Tuesday, September 4, 2012
GOP Theme: We Built This Straw Man
I really hope the Dems do a decent job of exposing all that deceitful horseshit that was piled up on the stage during the GOP Convention last week. What a puke-fest that was.
I think it would be helpful to look at the definition of the word deceit: (from Wikipedia)
"Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda, and sleight of hand, and well as distraction, camouflage or concealment. There is also self-deception, as in bad faith."
Isn't that a perfect description of Republiconservative tactics?
Check out the description of Straw Man from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm:
"The straw man argument, ... deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side. This can be done by leaving out key points of an opposing argument, quoting a person’s words out of context, or presenting a particular person’s poor defense as the entire defense of an opposing side."
From Wikipedia:"A straw man, ... is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]"
I also hope the Dems can do a much better job of reiterating Obama's message, which was taken out of context by the right but then ironically expressed with the use of the collective "We" in the GOP's very convention theme: "We built it."
It's almost as if the Republicons recognized the reality that we are all interdependent on each other.
Except, whenever Republicons and libertarians hear that concept expressed, their limbic system produces a powerful and angry emotional reaction and this causes their pre-frontal cortex to shut down rendering it incapable of accepting any information that contradicts their emotional biases. (To be fair, Dems and libs have this same tendency.)
Unfortunately, I'm not hopeful of that hope because I can count on one hand the number of people I've heard give that message the rigor and eloquence that it deserves. My guess is that they won't even try.
I'll be following the convention on the "Fair and Balanced" station and see what happens.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
You Didn't Build That, The People You Hired Did
According to the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of Human Nature, our brains were designed by Evolution to seek out "leaders." This was necessary because we needed leaders to coordinate the actions of the tribe. These leaders were chosen by criteria that have evolved over our history but have always needed to satisfy our sense of "fairness." We granted these leaders not only the power and authority to make the major decisions but, for reasons that will be explained at another time, we also rewarded them with fabulous riches and privileges. One of the main reasons we did this was to decide how to distribute resources.
Today we choose our leaders through a political system where politicians campaign for our votes and the right to represent our interests in the decision making process. We don't reward these politician/leaders with the same level of riches and privileges as we used to because as we evolved from primitive tribal societies to capital driven "free market" societies, the rules of the tribal society have been replaced by the rules of free market capitalism. Thus, the free market now decides how to distribute wealth/resources/privileges.
The free market model is unquestionably much better and fairer than those older models, but just how close to perfect is that model, is a question of fierce debate between liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives and libertarians think that model is as close to perfect as we can possibly get. The more extreme among them think that the free market has a God-like perfection to it.
Liberals, on the other hand, see inequities in the market model and seek to use government to balance things out a bit.
What about the more extreme among them?
For various reasons it would be difficult for me to describe that person. But one thing that would be easy for me to say is that there is practically no one around today in this country that is even nearly equivalent to the free market fanatics among us.
Unlike myself, those free market fanatics would have no trouble at all describing anyone with even a hint of a "pro-active government intervention in the market" sensibility as an extremist.
Anyone with even a hint more than just a hint of such a sensibility would be described as a freedom-hating Marxist anti-American liberty-robber who's goal in life is to take everything from the productive in order to give to the non-productive so that we can all be equally miserable.
Of course this characterization is absurd on its face but many conservatives are completely serious when they say these things. And I'm not just talking about irresponsible talk show hosts who are paid millions of dollars to spew this horseshit. We've even heard "respected" Republiconservatives in important and prominent positions say things like this about the moderate/centrist Obama. (What's that Rush? Obama is a radical leftist ideologue? Just look at his record, stupid.)
Just how absurd this characterization is can best be illustrated by this fact: The closest we've ever come to "taking away from the rich so that we are all equally poor" is to tax billionaires to a point where they are still fucking billionaires and then redistribute a small portion of that money so that someone who works a 40 hour week at a minimum wage job (quite possibly at a company that makes the billionaire a billionaire) can have $140 a month in food stamps, for crying out loud!
See how equal everyone is?
The minimum wage worker buys his food with stamps while the billionaire has someone who's on food stamps buy his food for him, take it home, cook it for him, serve it to him on expensive china then clean everything up after him.
But is everyone really equal in this situation? After all, the billionaire just created the servant's job for her, just like he's fucking God or something. She owes him everything. At least she owes it to buy his oxycodone for him.
You see, when it comes to job creation the relationship between the person performing the job and the person who "created" it is like a one-way street. All the benefit flows from the "Creator" who makes, to the luckily fortunate job performer, who takes.
Look at it this way. If, say, in order to spite the ungrateful "taker", the billionaire "maker" refused to create the job of doing his chores for him, what would the taker do? Starve to death?
On the other hand, if the maker did do that he'd have to do his own chores, which would make being a billionaire kind of pointless, wouldn't it?
Never mind that, he's a job creator!
What does all this blather have to do with the subject title of this post, which is the theme of the Republicon Convention tonight? Hopefully, I can tie things together in my upcoming posts.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Paul Ryan: The Worst of All Worlds
There's been a lot of silly talk about Paul Ryan, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for Vice President of the most exceptional country that God ever gave to man on this green earth, which He created expressly for mankind to exploit as they see fit. For those liberals out there, I'm talking about the United States of America.
Some have mocked Mr. Ryan for his amazing resemblance to Eddie Munster, the werewolf boy of TV sitcom fame.
Others have gushed about his six-pack abs, those dreamy pale-blue bedroom eyes and his luxurious widow's peak.
But I haven't heard anyone asking the important questions, like, did that hair on his head come with a chin strap?
To be fair, there has been a lot of scrutiny of Ryan's political/philosophical/religious views and the fascinating contradictions among those views themselves and between those views and his voting record.
Mr Ryan is the worst of all worlds: An ultra-conservative, ultra-religious, ultra libertarian.
It is laughable how conservatives can vilify Obama for being a follower of Saul Alinsky, who they love to portray as some sinister anti-American Mao Tse-tung like commie, while they proudly and enthusiastically cheer Ryan, an admitted devotee of Ayn Rand, who they love to portray as the best-est and most supreme moral philosopher that the 20th century has to offer.
As usual, today's recent incarnation of conservatism has things exactly backwards.
Mr Alinsky not only disavowed communism but can fairly be described as a great American patriot in the mold of Thomas Paine.
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-hell-is-saul-alinsky.html
Ms Rand, on the other hand, can fairly be described as a truly sinister character who holds some deeply disturbing views. Though she never advocated genocide, condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, many of her other views remind me alot of Adolph Hitler's. Very ironic, considering she was a European born Jew who lived through the Nazi era .
Alinsky was concerned about the poor, so his writing and organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities.
Rand considered the poor to be unworthy of concern. Her writing and rhetorical skills were focused on improving the living conditions of the rich and powerful who she cast as the oppressed.
The Dems are pleased as punch about the Ryan pick. From the Dem point of view, the Re-cons couldn't have picked a better candidate.
From his plan to insert a profit-grabbing private insurance company between patients and their doctors by turning Medicare into a voucher system and then ration coverage further with debilitating spending cuts, to his severely radical views and jaw dropping contradictions and hypocrisies, the Dems see Ryan as an easy target to attack.
However, over the past two decades, the Republicons have repeatedly handed the Dems golden opportunities on a silver platter and the Dems have failed to take advantage every single time.
From the Re-cons' point of view, they are equally confident that Ryan is a great pick. Except they see Ryan as a very able articulator of their ultra-conservative values and can't wait to get Ryan into a debate with Biden about Medicare, Social Security and the "welfare state."
Unfortunately, I see the advantage going to the Re-cons for several reasons.
First of all, most American voters stupidly accept hypocrisies and contradictions with a "They all do it, it's just politics as usual, what are you going to do?" attitude. For example, if there is anyone who can surpass Ryan in his lying, double-talking bullshit, it's Mitt Romney. And Romney not only won the Republicon nomination but he's in a dead heat with Obama in the Presidential race.
Yes, as a co-conspirator in the Republicon strategy of "Starve the Beast"economics,
(http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2011/07/starve-beast.html) Ryan voted for every single deficit-causing tax cut he could lay his hands on. And as long as George W was in office, he voted for every single Republicon spending increase. These actions resulted in exactly what the Re-cons intended: they produced the massive deficits and debt that they are now using as the excuse to get rid of all the government programs that the vast majority of Americans want and the Re-cons pretended that they supported and would never do anything to undermine.
But now, because of the deficit/debt and all the "over-spending" on "entitlement programs," we have no choice but to end those programs by privatizing them even if that results in you paying even more for less.
Even if the Dems pound on those facts with the same relentless effort that the Re-cons pound on their lies, the fact remains that Obama and the Dems (except for the Democratic Progressive Caucus) have not offered any alternative to balancing the budget that does not include severe cuts to those programs. Ryan and company know that, which is why they are so confident. And if the voters are led to believe that there is no other alternative, Ryan's plan will seem fair, sensible and unavoidable.
But of course there is an alternative budget plan that would be much better for 98 percent of Americans. And that would be the Democratic Progressive Caucus' budget plan. That plan balances the budget sooner than either Ryan's or Obama's and does so in a way that, poll after poll says, the American people want.
It cuts the wasteful and counter-productive military, lets the deficit-causing Bush tax cuts expire like they were supposed to last year and reintroduces the public option. Check it out:
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf
The Dems are too cowardly to get behind this because they fear the 24 hour-a-day attacks that would be launched by Fox News and the rest of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Also, the Dems are too inept to defend those positions even though, in a fair debate, those positions would win, hands down.
Some have mocked Mr. Ryan for his amazing resemblance to Eddie Munster, the werewolf boy of TV sitcom fame.
Others have gushed about his six-pack abs, those dreamy pale-blue bedroom eyes and his luxurious widow's peak.
But I haven't heard anyone asking the important questions, like, did that hair on his head come with a chin strap?
To be fair, there has been a lot of scrutiny of Ryan's political/philosophical/religious views and the fascinating contradictions among those views themselves and between those views and his voting record.
Mr Ryan is the worst of all worlds: An ultra-conservative, ultra-religious, ultra libertarian.
It is laughable how conservatives can vilify Obama for being a follower of Saul Alinsky, who they love to portray as some sinister anti-American Mao Tse-tung like commie, while they proudly and enthusiastically cheer Ryan, an admitted devotee of Ayn Rand, who they love to portray as the best-est and most supreme moral philosopher that the 20th century has to offer.
As usual, today's recent incarnation of conservatism has things exactly backwards.
Mr Alinsky not only disavowed communism but can fairly be described as a great American patriot in the mold of Thomas Paine.
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-hell-is-saul-alinsky.html
Ms Rand, on the other hand, can fairly be described as a truly sinister character who holds some deeply disturbing views. Though she never advocated genocide, condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, many of her other views remind me alot of Adolph Hitler's. Very ironic, considering she was a European born Jew who lived through the Nazi era .
Alinsky was concerned about the poor, so his writing and organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities.
Rand considered the poor to be unworthy of concern. Her writing and rhetorical skills were focused on improving the living conditions of the rich and powerful who she cast as the oppressed.
The Dems are pleased as punch about the Ryan pick. From the Dem point of view, the Re-cons couldn't have picked a better candidate.
From his plan to insert a profit-grabbing private insurance company between patients and their doctors by turning Medicare into a voucher system and then ration coverage further with debilitating spending cuts, to his severely radical views and jaw dropping contradictions and hypocrisies, the Dems see Ryan as an easy target to attack.
However, over the past two decades, the Republicons have repeatedly handed the Dems golden opportunities on a silver platter and the Dems have failed to take advantage every single time.
From the Re-cons' point of view, they are equally confident that Ryan is a great pick. Except they see Ryan as a very able articulator of their ultra-conservative values and can't wait to get Ryan into a debate with Biden about Medicare, Social Security and the "welfare state."
Unfortunately, I see the advantage going to the Re-cons for several reasons.
First of all, most American voters stupidly accept hypocrisies and contradictions with a "They all do it, it's just politics as usual, what are you going to do?" attitude. For example, if there is anyone who can surpass Ryan in his lying, double-talking bullshit, it's Mitt Romney. And Romney not only won the Republicon nomination but he's in a dead heat with Obama in the Presidential race.
Yes, as a co-conspirator in the Republicon strategy of "Starve the Beast"economics,
(http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2011/07/starve-beast.html) Ryan voted for every single deficit-causing tax cut he could lay his hands on. And as long as George W was in office, he voted for every single Republicon spending increase. These actions resulted in exactly what the Re-cons intended: they produced the massive deficits and debt that they are now using as the excuse to get rid of all the government programs that the vast majority of Americans want and the Re-cons pretended that they supported and would never do anything to undermine.
But now, because of the deficit/debt and all the "over-spending" on "entitlement programs," we have no choice but to end those programs by privatizing them even if that results in you paying even more for less.
Even if the Dems pound on those facts with the same relentless effort that the Re-cons pound on their lies, the fact remains that Obama and the Dems (except for the Democratic Progressive Caucus) have not offered any alternative to balancing the budget that does not include severe cuts to those programs. Ryan and company know that, which is why they are so confident. And if the voters are led to believe that there is no other alternative, Ryan's plan will seem fair, sensible and unavoidable.
But of course there is an alternative budget plan that would be much better for 98 percent of Americans. And that would be the Democratic Progressive Caucus' budget plan. That plan balances the budget sooner than either Ryan's or Obama's and does so in a way that, poll after poll says, the American people want.
It cuts the wasteful and counter-productive military, lets the deficit-causing Bush tax cuts expire like they were supposed to last year and reintroduces the public option. Check it out:
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf
The Dems are too cowardly to get behind this because they fear the 24 hour-a-day attacks that would be launched by Fox News and the rest of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Also, the Dems are too inept to defend those positions even though, in a fair debate, those positions would win, hands down.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Trickle Down Economics, part I
Conservatives' favorite excuse for giving the wealthy more of what they already have a disproportionate and unfair amount of, is that it is good for the economy and will create jobs. They say that rather than letting the deficit-causing Bush tax cuts expire, like they were supposed to last year, we should actually cut taxes even further on the wealthy. You see, that money is better off in the hands of "the job creators" than "the government."
The government just wastes it on "entitlement" programs that help pay the elderly's medical bills and retirement income. It's this culture of "entitlement" that leads people to expect the government to always be giving them "free stuff." Just because those people spent a lifetime paying into those programs doesn't entitle them to feel entitled.
Personally, I'm still waiting for the government to start paying my cable/Internet/phone bill. Another four years of Obama and that dream will become a reality.
Conservatives say it's not the government's job to administer insurance programs. Why not?
Because that's socialism!
You see, anytime the government takes money from some people in order to give it to other people, that's socialism!
But, you might ask, don't private insurance companies do the same thing? For example, don't private health insurance companies take money from people who don't get sick in order to give it to people who do?
OK smart ass, but there's a big difference between the way government and private companies do that.
Private companies will take your money, subtract profit, advertising, lobbying and administrative costs, then ration out what's left according to your income level while trying to cheat you or nickel and dime you any chance they get.
See?, it's no longer socialism!
That's why only private companies should administer insurance programs.
The same thing goes for taxes. The "job creators" know how to spend that money better than the government. You don't have to worry about them wasting it on the poor or the elderly. The job creators are too busy spending it on elevators for their cars and investing it in companies that outsource their labor to countries whose people are so desperate they'll work for pennies and whose governments don't care about the health, safety and well being of those workers.
As the great Maha Rushie, Rush Limbag astutely points out, the government never ever created a single job because it doesn't make things, it just takes money from those who do and redistributes it to those who don't.
That's a function much better suited to private companies like Bain Capital.
They don't make things either. But they are experts at taking money from companies (which actually make things) that other people started and invested in and from their creditors and from the pensions and salaries of the workers who powered those companies and actually perfomed the physical act of making things. They then, just as expertly, redistribute that money to people who don't make anything -- the shareholders of Bain Capital.
Next, they take that money and hide it in overseas accounts so that they don't have to pay the "confiscatory" 15% tax rate the government imposes on capital gains.
If only we had a President who understands all these things.
Conservatives tell us that the reason people hide their money from the government is because taxes are so high. If we only lowered those rates people would stop hiding their money.
Wouldn't you say that 15% is a rather measly rate especially when we have a dangerous debt crisis
caused in large part by tax cuts?
On the other hand, 0% beats any positive integer any day of the week. For that matter, it beats any positive fraction, too.
Conservatives will bristle, veins will pop out of their foreheads and froth will accumulate at the corners of their mouths whenever they hear a Democrat say that paying taxes is patriotic. Just the other day I heard some Republicon politician say that avoiding taxes is "the American way."
I understand that patriotic conservatives who know, understand and revere the Constitution think that government taxes are theft, even though the Constitution specifically grants that power to their elected representatives in Congress, but what about their precious Military? What about their war on Islam -- I mean terrorism? Is it OK to skip out on that bill, too?
And what about the troops? Many of those lucky enough to come back alive are suffering from severe injuries and many other serious problems. Maybe the increase in the deficit that is caused by all that tax dodging is the reason that Republicon politicians are so stingy when it comes to funding programs for our vets.
But I guess that as long as you're wearing an American flag pin on your lapel you can sleep at night as you send our young men and women off to risk their lives and limbs to, ostensibly, protect the assets of the wealthy, for whom you are fighting ferociously to make sure that they pay next to nothing in taxes.
Getting back to those "job creators" who know how to spend money better than the government.
A question arises that, until recently, hardly ever gets asked and to which I have never heard a Republicon give a coherent answer to.
One of the first things George W did after assuming the Presidency was to give back much of the record
surplus (which was produced by the Clinton era tax rates) in the form of tax rebates, most of which went to the wealthiest.
The next thing he did was cut the marginal tax rates, most of which benefited the wealthiest.
Then he eliminated the estate tax and dropped the capital gains rate down to 15%.
Guess who got practically all of that dough?
What was the result of these actions?
We were told by Republicons that a lot of things were supposed to happen.
But only one of those things came to be:
tons of money were put into the hands of "the job creators", those who know best how to spend money.
But for some reason we had the absolute worst post WWII economic expansion.
Almost every indicator that measures economic performance was below the post war average, including GDP growth, tax revenue as a % of GDP and capital investment! (That's not supposed to happen according to supply side theory)
Job creation came in dead last.
The only things that were above the average, setting new record highs, were wealth, income and profits at the very top.
.
So that question which arises that the Republicons can't answer can be paraphrased by the title of right wing Warrior Princess Monica Crowley's new book:
What the (Fuck) just happened?
In my next post I will give my answer to that question.
Oh, by the way, there was one other result of Bush's tax give-aways that just about every economist warned us about. It increased the deficit substantially.
The government just wastes it on "entitlement" programs that help pay the elderly's medical bills and retirement income. It's this culture of "entitlement" that leads people to expect the government to always be giving them "free stuff." Just because those people spent a lifetime paying into those programs doesn't entitle them to feel entitled.
Personally, I'm still waiting for the government to start paying my cable/Internet/phone bill. Another four years of Obama and that dream will become a reality.
Conservatives say it's not the government's job to administer insurance programs. Why not?
Because that's socialism!
You see, anytime the government takes money from some people in order to give it to other people, that's socialism!
But, you might ask, don't private insurance companies do the same thing? For example, don't private health insurance companies take money from people who don't get sick in order to give it to people who do?
OK smart ass, but there's a big difference between the way government and private companies do that.
Private companies will take your money, subtract profit, advertising, lobbying and administrative costs, then ration out what's left according to your income level while trying to cheat you or nickel and dime you any chance they get.
See?, it's no longer socialism!
That's why only private companies should administer insurance programs.
The same thing goes for taxes. The "job creators" know how to spend that money better than the government. You don't have to worry about them wasting it on the poor or the elderly. The job creators are too busy spending it on elevators for their cars and investing it in companies that outsource their labor to countries whose people are so desperate they'll work for pennies and whose governments don't care about the health, safety and well being of those workers.
As the great Maha Rushie, Rush Limbag astutely points out, the government never ever created a single job because it doesn't make things, it just takes money from those who do and redistributes it to those who don't.
That's a function much better suited to private companies like Bain Capital.
They don't make things either. But they are experts at taking money from companies (which actually make things) that other people started and invested in and from their creditors and from the pensions and salaries of the workers who powered those companies and actually perfomed the physical act of making things. They then, just as expertly, redistribute that money to people who don't make anything -- the shareholders of Bain Capital.
Next, they take that money and hide it in overseas accounts so that they don't have to pay the "confiscatory" 15% tax rate the government imposes on capital gains.
If only we had a President who understands all these things.
Conservatives tell us that the reason people hide their money from the government is because taxes are so high. If we only lowered those rates people would stop hiding their money.
Wouldn't you say that 15% is a rather measly rate especially when we have a dangerous debt crisis
caused in large part by tax cuts?
On the other hand, 0% beats any positive integer any day of the week. For that matter, it beats any positive fraction, too.
Conservatives will bristle, veins will pop out of their foreheads and froth will accumulate at the corners of their mouths whenever they hear a Democrat say that paying taxes is patriotic. Just the other day I heard some Republicon politician say that avoiding taxes is "the American way."
I understand that patriotic conservatives who know, understand and revere the Constitution think that government taxes are theft, even though the Constitution specifically grants that power to their elected representatives in Congress, but what about their precious Military? What about their war on Islam -- I mean terrorism? Is it OK to skip out on that bill, too?
And what about the troops? Many of those lucky enough to come back alive are suffering from severe injuries and many other serious problems. Maybe the increase in the deficit that is caused by all that tax dodging is the reason that Republicon politicians are so stingy when it comes to funding programs for our vets.
But I guess that as long as you're wearing an American flag pin on your lapel you can sleep at night as you send our young men and women off to risk their lives and limbs to, ostensibly, protect the assets of the wealthy, for whom you are fighting ferociously to make sure that they pay next to nothing in taxes.
Getting back to those "job creators" who know how to spend money better than the government.
A question arises that, until recently, hardly ever gets asked and to which I have never heard a Republicon give a coherent answer to.
One of the first things George W did after assuming the Presidency was to give back much of the record
surplus (which was produced by the Clinton era tax rates) in the form of tax rebates, most of which went to the wealthiest.
The next thing he did was cut the marginal tax rates, most of which benefited the wealthiest.
Then he eliminated the estate tax and dropped the capital gains rate down to 15%.
Guess who got practically all of that dough?
What was the result of these actions?
We were told by Republicons that a lot of things were supposed to happen.
But only one of those things came to be:
tons of money were put into the hands of "the job creators", those who know best how to spend money.
But for some reason we had the absolute worst post WWII economic expansion.
Almost every indicator that measures economic performance was below the post war average, including GDP growth, tax revenue as a % of GDP and capital investment! (That's not supposed to happen according to supply side theory)
Job creation came in dead last.
The only things that were above the average, setting new record highs, were wealth, income and profits at the very top.
.
So that question which arises that the Republicons can't answer can be paraphrased by the title of right wing Warrior Princess Monica Crowley's new book:
What the (Fuck) just happened?
In my next post I will give my answer to that question.
Oh, by the way, there was one other result of Bush's tax give-aways that just about every economist warned us about. It increased the deficit substantially.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Conservatives' New American Hero: The Tax Dodger
As someone born with a genetically predisposed tendency to express a personality with a liberal sensibility, I've always found myself at odds with the conservative point of view.
Growing up in the 60's and 70's, the prevailing conservative tendency to be close minded, intolerant, backward thinking and bigoted towards those not like themselves was very unappealing to me. At their worst conservatives could be quite pig headed and stupid. But over the decades conservatives' views have "evolved" to the point where the majority of them have rejected those antiquated ways of thinking, especially regarding topics like race and sex roles. For this I give them a lot of credit because these tendencies are very ingrained in our psyche by Evolution and not easily overcome. And in a relatively short amount of time, today we can even see a much more tolerant view by many conservatives toward gay people.
On the other hand, traits that have always been admirable among conservatives, like moderation, self restraint, common sense, loyalty and a duty towards their fellow citizens are being replaced with a twisted mentality that rejects all of these qualities. A new type of conservative has emerged who finds these qualities antithetical to their goal of crushing the left (and many of the things that the majority of Americans strongly support) and forcing their radical right-wing ideology down our throats.
Ideas, notions and beliefs that not long ago would have been considered off the charts and even lunatic are being unabashedly and enthusiastically expressed to rabid right wing audiences by mainstream Republican politicians.
The left has its lunatics, too, but they're out on the fringe. There is no left wing equivalent of the Tea Party type Republican in the Democratic Party.
Ronald Reagan would have to change every one of his moderate positions if he were to have a chance of winning a Republican primary in today's world.
Could today's Republican Party possibly tolerate a candidate who insisted that millionaires pay the same tax rate as a bus driver? Or who called for a world free of nuclear weapons?
Besides the beliefs that Evolution and Global Warming theories are undeniable frauds and hoaxes with absolutely no scientific basis to support them, that there is no economic problem that cannot be solved by permanent tax cuts for the rich and that God will protect us no matter what we do to the planet or the poor (as long as we all behave as ultra conservative Christians), there is yet another troubling trend among today's conservatives.
One is the notion that democracy is actually a bad thing. And that's because it gives power to the losers. You know, average people, like most of us, who would like nothing better than to steal the hard earned money from the wealthy so that we can lay on the couch all day long collecting government checks instead of working.
These modern day conservatives want to take "the Government" out of the equation because that would then free the wealthiest among us (the proven successes) to make all of the decisions that affect our lives.
The other is the notion that taxing the wealthy is as heinous as child rape.
The notion that a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager should be "punished" by having to pay the same tax rate as a small business owner with a taxable income of $150,000 fills them with outrage and disgust. How dare you punish these productive "job creators" with your notions of "fairness!"
By the way, what exactly is it that hedge fund managers produce?
And why have the "job creators" been eliminating more jobs than they've been "creating" for the past 10 years despite all of those super-duper Bush tax cuts?
Says the Republican politician: "This politics of envy is so unbecoming. Don't listen to these Democrats. They are engaging in class warfare! Class warfare I tell you! Class warfare is bad! Those dirty rotten Dems and their class warfare!
Vote for us so that we can permanently cut and eliminate taxes on the wealthy, raise your taxes (so that you 'have more skin in the game' and you can pay off the debt that we created with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts that failed to 'trickle down') while we take away your government services and force you to pay more for less health insurance. We hate class warfare!"
A selfish greedy sociopathic Ayn Rand-like philosophy now dominates the right, which measures a person's worth by the amount of money he/she can accumulate.
As WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ put it in a brilliant article that my friend Chris W. alerted me to:
Fables of Wealth - NYTimes.com
"The poor are lazy, stupid and evil. The rich are brilliant, courageous and good. They shower their beneficence upon the rest of us."
This philosophy regards the efforts of the wealthy as being solely responsible for the creation of jobs and wealth. The rest of us count for nothing. (Do you think I'm exaggerating? Just listen to their rhetoric!)
Rather than "punish" those non-creating "job creators" by taxing them we should just be grateful for all that wealth "they" are producing for themselves without any of it trickling down.
(We are mostly responsible for the production of that wealth, read Deresiewicz's article.
Worker productivity has increased dramatically, wealth at the top has grown exponentially, but wages are stagnant.)
In the modern conservative/libertarian world view, the only thing that deserves more adulation than a wealthy person is an obscenely wealthy one who can get away without paying Uncle Sam any taxes.
That's because we all know that taxing the wealthy is 'punishment' because it is taking away from the "producers" and giving it to the "moochers." That's all and everything that taxes are.
So... that would include those parasitic military personnel who are fighting, dying and coming home crippled for the honor and privilege of protecting the assets of the wealthy.
That's why conservative's New American Heroes are those tax dodging Facebook pricks Zuckerberg and Saverin.
Now these are a couple of pricks who truly deserve our admiration and adulation.
Do you think Facebook was genius?
Just wait till you see how creative their lobbyists are in bribing Republican politicians into giving them more ways to pay even less than the measly 15% they would have had to pay now.
I heard Zuckerberg has already figured out ways how to get out of that.
Saverin is renouncing his citizenship after we took him in, educated him and gave him this ridiculous opportunity to be a multi billionaire.
No. Thank you Eduardo!
Bravo, Facebook pricks! Way to keep the Government from cheating you out of that hard earned money that your Facebook users made for you.
No I'm kidding, you earned every penny of the 16 to 19 billion dollars "you" made the first day of your IPO. And don't worry about that huge monstrous debt that your Republican buddies rang up with their "Starve the Beast" strategy and that you are adding to by not paying your taxes.
Your Facebook users will cover that when the Republicans increase their taxes.
Zuckerberg wants us to think that "his product" is worth over 100 billion dollars. Boy has he got balls. Or "chutz-pa" as Michele Bachmann likes to say.
Hey that's only 108 times what Facebook earned!
If Zuckerberg pulls off this scam -- I mean "brilliant plan -- he might become the richest person in the world!
Hooray! I'm rooting for you Zuck face!
Wow. What exactly did Zuck face do to deserve all this wealth? Cure cancer? End Poverty? Triple crop yields?
Well not exactly. He came up with a ridiculously simple idea that happened to turn into a stupid fucking fad.
The reason I put the words "his product" in parenthesis in the paragraph above is because I question whether Facebook is really Zuckerberg's product.
All he did, after all, was use the things that society created for him.
Like computers and the Internet and computer software and all the industries in which his Facebook users grind out their 40 plus hours a week in order to create the economy that made him rich.
All he did was present a platform, that was already provided to him, thanks to society, and let his Facebook users create the product.
Nice scam -- I mean plan.
You do all the work and Zuck face collects all the profits!
And like all stupid fads, this one has a very good chance of dying down. Which would make many Facebook investors lose money.
But don't worry, I'm sure Zuck face will cash out before that happens.
And he'll be laughing all the way to the bank, tax free!
My hero!
Growing up in the 60's and 70's, the prevailing conservative tendency to be close minded, intolerant, backward thinking and bigoted towards those not like themselves was very unappealing to me. At their worst conservatives could be quite pig headed and stupid. But over the decades conservatives' views have "evolved" to the point where the majority of them have rejected those antiquated ways of thinking, especially regarding topics like race and sex roles. For this I give them a lot of credit because these tendencies are very ingrained in our psyche by Evolution and not easily overcome. And in a relatively short amount of time, today we can even see a much more tolerant view by many conservatives toward gay people.
On the other hand, traits that have always been admirable among conservatives, like moderation, self restraint, common sense, loyalty and a duty towards their fellow citizens are being replaced with a twisted mentality that rejects all of these qualities. A new type of conservative has emerged who finds these qualities antithetical to their goal of crushing the left (and many of the things that the majority of Americans strongly support) and forcing their radical right-wing ideology down our throats.
Ideas, notions and beliefs that not long ago would have been considered off the charts and even lunatic are being unabashedly and enthusiastically expressed to rabid right wing audiences by mainstream Republican politicians.
The left has its lunatics, too, but they're out on the fringe. There is no left wing equivalent of the Tea Party type Republican in the Democratic Party.
Ronald Reagan would have to change every one of his moderate positions if he were to have a chance of winning a Republican primary in today's world.
Could today's Republican Party possibly tolerate a candidate who insisted that millionaires pay the same tax rate as a bus driver? Or who called for a world free of nuclear weapons?
Besides the beliefs that Evolution and Global Warming theories are undeniable frauds and hoaxes with absolutely no scientific basis to support them, that there is no economic problem that cannot be solved by permanent tax cuts for the rich and that God will protect us no matter what we do to the planet or the poor (as long as we all behave as ultra conservative Christians), there is yet another troubling trend among today's conservatives.
One is the notion that democracy is actually a bad thing. And that's because it gives power to the losers. You know, average people, like most of us, who would like nothing better than to steal the hard earned money from the wealthy so that we can lay on the couch all day long collecting government checks instead of working.
These modern day conservatives want to take "the Government" out of the equation because that would then free the wealthiest among us (the proven successes) to make all of the decisions that affect our lives.
The other is the notion that taxing the wealthy is as heinous as child rape.
The notion that a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager should be "punished" by having to pay the same tax rate as a small business owner with a taxable income of $150,000 fills them with outrage and disgust. How dare you punish these productive "job creators" with your notions of "fairness!"
By the way, what exactly is it that hedge fund managers produce?
And why have the "job creators" been eliminating more jobs than they've been "creating" for the past 10 years despite all of those super-duper Bush tax cuts?
Says the Republican politician: "This politics of envy is so unbecoming. Don't listen to these Democrats. They are engaging in class warfare! Class warfare I tell you! Class warfare is bad! Those dirty rotten Dems and their class warfare!
Vote for us so that we can permanently cut and eliminate taxes on the wealthy, raise your taxes (so that you 'have more skin in the game' and you can pay off the debt that we created with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts that failed to 'trickle down') while we take away your government services and force you to pay more for less health insurance. We hate class warfare!"
A selfish greedy sociopathic Ayn Rand-like philosophy now dominates the right, which measures a person's worth by the amount of money he/she can accumulate.
As WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ put it in a brilliant article that my friend Chris W. alerted me to:
Fables of Wealth - NYTimes.com
"The poor are lazy, stupid and evil. The rich are brilliant, courageous and good. They shower their beneficence upon the rest of us."
This philosophy regards the efforts of the wealthy as being solely responsible for the creation of jobs and wealth. The rest of us count for nothing. (Do you think I'm exaggerating? Just listen to their rhetoric!)
Rather than "punish" those non-creating "job creators" by taxing them we should just be grateful for all that wealth "they" are producing for themselves without any of it trickling down.
(We are mostly responsible for the production of that wealth, read Deresiewicz's article.
Worker productivity has increased dramatically, wealth at the top has grown exponentially, but wages are stagnant.)
In the modern conservative/libertarian world view, the only thing that deserves more adulation than a wealthy person is an obscenely wealthy one who can get away without paying Uncle Sam any taxes.
That's because we all know that taxing the wealthy is 'punishment' because it is taking away from the "producers" and giving it to the "moochers." That's all and everything that taxes are.
So... that would include those parasitic military personnel who are fighting, dying and coming home crippled for the honor and privilege of protecting the assets of the wealthy.
That's why conservative's New American Heroes are those tax dodging Facebook pricks Zuckerberg and Saverin.
Now these are a couple of pricks who truly deserve our admiration and adulation.
Do you think Facebook was genius?
Just wait till you see how creative their lobbyists are in bribing Republican politicians into giving them more ways to pay even less than the measly 15% they would have had to pay now.
I heard Zuckerberg has already figured out ways how to get out of that.
Saverin is renouncing his citizenship after we took him in, educated him and gave him this ridiculous opportunity to be a multi billionaire.
No. Thank you Eduardo!
Bravo, Facebook pricks! Way to keep the Government from cheating you out of that hard earned money that your Facebook users made for you.
No I'm kidding, you earned every penny of the 16 to 19 billion dollars "you" made the first day of your IPO. And don't worry about that huge monstrous debt that your Republican buddies rang up with their "Starve the Beast" strategy and that you are adding to by not paying your taxes.
Your Facebook users will cover that when the Republicans increase their taxes.
Zuckerberg wants us to think that "his product" is worth over 100 billion dollars. Boy has he got balls. Or "chutz-pa" as Michele Bachmann likes to say.
Hey that's only 108 times what Facebook earned!
If Zuckerberg pulls off this scam -- I mean "brilliant plan -- he might become the richest person in the world!
Hooray! I'm rooting for you Zuck face!
Wow. What exactly did Zuck face do to deserve all this wealth? Cure cancer? End Poverty? Triple crop yields?
Well not exactly. He came up with a ridiculously simple idea that happened to turn into a stupid fucking fad.
The reason I put the words "his product" in parenthesis in the paragraph above is because I question whether Facebook is really Zuckerberg's product.
All he did, after all, was use the things that society created for him.
Like computers and the Internet and computer software and all the industries in which his Facebook users grind out their 40 plus hours a week in order to create the economy that made him rich.
All he did was present a platform, that was already provided to him, thanks to society, and let his Facebook users create the product.
Nice scam -- I mean plan.
You do all the work and Zuck face collects all the profits!
And like all stupid fads, this one has a very good chance of dying down. Which would make many Facebook investors lose money.
But don't worry, I'm sure Zuck face will cash out before that happens.
And he'll be laughing all the way to the bank, tax free!
My hero!
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Great Deceivers: The Art of the Double Talk
In previous posts I've explained how the Republicons defeated the Public Option and made fools out of all of us during the healthcare reform debate by falsely accusing the Dems of precisely what they themselves were guilty of.
I've described their Master Scam: the "Starve The Beast" strategy.
In the following posts I will give some recent examples of Republiconsevative Double Talk before I expose the horseshit that comprises the narrative they've been using since George W Bush put the finishing touches on the Starve the Beast plan.
That narrative goes like this:
Wasteful, out of control government spending on entitlement programs is the cause of the current fiscal crisis.
No political issue provokes more Republicon sleight-of-speak than the topic of taxes; who pays them, who doesn't and how much those who do pay taxes, actually pay.
If you're a right-wing talk show host you and your conservative guests can routinely get away with saying things like "the top 1% pay 50% of all the taxes in this country!" or "the top 10% pay 90% of all taxes!" or "50% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever!"
That's because those hosts and their guests are not held to any standard "whatsoever."
Serious economists, though, are usually held to a very high standard. Saying something completely false, like the statements above, would seriously harm that person's reputation and credibility.
But if you're a real actual practicing economist with real actual degrees who actually publishes papers, and actually helped to make policy in previous administrations -- you can come really, really close to saying stuff like that... if you're being interviewed by an obliging host on the Fox Business News channel.
I transcribed this from an April 3rd show I recorded:
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, economist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, when asked about Obama's "Buffet Rule" which would make sure that millionaires pay at least 30% (the same rate that people earning much less pay) on taxable income over one million dollars:
"The top 1% of income earners already pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes.
The top half of all income earners pay 98% of all taxes."
The Fox host responds:
"So..."
It is only at this point that Furchgott-Roth adds:
"This is federal income tax."
The host continues:
"...so we should focus more on spending than income and taxes."
Notice how the host was perfectly willing to let that blatantly false statement stand.
And even though Furchgott did add the "oh, by the way" at the very end, she said:
"the top % pay all the taxes" three fucking times before that.
What percentage of Fox viewers do you think registered the fact that she was only talking about federal income taxes?
I'll bet you it's the same as the percentage of Americans who pay "no taxes whatsoever."
Oh, by the way, practically all Americans pay taxes.
So that would mean practically no Fox viewers would have registered that fact.
I say that because practically all the Fox hosts, like Sean Hannity, constantly repeat that "50% don't pay any tax" bullshit, ad nauseam, in order to get their audience really angry, causing the objective part of their brain to shut down so that they will be willing to believe whatever those hosts want them to believe.
So... by the time Furchgott got to her "by the way," the steam emanating from the audience's ears effectively blocked their hearing.
Also notice that Furchgott seemed to be saying that because some millionaires pay an average top effective tax rate of almost 30%, it's perfectly fine for others to be paying much less or nothing at all.
So... it's OK for millionaires to freeload but not those mooching poor and lower middle class (who are sometimes actually paying a higher % than those millionaire freeloaders)
And neither the host nor Furchgott wanted to give their audience a clearer, more "fair and balanced" explanation of who does and doesn't pay taxes and how much is actually paid. That's because if they did they would be forced to tell you that individual federal income taxes make up only 42% of all taxes paid to the federal government. And that doesn't consider state and local taxes, which are regressive.
They would also be forced to tell you (like they should have in the first place) that not only do practically all Americans pay taxes, but that when the total of all taxes actually paid across all income quintiles is taken into account, all quintiles pay close to the same percentage of their income in taxes.
Bet you never heard that on Fox News. And if you did, I bet it didn't register.
I'll show you the proof in an upcoming post.
I've described their Master Scam: the "Starve The Beast" strategy.
In the following posts I will give some recent examples of Republiconsevative Double Talk before I expose the horseshit that comprises the narrative they've been using since George W Bush put the finishing touches on the Starve the Beast plan.
That narrative goes like this:
Wasteful, out of control government spending on entitlement programs is the cause of the current fiscal crisis.
No political issue provokes more Republicon sleight-of-speak than the topic of taxes; who pays them, who doesn't and how much those who do pay taxes, actually pay.
If you're a right-wing talk show host you and your conservative guests can routinely get away with saying things like "the top 1% pay 50% of all the taxes in this country!" or "the top 10% pay 90% of all taxes!" or "50% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever!"
That's because those hosts and their guests are not held to any standard "whatsoever."
Serious economists, though, are usually held to a very high standard. Saying something completely false, like the statements above, would seriously harm that person's reputation and credibility.
But if you're a real actual practicing economist with real actual degrees who actually publishes papers, and actually helped to make policy in previous administrations -- you can come really, really close to saying stuff like that... if you're being interviewed by an obliging host on the Fox Business News channel.
I transcribed this from an April 3rd show I recorded:
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, economist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, when asked about Obama's "Buffet Rule" which would make sure that millionaires pay at least 30% (the same rate that people earning much less pay) on taxable income over one million dollars:
"The top 1% of income earners already pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes.
The top half of all income earners pay 98% of all taxes."
The Fox host responds:
"So..."
It is only at this point that Furchgott-Roth adds:
"This is federal income tax."
The host continues:
"...so we should focus more on spending than income and taxes."
Notice how the host was perfectly willing to let that blatantly false statement stand.
And even though Furchgott did add the "oh, by the way" at the very end, she said:
"the top % pay all the taxes" three fucking times before that.
What percentage of Fox viewers do you think registered the fact that she was only talking about federal income taxes?
I'll bet you it's the same as the percentage of Americans who pay "no taxes whatsoever."
Oh, by the way, practically all Americans pay taxes.
So that would mean practically no Fox viewers would have registered that fact.
I say that because practically all the Fox hosts, like Sean Hannity, constantly repeat that "50% don't pay any tax" bullshit, ad nauseam, in order to get their audience really angry, causing the objective part of their brain to shut down so that they will be willing to believe whatever those hosts want them to believe.
So... by the time Furchgott got to her "by the way," the steam emanating from the audience's ears effectively blocked their hearing.
Also notice that Furchgott seemed to be saying that because some millionaires pay an average top effective tax rate of almost 30%, it's perfectly fine for others to be paying much less or nothing at all.
So... it's OK for millionaires to freeload but not those mooching poor and lower middle class (who are sometimes actually paying a higher % than those millionaire freeloaders)
And neither the host nor Furchgott wanted to give their audience a clearer, more "fair and balanced" explanation of who does and doesn't pay taxes and how much is actually paid. That's because if they did they would be forced to tell you that individual federal income taxes make up only 42% of all taxes paid to the federal government. And that doesn't consider state and local taxes, which are regressive.
They would also be forced to tell you (like they should have in the first place) that not only do practically all Americans pay taxes, but that when the total of all taxes actually paid across all income quintiles is taken into account, all quintiles pay close to the same percentage of their income in taxes.
Bet you never heard that on Fox News. And if you did, I bet it didn't register.
I'll show you the proof in an upcoming post.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
A Recent Email Correspondence About Our Righteous Minds
Ed,
I just realized who I got Jonathan Chait confused with, another great thinker, Jonathan Haidt, the psychologist.
You just recently sent me something about him:
"1. People are not swayed by facts, but by appeals to their values and emotions (see
‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt - NYTimes.com "
Did you see that recent interview of him by Bill Moyers where he discussed that book? It was brilliant. I was very excited about this book because this is a topic that I have been thinking about deeply for decades.(the different ways, between conservatives and liberals, of thinking and seeing the world.)
I don't know if you remember, but when we had those MoveOn meetings years ago with Bill Rettig in Floral Park, I was always suggesting that we get together separately just to discuss politics. I said that that topic, the difference between the way cons and libs think, was something I'd like to talk about. Bill and I actually did get together a few times.
Anyway, over the years, I've been developing a hypothesis that I, tongue in cheek, call "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of Human Nature". Every time someone like Haidt comes along in the media ( George Lakoff is another example) and presents evidence that supports my hypothesis, I become really excited because this mounting evidence is helping to build my hypothesis into a genuine theory. I jokingly fret that I had better publish my results before someone else beats me to it.
Haidt makes some fascinating observations, many of which, I am proud to say, that I have made myself, many years ago. He also does something great; he lists 6 moral concerns and then rates how strongly cons and libs feel about each one. This is a great way of defining and describing what and how cons and libs feel and think, and the differences and similarities between them.
What I love about my theory is that it goes beyond defining and desrcibing to explaining why cons and libs feel and think the way they do. It also explains emotions, what they are and why we have them. It explains our feelings of right and wrong and where that comes from. It explains extreme libertarianism and totalitarian communism and how these are the two extreme opposite ends of conservatism and liberalism. It also explains the paradoxes of this idea (why does libertarianism appear to be liberal on defense and social issues? why does totalitarian communism appear to be conservative in its authoritarianism and control). It explains why cons will take the "individual liberty" position on some issues yet the "government control" position on others and why libs will usually take the opposite positions on those issues.
I believe that my theory can be the foundation of a balanced moral philosophy, one that I have arrived at intuitively in my lifetime and to which I credit my upbringing, my environment and my personality.
So how does that grab you, Ed?
Joe Barton
I just realized who I got Jonathan Chait confused with, another great thinker, Jonathan Haidt, the psychologist.
You just recently sent me something about him:
"1. People are not swayed by facts, but by appeals to their values and emotions (see
‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt - NYTimes.com "
Did you see that recent interview of him by Bill Moyers where he discussed that book? It was brilliant. I was very excited about this book because this is a topic that I have been thinking about deeply for decades.(the different ways, between conservatives and liberals, of thinking and seeing the world.)
I don't know if you remember, but when we had those MoveOn meetings years ago with Bill Rettig in Floral Park, I was always suggesting that we get together separately just to discuss politics. I said that that topic, the difference between the way cons and libs think, was something I'd like to talk about. Bill and I actually did get together a few times.
Anyway, over the years, I've been developing a hypothesis that I, tongue in cheek, call "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of Human Nature". Every time someone like Haidt comes along in the media ( George Lakoff is another example) and presents evidence that supports my hypothesis, I become really excited because this mounting evidence is helping to build my hypothesis into a genuine theory. I jokingly fret that I had better publish my results before someone else beats me to it.
Haidt makes some fascinating observations, many of which, I am proud to say, that I have made myself, many years ago. He also does something great; he lists 6 moral concerns and then rates how strongly cons and libs feel about each one. This is a great way of defining and describing what and how cons and libs feel and think, and the differences and similarities between them.
What I love about my theory is that it goes beyond defining and desrcibing to explaining why cons and libs feel and think the way they do. It also explains emotions, what they are and why we have them. It explains our feelings of right and wrong and where that comes from. It explains extreme libertarianism and totalitarian communism and how these are the two extreme opposite ends of conservatism and liberalism. It also explains the paradoxes of this idea (why does libertarianism appear to be liberal on defense and social issues? why does totalitarian communism appear to be conservative in its authoritarianism and control). It explains why cons will take the "individual liberty" position on some issues yet the "government control" position on others and why libs will usually take the opposite positions on those issues.
I believe that my theory can be the foundation of a balanced moral philosophy, one that I have arrived at intuitively in my lifetime and to which I credit my upbringing, my environment and my personality.
So how does that grab you, Ed?
Joe Barton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)