Yesterday was Tax Day, that dreaded time when we all chip into the collective kitty to keep this behemoth of a country moving. That’s right: If you make money in America, you’ve got to pay the tax man his cut.
Of course, the massive amount of government spending of recent has raised some hackles among various “conservative” factions, and that’s as true one the local level as it is on the national one. All across the state, various groups held variations on the “Taxed Enough Already” theme, which is supposed to hearken back to that politically motivated act of piracy that started this country, the Boston Tea Party.
Over in Boiling Springs yesterday, over 120 people got together to protest taxes. At least, that’s what the signs said. Actually, as far as I can tell, there’s not a clear agenda behind these TEA Parties.
Some people seems to be upset about government spending, yet didn’t seem to mind all that much that we’ve been in a VERY expensive war in Iraq, which has cost U.S. taxpayers some $3 trillion according to the Washington Post. Some people are more upset about President Obama’s fiscal policies and stimulus spending, which is understandable until you remember that the reason for all this spending is that the tax-hating government of George W. Bush put us in this economic situation to begin with, and it was on his watch that the stimulus spending started.
Or possibly it was just a good reason to get together, since no one really likes having to pay taxes. But since the only taxes that are actually going up are taxes on the wealthiest Americans — those making $250,000 a year or more — it’s kind of hard to see why most people are really ticked off by it.
So, let’s cut the crap: This isn’t about taxes, and it never was. It’s about a changing America where socialist ideas are starting to take root in formerly capitalist-only soil. It’s about an America that’s no longer dominated by wealthy white men, and the policies of a mixed-race man who grew up poor, and who is very much the embodiment of the idea that even the a person of humble origins can rise to great heights in our nation.
It’s about exactly what the majority of Americans voted for in November: Change. And change is scary, particularly when you’re part of the dominant economic class.
I think people going out in the streets to protest is wonderful — it’s very American — but I wonder if any of these people really know what they’re protesting other than what some talking head on TV or some guy on AM radio told them to. Or if they’re really “protesting” anything, rather than getting together and venting about having to pay taxes in the first place.
That’s my take, at least. What’s yours? Am I wrong? Am I missing the point? Let’s hear your view.
Steve Shanafelt
To true! It makes me very sad, though, when I am assumed to love W just because I have no confidence in Obama. I am no member of this “ecomomically rulling class”(and so, I would venture, are most of the participants in these protests). It’s these kinds of assumptions that I find so frustrating.
Here is what I’m protesting:
1) Mass printing of money with no real wealth to back it up.
2) Public funds financing private ventures.
and,
3) Government that has spent the entirety of recorded history proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is in no way qualified to do anything with any sort of effectivness or efficiency, signing me up for a huge payment plan to finance short-term jobs that are, at best, a band-aid to the problems facing every individual on the planet.
Fiscal and personal responsibilty!
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the reason the point of these tea parties is so vauge to people not directly involved is (at risk of sounding like a certain AM talk radio host) that the few people being interviewed are the minority of people who fit stereo types. It’s just like redneck trailer park inhabitants being interviewed in the wake of a tornado. I know all about it. I’m a member of the “drive-by” media.
Ok, i look dumb because I didn’t proof read. Sorry.
I can understand people being quite upset with the current state of economic affairs. I doubt that there are few people who are happy with the fact that our economy is in “less then stellar” condition. However, I can’t see how “tea parties” and putting all the blame on the government is the solution.
This was many years in the making. We kept electing the same people over and over again who made decisions that led to this and no one said a single thing until the housing/credit bubble popped. It is quite likely that these same protesters bought into the easy credit mindset that was being sold to them by everything from banks to furniture companies. No one seemed to care that we’ve had a deficit for years, that government spending was not being reigned in, that Congress was not showing wisdom in financial decision. Maybe because many tax payers were following suit in their own personal financial decisions.
While they are entitled to their protests,and something our constitution allows, I disagree with the effectiveness of such a thing.
I want to preface this by mentioning that I am four classes away from a Political Science degree. This are not just talking points, I actually do study politics.
That being said, if anything, this economic problem started because of Democratic senators in the legislature who pushed for lending houses like Lehman Bros. to give sub-prime loans to people without income or suitable capital to back it up because, for whatever idiotic reason, no one ever thought that the housing market would drop (just like the South never thought Cotton would drop).
A war is a war, but for as much as is spent, a lot of people are employed. Military personnel do get paid, plus all the weapons manufacturers, engineers, developers, etc. etc. Look at WWII. That war pulled America out of the Depression.
Cutting taxes on the poor doesn’t do anything. Sure, they can provide from themselves a little better, but they aren’t going to go out and invest in a thousand shares of Ford anyway. They might, but statistically, no. Cutting taxes for the business industrialists makes sense. They provide capital to start, run, and maintain businesses.
For me, these Tea Parties are ENTIRELY about taxes because:
1. That is money that we work for and EARN.
2. The Government reaches into your paycheck and TAKES before you even get paid.
3. The Government comes back in April and DEMANDS more money of you get in trouble.
Taxes are the blood of the Government. You want to shrink it, cut the taxes.
And you’re right, it is partially about not wanting to shift towards Socialism. The only thing that keeps prices low is competition. You won’t find that in a socialist market.
America might have voted for change, but so far the only change has been increased government spending. Sure, Bush spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave, but Obama’s team is going to make sure the USD is worth less than the Deutschmark in 1930s Germany if they keep this up.
It’s a myth that Obama is going to cut taxes for everyone making under $250,000. Many of his “tax cut” proposals are actually refundable credits that people with zero federal tax liability will also get to take advantage of. Plus when you look at the effective marginal tax rates they are going to go up across the board, esp. for those making around $45,000.
“That being said, if anything, this economic problem started because of Democratic senators in the legislature who pushed for lending houses like Lehman Bros. to give sub-prime loans to people without income or suitable capital to back it up because, for whatever idiotic reason, no one ever thought that the housing market would drop (just like the South never thought Cotton would drop).”
That’s a rather one-sided view for a Poli-Sci major. I mean, there’s good reason to believe that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Republican-backed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was as much to blame as anything the Democrats did. And there are plenty of other examples of “conservative” lawmakers backing the very deregulation that put us in this situation.
I’d venture that it wasn’t Republicans or Democrats that caused this: It was greed, and almost everyone in a position to make a buck off of it did so. This is true at the lowest levels — people buying houses they couldn’t afford — as it is at the highest ones, where people were buying securities with an absurd rate of return that logically couldn’t be sustaining. There’s nothing partisan about greed, but neither the Bush administration or the Clinton one before it did anything to keep the bubble from growing. And had they, people would have complained loudly about government getting in the way of business.
“For me, these Tea Parties are ENTIRELY about taxes because:
1. That is money that we work for and EARN.
2. The Government reaches into your paycheck and TAKES before you even get paid.
3. The Government comes back in April and DEMANDS more money of you get in trouble.”
Allow me to give you another perspective:
Your concern about money is understandable, but you’re missing the biggest piece: It’s money that we earn in America, and it comes with strings. Our country is relatively stable because we have a strong government backed by tax-payer money, and part of the deal in making money in America is that each time you make money, you chip in to keep the system going. After all, you benefited from it to get the money in the first place. (Unless you’re, say, Amish or one of the special inclusive communities that aren’t taxed because you don’t use any government services.)
You may be thinking: So what? What’s so great about anything the government does? In my experience, people in America tend to take a lot of things for granted, because the government already provides so many services that people don’t even see them as such.
Go to a third-world country where there’s effectively no taxes on most people and the government is hands-off — El Salvador, say — and you’ll find that there’s little-to-no infrastructure or services. There’s no one to run to when there’s a problem, and that includes police most of the time. To get anything done you have to bribe pretty much everyone. And if you don’t already have a lot of money, you have almost no options in life.
So, yes, the government does demand that you chip in to the collective pot when you’ve made money in America. But it’s really hard for me to get all that worked up about it. It’s not really “my” money, and it never was. “My” house isn’t really mine, but rather it’s a kind of long-term lease from the government. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way from your perspective, but that’s the reality, and it’s not likely to change.
“It’s a myth that Obama is going to cut taxes for everyone making under $250,000. Many of his “tax cut†proposals are actually refundable credits that people with zero federal tax liability will also get to take advantage of. Plus when you look at the effective marginal tax rates they are going to go up across the board, esp. for those making around $45,000.”
I don’t recall him saying much about cutting taxes for people making under $250k, but rather that he’d cut tax breaks for people making more than that. The goal was to take some of the burden off of the middle class and shift it to those making well more than they need to cover their basic needs.
So, Mr. Shanafelt, you’re suggesting we give the government cyber-xoxo and other forms of lovin’?
No sir.
I will happily stay part of the righteous opposition with Will and Thomas.
Also, to further my fringe lunatic style, I suggest you all watch the Obama Deception by Mr. Alex Jones a.k.a my baby’s daddy.
“I want to preface this by mentioning that I am four classes away from a Political Science degree. This are not just talking points, I actually do study politics.”
And yet apparently you didn’t pay that much attention when they went over Keynesian theory in economics class. Speaking as a former poly-sci student, I’ll tell you you’re showing a pretty heavy conservative bias. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that your points of view come from some unbiased empirical place, when it’s obvious they do not.
“A war is a war, but for as much as is spent, a lot of people are employed. Military personnel do get paid, plus all the weapons manufacturers, engineers, developers, etc. etc. Look at WWII. That war pulled America out of the Depression.”
Well it certainly finished the job started by the New Deal, and you are technically correct. The large amount of deficit spending during WWII kick started the American Economy. The government poured money into American industry in order to fight the war. After WWII the national debt was 120% of GDP, and yet far from being buried under the crushing weight of that debt, the post-war period was the longest sustained era of prosperity in American history. The large government investment in infrastructure and technology during the New Deal and WWII led to that era of prosperity, and all the obscure Austrian/Chicago school economic theories in the world don’t change that historical fact.
I have yet to see a logical reason why wartime deficit spending is good for bringing the the economy out from the doldrums, but peacetime deficit spending is evil socialism that will destroy our way of life. Apparently, the difference between “America The Beautiful” and “The Internationale” is 4 percentage points in the top tax bracket. Who knew?
Even the bleakest economic forecasts don’t have us even approaching a debt that’s 120% of GDP. That’s one reason that economists such as Paul Krugman have criticized the stimulus bill for not being bold enough in the fact of the worst economic crisis in nearly 80 years. Personally, I agree with Krugman. I would’ve liked to have seen a bigger, bolder job creation program, but what was passed was far better than the Republican-proposed Hooverite tax cuts, and “faith” that the market will correct itself…eventually. In the opinion of most economists, this would be as disastrous now as it was in ’29.
They funny thing to me in all this, is that these supposed fiscal conservatives made nary a peep when Bush was spending huge fiscally irresponsible sums on a pointless war and still choose to forget the Bank Bailout passed and signed during his administration. In fact, most of them were mocking the protesters of that war. Seems what they needed in order to get religion on spending was the election of a Kenyan, muslim, communist, BLACK president.
“They funny thing to me in all this, is that these supposed fiscal conservatives made nary a peep when Bush was spending huge fiscally irresponsible sums on a pointless war and still choose to forget the Bank Bailout passed and signed during his administration. In fact, most of them were mocking the protesters of that war. Seems what they needed in order to get religion on spending was the election of a Kenyan, muslim, communist, BLACK president.”
You watch too much tv. We didn’t forget who tossed the first bailout. Most of us hated Bush just like you but, most of us didn’t decide that pick tails instead of heads was better than saying to hell with the coin all together. And for atheism’s sake Chris it’s not about race. It never was. The biggest racists during the entire election was the democrats.
Read. Follow. http://WWW.DANITHEPROPHET.BLOGSPOT.COM
Steve–you don’t recall Obama saying that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut under his plan? He only said that in like every speech he gave during the campaign.
And do you actually believe that the money you earn is not actually “your” money? If you do, then you are in an extreme minority. Most Americans would much rather keep more of what they earn instead of giving it over to the government to waste. My vote is to raise taxes on all the bleeding hearts of this world who actually get excited when the government takes taxes out of their check.
“I suggest you all watch the Obama Deception by Mr. Alex Jones”
Alex Jones! Isn’t that nut one of those “9/11 truth” people who believes 9/11 was an inside job? Sorry I’ll pass.
“And do you actually believe that the money you earn is not actually “your†money? If you do, then you are in an extreme minority. Most Americans would much rather keep more of what they earn instead of giving it over to the government to waste.”
It doesn’t matter whether or not I “believe” it; it’s a fact. No one really owns anything in this country in an absolute sense. Property taxes — specifically what happens when you don’t pay them — are a great example of this. I’m sure people would love to keep all the money they can get their hands on, but that doesn’t mean that’s the best model for our society.
And, I’d like to remind everyone that the government isn’t an “other.” It’s us. Every single one of us is part of the government, like it or not. So blaming the government for anything is basically scapegoating. WE — as in the American people at large — got us into this economic situation, and private business and personal greed played a much bigger role than anything the government did. It’s not like the Army held people at gunpoint and forced them into mortgages. At worst, deregulation made it easier for people to get away with shady schemes, but it didn’t make anyone participate.
WE are to blame. And we’ll have to clean up the mess.
I never said I was unbiased, just that I had some academic learnin’ to back me up.
Chris to cite Keynesian economics as a basis for sound economic pratics shows how little you understand econimics. Perhaps you should study Mises since they understand the topic much better.
As for FDR and the New Deal starting the recovery from the Drepression, sorry mis-informed again. Economists are now talking about how much damage FDR and his socialist programs slowed recovery and actually caused more harm than good. Again you cherry pick the recovery process of WWII. You fail to profess the conditions were dramatically different from and economic perspective. Millions had nothing at the end of the war and the need for production was great. The FDR socialist had nothing to do with the recovery.
Just as Stevie wants to lay the Glass Stegall bill was the impetus. The banks were under tremendous pressure by socialist like Frank and Dodd to push opprotuities to poor people who had not capabilities to manage the new debt they came with. They only truh he really was close to, is the banks figured out how to take advantage of the stupidity of the government slugs and then got burned.
The tea parties may be heavily republican, but democrats and libertarians are coming out. Many people see the potential damage that the socialist president is pushing and understand how bad it will be in less than two more years when we don’t have the revenues they dream of.
Chris = elitist
Me = not the government, not going to clean up their mess, would rather impale the scumbags.
Oh there’s really history a brewing here and 9/11 was an inside job. Getting outside of the towers on 9/11, that was an inside job as well wasn’t it? Score team right wing extremists hahahaha
seriously, Alex Jones.
We don’t own our money technically, that’s why it’s illegal to destroy or deface money, and it’s not technically “money” by definition, it’s legal tender, currency, or debt notes. There is commonly no private property by definition, only “real estate”, but there are a tiny few exceptions in Texas where you can still buy land in allodium, (allodial title/free and clear) and a very few places in Nevada that are grandfathered in. By the way, that’s all under the ten planks of the communist manifesto, what America has become, only we still have the privilege of inheritance.
Shame on those of you who pull the race card to demonize conservative ideology in it’s entirety, even if subtly so like in the original article. Racism generally is not restricted to any political party.
All the finger pointing, who did what first, or whatever, doesn’t excuse or justify anything, ever. Two wrongs don’t cancel each other out, it just adds to the pile.
Who can say what the tea party goers think they’re protesting in addition to taxes, if anything, in the context raised in the article. I haven’t been to one myself, but the cost of living going up drastically now is inflation, a hidden tax, and it’s directly caused by huge injections of new money into the market.
As income taxes are demanded by the threat of, or use of force, which is undeniably unethical, despite the attempts at rationalizing the ideological utilitarian claim of ends justifying the means. Hence the philosophy of anarchy has its roots in ethics.
There are other ways to run a society without government, all while keeping our standard of living, and then some. Through private “Dispute Resolution Organizations” (DRO’s) a peaceful society could flourish. If anyone is interested, you can read more about that here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
..or you can listen to the author read it out loud and further comment on it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-5Lbpk_3Y&feature=related
The government is just a concept, made up of individuals. “We” are the government to the extent that the government gets its individual members from the general populace, but there is a great class distinction between us, the general public, and them, those in government, if nothing else, then by the governments self-justified use of force over the populace, as the populace can’t justifiably use force on the government.
We are given the illusion of choice in voting, but I’d hope you all know it’s just a matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils, all the while having 72 different types of salad dressings to choose from, as an example of over loading us with frivolous choices while limiting the choices that matter.
We do need to be responsible for our own actions. Individual bad decisions of the public surly didn’t help matters, though I don’t think most of those bad decisions would have been entirely possible without manipulation of business allowing those bad decisions to be made.
People react to incentives, and if one is given the opportunity to be irresponsible, and come out better for it in the short term, irresponsible people will seize that opportunity, naturally.
The boom era after WW2 was, as the current economy still is, based on artificial worth, or debt really, and the whole Keynesian house of cards can’t be perpetrated forever. Inflation will continue and bring it all down, with destructive and devastating results.
I totally agree with Steve on this.
“Economists are now talking about how much damage FDR and his socialist programs slowed recovery and actually caused more harm than good.”
That’s a sweepingly general statement that’s wildly also inaccurate. SOME CONSERVATIVE economists SPEAKING FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF BIG BUSINESS have always maintained that point, and there’s no significant evidence that it’s based in fact. It’s just the opinion of people talking from a perspective of economic theory, rather than the economic reality of recovery that was the New Deal. Opposition was loud during the New Deal, and people said it would ruin the country and everything it stood for. In fact, just the opposite happened.
“Just as Stevie wants to lay the Glass Stegall bill was the impetus. The banks were under tremendous pressure by socialist like Frank and Dodd to push opprotuities to poor people who had not capabilities to manage the new debt they came with. They only truh he really was close to, is the banks figured out how to take advantage of the stupidity of the government slugs and then got burned.”
Actually, you’ve got it the wrong way around. It was the banks that lowered their standards and pushed for changes in the laws because of the massive earnings potential of things like mortgaged-backed securities, which were skyrocketing in value. There was a point earlier this decade where almost everyone who was going to get a mortgage already had one, but there was still a massive demand for mortgage-backed securities and the various derivatives, and so BANKS started lowering their own lending standards to keep the supply up.
It was the “free market” that developed NINA (no income, no asset) loans, for instance, and loose regulation that allowed mortgage brokers to essentially make-up applicant financial information on loan applications. It was banks who didn’t care about verifying information because they knew Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy up most of the bad loans that kept the cycle going, and it was Wall Street that kept the pressure on to get bundled mortgage packages out into the market. It was investors — including a lot of everyday folks who weren’t specifically greedy, just looking for a solid investment — seeking suspiciously high-yield returns from those products that drove Wall Street.
At each step of the way, many people knew this was unsustainable, but very few people said or did anything about it. Many of those who did were shouted down and mocked, like “doomsday” economist Peter Schiff was by almost every “trusted” media authority. (Watch this video to see how a man trying to save us all a lot of pain gets treated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw) There were a lot of blind eyes being turned by everyone. So, again, WE’RE ALL TO BLAME.
There’s a very good Planet Money/NPR/This American Life joint project that explains the basics on a lot of this stuff, if you’re interested: http://www.thislife.org/radio_episode.aspx?episode=355
“So, Mr. Shanafelt, you’re suggesting we give the government cyber-xoxo and other forms of lovin’?”
Gotta love that government. Who wants a hug from Big Brother?
“And do you actually believe that the money you earn is not actually “your†money? If you do, then you are in an extreme minority. Most Americans would much rather keep more of what they earn instead of giving it over to the government to waste.
It doesn’t matter whether or not I “believe†it; it’s a fact. No one really owns anything in this country in an absolute sense.”
This is actually not true. At least it’s not a fact. Maybe it’s your opinion. But free market economies operate on the principle that individuals in a society seek his or her own monetary gain. Man has a right to control and determine hs own labor power, the free market determines what that labor power is worth, and everyone claims ownership over the fruits of his or her own labor. I suggest you take a look at The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Alan: That’s your ideological view, not the legal reality. You don’t have an absolute right to property of any kind in this country. In fact, that’s the basic assumption of any tax. That’s not ideological and it’s not my opinion; that’s just the way things are.
I’ll demonstrate: Don’t pay your taxes. The government then has the right to take ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you own, at least up to the point where the value of those items meets the amount you owe and any fees associated with collecting it. They own it, and they always did. You can argue against this in court all you like, but at the end of the day, the reality is that it’s all owned by the government, which is to say by the American people collectively.
In fact, you don’t even have to be delinquent on your taxes. If the government feels needs to use privately owned land for the greater public good, it can be seized under eminent domain. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution, you have the right to be fairly compensated for it, but no right to the property itself.
An example of an absolute right to property would be something along the lines of a feudal system. Your “right” to your land would only be as strong as your ability to defend it. That’s definitely not the America we all live in, it’s the monarchy we were getting away from when the country was founded.
We also aren’t a free market economy. We’re not even all that capitalist in a literal sense. We have elements of these ideas in some aspects of society, but the existence of government services and taxes to pay for them are great examples of exactly how not-free-market America is, and has been for most of its history.
Steve I think your reading way too much into this. I thought I saw you on this blog suggest that you relly didn’t care how much you have to pay in taxes because the money you make isn’t yours anyway. If that’s what you think then fine but I think most hard-working Americans aren’t that idealistic about giving more of the money they earn to the government. I don’t know why you are brining things up like eminent domain or property rights. All I am saying is that the money you earn from your labor is in fact yours. Just because taxes get taken out of your paycheck does not mean the money is not yours to begin with. This is pretty simple.
Alan: Maybe so. I was reacting to the idea of anyone having a “right” to untaxed wealth. It smacks of aristocratic entitlement, rather than social responsibility. My main thrust is this: We all benefit from the social safety net and economic structure of living in America, and so we all should chip in to keep it going. If that means paying taxes — even higher taxes to fund things like public health care and a decent public education system — I’m not opposed to paying more.
“I mean, there’s good reason to believe that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Republican-backed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was as much to blame as anything the Democrats did.”
Just curious, who signed that bill?
“It’s just the opinion of people talking from a perspective of economic theory, rather than the economic reality of recovery that was the New Deal.”
The New Deal was likely the most ignorant thing any American politician has pulled. Simply looking at facts and actual unrevised history makes that glaringly obvious. The Depression lasted many years more than it should have because of FDR’s ignorance. Forcefully keeping wages high so that business’ had to fire people to cut back. Saved banks that should have gone out of business. Commanded farmers to destroy livestock and crops. Tripled taxes. He was insane, yet amazingly, people in modern times still see FDR as a hero. It is also a myth that WWII ‘got us out of the Depression’. It did in the sense that it opened up new job opportunities for many due to millions being killed and thousands being put in internment camps. Meanwhile, Hoover is blamed for starting the Depression with fiscal responsibility, while, much like Bush, he was doing the exact opposite. Preaching one thing while doing another ensuring that later, simple minds can blame free markets and such based on prior rhetoric instead of reality. If uncontrolled ignorant government spending could ‘get us out of this mess’, then we wouldn’t be in a mess to begin with.
The distinction rests on the fact that, not Americans, but 14th amendment US citizens, owe direct unapportioned taxes, can’t dispute the national debt, and don’t own private property, for starters. Being a US citizen takes you out of common law, where you had inalienable rights, into statutory law, where you have civil rights (government granted privileges.)
It’s not for the collective society that government takes, it’s for its own benefit and self preservation. The government shows no mercy to its populace unless they are completely willing to be subjugated to its every whim, lick its conceptual boots, pay up, and except it.
We can’t have a truly free market as long as we have a fate based fiat currency.
Although, bureaucratic governments are the most inefficient way to run a society, and a truly capitalist society that has a currency backed by something of intrinsic value, rather then debt, would be far more stable then what we have currently.
Steve describes fairly accurately the way things are, but where he and I differ is.. the means do not justify the ends. If he really feels that it is justified, then he would as soon see me in jail for holding my views, not paying taxes for almost a decade, and probably delete the majority of my comments on here as not to soil the collective mind against itself (in that view).
Because we’ve been fed what’s essentially nationalistic propaganda all our lives, it’s just not commonly excepted or understood how our society can function in the absence of a state, or in the absence of the threat of force, but oh brother it can. We might not see it in our lifetimes unfortunately, but it would be to the collectives benefit on the level of all individuals.
“And for atheism’s sake Chris it’s not about race. It never was. The biggest racists during the entire election was the democrats.”
umm…ok but I guess those stories about prominent Republicans sending cell phone pictures to each other messages of the White House doctored to show a watermelon patch out front never happened. Apparently those Obama ’08 t-shirts I saw with curious george on them didn’t exist either. How about former RNC chairman candidate Chip Saltsman sending copies of “Barack the Magic Negro” cd’s to people for Christmas? The song, by the way, originally appeared on your buddy Rush Limbaugh’s show. He’s not racist right? I mean even though there’s a list of racist things he’s said that would run from here to Charleston, but I’m sure all those were just taken out of context. You’re right, my mistake.
“Chris = elitist
Me = not the government, not going to clean up their mess, would rather impale the scumbags.”
I’ve got to hand it to you on that one. I really got a chuckle out of someone calling me an elitist.
“Oh there’s really history a brewing here and 9/11 was an inside job. Getting outside of the towers on 9/11, that was an inside job as well wasn’t it?”
And there’s a one-world-government cabal run by global financiers secretly controlling our government policy, with Obama as its puppet figurehead. I get it. Got any more of these? Something on the moon landing perhaps? Any interesting theories about chemtrails? Should I get out my tinfoil hat, and get ready for the black helicopters? Loony conspiracy theories are fun and I could keep going, but I’m getting a little bored. Have a great day!
“Just curious, who signed that bill?”
Clinton did, yes. It was a bad idea then, too. (You might be surprised to know that I’m also not a fan of Clinton’s presidency, largely because he represented most of the same interests as the rest of the power structure.) But that doesn’t change the fact that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a purely Republican deregulation initiative, or that no one in a position of power did anything to address the financial shell game that started happening immediately after it went into effect.
That is, the entire run if the Bush administration. You know the one where there was a massive and obvious housing bubble — one that was called a “bubble” openly while it was happening — that a few changes in policy by the White House could have reduced. Or that any number of politicians from either party could have tried to bring to the nation’s attention? Again, WE’RE ALL TO BLAME for that one, and it’s only right that we all clean up the mess and pay into the kitty to fix it. Blaming a particular party or politician might be cathartic, but it changes nothing.
“The New Deal was likely the most ignorant thing any American politician has pulled. Simply looking at facts and actual unrevised history makes that glaringly obvious.”
Boy, is has swallowed the happy pill when it comes to the right-wing fringe of economic theory. I’m certainly not saying that every part of the New Deal was an economic silver bullet — a lot of the ideas didn’t work very well beyond their basic goal of putting money into the economy — but I think you’ll find VERY few non-partisan economists and historians agree with the free-market devoted theory you’ve put forth. And they have for the last 70-ish years, which is how long that narrative has been in circulation under various forms.
Combine this with the fact that FDR’s policies actually had an immediate impact in many cases, and that he was a wildly popular president elected to a whopping four terms in office, and that the New Deal’s “ignorant” changes included: the creation of the FDIC (which makes sure your money is safe when banks fail, something that’s happening almost daily right now); the SEC (which was intentionally declawed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, by the way); the Social Security System (which helps to support many of the elderly and ill in this country, many of whom would be destitute without it, as well as helping float the unemployed through tough times); and the National Labor Relations Act (which allows workers to Unionize and to bargain collectively).
Notice a pattern: The New Deal’s innovations ARE STILL WORKING. The FDIC is still protecting people’s bank accounts; the SEC — though intentionally broken by pro-business deregulation stooges — has helped to prevent and discourage many shady deals that would have made the current crisis worse; Social Security is providing aid to the 11.6% of the population right here in Spartanburg that finds themselves unemployed; and the NLRA is still helping to represent the interests of workers at companies that would otherwise just lay off workers at their whim for cheaper labor.
And the “free market” does not work from the perspective of a fair and just society, nor has it ever, ever worked. Ever. Not once. And for a very simple and easily demonstrable mathematical reason called “Gambler’s Ruin,” which states that (given equal odds of success) a big pool of money always takes a smaller pool of money. The “free market” tends to create Robber Barons, in other words. I’ll fight anyone trying to bring back the days of the Robber Barons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler‘s_ruin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin
“A common meaning (for gamblers ruin) is that a gambler with finite wealth, playing a fair game (that is, each bet has expected value zero to both sides) will eventually go broke against an opponent with infinite wealth.”
-hmm, so who has infinite wealth, let me think, oh yeah! those that can print money out of thin air and manipulate the market. So if you’re against this robber barons stuff, then you’re stating my case for a stateless society, and a free market, in fact.
Ok, how exactly is someone like me to blame for the crisis, who never has taken out a loan, much less a mortgage of any kind, never had a bank account, credit card, and never owed debt to an institution for over a few months at the very most. You tell me. If I’m even the minor exception, your claim of “everybody’s to blame” is completely invalid, and you’ll have to rework your collectivist, utilitarian paradigm.
A gold or silver coin will always have intrinsic value, just like any commodity. Paper, even if it’s green with dead presidents and nice little hidden watermarks on it -not so much. I have the FDIC mattress to keep my money safe, but because of inflation it still gets stolen, those bastards, so much for that!
I’m not working, unemployed, currently a part of that 11.6%, I don’t get a hand out. I have a serious health condition with seizures, it takes a year or two of being unemployed usually to even be considered to get any kind of real assistance, am I supposed to eat bark and dirt till then? Hell no, I’ll take personal responsibility over my needs and do what I have to do, aside from stealing or other unethical practices.
Backtracking a bit, 9/11 was a conspiracy by definition, unless you think it was spontaneous combustion, because someone had to conspire to do it, be it the Arabs, the Jews, the Swiss, the Martians, or members of the US government. but who knows? You don’t, nor do I.
Financiers control government policy, global, national, secret, and blatantly visible. At the very very least, lobbyists, corporations, and hell, even the American people are financiers, all though the latter.. not by our own free will. Who would pay taxes if they wouldn’t come and take your stuff and drag you off to the rape rooms? Show of hands?
” “And for atheism’s sake Chris it’s not about race. It never was. The biggest racists during the entire election was the democrats.â€
umm…ok but I guess those stories about prominent Republicans sending cell phone pictures to each other messages of the White House doctored to show a watermelon patch out front never happened. Apparently those Obama ‘08 t-shirts I saw with curious george on them didn’t exist either. How about former RNC chairman candidate Chip Saltsman sending copies of “Barack the Magic Negro†cd’s to people for Christmas? The song, by the way, originally appeared on your buddy Rush Limbaugh’s show. He’s not racist right? I mean even though there’s a list of racist things he’s said that would run from here to Charleston, but I’m sure all those were just taken out of context. You’re right, my mistake.
“Chris = elitist
Me = not the government, not going to clean up their mess, would rather impale the scumbags.â€
I’ve got to hand it to you on that one. I really got a chuckle out of someone calling me an elitist.
“Oh there’s really history a brewing here and 9/11 was an inside job. Getting outside of the towers on 9/11, that was an inside job as well wasn’t it?â€
And there’s a one-world-government cabal run by global financiers secretly controlling our government policy, with Obama as its puppet figurehead. I get it. Got any more of these? Something on the moon landing perhaps? Any interesting theories about chemtrails? Should I get out my tinfoil hat, and get ready for the black helicopters? Loony conspiracy theories are fun and I could keep going, but I’m getting a little bored. Have a great day!”
Steve = Excellent recipient of jokes, even unfair low blows.
Chris = Blogger please.
At the end of the day Chris, I lay in my protestant bed on my freshly washed pillow cases and I sleep like an angel because I’m a God fearing republican.
You, on the other hand, cry because your ideologies are shallow and hell bound. It’s all in good fun. Plus, Chris is short for Christ. Oh, by the way, it’s time for white to embrace what is right.