchghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:12:52am

re: #67 000G

Whatever happened to people wanting smart ideas for governing, tackling specific problems with practical and working solutions?

So that what a unicorn looks like....thanks!

73 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:13:16am

re: #60 Lidane

And yet down to a man, they all still believe in a strong military, strong immigration enforcement, and all sorts of other things that -- wait for it -- require government funding.

I can't imagine existing with that level of cognitive dissonance. The fact that any of these idiots can somehow manage to dress and feed themselves is amazing.

That's what I keep saying. Taken to logical end of their belief system you better hope your house never burns down, you never need the police, never need an ambulance, no one invades the country, no natural disasters happen etc. The ownership society really means you're on your own. It's the ultimate "Fuck you, I got mine."

74 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:13:52am

So, I guess the whole Bill of Rights is a local issue. I guess the unalienable rights are a local issue.

This is teh crazy that has infected the Republican party.

Here I am a small government conservative. To me, small government does not mean no central government. It means efficient government. It means protecting our civil rights - that is the one of the MAIN reasons to have government.

I don't think republicans know what small government means. It doesn't mean everything is given to the states. Some protections and yes programs must be centrally governed to ensure we are protected.

Why is this hard? Why can't our politicians seem more than black or white and realize that some things are better managed locally and other more universal things are better managed centrally? Why do we have to choose for either everything to be in Washington or nothing to be in Washington?

Sigh. I have no one to vote for. I really, really don't.

75 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:14:19am

re: #67 000G

There is certainly an audience for politicans who proclaim they won't be doing anything. I guess doing nothing is akin to doing the right thing in the eyes of some. Problem is that that attitude is likely to let problems grow until they're only solvable anymore with seemingly crazy ideas.

Whatever happened to people wanting smart ideas for governing, tackling specific problems with practical and working solutions?

If the overall zeitgeist of a movement is mistrust of intellectuals, then you aren't leaving much room to establish an environment that fosters smart ideas. If you chase all the smart people away, you aren't going to have many of their ideas.

76 deranged cat  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:15:29am

re: #41 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Gov. Barbour's civil rights fairy tale

..ugh. sickening.

77 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:15:31am

Forget the neo-Confederate votes. Right now it's looking like a lot of GOP candidates want to get the KKK vote. I'm sure they're trying to get both but it's clear they're employing the Southern Strategy. Heck, even Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are part of the Southern Strategy.

78 [deleted]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:16:35am
79 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:16:35am

re: #77 Gus 802

It's more like a "scorched earth" strategy lately.

80 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:17:30am

re: #79 Fozzie Bear

It's more like a "scorched earth" strategy lately.

AKA The Butthurt Strategy™

81 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:19:40am

re: #73 Dreggas

That's what I keep saying. Taken to logical end of their belief system you better hope your house never burns down, you never need the police, never need an ambulance, no one invades the country, no natural disasters happen etc. The ownership society really means you're on your own. It's the ultimate "Fuck you, I got mine."

They go even further, actually. Taken to its logical extreme, these morons believe that if your house burns down, or you need an ambulance, or your country is invaded, or you need the cops, then you have to pay for all of it out of pocket. Don't expect the government to do any of it for you.

They're all about BOOTSTRAPS ZOMG for everyone else, but if it's something they need or want, then they expect to be catered to. Fuck them all sideways with a 2x4, no lube, and no kiss. =P

82 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:19:54am

re: #79 Fozzie Bear

It's more like a "scorched earth" strategy lately.

Youtube Video
83 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:21:15am

re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I KNOW THE TRUTH!!!111!!!

Youtube Video
84 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:21:16am

re: #81 Lidane


They go even further, actually. Taken to its logical extreme, these morons believe that if your house burns down, or you need an ambulance, or your country is invaded, or you need the cops, then you have to pay for all of it out of pocket. Don't expect the government to do any of it for you.

The irony is we pay out of pocket in...gasp...taxes.

85 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:21:21am

re: #75 Fozzie Bear

If the overall zeitgeist of a movement is mistrust of intellectuals, then you aren't leaving much room to establish an environment that fosters smart ideas. If you chase all the smart people away, you aren't going to have many of their ideas.

I don't know if coming up with smart ideas requires intellectuals per se. But this creepy sort of anarchocapitalist utopianism that is very much in style these days in the conservative mainstream and that looks at government in general the way that some environmentalist radicals look at cell phones -- it is baffling to me. Why fundamentally resist a political instrument that you yourself rely on (because I don't think anyone with property titles worthy to defend would want the laws and courts protecting them to disappear)?

86 Kragarghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:22:16am

re: #83 Jeff In Ohio

I KNOW THE TRUTH!!!111!!!

[Video]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

87 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:22:54am

re: #77 Gus 802
Quasi-equating the GOP with the KKK is just the sort of rhetoric that renders the population less sensitive to the evils of actual racism when they arise.
It might be more accurate, and more helpful, to take a page from the democrats' strategy for the midterms and characterize individual candidates and races ( political) rather than
smearing an entire half of the population.

88 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:23:38am

re: #87 tradewind

Quasi-equating the GOP with the KKK is just the sort of rhetoric that renders the population less sensitive to the evils of actual racism when they arise.
It might be more accurate, and more helpful, to take a page from the democrats' strategy for the midterms and characterize individual candidates and races ( political) rather than
smearing an entire half of the population.

Uh huh.

Rush Limbaugh: Drugstore Truck Driving Man

Youtube Video
89 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:25:07am

re: #74 brownbagj
It's not so tough. You don't have to get all global. Just take your local races, get a piece of paper, split it down the middle, and write 'Pro ' and ' Con ' for each candidate.
Then vote for the one you hate least.

90 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:26:44am

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Next up, lets end Women's suffrage and bring back Prohibition.

Oh puhleeze. Wyoming was the first state to extend voting rights to women, and Wyoming is also among the most Republican of states. As to prohibition, conservatives have this funny idea that you can recognize the merits of an idea by its fruits, at least in hindsight. Since prohibition was a failure on that score, the experiment ought not be tried again. It would fail again.

91 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:26:55am
Then vote for the one you hate least.

Quoted for truth.

92 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:27:55am

re: #90 lostlakehiker

As to prohibition, conservatives have this funny idea that you can recognize the merits of an idea by its fruits, at least in hindsight. Since prohibition was a failure on that score, the experiment ought not be tried again. It would fail again.

They are trying it again, but this time with drugs other than alcohol. And is just as disastrous a failure.

93 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:27:56am

re: #88 Gus 802
I'd say that targeting old pundits as a tactic for winning elections is for the birds, but that'd just be too obvious.

94 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:28:24am

re: #84 Dreggas

The irony is we pay out of pocket in...gasp...taxes.

Stop bringing facts into the discussion. You're not helping. =P

Seriously-- I've had anarcho-capitalist idiots tell me that all taxes and all government funding is theft and that the ideal in this country is to completely dismantle the entire concept of a centralized government. Everything that is currently government run -- courts, police, emergency services, the military, etc. -- should be privatized and sold to the highest bidder.

Oh, and somehow, we're supposed to keep our standard of living and the Constitution up and running once we manage to do all that. I still haven't figured out how the fuck that makes any sense.

95 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:28:34am

re: #93 tradewind

I'd say that targeting old pundits as a tactic for winning elections is for the birds, but that'd just be too obvious.

Whatever you say Tradewind.

96 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:29:18am

re: #90 lostlakehiker

Oh puhleeze. Wyoming was the first state to extend voting rights to women, and Wyoming is also among the most Republican of states. As to prohibition, conservatives have this funny idea that you can recognize the merits of an idea by its fruits, at least in hindsight. Since prohibition was a failure on that score, the experiment ought not be tried again. It would fail again.

Going back to the early 20th century to find progressive Republican talking points?

Telling.

97 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:29:24am

re: #91 brownbagj
Well you have to figure that if one candidate or another has all ' pros ', you're the problem.
:)
It's better than staying home.

98 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:30:07am

Statement A: "The government can't do anything right, by its very nature. it is a cancer growing out of control. It cannot help, it can only harm."
Statement B: "Vote for me for president/governor/senator/representative, and I'll do the job well!"

It continually amazes me that these two statements, or things equivalent to them, so often come out of the same people's mouths.

99 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:31:44am

re: #98 Fozzie Bear
I can't remember who it was, but I swear I remember a candidate who said ' vote for me, and when I get to DC, I promise to do as little as possible '.
Pretty sure he won.

100 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:32:37am

Afghanistan is a fine example of a country that relies on "regional solutions", inasmuch as its central government is as weak as many hard-line conservatives would like to see ours...

101 tradewind  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:34:30am

Obama going all class war on Boehner.
Really don't think this one's going to work any more.
Out.

102 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:34:51am

re: #100 ralphieboy

I guess "warlord" as a title might work for my local city council...
///

103 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:34:58am

re: #100 ralphieboy

Afghanistan is a fine example of a country that relies on "regional solutions", inasmuch as its central government is as weak as many hard-line conservatives would like to see ours...

Heh. I've seen people argue that Somalia is a good example of how things should be because they don't have a central government. Figure that one out.

104 Randall Gross  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:35:08am

Who could have guessed then that within 9 years 9/11 would become a political bromide to raise funds with and people would snicker at folks saying "never forget". Thanks Glenn, thanks Sarah... you are just the cynical capitalist pukes we needed.

105 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:36:34am

re: #101 tradewind

Obama going all class war on Boehner.
Really don't think this one's going to work any more.
Out.

If you look at the income distribution numbers you will see that the class war has been going on for quite a while. Want to guess who's winning?

[Link: www.slate.com...]

106 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:36:35am

re: #101 tradewind

Obama going all class war on Boehner.
Really don't think this one's going to work any more.
Out.

Good.
I love how sticking up for the working and middle class is called "class war".

107 jaunte  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:36:45am

re: #77 Gus 802

Forget the neo-Confederate votes. Right now it's looking like a lot of GOP candidates want to get the KKK vote. I'm sure they're trying to get both but it's clear they're employing the Southern Strategy. Heck, even Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are part of the Southern Strategy.

Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) came up with another name for it:
[Link: www.politicsdaily.com...]

108 blueraven  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:36:48am

re: #101 tradewind

Obama going all class war on Boehner.
Really don't think this one's going to work any more.
Out.

I would hardly call it class war...it's simple economics. Tax cuts for the top 2% does nothing to improve the economy and puts us in debt almost a trillion dollars over ten years.
Over.

109 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:36:57am

re: #101 tradewind


I find it really funny that the party constantly whining about "elitism" is also constantly whining about "class war".

Meanwhile:

Image: the-last-two-decades-were-great-except-for-american-workers.jpg

110 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:37:30am

re: #105 garhighway

If you look at the income distribution numbers you will see that the class war has been going on for quite a while. Want to guess who's winning?

[Link: www.slate.com...]

Shut up!!
My narrative is more important than reality!!!111!!!!
/

111 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:37:36am

re: #73 Dreggas

That's what I keep saying. Taken to logical end of their belief system you better hope your house never burns down, you never need the police, never need an ambulance, no one invades the country, no natural disasters happen etc. The ownership society really means you're on your own. It's the ultimate "Fuck you, I got mine."

Taken to its logical end, the other pole of this continuum is just as silly. Not only should the government take care of natural disasters and invasions, provide ambulance and police and fire fighting services, it should provide the housing itself. Of course, there's already public housing to some extent, but in a non-ownership society, everybody applies to the government and waits their turn in line to be assigned a home.

Shelter, check.

Clothing? Taken to its logical end, you get blue cotton. One color is all that is needed. Why should some wear finer than others?

Food? Taken to its logical end, you get bread lines as the standard for all.

The non-ownership society means that the government is your keeper, and you're a kept bitch from cradle to grave. And don't talk back.

Property rights are as essential as free speech rights. Man does not live by bread alone, but without bread, man cannot live. If bread comes only from the government, other rights are purely theoretical.

112 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:38:06am

re: #109 Obdicut

And, expressed as a multiple of average worker's pay:

Image: CEO+pay+1.png

113 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:38:34am

re: #112 Obdicut

Link didn't work for me.

114 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:39:08am

re: #109 Obdicut

I find it really funny that the party constantly whining about "elitism" is also constantly whining about "class war".

Meanwhile:

Image: the-last-two-decades-were-great-except-for-america n-workers.jpg

Enriching the top 1% at the expense of everyone else is NOT class war.

Talking about it IS class war.

Per Boehner, that weirdly orange freak.

115 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:39:13am

re: #101 tradewind

Obama going all class war on Boehner.
Really don't think this one's going to work any more.
Out.

Yeah, there is no class war is there. After all, we live in a society where the playing field is level and the rich and poor both have access to the same services like justice and housing. Not only that but the super rich always look out for the best interest of the poor and middle class. This is particularly true with regards to the gentrification of metropolitan neighborhoods in which the poor are driven out for the construction of luxury housing.

Yep, that must be it.

116 wrenchghaziwenchghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:39:21am

re: #87 tradewind

Quasi-equating the GOP with the KKK is just the sort of rhetoric that renders the population less sensitive to the evils of actual racism when they arise.

Have you been rendered less sensitive by that rhetoric?

117 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:39:34am

re: #113 brownbagj

Trying again:

Image: snap20060621.jpg

118 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:40:50am

re: #111 lostlakehiker

Taken to its logical end, the other pole of this continuum is just as silly. Not only should the government take care of natural disasters and invasions, provide ambulance and police and fire fighting services, it should provide the housing itself. Of course, there's already public housing to some extent, but in a non-ownership society, everybody applies to the government and waits their turn in line to be assigned a home.

Shelter, check.

Clothing? Taken to its logical end, you get blue cotton. One color is all that is needed. Why should some wear finer than others?

Food? Taken to its logical end, you get bread lines as the standard for all.

The non-ownership society means that the government is your keeper, and you're a kept bitch from cradle to grave. And don't talk back.

Property rights are as essential as free speech rights. Man does not live by bread alone, but without bread, man cannot live. If bread comes only from the government, other rights are purely theoretical.

Please identify any mainstream political figure that advocates the end of the continuum you describe.

119 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:41:02am

I like this chart from the Slate article:
Image: bartelschart.gif

120 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:41:18am

re: #106 webevintage

Good.
I love how sticking up for the working and middle class is called "class war".

Self defense.re: #111 lostlakehiker

Thats all well and good, but nobody within the DNC is arguing for what you are talking about, not a single person. That just isn't a point of view represented on the left by anyone who has the ability to set an agenda for the party. It's a straw man created by the right to vilify that which they don't want their constituents to think too hard about.

121 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:42:41am

re: #92 ralphieboy

They are trying it again, but this time with drugs other than alcohol. And is just as disastrous a failure.

They being the whole government, Democrats as well as Republicans. The Congress and the Presidency are in Democrat hands. They could, if they wished, legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, the lot. Who's in their way? What's stopping them?

Not us. We might object, but we don't have the votes to stop it.

What's stopping them is that they know it wouldn't work out very well. Small scale legalization has been tried, for instance in Switzerland. Nobody was happy with the result, and the rules were changed back.

Humanity has some degree of genetic diversity, and not everyone is equally able to hold his liquor, but billions of us have ancestors who drank in moderation. We have evolved a tolerance for alcohol. The same cannot be said of, say, heroin.

122 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:43:03am

re: #120 Fozzie Bear

woos didn't mean to quote webevintage there.

123 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:43:19am

re: #29 Dreggas

Thinking about it, they may have a point in blaming him for some shit. After all he does eat people.

But he only eats purple people. A discerning monster is a better monster.

124 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:43:29am

I do think sometimes the rich are demonized. Some do deserve it. But, I think some of the rhetoric gets a little nasty when speaking about that spectrum of people.

Phrases like "working class" etc do bother me. Why? Well, I have seen some pretty wealthy people work their asses off to get where they are and I have seen some lazy folks reap their just rewards. But, due to the amount of money they make, one is a "working class' person and the other is filthy rich.

Not fair in my opinion.

125 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:44:31am

re: #123 b_sharp

Unless you're purple.

126 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:44:40am

re: #105 garhighway

If you look at the income distribution numbers you will see that the class war has been going on for quite a while. Want to guess who's winning?

[Link: www.slate.com...]

Completely misses the point. People who have played their cards right and made (or kept) a large amount of money are entitled to keep that money. It is absolutely class warfare when a politician tries to pit one class of people, the not-rich, against another class of people, the rich. Which is exactly what has been done by Democrats for decades.

127 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:44:56am

re: #124 brownbagj

I do think sometimes the rich are demonized. Some do deserve it. But, I think some of the rhetoric gets a little nasty when speaking about that spectrum of people.

Phrases like "working class" etc do bother me. Why? Well, I have seen some pretty wealthy people work their asses off to get where they are and I have seen some lazy folks reap their just rewards. But, due to the amount of money they make, one is a "working class' person and the other is filthy rich.

Not fair in my opinion.

Also, welfare queens.

///

128 wrenchghaziwenchghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:45:18am

re: #124 brownbagj

I thought "working class" was the improved, PC version of what used to be called "lower class".

129 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:46:08am

re: #126 cliffster

Completely misses the point. People who have played their cards right and made (or kept) a large amount of money are entitled to keep that money. It is absolutely class warfare when a politician tries to pit one class of people, the not-rich, against another class of people, the rich. Which is exactly what has been done by Democrats for decades.

Taxing people isn't warfare. It's... well... taxation.

130 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:46:26am

re: #126 cliffster

People who have played their cards right and made (or kept) a large amount of money are entitled to keep that money.

Really? What if "playing your cards right" includes using your wealth to further entrench your advantage (e.g., by buying off politicians)?

131 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:47:03am

re: #121 lostlakehiker

We have evolved a tolerance for alcohol..

This is absolute crap, I hope you know. That's not how evolution works.

132 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:47:18am

re: #128 wrenchwench

Who knows. It could be. Just a peeve of mine. I can absolutely be wrong. :)

It just reeks to me of pitting one group against another. Like Pro-life versus pro-abortion. I don't know many pro abortion people who are not pro-life as well. But the side using pro-life is trying to paint the other side as "pro-death."

Which, again, is unfair to me. Words matter.

133 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:47:32am

re: #129 Fozzie Bear

Taxing people isn't warfare. It's... well... taxation.

What does this have to do with what I said?

134 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:48:44am

re: #126 cliffster

So it's not class warfare when a politician tells middle class and rich people that the reason their taxes are so high is because of all those lazy welfare check queens who are a drain on society?

Class warfare goes in more than one direction, you know. It's not just used against the rich.

135 mikethemoderatedemocrat  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:49:13am

Down Fido. DOWN!

Mutt's been going crazy ever since I read that post.

136 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:49:23am

re: #134 Lidane

You are right. It goes both ways and is wrong both ways.

137 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:50:06am

re: #132 brownbagj

Personally, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. I only know people who are pro-choice, meaning they support the right of a person to choose what is best for themselves, whether it's to have the child, give it up for adoption, or to end the pregnancy.

138 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:50:16am

re: #135 mikethemoderatedemocrat

Huh?

139 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:50:53am

re: #137 Lidane

That is what I meant. I am sorry for any confusion. Pro-abortion meant that the option is available. Sorry.

140 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:50:58am

re: #134 Lidane

So it's not class warfare when a politician tells middle class and rich people that the reason their taxes are so high is because of all those lazy welfare check queens who are a drain on society?

Class warfare goes in more than one direction, you know. It's not just used against the rich.

Is that a "they do the same thing, too!" argument?

141 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:51:16am

re: #124 brownbagj


Phrases like "working class" etc do bother me. Why? Well, I have seen some pretty wealthy people work their asses off to get where they are and I have seen some lazy folks reap their just rewards. But, due to the amount of money they make, one is a "working class' person and the other is filthy rich.
.

Ok.
Let's call them the top 5% income earners.
They are doing fine while the other 95% get screwed and if you point it out you are accused of "class warfare".

If you suggest that they do not spread that tax cut money around but instead have horded it to the detriment of the economy you are picking on that top 5%.

If you point out that extra money in the pocket of the workers who make up the 95% actually gets spent which is good for the economy is also class warfare.

Suggesting that the tax cuts on the top wage earners should be allowed to stop and extending them for the rest of us is also considered class warfare.

Standing up for the 95% in this country is bad/socialism according to the GOP while making sure that the 5% is kept comfy is just the right thing to do.

142 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:51:20am

There is a certain miminum level of government that is needed to preclude the necessity of it intervening on a grand scale. The financial crisis was one fine example.

Had there been regulation, controls and safeguards in place, the mechanism that led to the meltdown would not have been able to (mal)function as it did.

143 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:52:21am

re: #134 Lidane

So it's not class warfare when a politician tells middle class and rich people that the reason their taxes are so high is because of all those lazy welfare check queens who are a drain on society?

Class warfare goes in more than one direction, you know. It's not just used against the rich.

ding ding ding!

And of course, class warfare against the poor is carried by the vehicle of othering and racism. Saw that during the campaign, these creepy noises about Obama giving special handouts to black people that I kept hearing from the intellectually challenged among my coworkers at my old health care job

144 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:52:47am

re: #5 Thanos

Carryover comment from last thread

Yes, this neoconfederate agenda is their most important item too, which is exactly why we should not tip the balance of power to the GOP. It's why I will vote straight D instead of nearly straight R for the first time in my life this coming election, and it's why I found myself actually retweeting Markos' comment on this today.

I never imagined in my life I would vote a straight Dem ticket...like I did two years ago. It took a hell of a lot for the GOP to alienate me. Blatant racism and loathsome gay bashing along with blaming the victims of Hurricane Katrina for their own deaths finally tipped the balance.

145 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:53:01am

re: #140 cliffster

Is that a "they do the same thing, too!" argument?

No. It's just pointing out that class warfare is more than just a Democrat or a liberal using arguments that annoy rich or upper middle class white people. It's used by Republicans, Libertarians, and any other number of people, because at the end of the day, our biggest dividers in America aren't based on race or sexual orientation or gender. They're based on economic status and class.

146 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:53:20am

re: #137 Lidane

Personally, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. I only know people who are pro-choice, meaning they support the right of a person to choose what is best for themselves, whether it's to have the child, give it up for adoption, or to end the pregnancy.

I am pro-abortion. Sometimes a woman becomes pregnant by mistake (or through some terrible, tragic circumstances such as rape) and does not want to carry the non-sentient mass of cells to term. In that case, she should be able to have an abortion without any fear of legal action and without any sense of shame.

147 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:53:34am

re: #141 webevintage

There was a time when the tay cuts given to the upper 5% were in fact reinvested in America, where they created jobs and prosperity for the other 95%.

Now, in a global economy, that money taht the upper 5% saves in tax cuts is invested wherever it brings the highest return, which is often not in the USA...

148 mikethemoderatedemocrat  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:54:29am

re: #138 Obdicut

Be right with you - can't control my pup here. Almost as if someone's blowing a dog whistle.

149 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:54:35am

re: #137 Lidane

Personally, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. I only know people who are pro-choice, meaning they support the right of a person to choose what is best for themselves, whether it's to have the child, give it up for adoption, or to end the pregnancy.

I actually DO know people who are pro-abortion 8-) They're a little weird on the whole human population thing, they're convinced we'll eventually hit critical mass and then die-offs and starvation and so on.

150 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:55:15am

re: #124 brownbagj

I do think sometimes the rich are demonized. Some do deserve it. But, I think some of the rhetoric gets a little nasty when speaking about that spectrum of people.

Phrases like "working class" etc do bother me. Why? Well, I have seen some pretty wealthy people work their asses off to get where they are and I have seen some lazy folks reap their just rewards. But, due to the amount of money they make, one is a "working class' person and the other is filthy rich.

Not fair in my opinion.

I don't know if it's a matter of demonizing the rich. There are many different types of rich people and then there's also corporate wealth. The reality is that in the USA people engage in criticizing all groups spanning from the poor to the rich.

The problem as I see it is when people treat the rich as though they are beyond criticism and as if they were God like individuals responsible for every advance we have made in our civilization. There are good examples such as Bill Gates and other.

However, it's hard to keep a straight face if you've been evicted from your apartment only to see the land later inhabited by the wealthy. Or to say that justice is blind when wealth can buy you a whole law firm while the poor get stuck with one public defender. The rich will find it easy comfort towards this criticism while lounging in their mansions. However, the poor have to live with their wretched state 24 hours a day.

151 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:55:29am

re: #21 Killgore Trout

The video is pretty bad...
Renacci Civil Rights

[Video]The only black man in the audience is asking the question and was basically told to fuck off.

I guess he was being "uppity".

////

152 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:55:43am

re: #140 cliffster

Is that a "they do the same thing, too!" argument?

How about:

Inequity in income is an actual problem in society, as is the outflow of capital from our nation. The disparity in CEO vs worker pay, which I cited above, has actual effects. The shrinking of the middle class means a shrinking of buying power among the most mobile elements of the economy, which means a smaller domestic economy over time.

Addressing this does not mean that one wants to punish the rich, any more than progressive taxation is punishment of the rich. It is an attempt to fix a natural conflict between democracy and capitalism.

153 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:56:29am

re: #145 Lidane

No. It's just pointing out that class warfare is more than just a Democrat or a liberal using arguments that annoy rich or upper middle class white people. It's used by Republicans, Libertarians, and any other number of people, because at the end of the day, our biggest dividers in America aren't based on race or sexual orientation or gender. They're based on economic status and class.

Thanks, Ronald Reagan!

154 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:56:33am

re: #152 Obdicut

How about:

Inequity in income is an actual problem in society, as is the outflow of capital from our nation. The disparity in CEO vs worker pay, which I cited above, has actual effects. The shrinking of the middle class means a shrinking of buying power among the most mobile elements of the economy, which means a smaller domestic economy over time.

Addressing this does not mean that one wants to punish the rich, any more than progressive taxation is punishment of the rich. It is an attempt to fix a natural conflict between democracy and capitalism.

Sounds like class warfare to me.

Well actually, not to me. To Boehner.

155 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:56:56am

re: #148 mikethemoderatedemocrat

Be right with you - can't control my pup here. Almost as if someone's blowing a dog whistle.

Ah, indeed. He'll probably get desensitized soon, given that the GOP is handing those out like candy.

156 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:56:59am

re: #141 webevintage

I do see where you are coming from. I just think how we approach it needs to keep in mind that the rich are no better, or worse, than the poor as far as humanity is concerned.

I think, personally, that we all own a share of making this country work. Some can afford to have a larger share.

But it does seem, to me, that many want to tax the rich as some sort of moral play instead of what is actually good for the economy. As if attaining wealth has some sort of negative connotation. It does not.

I have heard many pontificate that we should tax the rich - they can afford it! That is not a good reason. If we can show that the government will use that money wisely, that it will not go to more waste but actually make a difference then a positive argument can be made.

I am not against that not anything you said. I AM against demonizing the "rich" to make it more palatable to take more earnings from them.

That's all.

157 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:58:18am

re: #145 Lidane

No. It's just pointing out that class warfare is more than just a Democrat or a liberal using arguments that annoy rich or upper middle class white people. It's used by Republicans, Libertarians, and any other number of people, because at the end of the day, our biggest dividers in America aren't based on race or sexual orientation or gender. They're based on economic status and class.

Democrats use class warfare shamelessly, every single election cycle. They pit people against "the rich", and make it seem like "the rich" is the reason for all their problems. It's absolutely shameless. You simply can't rationally believe that GOP plays the card you are claiming they play to a level that is anywhere close to what the Democrats do.

158 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:58:28am

re: #156 brownbagj

I do see where you are coming from. I just think how we approach it needs to keep in mind that the rich are no better, or worse, than the poor as far as humanity is concerned.

I think, personally, that we all own a share of making this country work. Some can afford to have a larger share.

But it does seem, to me, that many want to tax the rich as some sort of moral play instead of what is actually good for the economy. As if attaining wealth has some sort of negative connotation. It does not.

I have heard many pontificate that we should tax the rich - they can afford it! That is not a good reason. If we can show that the government will use that money wisely, that it will not go to more waste but actually make a difference then a positive argument can be made.

I am not against that not anything you said. I AM against demonizing the "rich" to make it more palatable to take more earnings from them.

That's all.

Attaining wealth doesn't have a negative connotation, but rich people hoarding wealth instead of putting it back into the economy via business is a net loss for our country.

Remember, business expenses are deductible.

159 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 11:59:11am

re: #150 Gus 802

I would agree with EVERYTHING you stated....except for that last sentence.

I do not think being poor is fate for everyone that is in that state currently. For some, unfortunately it is and we should help those people.

I have seen many, including myself, get out of being poor.

This is one of the many reasons so many come here to the USA.

160 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:00:06pm

re: #157 cliffster

Democrats use class warfare shamelessly, every single election cycle. They pit people against "the rich", and make it seem like "the rich" is the reason for all their problems. It's absolutely shameless. You simply can't rationally believe that GOP plays the card you are claiming they play to a level that is anywhere close to what the Democrats do.

And "the rich" hide behind "small businesses and family farms" because they know their arguments are losers if fairly presented.

161 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:00:31pm

re: #152 Obdicut

That's better. The way it is positioned in campaigns, however, is not like that. It is class warfare in the campaigns. Also missed in all that is the fact that rich people do, in fact, have a right to the money they make. And taxing them is taking that right away. We do, as a society, have to give up some rights in order to live together. But those rights should be taken away with great care.

162 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:00:32pm

re: #159 brownbagj

I would agree with EVERYTHING you stated...except for that last sentence.

I do not think being poor is fate for everyone that is in that state currently. For some, unfortunately it is and we should help those people.

I have seen many, including myself, get out of being poor.

This is one of the many reasons so many come here to the USA.

Why do you think that social mobility is greater in those Western European countries that have relatively large welfare states, than in the US?

163 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:00:34pm

re: #158 WindUpBird

Attaining wealth doesn't have a negative connotation, but rich people hoarding wealth instead of putting it back into the economy via business is a net loss for our country.

Remember, business expenses are deductible.


Not hoarding, but rather reinvesting it in other nations' economies, from which we see little benefit save more cheap consumer goods that we can buy at the Wal-Mart on the minimum-wage salaries we make working there.

164 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:00:57pm

re: #157 cliffster

Democrats use class warfare shamelessly, every single election cycle. They pit people against "the rich", and make it seem like "the rich" is the reason for all their problems. It's absolutely shameless. You simply can't rationally believe that GOP plays the card you are claiming they play to a level that is anywhere close to what the Democrats do.

Yeah I'm pretty sure this is boilerplate rhetoric, I'll be polite and just say that I can't really respond to boilerplate rhetoric

Also, Ronald Reagan and his welfare queens, lest we forget how that card was played: [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

So yes, the GOP actually does play the card quite well, since that meme has survived to this very day, it's been echoing throughout the land and stoking fires of othering for 35 years.

165 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:00:59pm

re: #157 cliffster

Democrats use class warfare shamelessly, every single election cycle. They pit people against "the rich", and make it seem like "the rich" is the reason for all their problems. It's absolutely shameless. You simply can't rationally believe that GOP plays the card you are claiming they play to a level that is anywhere close to what the Democrats do.

Yes, we really can rationally believe that.

Reagan mentioned a 'welfare queen' -- a fictional one-- in a State of the Union address, for god's sake.

I do not find that Democrats tend to make blanket attacks on the 'rich' in the way that you're describing. I do hear them going after specific industries and groups-- and I often agree. Health insurance companies, for example, really are simply parasitic, offering no effiiciencies or benefits to the system. I'm not sad to hear them called out.

Can you give an example of something said by a mainstream Democrat that's the equivalent nastiness of Reagan's "Welfare queen"?

166 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:01:26pm

re: #157 cliffster

Politicians use class warfare shamelessly, every single election cycle.

FTFY

For every argument about the rich that annoys you, I can point to all the heated rhetoric about "immigrants" (read: poor brown people) and welfare queens and others who are considered drains on society. Class warfare is not unique to the Democrats or the liberals and to pretend otherwise is ignorant.

167 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:01:35pm

re: #159 brownbagj

I would agree with EVERYTHING you stated...except for that last sentence.

I do not think being poor is fate for everyone that is in that state currently. For some, unfortunately it is and we should help those people.

I have seen many, including myself, get out of being poor.

This is one of the many reasons so many come here to the USA.

OK But I'm talking about a current state of poverty as opposed to the potential to lift oneself up from poverty. Many factors will affect this. The two that come immediately to mind are age and health. With the former it's hard to grasp the concept of a 60 years old poor person lifting themselves up from poverty and playing out like a script from a Hollywood movie.

168 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:01:44pm

re: #158 WindUpBird

Attaining wealth doesn't have a negative connotation, but rich people hoarding wealth instead of putting it back into the economy via business is a net loss for our country.

Remember, business expenses are deductible.

But it is their money!
They can hoard it if they want.
How cares about the economy?
The producers must be allowed to live as they please!!!!!
/

169 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:01:49pm

re: #161 cliffster

That's better. The way it is positioned in campaigns, however, is not like that. It is class warfare in the campaigns. Also missed in all that is the fact that rich people do, in fact, have a right to the money they make. And taxing them is taking that right away. We do, as a society, have to give up some rights in order to live together. But those rights should be taken away with great care.

Huh? If someone has a right to all the money they make, does that mean you believe in zero taxation?

170 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:01:56pm

re: #162 iossarian

I did not know that to be true.

171 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:01:58pm

re: #165 Obdicut

Pick up a copy of the New York Times. Read a couple of pages.

172 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:02:26pm

re: #170 brownbagj

I did not know that to be true.

Well, it is.

Poor people in the US are screwed, relative to say, Germany.

173 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:02:56pm

re: #101 tradewind

Obama going all class war on Boehner.
Really don't think this one's going to work any more.
Out.

'Class war'. That's different from hating the evil snooty elites, right?

174 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:03:05pm

re: #159 brownbagj

I would agree with EVERYTHING you stated...except for that last sentence.

I do not think being poor is fate for everyone that is in that state currently. For some, unfortunately it is and we should help those people.

I have seen many, including myself, get out of being poor.

This is one of the many reasons so many come here to the USA.

Getting out of being poor often requires resources that are becoming increasingly scarce

Education is a great way to get out of being poor, but education costs are skyrocketing and loans are more difficult to get and don't cover as much.

175 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:03:19pm

re: #171 cliffster

Pick up a copy of the New York Times. Read a couple of pages.

More boilerplate

176 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:03:23pm

re: #169 WindUpBird

Huh? If someone has a right to all the money they make, does that mean you believe in zero taxation?

Did you even read the next sentence I wrote?

177 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:03:52pm

re: #168 webevintage

But it is their money!
They can hoard it if they want.
How cares about the economy?
The producers must be allowed to live as they please!!!
/

You know what I love?

Robber barons

they're just peachy

178 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:03:56pm

And just to let you all know, I work somewhere where this very issue has cropped up to do some misjudgment by the high level executives.

Folks that abuse their station in life and take advantage of others are scum and should be treated as such.

I just think we have to understand that not all "rich" folks are vampires.

There has to be a balance as to how much we tax every level of income.

179 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:04:27pm

re: #168 webevintage

But it is their money!
They can hoard it if they want.
How cares about the economy?
The producers must be allowed to live as they please!!!
/

What is the point you are making here? Are you saying that people should not be entitled to the money they make?

180 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:05:16pm

re: #161 cliffster

That's better. The way it is positioned in campaigns, however, is not like that. It is class warfare in the campaigns. Also missed in all that is the fact that rich people do, in fact, have a right to the money they make. And taxing them is taking that right away. We do, as a society, have to give up some rights in order to live together. But those rights should be taken away with great care.

Money that we make, in this society, knowing ahead of time what taxes are on it, is not taking someone's rights away. If the tax were on wealth, not on income, you'd be much closer to right. But taxation is on income; you know, in any given income year, what tax you'll pay. It's not a right taken away from you. The wisdom of various levels of taxation can be argued, but taxation is one of the fundamental structures of government.

The only reason that people are in a position to make money is because we have a stable, civil society. There is not, and never has been, a society where there was not a strong government where capitalism flourished in a stable way.

Discussions of taxation should not have anything to do with 'fairness'. There is no method of taxation that's fair. Taxation should be based on what works.

181 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:05:32pm

re: #174 WindUpBird

And I would say the level of education in the USA is getting worse. Which is why, even though I am a Christian (!!) I pray that true science and math are taught in schools.

Religion is a home exercise.

182 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:05:48pm

re: #111 lostlakehiker

Taken to its logical end, the other pole of this continuum is just as silly. Not only should the government take care of natural disasters and invasions, provide ambulance and police and fire fighting services, it should provide the housing itself. Of course, there's already public housing to some extent, but in a non-ownership society, everybody applies to the government and waits their turn in line to be assigned a home.

Shelter, check.

Clothing? Taken to its logical end, you get blue cotton. One color is all that is needed. Why should some wear finer than others?

Food? Taken to its logical end, you get bread lines as the standard for all.

The non-ownership society means that the government is your keeper, and you're a kept bitch from cradle to grave. And don't talk back.

Property rights are as essential as free speech rights. Man does not live by bread alone, but without bread, man cannot live. If bread comes only from the government, other rights are purely theoretical.

The slippery slope argument really isn't convincing. It assumes gross stupidity on the part of the people in a position to stop the slide.

183 blueraven  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:06:01pm

re: #157 cliffster

Democrats use class warfare shamelessly, every single election cycle. They pit people against "the rich", and make it seem like "the rich" is the reason for all their problems. It's absolutely shameless. You simply can't rationally believe that GOP plays the card you are claiming they play to a level that is anywhere close to what the Democrats do.

No cliffster, the republicans tend to go in another direction. They like to divide us by our private lives and beliefs. Abortion, sexual orientation, religious preferences, color of skin and immigration status.
Liberals are painted as evil, unpatriotic, lazy and un-American.

184 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:06:06pm

re: #171 cliffster

Pick up a copy of the New York Times. Read a couple of pages.

I have. I read it today. I saw nothing remotely similar, in the least, at all, in any way.

Can you actually provide an example, please?

185 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:06:50pm

re: #176 cliffster

Did you even read the next sentence I wrote?

yeah, that we have to "give up some rights", that's a real doozie there

your premise is completely false. Nowhere anywhere is there a fundamental right to all the money you make, the concept makes no sense unless you are a stateless man who is not a citizen of any country. Then I suppose, by default, you get all your money. And you live on, I dunno, the moon or in open sea or something.

This idea that taxes are just the most evil evil thing and you're doing us a big big favor by grudgingly allowing the government to take some of your hard earned money to, you know, create the very society that gives you the opportunity to make that money in the first place

Well, I just don't understand it, it's completely broken logic.

186 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:06:58pm

re: #156 brownbagj

I do see where you are coming from. I just think how we approach it needs to keep in mind that the rich are no better, or worse, than the poor as far as humanity is concerned.

I think, personally, that we all own a share of making this country work. Some can afford to have a larger share.

But it does seem, to me, that many want to tax the rich as some sort of moral play instead of what is actually good for the economy. As if attaining wealth has some sort of negative connotation. It does not.

I have heard many pontificate that we should tax the rich - they can afford it! That is not a good reason. If we can show that the government will use that money wisely, that it will not go to more waste but actually make a difference then a positive argument can be made.

I am not against that not anything you said. I AM against demonizing the "rich" to make it more palatable to take more earnings from them.

That's all.

Wealth and power tend to concentrate. You notice now that over 50% of the all the wealth in the country is owned by the top 2% (the figures change constantly depending who you ask). In 1955, a CEO typically made about 50 times more than the average employee of his firm. Today, it is now 500% more. To those of us in the bottom 25%, it looks increasingly like a rigged game where what family you are born in is far more important than how smart you are or how industrious you are. The meritocracy myth of America where anybody can do anything is really just that: a myth. The overwhelming likelihood is that if you are born into a poor family, the best you will manage statistically speaking is get into the lower middle class. If you are born into a rich family, you will almost certainly stay rich. You will go to a 34,000$ a year pre-K and elementary academy, and then to Andover or something similar before going to a top 25 university where you make the social connections that will profit you through your life. Those social connections are the key...and poor or working class/middle class people...no matter how smart and motivated...do not have access to them.

We all love the stories of the down on his luck poor person who makes it big through determination and pluck, but we also know that those stories are literally million to one long shots.

187 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:07:09pm

re: #179 cliffster

What is the point you are making here? Are you saying that people should not be entitled to the money they make?

This is sounding a lot like Andrew Ryan

188 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:07:34pm

re: #171 cliffster

Pick up a copy of the New York Times. Read a couple of pages.

You are aware that the New York Times target audience is rather wealthy? There are many parts to the Times and if you look through the home and fashion sections it will become apparent.

189 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:08:15pm

re: #183 blueraven

No cliffster, the republicans tend to go in another direction. They like to divide us by our private lives and beliefs. Abortion, sexual orientation, religious preferences, color of skin and immigration status.
Liberals are painted as evil, unpatriotic, lazy and un-American.

yeah, hahaha nobody in the republican party has ever told their constitutents that gay people are going to fuck up America OH WAIT NEVER MIND

190 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:08:25pm

re: #178 brownbagj


There has to be a balance as to how much we tax every level of income.

This is very true, and of course the debate is about how you strike the balance to promote equality of opportunity without overly punishing (fairly obtained) success.

At the same time it is worth recognizing that income generated from capital is reliant on a functioning society (and indeed is created by working members of that society).

191 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:09:49pm

re: #162 iossarian

Why do you think that social mobility is greater in those Western European countries that have relatively large welfare states, than in the US?

Funny how so many folks spouting the GOP talking points either ignore that or call it a librul lie.

[Link: www.frumforum.com...]

192 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:09:53pm

re: #186 celticdragon

Wealth and power tend to concentrate. You notice now that over 50% of the all the wealth in the country is owned by the top 2% (the figures change constantly depending who you ask). In 1955, a CEO typically made about 50 times more than the average employee of his firm. Today, it is now 500% more. To those of us in the bottom 25%, it looks increasingly like a rigged game where what family you are born in is far more important than how smart you are or how industrious you are. The meritocracy myth of America where anybody can do anything is really just that: a myth. The overwhelming likelihood is that if you are born into a poor family, the best you will manage statistically speaking is get into the lower middle class. If you are born into a rich family, you will almost certainly stay rich. You will go to a 34,000$ a year pre-K and elementary academy, and then to Andover or something similar before going to a top 25 university where you make the social connections that will profit you through your life. Those social connections are the key...and poor or working class/middle class people...no matter how smart and motivated...do not have access to them.

We all love the stories of the down on his luck poor person who makes it big through determination and pluck, but we also know that those stories are literally million to one long shots.

Thanks for bringing up 1955 or thereabouts. It's been a long observation of mine. In the 50s or so corporate executives used to be happy with one really nice house in Connecticut and a summer home on the Jersey shore. Today, they all want to live like J Paul Getty without really earning it.

193 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:09:57pm

re: #125 brownbagj

Unless you're purple.

Youtube Video
194 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:10:15pm

re: #180 Obdicut


The only reason that people are in a position to make money is because we have a stable, civil society. There is not, and never has been, a society where there was not a strong government where capitalism flourished in a stable way.

There is some belief that the Free Market is some sort of divine natural state of grace that we aspire to.

It is a human construct, and is dependent on an infrastructure, not just a physical one of means of transportation and communication, but a legal and commercial infrastructure that ensures that the product actually delivered corresponds to the one that was advertised and sold.

195 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:10:19pm

re: #183 blueraven

No cliffster, the republicans tend to go in another direction. They like to divide us by our private lives and beliefs. Abortion, sexual orientation, religious preferences, color of skin and immigration status.
Liberals are painted as evil, unpatriotic, lazy and un-American.

This is why I actually despise Sarah Palin to a degree I don't usually despise people in politics.

The entire campaign was one long smear on people like me.

196 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:11:24pm

re: #186 celticdragon

I just console myself with the fact that a lot of rich people (see Adelphia) are just really not very creative or interesting in any way and have grown up with no understanding of what they are capable of, just mindlessly spending money, a hollow existence

"A father and two sons run Adelphia. It's a cable company. And they took from that company a billion dollars. A billion. Three people... THREE people took a billion dollars. What were they gonna do, start their own space program? "Let's send the monkey to Mars, Dad!"

-Lewis Black

197 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:11:53pm

re: #179 cliffster

What is the point you are making here? Are you saying that people should not be entitled to the money they make?

I'm just in a mocking mood and I am sick of being told how the top earners in this country should be allowed to keep more of their money because they earned it and how if we just give them more it will all trickle down like economic fairy dust magically fixing the economy when that is just. not. true.

Plus Ayn Rand is dead....

198 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:11:59pm

re: #162 iossarian

Why do you think that social mobility is greater in those Western European countries that have relatively large welfare states, than in the US?

What, America rigs the game against poor people?

Why I never! :D

199 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:12:09pm

re: #171 cliffster

Pick up a copy of the New York Times. Read a couple of pages.

Here's a good article in the New York Times about the rich and the wealthy getting away with stuff:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

It starts off castigating a Democrat, though.

The Elijah Cummings Youth Program in Israel sounds like a lovely idea: a charitable foundation that sends inner-city high school students from Baltimore to Israel to learn about the country and develop leadership skills. The program has undoubtedly been of benefit to many teenagers, but deeper pockets have benefited as well. Comcast, the cable company, has given generously to the foundation, prompting Representative Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Baltimore, to urge the Federal Communications Commission to approve Comcast’s proposed merger with NBC. His charity even wrote its own letter to the F.C.C., saying it supports the merger in part because Comcast gives it money.


I agree with this article. To me, that's a flat-out bribe.

200 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:12:43pm

re: #131 Obdicut

This is absolute crap, I hope you know. That's not how evolution works.

Welll...

Some of us have evolved a tolerance for milk into our adulthood.

201 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:12:55pm

re: #186 celticdragon

Wealth and power tend to concentrate. You notice now that over 50% of the all the wealth in the country is owned by the top 2% (the figures change constantly depending who you ask). In 1955, a CEO typically made about 50 times more than the average employee of his firm. Today, it is now 500% more. To those of us in the bottom 25%, it looks increasingly like a rigged game where what family you are born in is far more important than how smart you are or how industrious you are. The meritocracy myth of America where anybody can do anything is really just that: a myth. The overwhelming likelihood is that if you are born into a poor family, the best you will manage statistically speaking is get into the lower middle class. If you are born into a rich family, you will almost certainly stay rich. You will go to a 34,000$ a year pre-K and elementary academy, and then to Andover or something similar before going to a top 25 university where you make the social connections that will profit you through your life. Those social connections are the key...and poor or working class/middle class people...no matter how smart and motivated...do not have access to them.

We all love the stories of the down on his luck poor person who makes it big through determination and pluck, but we also know that those stories are literally million to one long shots.

My husband was born into a "working class" family. Mother's side were farmers. Father's side was educated, but not rich. His father was in the military, and they barely attained middle class. The first house we owned was bigger than the biggest house his parents ever owned.

He went to college on work and scholarships*. His roommates were every thing from the prep school kid you just described to middle class to him.

I guess it all breaks down to how you define "make it." We aren't millionaires, but we're doing fine. Our kids will go to college. (Or risk having us follow them around and give them the evil eye for life.)

*So did I. The only inheritance I will receive will be a. my siblings, b. my values.

202 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:13:17pm

re: #180 Obdicut


Discussions of taxation should not have anything to do with 'fairness'. There is no method of taxation that's fair. Taxation should be based on what works.

Quoted for truth

203 MikeTheModerateDemocrat  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:13:27pm

re: #160 garhighway

Yup, those "family farms" worth more than 3.5 mil. (the amount of the estate tax exemption that Obama is more than willing to accept).

204 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:13:42pm

re: #180 Obdicut

Money that we make, in this society, knowing ahead of time what taxes are on it, is not taking someone's rights away. If the tax were on wealth, not on income, you'd be much closer to right. But taxation is on income; you know, in any given income year, what tax you'll pay. It's not a right taken away from you. The wisdom of various levels of taxation can be argued, but taxation is one of the fundamental structures of government.

This is one of those arguments I see very often, where it's obvious that one is doing everything one can to rationalize a position they want to have. Knowing ahead of time what's going to happen doesn't excuse anything. If the tax rate was 99%, no sane person would say that wasn't taking rights away. If someone knows ahead of time they are going to be arrested for sodomy, it's still taking their rights away for sodomy to be illegal.

The only reason that people are in a position to make money is because we have a stable, civil society. There is not, and never has been, a society where there was not a strong government where capitalism flourished in a stable way.

Ok. I get that taxes are necessary for a stable society. Everyone gets this. Nobody thinks we shouldn't have taxes. Again, the need for a stable society (and the benefits that "the rich" reap from it) does not mean that any level of taxation is ok.

Discussions of taxation should not have anything to do with 'fairness'. There is no method of taxation that's fair. Taxation should be based on what works.

No. I understand that people feel icky by admitting that yes, rich people do have a right to their money, but onerous tax rates are just as much an abridgment of liberty as any of the stupid shit that social conservatives want to regulate.

205 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:13:50pm

re: #197 webevintage

I'm just in a mocking mood and I am sick of being told how the top earners in this country should be allowed to keep more of their money because they earned it and how if we just give them more it will all trickle down like economic fairy dust magically fixing the economy when that is just. not. true.

Plus Ayn Rand is dead...

People with trust funds, they earned that money!

By you know, drawing breath

it's a tough life

206 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:14:40pm

re: #197 webevintage

I'm just in a mocking mood and I am sick of being told how the top earners in this country should be allowed to keep more of their money because they earned it and how if we just give them more it will all trickle down like economic fairy dust magically fixing the economy when that is just. not. true.

Plus Ayn Rand is dead...

Being born on third base means you hit a triple, you see,


Oh, and the invisible hand of the marketplace gives a great hand job.

207 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:15:06pm

re: #180 Obdicut

I think that is mostly right. However, I bought a house, cars and other things based on current income and taxation.

If this increases any or all of those could be at risk. So, the idea of increasing taxes needs to be approached cautiously as not knowing from year to year does make a difference on people's spending habit which in turn affects the economy.re: #186 celticdragon

I can tell you right now I am pretty pissed at a certain CEO and the actions of a company. It is a rigged game in many respects.

I am in agreement in many respects.

I have also seen a person live on other people's couches for 4 years, eat noodles literally three times a day and build a company from truly nothing. He made about 6 million when he sold it. It can be done. But you have to risk a lot. Most are not willing. I am not.

This does not excuse CEO's making 500% of their employees. Or CEOs that lay off workers even when the company is posting a profit.

If we want to see these things change, taxation won't be the proper vehicle. Right now, in my opinion, the way companies are managed is to maximize short term goals. CEOs are paid on quarterly performance in the stock market.

So, they are short-sighted and set themselves up to get maximum pay - so they sacrifice long-term good for short-term good.

If they have to lay off employees to get the cost of goods manufactured in line - they will - as that stock price is how they are judged.

A LOT of this comes back to wall street. A lot.

208 iossarian  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:15:10pm

re: #204 cliffster


No. I understand that people feel icky by admitting that yes, rich people do have a right to their money, but onerous tax rates are just as much an abridgment of liberty as any of the stupid shit that social conservatives want to regulate.

I just say, back to the Golden 50s, Eisenhower, and 92% on the top income bracket.

TTFN.

209 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:16:07pm

re: #208 iossarian

I just say, back to the Golden 50s, Eisenhower, and 92% on the top income bracket.

TTFN.

And that would be a gross breach of the rights of the people getting taxed at that marginal rate.

210 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:16:24pm

re: #190 iossarian

Absolutely it is dependent on a functioning society. Anyone who things otherwise is probably a pretty arrogant asshole.

211 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:17:37pm

re: #200 b_sharp

Welll...

Some of us have evolved a tolerance for milk into our adulthood.

Yes-- because that provides an actual benefit.

There are definitely differences in metabolism of alcohol among humans-- and metabolism of opioids, which are heroin. There are no drugs that exist that can affect us that don't hook into things that have evolved.

There is no purpose to alcohol tolerance, evolutionarily. There is no benefit that it actually has. It is likely that the enzyme that helps bind ethanol evolved for some other purpose-- probably dealing with intracellular ethanol.

We have enzymes that deal with opioids. We have enzymes that deal with ethanol.

212 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:18:00pm

re: #183 blueraven

No cliffster, the republicans tend to go in another direction. They like to divide us by our private lives and beliefs. Abortion, sexual orientation, religious preferences, color of skin and immigration status.
Liberals are painted as evil, unpatriotic, lazy and un-American.

The social conservatives are a constant source of anger for me. The difference is, I'm now trying to do something about it.

213 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:18:48pm

The other thing I am sick of hearing in the last month?
How fucking important the deficit is EXCEPT when it comes to letting the tax cuts expire on the top income earners in this country. Magically the deficit is now not really important.
And people are buying this shit the Republicans are shoveling.

214 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:19:25pm

re: #204 cliffster

This is one of those arguments I see very often, where it's obvious that one is doing everything one can to rationalize a position they want to have. Knowing ahead of time what's going to happen doesn't excuse anything. If the tax rate was 99%, no sane person would say that wasn't taking rights away. If someone knows ahead of time they are going to be arrested for sodomy, it's still taking their rights away for sodomy to be illegal.

Ok. I get that taxes are necessary for a stable society. Everyone gets this. Nobody thinks we shouldn't have taxes. Again, the need for a stable society (and the benefits that "the rich" reap from it) does not mean that any level of taxation is ok.

No. I understand that people feel icky by admitting that yes, rich people do have a right to their money, but onerous tax rates are just as much an abridgment of liberty as any of the stupid shit that social conservatives want to regulate.

Rich people have less right to their money than poor people as our laws are written and intended, because no rich person needs to choose between a meal and shelter, or shelter and their medication. Poor people sometimes do, so we have programs, paid for with taxes, progressive taxes that change depend on your income, that keep those people from falling to the field, and we don't tax people who have 3 kids and a $13 an hour job the same way we tax a guy with hundreds of thousands of dollars in income every year.

Dependents give you breaks on your taxes, of course. Which means that people without kids have less rights to their money than people with kids. I knew a guy who paid no taxes. Because he was a single father with three children. Would you switch places with him? I mean, he's paying no taxes

I can go on and on

So yeah, that's just a thing we're always going to have in America, and it's a good thing.

215 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:19:48pm

re: #205 WindUpBird

People with trust funds, they earned that money!

By you know, drawing breath

it's a tough life

I'm for abolishing the death tax and trust funds for able-bodied adults.

I think it establishes a modern aristocracy, and if you keep the death tax, the rich will find some way to keep trusts.

We don't allow physical estates to be entailed. I don't see why financial ones should be.

216 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:19:50pm

And to all of those who are conversing with me...thank you.

Number one, I am learning from your viewpoints.

Number two, and most important, it shows that this conversation can happen without hyperbole and that we are in agreement on nearly all of the arguments.

The differences between us are actually small I believe.

However, the politicians do NOT want us to know that. They want us to demonize each other and think that compromise is not possible.

They are letting us down.

We can solve these problems if we get the ideological purists out of the way.

217 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:20:06pm

re: #213 webevintage

The other thing I am sick of hearing in the last month?
How fucking important the deficit is EXCEPT when it comes to letting the tax cuts expire on the top income earners in this country. Magically the deficit is now not really important.
And people are buying this shit the Republicans are shoveling.

Taxes are bad. Tax cuts are good. There is no need to expand the argument.

/

218 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:20:17pm

re: #213 webevintage

Before deciding to raise taxes on anybody, I want to see that a very large effort is made to reduce the spending by the federal government.

219 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:20:54pm

re: #209 cliffster

And that would be a gross breach of the rights of the people getting taxed at that marginal rate.

So at what point is it not a breach of rights? is there a magic number? Should the rich be taxed lower than they are now? How about if they were ten percent higher?

I just want to know where the cut off is between gross breach of rights and normal breach of rights

220 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:21:20pm

re: #215 EmmmieG

I'm for abolishing the death tax and trust funds for able-bodied adults.

I think it establishes a modern aristocracy, and if you keep the death tax, the rich will find some way to keep trusts.

We don't allow physical estates to be entailed. I don't see why financial ones should be.

America is all about modern aristocracy!

221 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:22:20pm

re: #201 EmmmieG

My husband was born into a "working class" family. Mother's side were farmers. Father's side was educated, but not rich. His father was in the military, and they barely attained middle class. The first house we owned was bigger than the biggest house his parents ever owned.

He went to college on work and scholarships*. His roommates were every thing from the prep school kid you just described to middle class to him.

I guess it all breaks down to how you define "make it." We aren't millionaires, but we're doing fine. Our kids will go to college. (Or risk having us follow them around and give them the evil eye for life.)

*So did I. The only inheritance I will receive will be a. my siblings, b. my values.

My generation (Gen X) is the first generation in American history that has not expected to do even as well as the previous generation. We tend to be socially conservative to some degree, but also came onto the job scene in the early 90's when all you could get was a minimum wage service sector job and going to the state college did not guarentee anything better. We tend to be cynical of both the government and big business, and nothing in the last 25 years has changed that. I recall reading some analysis that Gen Xers often refuse to work overtime or go out their way to be team players because we all saw where family members who did go all out got shitcanned anyway when the employer decided to cut some overhead. Many of us would like to be rich, but we despise how so many rich people got that way by shitting on their employees.

222 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:23:13pm

re: #218 cliffster

And....this is the other side of the argument.

We have to find a way to live within our means. Just raising taxes will not solve the problem is spending is raised right along with it.

Being the "government" should not give you the ability to just keep asking for more with no accountability on the other end.

223 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:24:20pm

re: #221 celticdragon

My generation (Gen X) is the first generation in American history that has not expected to do even as well as the previous generation. We tend to be socially conservative to some degree, but also came onto the job scene in the early 90's when all you could get was a minimum wage service sector job and going to the state college did not guarentee anything better. We tend to be cynical of both the government and big business, and nothing in the last 25 years has changed that. I recall reading some analysis that Gen Xers often refuse to work overtime or go out their way to be team players because we all saw where family members who did go all out got shitcanned anyway when the employer decided to cut some overhead. Many of us would like to be rich, but we despise how so many rich people got that way by shitting on their employees.

I'm Gen X. We're doing better than both sets of parents. (Although we live below my parents' level, because my parents are money idiots, and I say that lovingly.)

We didn't start out with minimum wage, because my husband's degree is worth a lot. (And he earned it.)

224 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:24:28pm

re: #218 cliffster

Before deciding to raise taxes on anybody, I want to see that a very large effort is made to reduce the spending by the federal government.

However, cutting spending that will lead to higher costs down the road-- being penny wise and pound foolish-- is a very, very bad idea.

If we cut a drug rehabilitation program that winds up with us spending lots more money on incarceration, we haven't actually cut anything.

225 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:24:58pm

Not skipping out on the discussion--gotta run.

226 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:25:28pm

re: #218 cliffster

Before deciding to raise taxes on anybody, I want to see that a very large effort is made to reduce the spending by the federal government.

Reduce spending, or reduce waste?

if a program is effective and efficient, would you still reduce spending? Say a meals on wheels program, or a mental health program that keeps schizophrenics from going homeless

Is it a philosophical thing? make the government as tiny as possible, for ideology's sake? Rich people keeping their money is more important than a society that takes care of its disabled and disadvantaged and promotes mobility?

I prefer social mobility for people more than a guy with a million dollars in mad money buying another Bentley or a boat or another chunk of land, I'm funny like that

I also know a lot of people who have to choose between their meds and their rent, and I've worked in health care with people on medicaid who are barely able to squeak by, who are getting fucked out of their dentist visits, so I may have a somewhat different perspective on this than you

227 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:26:39pm

re: #219 WindUpBird

So at what point is it not a breach of rights? is there a magic number? Should the rich be taxed lower than they are now? How about if they were ten percent higher?

I just want to know where the cut off is between gross breach of rights and normal breach of rights

That is a good question. I'll come up with something off the cuff. It feels to me that getting taxed higher than 40%, all taxing municipalities combined, goes into the territory of onerous taxation. Might be higher, but like I said, that's off the cuff.

So I'll turn it around and ask you a question regarding your #214. What is the cutoff for people in terms of need and lifestyle? You don't want a person to have to choose between a roof over their head and a meal. What are the things that a person is entitled to?

228 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:26:42pm

re: #222 brownbagj

And...this is the other side of the argument.

We have to find a way to live within our means. Just raising taxes will not solve the problem is spending is raised right along with it.

Being the "government" should not give you the ability to just keep asking for more with no accountability on the other end.

Well, when the means wildly change for the worse because the financial system collapsed and the credit market collapsed, businesses can't get lending, tax base shrinks, this rhetoric rings a little hollow

It's like you see a guy hit by a truck and then you scold him for not being able to skip down the street. Live within your means!

229 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:27:14pm

When big, profitable companies make employee cuts, it does really tick me off. I mean, the employees work hard to take care of the company and then when there is the least sign of trouble, BAM, layoff.

This is one of many crucial reasons people are wary of big business. And again, Wall Street almost demands this type of disloyalty.

Every quarter your numbers better be just right or the CEO is out. So, those C level executives will serve their master and can employees.

Taxation or anything like it will NOT recreate the middle class. Wall street and the way companies are judged and traded must change for any long-term good to occur.

230 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:28:36pm

re: #224 Obdicut

However, cutting spending that will lead to higher costs down the road-- being penny wise and pound foolish-- is a very, very bad idea.

If we cut a drug rehabilitation program that winds up with us spending lots more money on incarceration, we haven't actually cut anything.

Know one thing that would help? More visibility into what's getting spent, and on what. How about a giant spreadsheet we can download.. "Federal Budget 2009.xlsx"?

231 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:29:19pm

re: #226 WindUpBird

Reduce waste would be answer.

Some spending could be analyzed along the lines of what Obdicut mentions above.

232 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:29:28pm

re: #230 cliffster

Sorry - "Federal Budget 2009.xls", not xlsx. Not everyone can afford the latest Office.

233 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:30:05pm

re: #230 cliffster

Know one thing that would help? More visibility into what's getting spent, and on what. How about a giant spreadsheet we can download.. "Federal Budget 2009.xlsx"?

I'd agree with that. It's one of my favorite things about Obama is the extent to which he's increased transparency.

234 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:30:45pm

re: #228 WindUpBird

You are talking about a point in time. Of course there may be periods where deficit spending is needed. It should not be the norm.

235 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:31:18pm

re: #223 EmmmieG

I'm Gen X. We're doing better than both sets of parents. (Although we live below my parents' level, because my parents are money idiots, and I say that lovingly.)

We didn't start out with minimum wage, because my husband's degree is worth a lot. (And he earned it.)

It;s great that worked out for you. Not all of us had the same experience. This article is a bit dated, but accurate for overall themes.

Many young people believe that their economic prospects are gloomy. They believe they will not do as well financially as their parents or grandparents. They know that the average income for young people, even with one or two college degrees, has declined significantly over the past generation. Many feel their chances of finding the job and salary they want are bleak.

Some resent the baby boomers in a big way. They feel the boomers spent too much time partying and messing up the world that they have inherited. Now, the X'ers have to fix it, and they see the boomers as being in their way. This has made them very cynical.

236 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:31:22pm

re: #227 cliffster

That is a good question. I'll come up with something off the cuff. It feels to me that getting taxed higher than 40%, all taxing municipalities combined, goes into the territory of onerous taxation. Might be higher, but like I said, that's off the cuff.

So I'll turn it around and ask you a question regarding your #214. What is the cutoff for people in terms of need and lifestyle? You don't want a person to have to choose between a roof over their head and a meal. What are the things that a person is entitled to?

K-12 education, shelter, access to loans for advanced education, and access to medical care, to name a few. I have literally passed by people I've worked with who were on the street because our mental health funding was cut. I saw them go, then I saw them downtown against a bar wall. That's where some of your taxes go. To keep people safe. Real humanity, not this abstract dollar value ideology.

When there is no social mobility, our country suffers and calcifies. It becomes dumber. It becomes weaker, inbred on a societal scale. Our brain trust shrinks, and people with brilliance and potential who could make this country better are trapped in menial job spirals because they don't have access to resources that could help them reach their full potential.

237 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:32:11pm

re: #230 cliffster

Know one thing that would help? More visibility into what's getting spent, and on what. How about a giant spreadsheet we can download.. "Federal Budget 2009.xlsx"?


And then there's defense spending, which by its nature is confidential in nature: we just have to trust that defense contractors and their overseers are acting in our best interests...

And of course the oil industry, oil companes meet regularly at the White House to plan our nation's "energy stratey".

And since these are security issues, these meetings are also classified. So we just have to hope that these people and their government "overseers" are acting in our best interests.

238 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:32:54pm

re: #218 cliffster

Before deciding to raise taxes on anybody, I want to see that a very large effort is made to reduce the spending by the federal government.

In the middle of a recession?

239 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:34:05pm

re: #223 EmmmieG

I'm Gen X. We're doing better than both sets of parents. (Although we live below my parents' level, because my parents are money idiots, and I say that lovingly.)

We didn't start out with minimum wage, because my husband's degree is worth a lot. (And he earned it.)

I'm gen X and there is no way in the living hell I will ever see the money my parents make

But then again, I sorta knew that going in, I didn't want to punch a clock or wear a suit, I wanted to reach my full potential, and my full potential came with some monetary sacrifices

240 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:34:11pm

re: #237 ralphieboy

It is hard not to get jaded. It is for me anyway. I do believe, on both sides, a lot of thsi is a rigged game.

Like I mentioned above - it seems to me even though I am a conservative that I am not far off from anyone's ideas above. We could find a compromise.

But then, the electorate would expect our government to do something other than pander and worry about getting elected.

The "other" side has to be evil. Vote for ME!

Yeah, I am not jaded.

241 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:34:34pm

re: #238 webevintage

In the middle of a recession?

Let's scold the cancer victim instead of treating the cancer, basically

242 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:35:41pm

re: #239 WindUpBird

But you don't begrudge those who did get a suit and punch a clock, right?

You would not expect them to subsidize your choice to make less money but be fulfilled. Right?

243 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:36:19pm

re: #211 Obdicut

Yes-- because that provides an actual benefit.

There are definitely differences in metabolism of alcohol among humans-- and metabolism of opioids, which are heroin. There are no drugs that exist that can affect us that don't hook into things that have evolved.

There is no purpose to alcohol tolerance, evolutionarily. There is no benefit that it actually has. It is likely that the enzyme that helps bind ethanol evolved for some other purpose-- probably dealing with intracellular ethanol.

We have enzymes that deal with opioids. We have enzymes that deal with ethanol.

Don't fall into the trap of believing evolution is all about preserving only the beneficial. There are far too many complexities to how a species evolves to assume a trait only needs to be beneficial to be retained.

On a strictly selection basis, which is just part of the mechanism of evolution, a beneficial trait is most likely to be retained when the cost/benefit ratio is < 1. The ability to drink milk has a very low cost, it is just a delay in the triggering of a regulatory sequence and the benefit can be substantial. That isn't true of alcohol.

244 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:36:54pm

re: #241 WindUpBird

Let's scold the cancer victim instead of treating the cancer, basically

There is spending we could cut, spending that is actually wasteful, spending that does not promote our own economy. Spending on corn biofuel, for example, that does nothing but make it more expensive for people to buy food, following a wasteful technology that will never have merit, stymieing research into much better biofuels. That'd be an example.

But that doesn't mean we can't find something much smarter to do with that money-- like promoting switchgrass biofuel or algae-based biofuel.

245 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:38:57pm

re: #236 WindUpBird

When there is no social mobility, our country suffers and calcifies. It becomes dumber. It becomes weaker, inbred on a societal scale. Our brain trust shrinks, and people with brilliance and potential who could make this country better are trapped in menial job spirals because they don't have access to resources that could help them reach their full potential.

This is all true. Getting there is something that we probably disagree with quite a bit, but one thing we can agree on is that part of having a society where people are optimally free, is having an infrastructure for helping out people who cannot help themselves.

246 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:39:39pm

re: #239 WindUpBird

I'm gen X and there is no way in the living hell I will ever see the money my parents make

But then again, I sorta knew that going in, I didn't want to punch a clock or wear a suit, I wanted to reach my full potential, and my full potential came with some monetary sacrifices

I'm 43 and I am nowhere even close to making what my parents made (even before I ended up on disability).

Now, they can't understand why I want to get my Masters and maybe even a Ph.D in geology and get off of disability if I can get an employer to work around my health issues.

For one thing, being poor really sucks...and you don't get far on SS disability.

247 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:40:59pm

re: #237 ralphieboy

And then there's defense spending, which by its nature is confidential in nature: we just have to trust that defense contractors and their overseers are acting in our best interests...

And of course the oil industry, oil companes meet regularly at the White House to plan our nation's "energy stratey".

And since these are security issues, these meetings are also classified. So we just have to hope that these people and their government "overseers" are acting in our best interests.

Very good points, especially the first paragraph. I don't know how much that goes on with the energy industry, as you say. Maybe a lot, I just don't know.

I used to pretty much give a begrudging free pass to defense spending. At the level that it's at, though, I'm becoming less and less inclined to believe that way.

248 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:41:00pm

re: #243 b_sharp

Don't fall into the trap of believing evolution is all about preserving only the beneficial.

I'm not. Trust me. I'm being brief.

There are far too many complexities to how a species evolves to assume a trait only needs to be beneficial to be retained.

That was my point-- we didn't 'evolve to tolerate' alcohol.

On a strictly selection basis, which is just part of the mechanism of evolution, a beneficial trait is most likely to be retained when the cost/benefit ratio is < 1. The ability to drink milk has a very low cost, it is just a delay in the triggering of a regulatory sequence and the benefit can be substantial. That isn't true of alcohol.

LIke I said, I find it probably the enzyme evolved for another function. We do tolerate heroin, despite LostLakeHiker's claims; if we didn't, it'd kill us.

His statement made no sense on any level.

249 webevintage  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:41:14pm

re: #213 webevintage

The other thing I am sick of hearing in the last month?
How fucking important the deficit is EXCEPT when it comes to letting the tax cuts expire on the top income earners in this country. Magically the deficit is now not really important.
And people are buying this shit the Republicans are shoveling.

Exhibit A:
GOP Claims $50 Billion For Infrastructure Is Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich

This week, President Obama rolled out a plan to invest $50 billion in infrastructure as a way of boosting job creation, which will be (at least partially) paid for by cutting subsidies to oil and gas companies. Republicans immediately criticized the proposal, with even Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who typically jumps at the chance to approve infrastructure spending, saying he wouldn’t vote for it.
But many Republicans, at the same time that they are claiming that a $50 billion investment in America’s infrastructure is a budget-buster, are pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. At $830 billion, the price tag for extending that sliver of the Bush cuts is more than 16 times the cost of Obama’s infrastructure proposal


[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

250 Gus  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:42:10pm

Ha! This is good. Speaking of working class and all that jazz a couple going to the Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin rally on 9/11 are going to have to fork over $146. That's for the cheapest tickets.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin Sept. 11 Event Ticket Price: $73 to $225

Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are appearing together in Anchorage, Alaska Saturday to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and tickets don't come cheap: The Ticketmaster page for the event lists regular adult tickets at between $73 and $130 and tickets plus a "meet & greet" at $225.

The event will also have a "dry section" where no alcohol is served and a "wet section" for those who want to drink.

Continues.

251 cliffster  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:42:23pm

Gotta run.. very much enjoyed the conversation. Have a good afternoon..

252 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:43:10pm

re: #250 Gus 802

The phrase, "A fool and their money are soon parted" comes to mind.

253 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:44:00pm

re: #249 webevintage

Exhibit A:
GOP Claims $50 Billion For Infrastructure Is Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich


[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

You just have to admire the brass balls it takes to excoriate 50 billion in spending while pushing over 800 billion in tax cuts. Of course, they also know that they will not be punished for spouting this kind of bullshit.

254 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:44:57pm

re: #242 brownbagj

But you don't begrudge those who did get a suit and punch a clock, right?

You would not expect them to subsidize your choice to make less money but be fulfilled. Right?

No, and it's ridiculous for you to imply that I would. I'm doing perfectly fine, I'm middle class, I'd never want anyone to subsidize me. (NEA notwithstanding ahaha)

I worked in health care for 13 years, full time as I put in another 40 hours a week on my business. I've been working 80+ hours a week since I don't know when. Before making the jump to being a self-employed artist, I was very careful and studious and made sure I had everything in place before I took the plunge.

I'm talking about actual poor people who are trapped without skills, without prospects, without access to education, without access to proper medical care. They don't have a choice.

I am in the position I am because I had well-off parents, I had access to education, I had opportunities, I had room to grow and experiment and find my place, I had a safe home, I had resources. if my life crumbled I could pull the trigger and sack out in my parents' spare room as long as it took for me to get back on my feet.

These are luxuries, these are things the son of a wealthy person has, that poor people do not.

get what I'm saying?

255 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:47:20pm

re: #244 Obdicut

There is spending we could cut, spending that is actually wasteful, spending that does not promote our own economy. Spending on corn biofuel, for example, that does nothing but make it more expensive for people to buy food, following a wasteful technology that will never have merit, stymieing research into much better biofuels. That'd be an example.

But that doesn't mean we can't find something much smarter to do with that money-- like promoting switchgrass biofuel or algae-based biofuel.

Oh man, don't get me started on corn biofuel, aaaaaargh

256 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:47:52pm

re: #254 WindUpBird

I didn't mean to imply that. As a matter of fact you were making my point for me. That we don't need to demonize being rich just for their being rich.

That's all. It takes courage to live your life your own way. Congrats. I meant no more than that and am sorry if I implied anything other than that.

257 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:48:26pm

re: #250 Gus 802

So the third row tickets I just bought to see Massive Attack and Thievery Corporation were half as much as the cheapest tickets to see Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin? Wow, I think I made the right purchase this time.

258 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:49:27pm

re: #257 scienceisreal

But, this may be the last "Never Forget" tour. You can't put a price on that.

//

259 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:51:05pm

re: #254 WindUpBird

I mainly feel bad for people who just aren't that bright.

A lot of my success is because I'm really smart. Sure, I read a lot and do things that help me use my smarts, but I was also just born with this capacity most other people don't have.

It's radically unfair, to me, that other people who are just as moral, good, hardworking, earnest, etc. as me will never have the opportunity to make as much money as me because they're just not as bright.

I know plenty of 'not-bright' people make plenty of money, but if you take two people who are similar in all ways except one of them is much smarter-- that one is generally going to be doing much better.

That's the biggest privilege I feel that I have. That and being really well-socialized.

260 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:52:17pm
That and being really well-socialized.

The stalker blogs would disagree. :)

/

261 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:54:42pm

re: #260 brownbagj

The stalker blogs would disagree. :)

/

Heh. I'm sure they would.

But seriously; at my last job there was an awesome dude who worked really hard, was very smart, but had a genetic condition that made him short, with a weak, reedy voice, and he stuttered. Because of that, he had some self-confidence problems.

It was really astonishing to see how different people treated us. People would take a suggestion that I made, and thank me for it, even though it was the same suggestion he'd made that they'd ignored.

He paid me an enormous compliment: on my goodbye card he wrote, "I'm going to miss you because you're the only person here who doesn't patronize me".

262 garhighway  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:55:11pm

re: #209 cliffster

And that would be a gross breach of the rights of the people getting taxed at that marginal rate.

Which Amendment is that in?

263 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:57:48pm

re: #261 Obdicut

We are a lot alike in this regard. I mentioned earlier about having come out of a poor area - in the south no less.

A lot was due to intelligence. Nothing I did personally - just something I was born with. My parents believed in me and nurtured it, but it was there and I did nothing to earn it other than be born.

I have always tried to remember that my life could be completely different due to circumstances beyond my control and treat others accordingly.

Kudos to you Obdicut.

264 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 12:58:38pm

re: #256 brownbagj

I didn't mean to imply that. As a matter of fact you were making my point for me. That we don't need to demonize being rich just for their being rich.

That's all. It takes courage to live your life your own way. Congrats. I meant no more than that and am sorry if I implied anything other than that.

I do not wish to demonize people for having money. I will relentlessly mock and call out people who came from a privileged background and then claim that their success was all of their own making as they criticize poor people who had far few options and avenues for success.

265 AK-47%  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:01:45pm

re: #264 celticdragon

I do not wish to demonize people for having money. I will relentlessly mock and call out people who came from a privileged background and then claim that their success was all of their own making as they criticize poor people who had far few options and avenues for success.

Part of the American Ideal is that social and economic advantages are not to become institutionalized in the form of something like the British House of Lords.

266 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:07:08pm

re: #265 ralphieboy

Part of the American Ideal is that social and economic advantages are not to become institutionalized in the form of something like the British House of Lords.

It isn't working out that way.

Here is a Brookings Institute study on social mobility in the United States from last year. We are virtually tied with England and far behind Canada and most of western Europe.


In the high-stakes environment of a society with
rapidly growing income inequality, it is ever more
critical that society provides its citizens with a fair
shot at competing for the economic rewards that
come with success. And in today’s economic game,
the stakes are indubitably high. Widening income
inequalities may be tolerable if everyone has a shot at
the top. But is that the case in America today?
Perhaps driven by widening inequality and a concern
about the fairness of the game, there is a tangible and
growing sense of pessimism among the American
public. In exit polls after the 2006 election, less than
one- third of the voters said that they thought life would
be better for the next generation.5 In another poll, over
half of Americans surveyed thought that the American
Dream is no longer attainable for the majority of their
fellow citizens.6 Other polls suggest that Americans are
increasingly worried that they will be able to maintain
the standard of living they currently enjoy.7
267 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:11:40pm

re: #266 celticdragon

Does this study take into account the massive immigration the US takes in of low skilled workers?

268 HappyBenghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:25:04pm

What the hell is he smoking.

269 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:26:20pm

re: #248 Obdicut

I'm not. Trust me. I'm being brief.

That was my point-- we didn't 'evolve to tolerate' alcohol.

LIke I said, I find it probably the enzyme evolved for another function. We do tolerate heroin, despite LostLakeHiker's claims; if we didn't, it'd kill us.

His statement made no sense on any level.

Obdi, I tend to not only respond to a commenter but to try to give information to anyone reading the comment, including lurkers. It's a holdover from other forums and news groups.

270 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:29:13pm

re: #259 Obdicut

I mainly feel bad for people who just aren't that bright.

A lot of my success is because I'm really smart. Sure, I read a lot and do things that help me use my smarts, but I was also just born with this capacity most other people don't have.

It's radically unfair, to me, that other people who are just as moral, good, hardworking, earnest, etc. as me will never have the opportunity to make as much money as me because they're just not as bright.

I know plenty of 'not-bright' people make plenty of money, but if you take two people who are similar in all ways except one of them is much smarter-- that one is generally going to be doing much better.

That's the biggest privilege I feel that I have. That and being really well-socialized.

My advantage is that I'm really stupid and poorly socialized - I just don't recognize when I'm being a loser and people are laughing at me, so I'm happy as a maggot in shit.

271 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:31:08pm

re: #267 brownbagj

Does this study take into account the massive immigration the US takes in of low skilled workers?

Read for yourself.

More here from a peer reviewed sociology publication.

272 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:32:17pm

re: #271 celticdragon

Thanks. Will do!

273 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:33:01pm

re: #44 MikeySDCA

I am a conservative of the school of Edmund Burke. I am a registered Republican, having first so registered in order to vote against Ronald Reagan in the 1976 presidential primary. I like to be able to vote against the dangerous ninnies in the Republican primaries.

I wonder where people ever got the idea that Edmund Burke was a conservative? For his time he was a lot closer to Teddy Kennedy than John McCain. He fought a long battle against slavery. He supported America in its battle against its abuse by Britain.

He also opposed America on his principles. A little know fact of history is that one of the Intolerable Acts was the Quebec Act which extended citizen's rights to the Quebecois. Pissed the Thirteen Colonies off royally. Burke supported the Quebec Act.

Burke was never a conservative.

274 HappyBenghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:37:38pm

re: #273 Romantic Heretic

I wonder where people ever got the idea that Edmund Burke was a conservative? For his time he was a lot closer to Teddy Kennedy than John McCain. He fought a long battle against slavery. He supported America in its battle against its abuse by Britain.

He also opposed America on his principles. A little know fact of history is that one of the Intolerable Acts was the Quebec Act which extended citizen's rights to the Quebecois. Pissed the Thirteen Colonies off royally. Burke supported the Quebec Act.

Burke was never a conservative.


I think it's that Burke opposed the French Revolution. But yeah I wonder too since I learned when I took Irish history that Burke (A Protestant and Anglican for that matter) was sympathetic to Irish home rule.

275 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:37:54pm

re: #131 Obdicut

This is absolute crap, I hope you know. That's not how evolution works.

Of course it is exactly how evolution works. You have a new challenge in the environment, alcohol. You have differences between individuals in tolerance to alcohol. Those who drink to excess and ruin their livers, or get drunk and die in an accident or a drunken fight, reproduce less. Those who can get the benefits of the calories from, say, grapes that can't be stored as grapes, without losing their livers or their lives, do survive.

Over time, just as with lactose tolerance, a degree of tolerance to alcohol builds up in the population.

It is no accident that the French have less of a problem with alcohol than the Russians. They've been at it longer.

Individual variation continues to exist alongside group differences. There are French alcoholics, and many a Russian drinks in moderation.

276 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:49:42pm

re: #248 Obdicut

I'm not. Trust me. I'm being brief.

That was my point-- we didn't 'evolve to tolerate' alcohol.

LIke I said, I find it probably the enzyme evolved for another function. We do tolerate heroin, despite LostLakeHiker's claims; if we didn't, it'd kill us.

His statement made no sense on any level.

We don't tolerate heroin to the extent we tolerate alcohol. Damned few people can take heroin as a recreational drug and then just drop it. Most of us can have a beer now and then, and then manage just fine without a beer if the fridge is empty.

277 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:49:58pm

re: #275 lostlakehiker

Of course it is exactly how evolution works. You have a new challenge in the environment, alcohol.

A) It's not a new challenge. Not only is ethanol produced inside the body, but it's naturally occurring.

You have differences between individuals in tolerance to alcohol. Those who drink to excess and ruin their livers, or get drunk and die in an accident or a drunken fight, reproduce less.

This would be a contention you have to prove. In addition, physical tolerance of alcohol doesn't mean the individual won't just drink more, overcoming said tolerance.

Over time, just as with lactose tolerance, a degree of tolerance to alcohol builds up in the population.

It's not actually a 'degree'. It's retaining the ability to produce lactase post-childhood.

It is no accident that the French have less of a problem with alcohol than the Russians. They've been at it longer.

You're basing this claim on what, exactly? We've had fermentation since the beginning of human culture.

Your original claim was:

We have evolved a tolerance for alcohol. The same cannot be said of, say, heroin.

What do you think that we don't tolerate in heroin?

278 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 1:51:07pm

re: #276 lostlakehiker

We don't tolerate heroin to the extent we tolerate alcohol. Damned few people can take heroin as a recreational drug and then just drop it. Most of us can have a beer now and then, and then manage just fine without a beer if the fridge is empty.

You are now confusing enzymatic tolerance with addictiveness. That's so wrong I don't know where to start with it.

You think we evolved the ability to not get addicted to alcohol? Is that your new claim?

279 Lidanghazi  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 2:01:30pm

re: #273 Romantic Heretic

I wonder where people ever got the idea that Edmund Burke was a conservative?

I've been wondering that for ages.

280 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:35:49pm

re: #126 cliffster

Completely misses the point. People who have played their cards right and made (or kept) a large amount of money are entitled to keep that money. It is absolutely class warfare when a politician tries to pit one class of people, the not-rich, against another class of people, the rich. Which is exactly what has been done by Democrats for decades.

The irony being that many of the Democratic candidates/leaders who bitch about "the rich" are themselves "the rich".

Oh, that's right, I forgot. Since a "rich" person is someone with a dollar more than the demagogue doing the complaining, the demagogue himself/herself can't possibly be "rich". And since only Republicans are "rich", no Democrat can be "rich", including any Kennedy and John Kerry.

Back when John Edwards (anyone remember him?) was somebody, his populist crap used to make me gag. With all their money, guys like him, John Forbes Kerry, and Fat Al Gore played the "I'm one of you, and I'm going to stand up to THEM for you!" card. How phony and how transparent.

The Tea Party bowel movement is essentially the same kind of populism, only done by less-wealthy people with far less literacy, let alone intelligence. Plus, the far-out elements of the Left that attached themselves to many Democrats are far outgrossed by the evil beings that have attached themselves to the Tea Party/Republican "cause".

281 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 8, 2010 10:42:34pm

re: #182 b_sharp

The slippery slope argument really isn't convincing. It assumes gross stupidity on the part of the people in a position to stop the slide.

I don't assume gross stupidity on the part of our "leaders" and those who want to be our leaders. I see it every day.

I forget who said it, but as the saying goes, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups".


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ...
teleskiguy
Yesterday
Views: 151 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0