Thursday, October 07, 2010

Bad People With Bad Ideas

I think it's stupid when writers use asterisks in words to pretend they're not actually saying a word that someone might find offensive. For instance, I recently saw someone on a blog use the word a**hole. If you are an adult reader who is offended by certain words, why would you not be offended by the same word with obvious asterisks in it? It's like, does somebody really look at those letters and asterisks and go, Wow, I wonder how you pronounce that? or I wonder what word that was supposed to be? It seems possible to me that the extra cognitive processing involved in figuring out what the word is supposed to be might give the asterisked word even more emphasis. Well, whatever.

Instead of a**hole I am going to use the word banana-peel.

Republicans are turning out to be a bunch of banana-peels.

Newt Gingrich now has a new slogan. From the AP:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is advising Republican candidates on November's ballots to frame the choice for voters between Democrats as "the party of food stamps" while selling the GOP as "the party of paychecks." Gingrich brands Democrats 'party of food stamps'

Hey, that's pretty catchy. It's as if the economy did not go to hell when the Republicans were in charge, and the slogan has the extra bonus of making it look like all Democrats are immigrants and minorities, or whoever Republicans think receive food stamps.

Gingrich says,
"Most Americans would like to get a paycheck," Gingrich said. "Most Americans would not like to be forced to have food stamps handed out by liberal Democrats."

No bananas, Sherlock. Most Americans would not like to be forced to live on food stamps at all, whether they were handed out by liberal Democrats or banana-peel Republicans

But what would be even worse would be if you lost your job and your home and your unemployment ran out and you didn't have anything to eat and there were no food stamps. The alternative, for those who have not thought through Gingrich's model beyond the GOP sloganeering, is starvation. Mass starvation. In America.

Gingrich's model is that people work and take care of themselves, you pay your own way in the world, and if you don't you pay the consequences.

Like this dirt-bag freeloader over in Tennessee, trying to get something for nothing.
Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.

Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.

"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.

The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.

"We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him. No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

From The Examiner:
Today Glenn Beck and co-hose Pat Gray gave their own take on Gene Cranick, the Tennessee man whose house burned down while county firefighters watched. The fire department of Republican-controlled Obion County refused to help Cranick because he had not paid a $75 subscription fee. As a result, Cranick's house was destroyed and he lost his two dogs and cat.

Not surprisingly, Beck and Gray argued that the county and the fire department did the right thing by not turning their hoses on Cranick's house. Beck argues that since Cranick did not pay his $75 subscription fee he does not deserve the fire protection. Going further, Beck and his co-host actually mock Cranick and his southern accent through much of the segment (audio to the left). Both men portray Cranick as some kind of southern redneck who does not understand how the Tea Party, free market principles are suppose to work. Glenn Beck and co-host mock man whose house burned down in Tennessee

Luckily for conservatives, letting the guy's house burn down was not only good free-market economics, but Jesus would have wanted it that way. Here's Bryan Fischer at the American Family Association:
In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.

The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God. Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground

Would you agree, these guys are a bunch of banana-peels?

(BTW, that web site seems screwed up to me, I had to read it using "view source.")

Just wait till Gene Cranick tries to get food stamps. Oh, the conservatives'll get a laugh out of that!

Everybody hates to pay taxes to support a bunch of bureaucrats who implement hard-to-comprehend policies that don't seem to work half the time. Everybody hates self-serving politicians who manipulate the system for their own gain and hide their true intentions from the public. It's as American as apple pie to complain about the government, you don't have to be a Republican banana-peel to do that. Even Democrats resent the idiocy of government, especially federal government, though it's a circus at the state and local levels, too.

We complain, but at some level we are glad to have somebody inspecting our food, paving our roads, putting out our fires, investigating crimes and enforcing the law, fighting for us. We're glad to know that if we lose our jobs we won't be abandoned by our society, that there is something between us and starvation.

I'm not the first to say this: if you want to see individual accountability and small government in action, just look at Mogadishu. You want to live like that? (Sadly, I just imagined pasty-faced crybaby mama's-boy Glenn Beck striding through the seething streets of a third-world hell-hole like Mogadishu, his Kalashnikov blazing as he fights his way to the top of the pecking order in a brutal world of free market principles. Right.)

Sure, food stamps are for losers and the fire department should let your house burn down if you don't pay in advance; let me point out the latest point of pride for the the banana-peels.
Two years after coming to national attention during John McCain's presidential bid, Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher is keeping busy. His cause now isn't tax policy, but puppy availability. Wurzelbacher has joined up with a Missouri-based group called the Alliance for Truth, which hopes to defeat legislation that would overhaul conditions in the state's thousands of puppy mills--facilities where dogs are bred to be sold as pets, often in cramped or unsanitary settings.

The legislation has the approval of the Humane Society of the United States, but Wurzelbacher, the Alliance for Truth, and some local Tea Party advocates view it as a case of unwelcome government intrusion. Joe the Plumber, Tea Partiers Defend Missouri Puppy Mills

I know what you're thinking: nobody could be that much of a banana-peel. But they have very powerful arguments for why it is important to allow people to breed puppies in unsanitary kennels. The article in The Atlantic Wire explains why the Alliance for Truth believes puppy mills are good.
Radicals Want to Make It Harder to Buy Puppies, maintains the Alliance for Truth. The group claims that the Humane Society "seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs," and in an interview with Talking Points Memo, a spokeswoman for the Alliance equated the Humane Society with fringe animal-rights activists who believe "ownership of an animal is slavery" and that "animals should have attorney representation." Wurzelbacher goes even further, writing on the Alliance's website that the Humane Society is simply "lying to our citizens and taking our constitutional rights away – one state at a time."

I had to look this one up. There are several groups called "Alliance for Truth." It appears this one formed entirely to support puppy mills, if THIS online posting is real, and it appears it is. Elizabeth Brinkley, Legislative Liaison for Dante Kennels (she is also the owner, it turns out) (and she is also a professional actress), seems to be the force behind the Alliance for Truth, which is a group that opposes the Humane Society.

The banana-peels are fascinating, I'm sorry, I can't help myself, it's like that Beatles song where the guy "just had to look, having read the book." The Dante Kennels web site has pages about Ms. Brinkley's acting, and a link titled Animal Rights. Man ... what can you say ...
My philosophy on Animal Rights is that HUMANS HAVE RIGHTS. Animals have the moral expectation of being treated with decency, but that is not a right. A “RIGHT” is a legal term and comes with responsibilities and expectations that cannot be applied to animals.

There's more.

Devil's advocate here. Don't you think that a being that is sufficiently sentient to have "moral expectations of being treated with decency" is probably sufficiently sentient to have rights?

Would you want to buy a puppy from a lady who takes a militant stance against treating animals decently? Me either.

The Atlantic Wire asks the obvious question:
Is This a Joke? At the Los Angeles Times, Patt Morrison can't shake the suspicion that someone is being punk'd. "Come on, 'fess up, Comedy Central -- did you sneak a plant into Missouri and start up this group just to gin up good material for your writers?" Getting serious, she adds that "humane organizations would love for every middle-class American family to be a dog owner, and there's a really easy way, a cheap way, to make that happen -- without having to pay the hundreds or even thousands of dollars that puppy mills can charge per pet. Millions of American-born dogs are waiting for you... in shelters and with rescue groups all across America."

I have no doubt the banana-peel platform will continue to expand in awesomely unpredictable ways, as conservatives find new ways to oppose kindness, decency, objectivity, and fairness.

The problem is, after they hear it often enough, this kind of thinking sounds reasonable to potato-Americans. You keep Fox on, droning in the background, and eventually you too will see that it's better for poor people to starve than for the government to help them, it's perfectly reasonable for the fire department to sit on their butts while a guy's house burns down if he has not paid the seventy-five dollar fee, humane treatment of animals is a socialist plot to manipulate the market and make pets unaffordable to ordinary banana-peel families.

I can't wait to see where this is going.

27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well why not?

If "discrimination is liberty," why can't "puppymills" be liberty too?

It's not like we eat puppies so we won't have millions of them recalled like eggs recently were even if they are produced under unsanitary conditions and carry disease as a result. Instead, unsuspecting puppy purchasers will pay their own vets individually to heal the sick puppies they purchase.

Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware and let the producer be free to endanger customers!

October 07, 2010 2:13 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

If local law allows, the fire fighters should have put out the flames, and then billed him for the full amount of the cost of putting out the fire -- far more than $75. And if he did not pay the bill, then they should foreclose on the house.

Or is that too much government intervention in the private lives of citizens?

October 07, 2010 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's as if the economy did not go to hell when the Republicans were in charge,"

Jim, Republicans kept our economy humming for a quarter century

the recession, which was exaggerated for political purposes by Dems, ended about 6 months after O got in office

it was cyclical and to be expected

instead of concentrating on returning people to work, O and his socialist friends, Pelosi and Reid focused instead on enacting a liberal agenda, which has damaged the economic vitality of our country

other countries, using the principles that made America's economy strong from 1980-2006, have returned to normal

under Obama, America has stalled

our chances of getting food stamps have gone up, our chances of getting a paycheck have gone down

"and the slogan has the extra bonus of making it look like all Democrats are immigrants and minorities, or whoever Republicans think receive food stamps"

don't be an a-hole, Jim

Gingrich's point is that more and more Americans are receiving food stamps because Dem policies have not produced jobs

playing the race card won't work this time

all Americans are suffering

"Most Americans would not like to be forced to live on food stamps at all, whether they were handed out by liberal Democrats or banana-peel Republicans"

no, they wouldn't

but they are much more likely to if Dems are running the country

facts

"But what would be even worse would be if you lost your job and your home and your unemployment ran out and you didn't have anything to eat and there were no food stamps. The alternative, for those who have not thought through Gingrich's model beyond the GOP sloganeering, is starvation. Mass starvation. In America."

how many people in America starved from 1980-2006?

how many lost their jobs from 2006-2010?

the answers are near-zero and millions, respectively

Pelosi and Reid don't have any argument to defend themselves with

"Gingrich's model is that people work and take care of themselves, you pay your own way in the world, and if you don't you pay the consequences."

let us know when you some quote to back that up

Gingrich's model was adopted by Bill Clinton in 1994 and the result is still thought of by Dems as their golden age

what they don't realize is that Repubs designed the policies that led to surpluses while
Clinton focused on a world of Walt Whitman and blue dresses

Repubs will take over soon and Obama can relax like Bill Cliton did and pursue more extracurricular activities

this time next year, Pelosi will be an obscure Congresswoman from a looney-bird district and Reid will be on "Dancing with the Stars" and Obama will be planning out his activities from a well-worn copy of "1000 Places to See Before You Die"

and, who knows:

maybe someday Michelle Obama will be Secretary of State and her husband will be running around campaigning for Democrats, based on how great America did while he was President and the banana-peel Republicans ran the show

what a great country!!

October 08, 2010 5:16 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Jim, Republicans kept our economy humming for a quarter century

Don't forget to remind everyone where the Republicans left our economy at the end of that quarter century. We were headed for the abyss of the second great depression, that's where!

Since then, Republicans have not only acted in lockstep to JUST SAY NO TO GOVERNING, but have actively campaigned against needed stimulus spending to get the economy moving. They block the needed bills and then blame Democrats for not passing them. The GOP is planning to make permanent Bush's temporary tax cuts for the rich, which are hundreds of billion dollar deficit diggers according to the CBO and the worst out of 11 ideas to create jobs, and then they plan to impeach everybody who worked to pass health care reform and to defund the government to stop health care reform from being enacted. The want to stop the reforms that will no longer allow health insurers to cancel coverage when we get sick or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

For those who doubt the Senate GOP has been obstructing legislation, here is a list of the 372 Bills That Have Been Passed by the House & Not Yet 
Acted Upon By the Senate
 (as of 8/23/10)

The GOP is a bunch of BP's (banana-peels) who are full of bad ideas.

October 08, 2010 9:37 AM  
Anonymous I hope she keeps talking said...

depression?

what a laugh, Bea

nations that didn't opt for the Keynesian stimulus approach are leaving in the dust

if Dems can't get anything done with the majorities they enjoyed the last two years, they can only blame themselves

and, yes, we will defund, or do anything else that is necessary to save our health industry from Obamacare

you call it obstruction but most Americans prefer a smaller government and appreciate our efforts to block unlimited expansion

btw, FDR tried to raise taxes in the mid-30s and started a second dip depression

don't be a dip

October 08, 2010 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"yes, we will defund"

Good, maybe you'll shut down the federal government again too, it worked so well for the GOP last time.

Every American has seen the results of the GOP defunding our government.

Bush defunded the government with his unfunded wars, his Medicare prescription drug donut hole, and his tax cuts that are due to expire this year.

And what did we get because of them?

Not a "sound economy!"

Not jobs!

Not deficit reduction!

In fact, Bush turned Clinton's surplus turned into a deficit.

We got to the precipice of the second great depression before Bush's TARP and Obama's stimulus spending started to stop the freefall. Had Bush managed to privatize Social Security as he had planned, our seniors would have been spit out of luck.

October 08, 2010 5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

defunding Obamacare won't shut down the government

it certainly won't increase the deficit

the stock market boomed again today

everyone knows our long national nightmare is almost over

October 08, 2010 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it depends on which nightmare you're talking about.

Lured Into a Trap, Then Tortured for Being Gay
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/nyregion/09bias.html?_r=1&hp

October 09, 2010 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is This GOP House Candidate Dressed as a Nazi?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/why-is-this-gop-house-candidate-dressed-as-a-nazi/64319/

October 10, 2010 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the stock market boomed again today"
Typical comment expected from a Republican who loves to see those billions of dollars being stuffed into the pockets of the plutocrats on Wall Street while the rest (majority) of the population suffers from the disaster caused by the venality our Anonymous poster lauds.
Cato

October 11, 2010 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why is This GOP House Candidate Dressed as a Nazi?"
That's because most of the tea baggers and the neo-fascist Republicans want to find a way to honor their secret hero, Heinrich Himmler.

October 11, 2010 10:55 AM  
Anonymous looking forward to November said...

"the population suffers from the disaster caused by the venality our Anonymous poster lauds"

actually, the main cause of economic suffering is the uncertainty created by the socialists who currently run our Congress

by trying to reform a major segment of our economy, in the midst of a recession, and failing to pass a budget and failing to address expiring tax rates, they've created a climate where business is uncertain what kind of reserves they need and are cautiously holding back from hiring and investing

the stock market is booming because investors perceive that this incompetent Democrat party will soon be out of power

October 11, 2010 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"actually, the main cause of economic suffering is the uncertainty created by the socialists who currently run our Congress."

That is such an absurd and irrational statement that there is reason to question your sanity, Mr. November. You haven't the foggiest idea of what socialism is...but then, why would a supporter of the Wall Street Gang be expected to say anything else?

Billions of $$$ diverted to enrich the elite class of plutocrats have resulted in the ever-growing, frightening gap between the haves and have-nots in this country.

"wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period [1983 to 2004], fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."

"As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%."

"And for all Americans, things are getting worse: as the projections to July 2009 by Wolff (2010) make clear, the last few years have seen a huge loss in housing wealth for most families, making the gap between the rich and the rest of America even greater, and increasing the number of households with no marketable assets from 18.6% to 24.1%."
(http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

It seems to be pretty ridiculous to pin the blame for our "economic suffering" on Bernie Sanders, the one Socialist in Congress, who hardly runs our legislative business!

Ahh...the wonderful benefits of unfettered capitalism.

Americans First

October 12, 2010 12:29 AM  
Anonymous freedom tsunami approaching said...

we actually live in a country where one owns the fruits of their labor and talents

the wealthy are wealthy because they succeeded

what they succeeded in, in our capitalist society, is providing us with something we chose to use to make our lives better

it is socialist to believe the government should collect someone's assets and redistribute it to those who didn't create it

taxes on the wealthy already support most of our expenses

in addition, their activities produce opportunities for everyone else

what a dreary and hopeless world it would be if you couldn't dream of success because the government would simply confiscate the results of your labor and skills

there are fewer hindrances to success in America than anywhere else

let's keep it that way

we're in trouble now because the socialists have created a hostile environment for innovation

that's what socialists do

October 12, 2010 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps you missed it, but then so did the Washington press corps. Late last week the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary budget tallies for fiscal year 2010, and the news is that the U.S. government had another fabulous year—in spending your money. We didn't expect President Obama to hold a press conference, but why are Republicans so quiet?

Spending rolled in for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009's $3.52 trillion in the record books. But don't think this means Washington was relatively less spendthrift. CBO reports that the modest overall spending decline results from three one-time events.

.The costs of TARP declined by $262 billion from 2009 as banks repaid their bailout cash, payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were $51 billion lower (though still a $40 billion net loser for the taxpayer), and deposit insurance payments fell by $55 billion year over year. "Excluding those three programs, spending rose by about 9 percent in 2010, somewhat faster than in recent years," CBO says.

Somewhat faster. You've got to laugh, or cry, when a 9% annual increase qualifies as only "somewhat faster" than normal.

What did Washington spend more money on? Well, despite two wars, defense spending rose by 4.7% to $667 billion, down from an annual average increase of 8% from 2005 to 2009.

Once again domestic accounts far and away led the increases. CBO says that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all "other activities" of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010.

As for the deficits, the 2010 total was $1.29 trillion, down slightly from $1.42 trillion. That's a two-year total of $2.7 trillion, or more than the entire amount during the Reagan Administration, when deficits were supposed to be ruinous. Now liberal economists tell us that deficits are the key to restoring prosperity. But all we have to show for spending nearly 25% of GDP for two years running is a growth rate of 1.7% and 9.6% unemployment.

Those slow growth numbers have contributed to the deficits by yielding paltry tax revenues. Individual income tax receipts fell again in 2010, by 1.6% to $901 billion. As recently as 2008, individual income tax revenues were $1.15 trillion. Corporate tax revenue climbed a healthy 38.6% to $192 billion, but that's still well below the $304 billion of 2008. This only underscores how much deficit reduction depends on a growth revival.

Here's the kicker: By far the biggest percentage-gain revenue winner for the taxpayer in 2010 was . . . the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the expansion of its balance sheet with riskier assets, the Fed earned $76 billion during the year, a 121% increase. The Fed's windfall is a perfect symbol of our current economic policy. The government is making money because it now controls so much capital, but it is robbing that money from the private economy in the process. It is never a good sign when your central bank is a national profit center.

The 21.4% federal spending increase in two years ought to put to rest any debate about the nature of America's fiscal problem. The Pelosi Congress has used the recession as an excuse to send spending to record heights, and its economic policies have contributed to a lousy recovery. The solution is to stop the spending and change the policies.

Polls open on November 2.

October 12, 2010 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the wealthy are wealthy because they succeeded...their activities produce opportunities for everyone else...we're in trouble now because the socialists have created a hostile environment for innovation"

Yes indeed...the wealthy have succeeded - in lining their own pockets and not reinvesting in America's business growth. Unemployment is high - yes. The reason? Multibillionaire investors have moved their money to foreign markets, where costs are low and profits are high for them. If they reinvested their grossly huge incomes in American enterprises within this country, we could improve the economic situation for the vast majority of America's population. (And please don't raise that old tired cry of "obscenely high taxes for the wealthy).

Where are the "opportunities for everyone else"?

"...comparing average CEO annual pay to average factory worker pay, something that has been done for many years by Business Week and, later, the Associated Press. The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. It was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. It's even more revealing to compare the actual rates of increase of the salaries of CEOs and ordinary workers; from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account."
Where are the "opportunities for everyone else"?

"the median compensation for CEO's in all industries as of early 2010 is $3.9 million; it's $10.6 million for the companies listed in Standard and Poor's 500, and $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average. Since the median worker's pay is about $36,000, then you can quickly calculate that CEOs in general make 100 times as much as the workers, that CEO's of S&P 500 firms make almost 300 times as much, and that CEOs at the Dow-Jones companies make 550 times as much."
Where are the opportunities for everyone else?
(http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

Trickle-down economic "solutions", promulgated by the obscenely wealthy plutocrats to cover up their smidgeon of conscience, have done nothing to "produce opportunities for everyone else"...instead they have positioned us in the current economic crisis we face. Their total lack of compassion for the average American worker (are you one of them?) and their unbounded greed is the crux of the problem

One wonders what Jesus Christ would think of this? He was, after all, a socialist!

October 12, 2010 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"CBO says that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all "other activities" of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010."

Considering the hemorrhaging of jobs, the long term unemployment of millions of workers, and the ever-increasing number of housing foreclosures, a 13% increase in government spending to help people struggling in these ways has been too small to keep the economy humming. Increased spending on unemployment benefits and protecting citizens from improper foreclosures will help struggling individuals and businesses, as customers will be able to spend on products businesses want to sell again.

Without government spending as massive as it was during World War II, the economy will lumber for at least the dozen years it did during the Great Depression. "Not until 1940, after the outbreak of war in Europe, did the physical volume of American industrial production equal the record of 1929, and even in 1940 about seven and one-half million workers were still unemployed, roughly fourteen percent of the civilian labor force. The Great Depression actually did not end until defense spending and war stimulated the economy in 1941."

October 12, 2010 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes indeed...the wealthy have succeeded - in lining their own pockets and not reinvesting in America's business growth."

like everyone else, the wealthy will invest in America's growth when given incentive to do so

right now, the Obama socialist regime is demonizing the wealthy and seeking to place every burden of our society on them

understandably, they are holding funds in reserve not knowing what the federal budget will be next year, or the deficit, or the income tax rate, or the estate tax rate, or the health benefits they'll be required to cover, or the carbon tax they'll have to pay, or ad nauseum

they don't know these things because Congress had a comedian come testify and then adjourned without performing its most basic functions

and the voters have noticed this incompetence

"Unemployment is high - yes. The reason? Multibillionaire investors have moved their money to foreign markets, where costs are low and profits are high for them."

that's what participants in a capitalist system are supposed to do

lowering their costs also lowers their prices, btw

"If they reinvested their grossly huge incomes in American enterprises within this country, we could improve the economic situation for the vast majority of America's population."

that would be nice

Obama has added health care and is trying for carbon taxes that would make that even more expensive and inefficient

"Where are the "opportunities for everyone else"?"

that would be the low unemployment, high prosperity party we were all having until Democrats took over Congress in 2006

"...comparing average CEO annual pay to average factory worker pay, something that has been done for many years by Business Week and, later, the Associated Press. The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. It was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. It's even more revealing to compare the actual rates of increase of the salaries of CEOs and ordinary workers; from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account.""

the salaries of CEOs are negotiated with their Boards

they seek as much as the market will bear

would you do any less?

or are you just resentful that they have more value on the market than you?

"Their total lack of compassion for the average American worker (are you one of them?) and their unbounded greed is the crux of the problem"

not really

many CEOs have a lot of compassion

they are the major supporters of all kinds of charitable work

the problem is the anti-business climate created by the socialists

"One wonders what Jesus Christ would think of this? He was, after all, a socialist!"

well, since you're wondering, why don't you speculate?

show us some quotes where Jesus speaks as a socialist

"Without government spending as massive as it was during World War II, the economy will lumber for at least the dozen years it did during the Great Depression. "Not until 1940, after the outbreak of war in Europe, did the physical volume of American industrial production equal the record of 1929, and even in 1940 about seven and one-half million workers were still unemployed, roughly fourteen percent of the civilian labor force. The Great Depression actually did not end until defense spending and war stimulated the economy in 1941.""

misunderstanding

we recovered because Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo destroyed the infrastructure of every other major industrial power and, owing to the fortune of geography, our businesses boomed as we were alone to supply the needs of the world

October 12, 2010 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the salaries of CEOs are negotiated with their Boards...
they seek as much as the market will bear...would you do any less?"

It's ironic and sadly funny that you would support that, Anon. You who oppose the audacious idea of teachers negotiating their salaries with the Board of Education. But then, I guess, it's only ok to negotiate a living wage when the expected outcome is millions in dollars and millions in Golden Parachute benefits. That only shows "how many CEOs have a lot of compassion...they are the major supporters of all kinds of charitable work".

Nice...too bad you don't consider something approaching a living wage for the laborers who produce the goods that enrich the plutocrats, at the very least, an act of charity. I think your religion enjoins you to be charitable for those less fortunate than you.

October 12, 2010 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You who oppose the audacious idea of teachers negotiating their salaries with the Board of Education."

I don't oppose that. I am against them selling the Apple ballot endorsee to guarantee they control both sides of the "negotiation" though.

"But then, I guess, it's only ok to negotiate a living wage when the expected outcome is millions in dollars and millions in Golden Parachute benefits."

this is America

you can negotiate anything you want to

slavery is illegal

"too bad you don't consider something approaching a living wage for the laborers who produce the goods that enrich the plutocrats"

I think most laborers in America make a living wage

me- and all the plutocrats- want everyone to make a living wage

"I think your religion enjoins you to be charitable for those less fortunate than you."

it's so strange how liberals and socialists tell themselves they are being charitable by telling someone else how to use their money

the only way to be charitable is to make personal sacrifices-

it's legal, go ahead and be as charitable as you want

voting to raise taxes on someone else is not charity

October 12, 2010 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"voting to raise taxes on someone else is not charity"

What did you call it when Bush's GOP voted, with Cheney casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate, to lower taxes on citizens and raise the deficit of the US Treasury while conducting 2 very costly wars overseas?

The party's over. Now is the time for the richest among us to return to the modest (compared to what they paid under Reagan) tax rates paid under Clinton. The top 2% earners' complaints that this return to their previous tax rate is somehow unfair, compared to those who have lost their jobs and homes, ring hollow.

October 12, 2010 6:48 PM  
Anonymous red all over said...

"What did you call it when Bush's GOP voted, with Cheney casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate, to lower taxes on citizens"

it was called economic policy and it worked very, carrying us through several calamities that hit us in the early 21st century as a result of Clinton's negligence

"and raise the deficit of the US Treasury while conducting 2 very costly wars overseas?"

it's truly amazing the chutzpah that allows any liberal to mention Bush's relatively small deficits, considering what deficits the socialist Obama administration are projecting

"The party's over. Now is the time for the richest among us to return to the modest tax rates paid under Clinton."

raising anyone's taxes would hurt the economy but especially the taxes of those who creat the jobs in this country

"The top 2% earners' complaints that this return to their previous tax rate is somehow unfair, compared to those who have lost their jobs and homes, ring hollow."

what you don't understand is that money you confiscate from those you resent will not give anyone a job but it might get us a couple of months of extra food stamps

but, you see, from the poorest to the richest, Americans prefer a paycheck to food stamps

it's called freedom

but it's 2% of our citizens, you say?

in that case, let's just seize their homes and relocate them to trailer camps

98% of us won't mind a bit, right?

in the words of Vlad,

property is theft!

October 12, 2010 10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no "negotiation" that goes on between Corporate Plutocrat C.E.O.s. and appointed millionaire Boards. It's called "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Ask the workers in their slave-wage work force whether they approve the multi-million "salaries" given to the head honcho.

October 13, 2010 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it's so strange how liberals and socialists tell themselves they are being charitable by telling someone else how to use their money"

Is that anything like conservatives and neo-fascists telling someone else that they are not entitled to equality under the law because of their color, sexual orientation, or their unpopular religion?

October 13, 2010 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is no "negotiation" that goes on between Corporate Plutocrat C.E.O.s. and appointed millionaire Boards."

of course there is

if the Board won't pay enough, pluto will walk and see if some other Board will

if he can't find another Board willing to pay that much, he'll lower his price

it's called capitalism

he gets paid more because his skills and talents are harder to find

it's called supply and demand

"It's called "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.""

cordial relationships between governance and management are to be encouraged

"Ask the workers in their slave-wage work force whether they approve the multi-million "salaries" given to the head honcho."

unless they own the company, that would be irrelevant

stop proving you're a socialist- or worse

brilliant anon:

"it's so strange how liberals and socialists tell themselves they are being charitable by telling someone else how to use their money"

crazed anon:

"Is that anything like conservatives and neo-fascists telling someone else that they are not entitled to equality under the law because of their color, sexual orientation, or their unpopular religion?"

no, it's nothing like the fantasy scenario you describe

it's more like people who think they are being virtuous by judging how virtuous others are

actually, it's just like that

it's called self-righteousness

"some self ordained professor's tongue

too serious to fool

spouted out that liberty

is just equality in school

equality

I spoke the word

as if a wedding vow

ah, but I was so much older then

I'm younger than that now"

October 13, 2010 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it's more like people who think they are being virtuous by judging how virtuous others are...actually, it's just like that...it's called self-righteousness"

Your smugness and superciliousness, squirely Anon, are beyond the definition of self-righteousness...you who makes a living of trolling this site to demean whom you do not consider worthy of respect, the foremost homophobe and wacko tea-bagger to take space here in order to pirate this site...have the audacity to do exactly what you comdemn in others -judging how virtuous others are."

"and why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"[Matthew 7:3]

October 14, 2010 11:19 AM  
Anonymous a smug and supercilious squire said...

I don't recall judging how virtuous anyone else is

please provide an example

the truth still applies:

advocating the confiscation of other people's money is not a virtuous position

charity should be an individual act, not compelled by the government

focus on what you can do not what you think everyone else should be doing

you might be interested to know that studies consistently show that Republicans contribute to charity more than Democrats

btw, you're the one that brought religion into this so don't attack me for addressing your comment on your terms

that's a classic lunatic fringe gay agenda rhetorical tactic and it doesn't work

October 14, 2010 11:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home