An article by Mark Penn for Time (reprinted below and available here) makes the case that the decade since 9/11 has seen the US fall into a tailspin of pessimism and shaken confidence. He based his assessment on the results of a poll which show the majority of Americans having very negative views on the present and future of the country. Many believe another terrorist attack on our soil is likely. Still other see economic worries threatening our future.
In all, Mark seems to be wanting the comparison to Carter's "malaise" speech (despite the fact that Carter never used the word "malaise") in order to create the assumption that we have a vacuum of leadership in the country. In fact, I think the primary issue here is much simpler and direct. We have had terrorist attacks before, we have had economic woes, and we have had uncertainty about the future. During all those times, however, we also had Presidents and a Congress who stood up and reassured the American people that we would get through it. We were tough and could take the heat. President Obama pretty much ran his campaign on such Roosevelt-type of reassurances and to this day ends his speeches on a similar high note.
Contrast that to the 8 years of the Bush administration. This is the administration that declared war on "terror", thereby solidifying "terror" into an entity for us. He never said "don't be afraid, we got this". He said continually "be afraid because they are coming to attack us and these Democrats hate our troops" (paraphrased). He handed us a color coded chart which never, ever went below yellow in terms of caution. He resurrected Cold War era fears of impending massive attacks using "suitcase nukes" or bio weapons or chemical agents. People were actually buying hermitic bomb shelters again.
This shows the simple, singular difference between our previous national crises and that created by 9/11: the willing and rather open exploitation of fear for political advantage.
Read Mark's article:
The Pessimism Index
By Mark J. Penn
Just 10 years into a new century, more than two-thirds of the country sees the past decade as a period of decline for the U.S., according to a new TIME/Aspen Ideas Festival poll that probed Americans on the decade since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda seriously weakened, but the impact of the 9/11 attacks and the decisions that followed have, in the view of most Americans, put the U.S. in a tailspin that the country has been unable to shake during two administrations and almost 10 years of trying.
The poll confirms that the country is going through one of its longest sustained periods of unhappiness and pessimism ever. Today's teenagers hardly remember a time before 9/11, the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and constant economic upheaval. Baby boomers, the generation known for continuous reinvention, are filled with worry and doubt about their future and the future of their children. (See TIME's cover story: "The Optimism Bias.")
It is hard to overstate what a fundamental change this represents. A country long celebrated for its optimism amid adversity is having trouble finding the pluck and the spirit that have seen it through everything from world wars to nuclear threats to space races. The U.S. usually bounces back after a few years of difficulty, such as the Vietnam War, Watergate or recessions. After two or three years of anxiety and worry, the electorate normally returns to its innate optimism. Yet the forces now aligned against the American people seem much more formidable to those we surveyed; the poll uncovered the kinds of attitudes we saw among Europeans during the decade after World War II.
According to the poll, only 6% of more than 2,000 Americans believe the country has completely recovered from the events of 9/11. Some of this pessimism can be tied to fears of more terrorist attacks. Despite the death of bin Laden, most Americans think another terrorist attack in the U.S. is likely. Americans generally supported the post-9/11 measures to secure the homeland, like those in the Patriot Act, and have confidence in the military to deal with terrorists — and yet they see an attack coming anyway. America's feelings of invincibility have been replaced by a new sense of inevitable vulnerability. Nearly 8 in 10 believe there will be a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the next decade. When asked which major city would most likely be the target of such an attack, 30% selected Washington and 27% chose New York City.
A startling 71%, including a majority of every major demographic group other than African Americans, see the U.S. as worse off now than it was a decade ago. Americans blame their leaders and politicians for the decade of decline. The Bush Administration takes the most heat — 23% named it as the cause — followed closely by the Obama Administration (20%) and the U.S. Congress (16%). In contrast, only 6% blame Wall Street. (See the case for optimism in TIME's special report: "10 Ideas That Will Change the World.")
If there is widespread agreement that the U.S. is in bad shape, there is also a perception that not everyone has experienced the difficult decade in exactly the same way. Those surveyed say middle- and working-class Americans, followed by seniors and younger people, have borne the brunt of the decline — an ominous sign for any incumbent, regardless of political party. Yet those surveyed said some demographic groups were better off than they were a decade ago; they say the quality of life has improved most for gays and lesbians, the affluent, Hispanics and immigrants. And while overall the U.S. is seen as becoming more socially and politically tolerant in the past decade, the majority agreed that 9/11 set off a wave of suspicion against Muslim Americans.
Post-9/11 America is also a more isolationist country. Americans recognize that the election of President Obama brought with it a renewed sense of respect for the U.S. around the world. However, the effect of those improved relationships is overshadowed by the finding that most respondents have no desire to be more involved in global affairs. Almost two-thirds (62%) believe the U.S. today is too involved overseas. Americans are particularly impatient with U.S. policy toward Pakistan. With 69% believing that Pakistani officials knowingly harbored bin Laden, it is not surprising that 3 in 4 Americans — older Americans and Republicans especially — want the U.S. to cut back its military and nonmilitary aid to that country.
But whatever the U.S.'s worries about external forces, the biggest threats today are widely regarded as self-made. It's the enemy within that Americans register the most concern about: runaway deficits, political gridlock, skyrocketing health care costs and other structural problems. A full two-thirds of Americans see the greatest long-term threats to national stability as coming from within the U.S. This too is an enormous change from the days and months after September 2001. (See the U.S. optimism deficit.)
President Jimmy Carter — at the urging of his pollster — rather famously gave a speech in mid-1979 suggesting that a crisis of confidence had befallen America. It took several years and a new President to return the country to its optimistic ways. President Bill Clinton faced a similar moment in 1995 and turned the mood of the country around a year later. This poll suggests we are at another malaise moment, one even longer and deeper than the mid-1970s', presenting even greater challenges — and opportunities — for leadership.
Penn is CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, the strategic-research firm that conducted the TIME/Aspen poll. He was a pollster for six years under President Clinton.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
7/03/2011
5/10/2011
The Tea Party and Racism
The following video is not only an example of the inherently racial, if not racist thought endemic to the teabaggers, it's also an example of some cognitive dissonance. The man is claiming he isn't a racist while railing against blacks and hispanics.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOKs4UPt2Mw
10/23/2010
Sociopathy on the Right: Ayn Rand and the Triumph of Conservative Cultism
I discovered the following essay in my notes, written by Tim Wise. He illustrates much of what I wrote of in my own essay previously and he does so with a good intellect. Well worth a read.
by Tim Wise September 14, 2009, 9:17 pm
At first it seemed little more than a bizarre rant, only slightly worse than those to which we've grown accustomed, given the source. To wit, Rush Limbaugh, who on September 11 condemned President Obama for speaking that day about community service, and encouraging young people to become involved in service projects as a way to help make America a better place. Far from seeing such a call as a positive request to take personal responsibility for improving one's nation, to Limbaugh, it was little more than the "first step toward fascism," intended to conscript the young into a volunteer army, bent on helping to carry out the President's political agenda.
Community service, Limbaugh explained, was something that should be done by convicts. Specifically, he offered: "Let prisoners do it, let prisoners pick up the trash. Let prisoners mow some highway grass. This -- this community service, folks, it's insidious. It is nothing more than a well- sounding compassionate label. But it means something entirely different. It means turning you into a robot." Yes, of course. That's not insane at all. The anti-social nature of the diatribe was stunning. Service, according to the gospel of Limbaugh, is for suckers, for society's "losers," for people who have committed crimes. In other words, it should be viewed as punishment rather than as something to be applauded and encouraged. To do for community is a fool's errand.
Yet as bizarre as his words may seem at first blush, they actually illustrate with bold clarity the fundamental (and increasingly common) core of the conservative belief system. They speak to the sociopathy that is at the heart of the far-right worldview. It is a worldview that holds, quite simply, that doing for others is contemptible; that doing for self is the purpose of human life; that altruism and service are somehow pathologies pushed by collectivists and should be subordinated to selfishness and greed.
Sound too extreme? Well if so, consider this. Among the most interesting phenomena of the past year--and especially since the inauguration of Barack Obama--has been the explosion of interest in (and sales of) books by the late author, Ayn Rand: most prominently her classic novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Indeed, the latter had an all-time record year in 2008, and 2009 sales are on a pace to shatter even last year's numbers.
Far from a simple believer in limited government and a free market economy, Rand's philosophy--now being endorsed by tea party protesters and anti-Obama minions across the nation (indeed the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights was among the sponsors of the 9/12 march on Washington)--was predicated on one overarching notion: that a commitment to selfishness and a rejection of altruistic behavior were the height of morality. That's not to say that she merely rejected compulsory altruism via taxation, but altruism even privately chosen. To do for others, out of a charitable impulse or out of some faith-based commitment, for example, is morally and ethically suspect, for neither feelings nor faith are rational bases for human actions, according to her philosophy known as Objectivism. Unless one's assistance to another were rooted in some self-interested motivation, it was to be condemned.
It is especially fascinating to see the so-called "average, everyday folks" at the tea party rallies embracing Rand's thinking and literature. After all, Rand's view of the common man and woman--presumably the very Joe Six Packs and Hockey Moms recently enthralled by her--was decidedly grotesque. So, for instance, in her original version of her work,We the Living, Rand had her chief protagonist proclaim: "What are your masses...but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"
Rand's disdain for the bulk of humanity was, indeed, so extreme that in the aforemetioned Atlas Shrugged--whose main character and "hero" John Galt has been referenced on numerous tea party signs--she indulges a pseudo- genocidal fantasy, in which virtually everyone except Galt and his few "perfect" producers is vanquished. This happy occurrence results from a "strike of the mind," in which Galt and his superior colleagues of industry withdraw their talents from the nation and hole up in a mountain retreat, rather than submit to things like government regulations. Those whom Galt condemns in the book, and thus, whom Rand is herself condemning, are referred to as "parasites" who are unworthy of life. Indeed, Galt's contempt for the weak of the world prompts he and his colleagues to banish the word "give" from their small utopian "gulch." Giving, after all, much like calls for community service, is for suckers.
Even though Galt feels certain that his strike may well kill the vast majority of the world's inhabitants (because they are simply too stupid to survive without he and the other "perfect producers"), he firmly believes, and thus, so does Rand, that this outcome is moral--more so, than say, taxes or charity. In keeping with his strange morality, he not only withdraws his superior talent, but also sabotages the nation's infrastructure (the roads and bridges) thereby making the transport of fuel and grain impossible, resulting in chaos, starvation and general suffering. This is what the Rand-bots are reading, the vision of society they endorse: one comprised of better people, and decided inferiors, sub-humans even, who are worthy of death for their laziness, their sloth, their lack of industriousness. No wonder people imbued with such a truly sadistic mindset
as this would oppose health care reform. To this way of thought, those without health care deserve their suffering, and that suffering should be of no concern to the rest of us.
Those who have written biographies of Rand--including former acolytes-- paint a uniformly disturbing picture. Rand, according to Nathaniel Branden's My Years with Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, and Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult was narcissistic in the extreme, incapable of empathy, often cruel--going so far as to have an affair in full view of her husband--as well as paranoid, addicted to amphetamines, and obsessed with her belief that average people were "ugly, stupid and irrational."
Interestingly, despite her general disdain for humanity, there were people she seemed to admire greatly, such as William Edward Hickman, whose credo, "What is good for me is right," she described in her Journals as, "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard." But Hickman was no simple expositor of personal greed and self-interest; no mere modern day libertarian; no pedestrian practitioner of excessive self- love. No indeed. He was a sociopathic murderer. In 1927 he kidnapped a 12- year old girl from a school in Los Angeles by the name of Marian Parker, chopped off her legs, cut our her internal organs, drained all of her blood and then spread parts of her body all over the city.
Of Hickman, this sick murderer, Rand had almost nothing but positive things to say.
She indeed critiqued those who would condemn Hickman's actions for having committed "worse sins and crimes," such as those she ascribed to his jury. Among those "greater" crimes--greater than mutilating a child--she included being, "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives." Their ordinariness, in other words, placed them below Hickman, in Rand's mind. "How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?" she implored in her Journals.
It was Hickman's willfulness, his disregard for others, which so seems to have resonated with Rand. It fit perfectly with her own developing philosophy, which she would articulate perfectly in her original notes for The Fountainhead, wherein she wrote, "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" Thus Hickman's crime, to Rand, was "a daring challenge to society," rather than the act of a seriously deranged person from whom the society should seek protection.
Indeed, Rand speculates that Hickman's real crime may have been merely that he was "too impatient, fiery and proud" to accept the slow, soul-crushing
death that his life had become. She even went so far as to blame the crime on Christianity, which she described as "ludicrous tragic nonsense," capable of turning this "bad boy with a very winning grin, that...makes you like him the whole time you're in his presence" into a sadistic killer. And so, interestingly, the right is increasingly cleaving to the words and philosophy of a woman who was not only, in all likelihood, mentally disturbed, but the functional equivalent of those who fell in love with say, Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, even after their crimes were exposed. This is what the right is coming to. This is what they really mean when they call themselves "values voters." The values of which they speak, far from being "Christian," and far from being rooted in concern for the country, are--at least for many--firmly grounded in selfishness, applied narcissism and operationalized, organizational sociopathy. That they would seek to make a hero of Rand, and forge a movement based even in part on her thinking is all the evidence one should need that the patients are running the asylum known as the American right. Only, their kind of craziness is not nearly as sympathetic as that displayed by the typical person suffering from mental illness. Theirs is a special kind of crazy, not organic as is the case with so much mental illness, but rather, rooted in anti-social, almost cult-like propaganda. Sadly, it is a propaganda that, even with its horrific message is currently being read by more than a million high school students across the country: probably more than a few of whom are the very ones whose principals and teachers, or parents, refused to let them hear the President speak for fear he might indoctrinate them into such awful projects as community service (or, as it turned out, merely staying in school).
They want their country back, they tell us. And the country they want, so far as their reading habits would suggest, is a nation based on greed, me- firstism and an utter disregard for the well-being of the community. As for me, I will gladly stand with the opposite tradition. Do we want a culture of compassion or contempt? That is the choice. And we should proclaim our answer, compassion, boldly and without apology.
Tim Wise is the author of four books on race. His latest is, Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama
by Tim Wise September 14, 2009, 9:17 pm
At first it seemed little more than a bizarre rant, only slightly worse than those to which we've grown accustomed, given the source. To wit, Rush Limbaugh, who on September 11 condemned President Obama for speaking that day about community service, and encouraging young people to become involved in service projects as a way to help make America a better place. Far from seeing such a call as a positive request to take personal responsibility for improving one's nation, to Limbaugh, it was little more than the "first step toward fascism," intended to conscript the young into a volunteer army, bent on helping to carry out the President's political agenda.
Community service, Limbaugh explained, was something that should be done by convicts. Specifically, he offered: "Let prisoners do it, let prisoners pick up the trash. Let prisoners mow some highway grass. This -- this community service, folks, it's insidious. It is nothing more than a well- sounding compassionate label. But it means something entirely different. It means turning you into a robot." Yes, of course. That's not insane at all. The anti-social nature of the diatribe was stunning. Service, according to the gospel of Limbaugh, is for suckers, for society's "losers," for people who have committed crimes. In other words, it should be viewed as punishment rather than as something to be applauded and encouraged. To do for community is a fool's errand.
Yet as bizarre as his words may seem at first blush, they actually illustrate with bold clarity the fundamental (and increasingly common) core of the conservative belief system. They speak to the sociopathy that is at the heart of the far-right worldview. It is a worldview that holds, quite simply, that doing for others is contemptible; that doing for self is the purpose of human life; that altruism and service are somehow pathologies pushed by collectivists and should be subordinated to selfishness and greed.
Sound too extreme? Well if so, consider this. Among the most interesting phenomena of the past year--and especially since the inauguration of Barack Obama--has been the explosion of interest in (and sales of) books by the late author, Ayn Rand: most prominently her classic novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Indeed, the latter had an all-time record year in 2008, and 2009 sales are on a pace to shatter even last year's numbers.
Far from a simple believer in limited government and a free market economy, Rand's philosophy--now being endorsed by tea party protesters and anti-Obama minions across the nation (indeed the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights was among the sponsors of the 9/12 march on Washington)--was predicated on one overarching notion: that a commitment to selfishness and a rejection of altruistic behavior were the height of morality. That's not to say that she merely rejected compulsory altruism via taxation, but altruism even privately chosen. To do for others, out of a charitable impulse or out of some faith-based commitment, for example, is morally and ethically suspect, for neither feelings nor faith are rational bases for human actions, according to her philosophy known as Objectivism. Unless one's assistance to another were rooted in some self-interested motivation, it was to be condemned.
It is especially fascinating to see the so-called "average, everyday folks" at the tea party rallies embracing Rand's thinking and literature. After all, Rand's view of the common man and woman--presumably the very Joe Six Packs and Hockey Moms recently enthralled by her--was decidedly grotesque. So, for instance, in her original version of her work,We the Living, Rand had her chief protagonist proclaim: "What are your masses...but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"
Rand's disdain for the bulk of humanity was, indeed, so extreme that in the aforemetioned Atlas Shrugged--whose main character and "hero" John Galt has been referenced on numerous tea party signs--she indulges a pseudo- genocidal fantasy, in which virtually everyone except Galt and his few "perfect" producers is vanquished. This happy occurrence results from a "strike of the mind," in which Galt and his superior colleagues of industry withdraw their talents from the nation and hole up in a mountain retreat, rather than submit to things like government regulations. Those whom Galt condemns in the book, and thus, whom Rand is herself condemning, are referred to as "parasites" who are unworthy of life. Indeed, Galt's contempt for the weak of the world prompts he and his colleagues to banish the word "give" from their small utopian "gulch." Giving, after all, much like calls for community service, is for suckers.
Even though Galt feels certain that his strike may well kill the vast majority of the world's inhabitants (because they are simply too stupid to survive without he and the other "perfect producers"), he firmly believes, and thus, so does Rand, that this outcome is moral--more so, than say, taxes or charity. In keeping with his strange morality, he not only withdraws his superior talent, but also sabotages the nation's infrastructure (the roads and bridges) thereby making the transport of fuel and grain impossible, resulting in chaos, starvation and general suffering. This is what the Rand-bots are reading, the vision of society they endorse: one comprised of better people, and decided inferiors, sub-humans even, who are worthy of death for their laziness, their sloth, their lack of industriousness. No wonder people imbued with such a truly sadistic mindset
as this would oppose health care reform. To this way of thought, those without health care deserve their suffering, and that suffering should be of no concern to the rest of us.
Those who have written biographies of Rand--including former acolytes-- paint a uniformly disturbing picture. Rand, according to Nathaniel Branden's My Years with Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, and Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult was narcissistic in the extreme, incapable of empathy, often cruel--going so far as to have an affair in full view of her husband--as well as paranoid, addicted to amphetamines, and obsessed with her belief that average people were "ugly, stupid and irrational."
Interestingly, despite her general disdain for humanity, there were people she seemed to admire greatly, such as William Edward Hickman, whose credo, "What is good for me is right," she described in her Journals as, "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard." But Hickman was no simple expositor of personal greed and self-interest; no mere modern day libertarian; no pedestrian practitioner of excessive self- love. No indeed. He was a sociopathic murderer. In 1927 he kidnapped a 12- year old girl from a school in Los Angeles by the name of Marian Parker, chopped off her legs, cut our her internal organs, drained all of her blood and then spread parts of her body all over the city.
Of Hickman, this sick murderer, Rand had almost nothing but positive things to say.
She indeed critiqued those who would condemn Hickman's actions for having committed "worse sins and crimes," such as those she ascribed to his jury. Among those "greater" crimes--greater than mutilating a child--she included being, "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives." Their ordinariness, in other words, placed them below Hickman, in Rand's mind. "How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?" she implored in her Journals.
It was Hickman's willfulness, his disregard for others, which so seems to have resonated with Rand. It fit perfectly with her own developing philosophy, which she would articulate perfectly in her original notes for The Fountainhead, wherein she wrote, "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" Thus Hickman's crime, to Rand, was "a daring challenge to society," rather than the act of a seriously deranged person from whom the society should seek protection.
Indeed, Rand speculates that Hickman's real crime may have been merely that he was "too impatient, fiery and proud" to accept the slow, soul-crushing
death that his life had become. She even went so far as to blame the crime on Christianity, which she described as "ludicrous tragic nonsense," capable of turning this "bad boy with a very winning grin, that...makes you like him the whole time you're in his presence" into a sadistic killer. And so, interestingly, the right is increasingly cleaving to the words and philosophy of a woman who was not only, in all likelihood, mentally disturbed, but the functional equivalent of those who fell in love with say, Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, even after their crimes were exposed. This is what the right is coming to. This is what they really mean when they call themselves "values voters." The values of which they speak, far from being "Christian," and far from being rooted in concern for the country, are--at least for many--firmly grounded in selfishness, applied narcissism and operationalized, organizational sociopathy. That they would seek to make a hero of Rand, and forge a movement based even in part on her thinking is all the evidence one should need that the patients are running the asylum known as the American right. Only, their kind of craziness is not nearly as sympathetic as that displayed by the typical person suffering from mental illness. Theirs is a special kind of crazy, not organic as is the case with so much mental illness, but rather, rooted in anti-social, almost cult-like propaganda. Sadly, it is a propaganda that, even with its horrific message is currently being read by more than a million high school students across the country: probably more than a few of whom are the very ones whose principals and teachers, or parents, refused to let them hear the President speak for fear he might indoctrinate them into such awful projects as community service (or, as it turned out, merely staying in school).
They want their country back, they tell us. And the country they want, so far as their reading habits would suggest, is a nation based on greed, me- firstism and an utter disregard for the well-being of the community. As for me, I will gladly stand with the opposite tradition. Do we want a culture of compassion or contempt? That is the choice. And we should proclaim our answer, compassion, boldly and without apology.
Tim Wise is the author of four books on race. His latest is, Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama
10/19/2010
"Going Galt" and the Insanity of the Right Wing
[caption id="attachment_811" align="aligncenter" width="494" caption="No, your name isn't John Galt."]
[/caption]
The rise of teabag politics in the US has lead to an equally disturbing return to deification of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist "philosophy". The right wing, of course, doesn't talk about Ayn Rand's disdain for things like religions or belief in a god, but focuses instead on her notions regarding capitalism. Specifically, they use the John Galt figure from one of her books to embody all that an American should be.
Who was John Galt? He was the deus ex machina in Atlas Shrugged, a rich industrialist who tired of seeing his tax money go to such despicable things as helping the poor. So, he took his ball and went home, quite literally. He buys an island and moves there with all his rich friends, leaving the rest of society to go without their creative manna (read: taxes).
[caption id="attachment_812" align="alignright" width="199" caption="Their pledge is "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." They are bad people."]
[/caption]
The teabaggers use this fictional character to represent themselves. They believe they are the same as Galt and no longer want to participate in our society with its taxes and social programs. There is even an organization dedicated to "going Galt":
They have the typical delusional "Us" and "Them" mentality so prevalent among the right wing. They are the True Americans© while everyone else is simply a leech, living off the tit of taxpayers. In replacing Ronald Reagan with Ayn Rand as their Conservative Messiah, they expressing a kind of vicious, self-interested sociopathy some of them don't even realize. The cognitive dissonance is astounding and they don't seem to actually get what they are saying.
For example, remember Craig T. Nelson's appearance on the Glenn Beck show?
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
He says the words but he doesn't appear to understand what he is saying. More recently, we see this:
[caption id="attachment_813" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Ummm...."]
[/caption]
This level of blindness to the implications of their ideology is one explanation for the puzzling endorsement of Rand's philosophies. Ayn Rand wasn't merely blindingly in love with laissez faire capitalism. She took it a step further and advocated some of those same concepts as a kind of morality. A good insight into her psyche was her thoughts on William Edward Hickman, a psychotic killer who kidnapped, ransomed, tortured, and killed a little girl so he could get enough money to go to seminary. When he was finally captured and investigators were questioning how he could morally justify himself, he famously said "what is good for me is right".
Rand considered this quote to be the epitome of a "real man's psychology". Her defense of him didn't just end there, however. She later wrote of him:
Her sympathy for a psychotic murderer is of the same vein of thought which informs her Objectivism. It is individuals like Hickman who became the model of other heroes in her books, Denny Renahan in "The Little Street". In further describing Hickman she wrote of her "involuntary, irresistible sympathy for him, which I cannot help feeling just because of [his antisocial nature] and in spite of everything else."
Such individualism and anti-social behavior defined all of Rand's heros and heroines. They viewed themselves as morally superior by virtue of simply staking out that ground, and the rest of humanity as mere tools to be used, ground down, and tossed aside to achieve whatever goal theses Individuals had for themselves. Such goals could obviously be building skyscrapers or killing innocent children. If it's good for them, it's right.
[/caption]The rise of teabag politics in the US has lead to an equally disturbing return to deification of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist "philosophy". The right wing, of course, doesn't talk about Ayn Rand's disdain for things like religions or belief in a god, but focuses instead on her notions regarding capitalism. Specifically, they use the John Galt figure from one of her books to embody all that an American should be.
Who was John Galt? He was the deus ex machina in Atlas Shrugged, a rich industrialist who tired of seeing his tax money go to such despicable things as helping the poor. So, he took his ball and went home, quite literally. He buys an island and moves there with all his rich friends, leaving the rest of society to go without their creative manna (read: taxes).
[caption id="attachment_812" align="alignright" width="199" caption="Their pledge is "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." They are bad people."]
[/caption]The teabaggers use this fictional character to represent themselves. They believe they are the same as Galt and no longer want to participate in our society with its taxes and social programs. There is even an organization dedicated to "going Galt":
They have the typical delusional "Us" and "Them" mentality so prevalent among the right wing. They are the True Americans© while everyone else is simply a leech, living off the tit of taxpayers. In replacing Ronald Reagan with Ayn Rand as their Conservative Messiah, they expressing a kind of vicious, self-interested sociopathy some of them don't even realize. The cognitive dissonance is astounding and they don't seem to actually get what they are saying.
For example, remember Craig T. Nelson's appearance on the Glenn Beck show?
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
He says the words but he doesn't appear to understand what he is saying. More recently, we see this:
[caption id="attachment_813" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Ummm...."]
[/caption]This level of blindness to the implications of their ideology is one explanation for the puzzling endorsement of Rand's philosophies. Ayn Rand wasn't merely blindingly in love with laissez faire capitalism. She took it a step further and advocated some of those same concepts as a kind of morality. A good insight into her psyche was her thoughts on William Edward Hickman, a psychotic killer who kidnapped, ransomed, tortured, and killed a little girl so he could get enough money to go to seminary. When he was finally captured and investigators were questioning how he could morally justify himself, he famously said "what is good for me is right".
Rand considered this quote to be the epitome of a "real man's psychology". Her defense of him didn't just end there, however. She later wrote of him:
"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...
"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."
"And when we look at the other side of it -- there is a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster. By whom? By what? Is it not by that very society that is now yelling so virtuously in its role of innocent victim? He had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character. What had society to offer him? A wretched, insane family as the ideal home, a Y.M.C.A. club as social honor, and a bank-page job as ambition and career...
"If he had any desires and ambitions -- what was the way before him? A long, slow, soul-eating, heart-wrecking toil and struggle; the degrading, ignoble road of silent pain and loud compromises....
"A strong man can eventually trample society under his feet. That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime? Is it his crime that he was too impatient, fiery and proud to go that slow way? That he was not able to serve, when he felt worthy to rule; to obey, when he wanted to command?...
"He was given [nothing with which] to fill his life. What was he offered to fill his soul? The petty, narrow, inconsistent, hypocritical ideology of present-day humanity. All the criminal, ludicrous, tragic nonsense of Christianity and its morals, virtues, and consequences. Is it any wonder that he didn't accept it?"
Her sympathy for a psychotic murderer is of the same vein of thought which informs her Objectivism. It is individuals like Hickman who became the model of other heroes in her books, Denny Renahan in "The Little Street". In further describing Hickman she wrote of her "involuntary, irresistible sympathy for him, which I cannot help feeling just because of [his antisocial nature] and in spite of everything else."
Such individualism and anti-social behavior defined all of Rand's heros and heroines. They viewed themselves as morally superior by virtue of simply staking out that ground, and the rest of humanity as mere tools to be used, ground down, and tossed aside to achieve whatever goal theses Individuals had for themselves. Such goals could obviously be building skyscrapers or killing innocent children. If it's good for them, it's right.
10/14/2010
8/08/2010
7/18/2010
American Ahabs, a further comment
A comment was posted to this article after I referred to it during a Facebook debate with a couple of right wingers. I decided to allow it to be published by reprinting it here as a great example of what American Ahabs are all about.
[caption id="attachment_695" align="aligncenter" width="150" caption="Click for full view"]
[/caption]
*EDIT*
Another comment from John Sterling was posted this evening:
Author : Jack Bauer (IP: 74.63.112.137 , 74.63.112.137)
E-mail : not@gonna.happen
URL :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=74.63.112.137
Comment:
Lt. McCalne says "eat a bag shit".
Here we see him invoking a couple of different fictional characters, each more over the the top than the last and each being the embodiment of jingoistic, chest thumping, apish American Ahabs. Of particular note, "eat a bag shit". Grammatically challenged, lurching, ham fisted attempts at insults which only make him look like an idiot.
Full text (preserved from prior to John going back and deleting all his previous posts):
Ed Bisner Does this really come as a surprise too anyone with a brain?
After 18 months of Obama, Americans already feeling fonder of Dick Cheney, less so of Al Gore | Top.
latimesblogs.latimes.com
Gallup Poll finds Joe Biden is about the same as last year, though down since he actually became vice president.
Thursday at 10:25pm · Comment · Like · Share
Brian Ragle Yes, let's harken back to those days of yore, when our VP alleged a new branch of government somehow existing in a netherworld between the Executive and the Legislative, where he had man-sized safes to keep him from a harm which never came, where he ordered a private company to delete his online map presence, and when he shot an elderly man in the ...
See More
Thursday at 10:51pm · Like ·
Brian Ragle "The people deserve the government they get and they deserve to get it good and hard." I guess the people are saying "thank you sir, may I have another?"
Thursday at 10:52pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Cheney & bush were a hell of a lot better than the freak show we have now with their band of clowns called Spendocrats. They are bankrupting this once proud Country and turning it into a damned Socialist ass Nation of "How can the Gubment support me now?" people.
Odummy can kiss my ass.
Thursday at 10:56pm · Like
Brian Ragle Wow, a lot of rhetoric, not a lot of facts. "Spendocrats"? Would that describe how Bush nearly doubled the national debt from the time he took office to the time he left? Would "socialist" include the bailouts the Bush administration undertook to prop up a failed financial sector, basically giving every bank a bailout?
Thursday at 10:58pm · Like ·
Brian Ragle This isn't about politics, it's about facts. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. For example, is it, indeed, a FACT that under Bush, the national debt nearly doubled? Yes, it is. Is it a fact that, under Bush, a trillion dollar socialized bailout of private industry was requested, even demanded? Yes, it is. Is it a fact that Cheney argued he was a member of two different branched of government and so not subject to the same rules in either? Yes, it is.
It has been my observation that right wingers have problems with these kinds of facts where their messiah figures are concerned. For example, did Reagan triple the national debt? Yes, he did. He initiated massive government spending, but the difference was he was spending on things the right wingers like: guns, bombs, etc. Reagan also dramatically expanded Social Security (a socialized program) and bailed out private industries (the S&L scandal, if you don't remember what that was about, ask McCain).
Right wingers, teabaggers, the like all like their socialized programs when it benefits some cause of theirs (VA care for soldiers? socialized, the military protection for every citizen? socialized). But let 2% of the combined state and federal budgets go to pay for things like food stamps or Medicaid and suddenly it's a terrible thing.
Yesterday at 8:23am · Like ·
Brian Ragle I am not of the right wing hypocrisy that the US national debt is a BAD thing. That's simply something the right wing harps on but then ignores when the debt is incurred during the course of killing brown people in foreign lands. For example, 41% of the national debt is owed back to the US government itself in the form of inter-agency borrowing, mostly from Social Security and Medicare.
I was simply pointing out the facts of the debt under right wing presidents whenever someone brings up current debt levels as some kind of critique of Obama.
Obama's spending, however, happened to be domestic spending, following Keynesian economic theory to help boost the economy nearly destroyed under Bush. It wasn't to go off and invade new countries or to develop some mind boggling stupid defense program, even though defense spending also went up.
Oh, and it's never over just because you don't like what you read.
Yesterday at 10:48am · Like ·
Brian Ragle Banal dismissals don't change the facts. Like them or not, they are still facts. Here's another fun fact. Remember when everyone was going crazy over the Chinese buying up American paper, indebting us to them? Of the posted US national debt, how much do you think that amounted to? 30%? 25%? If you listened to the right wing, it was the end of our economic sovereignty. Turns out to have been only around 6% and Japan currently owns more.
National economies don't work like personal economies. They are tools of geopolitical brinkmanship as much as they financial tools. If a country owns a large portion of our debt, are they more or less likely to engage in policies which might make us rethink our timely repayment of that debt?
Yesterday at 12:00pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Brian.....Odummy debt vs. Bush debt, which is worse?
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.
The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.
And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”
“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html#ixzz0ts9QbMxB
Yesterday at 2:45pm · Like
Ed Bisner Those are the plain facts.....Odummy is an ass & irresponsible when it comes too financial responsibility. Him and his Spendocrats make Bush look better every month.
Yesterday at 2:47pm · Like
Brian Ragle I never denied the debt load, but neither do I think it's a big deal like right wingers do. Of the posted national debt, as I said earlier, 41% of it is owed back to the US government itself, which the Treasury zeros out on actual debt reports. The remaining 51% amounts to roughly 50% of our national GDP, which is both internationally and historically moderate, even low.
For example, consider government spending during and after the Great Depression (which ended the Great Depression, I would point out). It reached 128% of GDP, with no SS/Medi accounts to raid. Yet, the nation was able to pay that down to a manageable amount.
Obama hasn't spent the money on anything stupid. He is wisely following a similar path to get our economy back on track after it nearly wrecked under Bush.
Yesterday at 3:00pm · Like ·
John Sterling Time to go run a few miles, oh I'll chuckle at that one later on...
Yesterday at 3:02pm · Like
Brian Ragle Your humor is noted, as I am sure the people who lost their jobs or homes were not laughing under Bush.
Yesterday at 3:03pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Odummy debt is 50% of GDP? Not for long......
CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.
In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.
"An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."
The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.
That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
Yesterday at 3:05pm · Like
Brian Ragle You should read what I said again. ACTUAL debt, that is, the debt not zeroed out by being owed to the government itself is 50% of GDP.
Posted debt, which is what your story is about, is the whole amount, including the amount owed to the government. Presently, posted debt is somewhere north of 80%, as I recall. Even at 90%, it's still not at an historical or even international high. Japan's economy has been stable at around 180% of GDP for years now. In order for the US to reach ACTUAL debt/GDP of 90%, Obama would have to increase the debt load by another $6 trillion or so.
I guess if we elect another Republican to office, he would try to find some harebrained military operation with that kind of pricetag.
Or maybe if Romney is elected, he will direct NASA to send a manned mission to Kolob.
Yesterday at 3:09pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Odummy is a one term wonder. There is no doubt about that. The thing with Odummy and his debt is that each of us now owe $42,000 for the total debt. You like that? You think that is the change you wanted?
I don't. Odummy is out of his league big time. He slithered out the sewers of Chicago politics and he is spreading that cancer too the rest of the Country.
He along with his minions are digging America into a hole that we may never get out of. After Odummies first term is over he can slither back into that sewer he came from.
19 hours ago · Like
Brian Ragle Actually, Obama is very likely to win a second term, especially given the disarray the Republican party has fallen into with the internal schisms of the teabaggers to blame. The GOP simply have no one to field who would make a viable campaign against the incumbent.
Aside from that, you are once again misunderstanding or mischaracterizing how our national debt works. That $42,000 number you quoted? 41% of that number was money our elected government borrowed from other parts of our government, which had the money in the first place because of funding from taxes. So, no, we do not individually owe that amount.
Further still, of the roughly $25,000 which is left, the majority of that is owed to US-based individuals and institutions, meaning we once again owe ourselves the money.
Of the money owed to foreigners and other countries, we are back to the fact that national economies are not like personal economies. They are tools of brinkmanship every bit as much as a military we gladly pay for is. There is no international repo man. The US pays a service fee on all debt, but only a small amount of it actually leaves our shores and less still leaves the Treasury itself.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle I would point as well that the majority of the American public is aware of the debt and how little it factors into the electoral process. For example, Reagan tripled the national debt, was elected twice. Bush II doubled it, was elected twice.
Clinton actually paid it DOWN somewhat, was elected twice.
Bush I? He raised some taxes on the rich and was abandoned by his own party.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Also, your hyperbole is rather funny given that Obama is no where close to putting the US on a path toward unheralded spending. For that, you can thank FDR, who spent his way out of the Great Depression to the tune of 128% actual debt to GDP.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Ed Bisner Chances are Odummy WILL NOT get re-elected. The polls show that just in June alone only 46% of voters want the a-hole back, while 51% say no way. The longer his reign goes the less people will openly say they support him.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140810/voters-split-obama-election-2012.aspx
19 hours ago · Like
Brian Ragle Actually, mid-term polling is massively unreliable. Ask George W. Bush, the worst rated president in polling history. Also, 46% approval? That's still 3% better than the 43% approval Reagan had 2 years into his first term.
Bill Clinton, who had higher average polling than Reagan, reached a low of 37% in his first term and still was re-elected.
So, predictions of an Obama single term presidency are pre-mature at best, and woefully ignoring the Republican woes at worst. They simply don't have that "great white hope" that Lynn Jenkins publicly said they were looking for.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Oh, and sources for the above stats? Same gallup website you pulled yours:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Fun fact: George H.W. Bush, the last single term US president, reached a low of 29% approval, according to Gallup.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Again, you post opinion without factual backing. Try harder next time. Oh, and the fact that you consider taking a few minutes to post via a mobile devices to be an intrusion into your life shows how behind the times you actually are. I can post to Facebook while driving, using an iPad. Try harder.
18 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle For example, what has Obama screwed up? He has managed to historic health care reform, and now financial regulatory reform through, all with a hostile minority. How did Brown work out for the GOP considering he has been as likely to break ranks and vote with the Democrats as he has to toe the party line.
9 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle No personal insults. Just an observation of facts. You posted baseless opinion, per the usual and then got snippy when called out on it. *shrug* Not my problem, but the whining is certainly noted.
4 hours ago · Like ·
John Sterling Ed I think you got a troll....
4 hours ago · Like
Ed Bisner Hey Brian, just where in the hell do you get off telling me that I need too post to facebook using a mobile device? A damn cell phone is just that, a damn PHONE.
about an hour ago · Like
Brian Ragle I was telling you to do anything. My comment about posting from a mobile device was directed at John and even then, it wasn't telling him what to do so much as commenting on his whining about bothering to post here.
As for John and his "troll" comment, it's interesting the first time someone went personal here was not me. I merely responded to blatantly stupid spin. Right wingers appear to have real trouble with both facts and keeping their emotions in check as is evidence by both the blatantly bad spin present in this thread along with the chest thumping and heated invective hurled amongst opinions and whining about being corrected.
a few seconds ago · Like ·
OK Brian, sorry for getting vocal there......I thought what you said was directed at me.
19 hours ago · Like
Brian Ragle John, a troll is someone who says something deliberately inflammatory in the hopes of provoking a heated reaction in the audience, regardless of the personal beliefs of the troll. In this case, I have known Ed for a number of years and have had numerous political and heated debates with him both here and other forums. Thus, he can reliably expect me to disagree with him on issues such as this. Further still, the means I am not a troll and more like an expected opposition.
Further still, trying to negate my comments by calling them those of a troll simply reveals a bankruptcy of argument.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle But you have time to post to tell us you don't have time to respond, after taking the time to respond and then taking the time to delete said responses?
9 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle And self-contradictory, as I am sure you also noticed.
3 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Of course you disagree. That much is to be expected, given the above and similar baseless disagreements for no other than reason than to be contrary.
But it's clear you no longer are interested in those topics. You were out-facted a long time ago. You just resort to silly one liners now to keep the thread alive and make it appear you still have some relevance to the discussion.
Without facts, however, you aren't relevant.
2 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle No, I am still just doing what I always did: observe, correct, and comment. I don't really understand why this bothers you. You haven't made a single factual comment on the original topics of this thread, choosing instead to ME the topic or object of your comments.
Is this a right winger thing? Or is this just a personal failing on your part? I would be tempted to describe you as an American Ahab, something I seeing a lot more of in recent months.
http://brianragle.com/main/?p=348
about an hour ago · Like ·
John Sterling Look Rangle, your just being a troll, period. I'd have a debate with you but I see myself as supercilious to you and your doing a really good job reinforcing it. If you recall this whole thing started out with me saying I liked Dick Cheney and you attacking and immediately drawing up conclusions with no evidence what-so-ever. I find that rather offensive and rather uncivil. All the characteristics of a troll...
The reason for my vague statements and general lack of interest in you? Wouldn't you like to know, no it's not a right wing thing, no personal failing and I have not been maimed by any whales. I would describe myself more as a Lieutenant McClane.
I left a reply on your website but I am sure you won't allow it's posting so, "yippie-ki-ay motherfucker". Now I'm done with you; your boring the shit out of me and I try not associate with those this far beneath me. Just bad for business.
36 minutes ago · Like
Brian Ragle Simply repeating "you're a troll" over and over again, doesn't make it so, especially given how this was already explained to you previously. Further still, you bely your comments about having no interest when it's clear you DO have interest, just not ability. Thus, you resort to making me the issue.
The comparison to a fictional character in a series of increasingly bad movies is also rather telling of the simplistic, un-nuanced view you appear to have of life. It's similar to how Bush Jr. appeared to think the TV show "24" was a documentary instead of an over-the-top fiction and subsequently based foreign policy on it.
Author : Ahab McClane (IP: 75.64.16.88 , c-75-64-16-88.hsd1.tn.comcast.net)
E-mail : fuck@you.asshole
URL :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=75.64.16.88
Comment:
"yippie-ki-ay, motherfucker"
This is the extent of his response or even capability to respond. He compares himself to some fictional action hero who uses fewer words than the body count he leaves behind with his memorable words being a stupid phrase serving as punctuation to an explosion or gunshot. All of this because he didn't like being in a debate regarding right wing hero like Cheney.
It's the typical American Ahab: contemptuous of facts, knee jerk defensive, and prone to outbursts of insults or worse when threatened or frustrated.
[caption id="attachment_695" align="aligncenter" width="150" caption="Click for full view"]
[/caption]*EDIT*
Another comment from John Sterling was posted this evening:
Author : Jack Bauer (IP: 74.63.112.137 , 74.63.112.137)
E-mail : not@gonna.happen
URL :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=74.63.112.137
Comment:
Lt. McCalne says "eat a bag shit".
Here we see him invoking a couple of different fictional characters, each more over the the top than the last and each being the embodiment of jingoistic, chest thumping, apish American Ahabs. Of particular note, "eat a bag shit". Grammatically challenged, lurching, ham fisted attempts at insults which only make him look like an idiot.
Full text (preserved from prior to John going back and deleting all his previous posts):
Ed Bisner Does this really come as a surprise too anyone with a brain?
After 18 months of Obama, Americans already feeling fonder of Dick Cheney, less so of Al Gore | Top.
latimesblogs.latimes.com
Gallup Poll finds Joe Biden is about the same as last year, though down since he actually became vice president.
Thursday at 10:25pm · Comment · Like · Share
Brian Ragle Yes, let's harken back to those days of yore, when our VP alleged a new branch of government somehow existing in a netherworld between the Executive and the Legislative, where he had man-sized safes to keep him from a harm which never came, where he ordered a private company to delete his online map presence, and when he shot an elderly man in the ...
See More
Thursday at 10:51pm · Like ·
Brian Ragle "The people deserve the government they get and they deserve to get it good and hard." I guess the people are saying "thank you sir, may I have another?"
Thursday at 10:52pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Cheney & bush were a hell of a lot better than the freak show we have now with their band of clowns called Spendocrats. They are bankrupting this once proud Country and turning it into a damned Socialist ass Nation of "How can the Gubment support me now?" people.
Odummy can kiss my ass.
Thursday at 10:56pm · Like
Brian Ragle Wow, a lot of rhetoric, not a lot of facts. "Spendocrats"? Would that describe how Bush nearly doubled the national debt from the time he took office to the time he left? Would "socialist" include the bailouts the Bush administration undertook to prop up a failed financial sector, basically giving every bank a bailout?
Thursday at 10:58pm · Like ·
Brian Ragle This isn't about politics, it's about facts. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. For example, is it, indeed, a FACT that under Bush, the national debt nearly doubled? Yes, it is. Is it a fact that, under Bush, a trillion dollar socialized bailout of private industry was requested, even demanded? Yes, it is. Is it a fact that Cheney argued he was a member of two different branched of government and so not subject to the same rules in either? Yes, it is.
It has been my observation that right wingers have problems with these kinds of facts where their messiah figures are concerned. For example, did Reagan triple the national debt? Yes, he did. He initiated massive government spending, but the difference was he was spending on things the right wingers like: guns, bombs, etc. Reagan also dramatically expanded Social Security (a socialized program) and bailed out private industries (the S&L scandal, if you don't remember what that was about, ask McCain).
Right wingers, teabaggers, the like all like their socialized programs when it benefits some cause of theirs (VA care for soldiers? socialized, the military protection for every citizen? socialized). But let 2% of the combined state and federal budgets go to pay for things like food stamps or Medicaid and suddenly it's a terrible thing.
Yesterday at 8:23am · Like ·
Brian Ragle I am not of the right wing hypocrisy that the US national debt is a BAD thing. That's simply something the right wing harps on but then ignores when the debt is incurred during the course of killing brown people in foreign lands. For example, 41% of the national debt is owed back to the US government itself in the form of inter-agency borrowing, mostly from Social Security and Medicare.
I was simply pointing out the facts of the debt under right wing presidents whenever someone brings up current debt levels as some kind of critique of Obama.
Obama's spending, however, happened to be domestic spending, following Keynesian economic theory to help boost the economy nearly destroyed under Bush. It wasn't to go off and invade new countries or to develop some mind boggling stupid defense program, even though defense spending also went up.
Oh, and it's never over just because you don't like what you read.
Yesterday at 10:48am · Like ·
Brian Ragle Banal dismissals don't change the facts. Like them or not, they are still facts. Here's another fun fact. Remember when everyone was going crazy over the Chinese buying up American paper, indebting us to them? Of the posted US national debt, how much do you think that amounted to? 30%? 25%? If you listened to the right wing, it was the end of our economic sovereignty. Turns out to have been only around 6% and Japan currently owns more.
National economies don't work like personal economies. They are tools of geopolitical brinkmanship as much as they financial tools. If a country owns a large portion of our debt, are they more or less likely to engage in policies which might make us rethink our timely repayment of that debt?
Yesterday at 12:00pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Brian.....Odummy debt vs. Bush debt, which is worse?
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.
The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.
And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”
“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html#ixzz0ts9QbMxB
Yesterday at 2:45pm · Like
Ed Bisner Those are the plain facts.....Odummy is an ass & irresponsible when it comes too financial responsibility. Him and his Spendocrats make Bush look better every month.
Yesterday at 2:47pm · Like
Brian Ragle I never denied the debt load, but neither do I think it's a big deal like right wingers do. Of the posted national debt, as I said earlier, 41% of it is owed back to the US government itself, which the Treasury zeros out on actual debt reports. The remaining 51% amounts to roughly 50% of our national GDP, which is both internationally and historically moderate, even low.
For example, consider government spending during and after the Great Depression (which ended the Great Depression, I would point out). It reached 128% of GDP, with no SS/Medi accounts to raid. Yet, the nation was able to pay that down to a manageable amount.
Obama hasn't spent the money on anything stupid. He is wisely following a similar path to get our economy back on track after it nearly wrecked under Bush.
Yesterday at 3:00pm · Like ·
John Sterling Time to go run a few miles, oh I'll chuckle at that one later on...
Yesterday at 3:02pm · Like
Brian Ragle Your humor is noted, as I am sure the people who lost their jobs or homes were not laughing under Bush.
Yesterday at 3:03pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Odummy debt is 50% of GDP? Not for long......
CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.
In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.
"An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."
The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.
That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
Yesterday at 3:05pm · Like
Brian Ragle You should read what I said again. ACTUAL debt, that is, the debt not zeroed out by being owed to the government itself is 50% of GDP.
Posted debt, which is what your story is about, is the whole amount, including the amount owed to the government. Presently, posted debt is somewhere north of 80%, as I recall. Even at 90%, it's still not at an historical or even international high. Japan's economy has been stable at around 180% of GDP for years now. In order for the US to reach ACTUAL debt/GDP of 90%, Obama would have to increase the debt load by another $6 trillion or so.
I guess if we elect another Republican to office, he would try to find some harebrained military operation with that kind of pricetag.
Or maybe if Romney is elected, he will direct NASA to send a manned mission to Kolob.
Yesterday at 3:09pm · Like ·
Ed Bisner Odummy is a one term wonder. There is no doubt about that. The thing with Odummy and his debt is that each of us now owe $42,000 for the total debt. You like that? You think that is the change you wanted?
I don't. Odummy is out of his league big time. He slithered out the sewers of Chicago politics and he is spreading that cancer too the rest of the Country.
He along with his minions are digging America into a hole that we may never get out of. After Odummies first term is over he can slither back into that sewer he came from.
19 hours ago · Like
Brian Ragle Actually, Obama is very likely to win a second term, especially given the disarray the Republican party has fallen into with the internal schisms of the teabaggers to blame. The GOP simply have no one to field who would make a viable campaign against the incumbent.
Aside from that, you are once again misunderstanding or mischaracterizing how our national debt works. That $42,000 number you quoted? 41% of that number was money our elected government borrowed from other parts of our government, which had the money in the first place because of funding from taxes. So, no, we do not individually owe that amount.
Further still, of the roughly $25,000 which is left, the majority of that is owed to US-based individuals and institutions, meaning we once again owe ourselves the money.
Of the money owed to foreigners and other countries, we are back to the fact that national economies are not like personal economies. They are tools of brinkmanship every bit as much as a military we gladly pay for is. There is no international repo man. The US pays a service fee on all debt, but only a small amount of it actually leaves our shores and less still leaves the Treasury itself.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle I would point as well that the majority of the American public is aware of the debt and how little it factors into the electoral process. For example, Reagan tripled the national debt, was elected twice. Bush II doubled it, was elected twice.
Clinton actually paid it DOWN somewhat, was elected twice.
Bush I? He raised some taxes on the rich and was abandoned by his own party.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Also, your hyperbole is rather funny given that Obama is no where close to putting the US on a path toward unheralded spending. For that, you can thank FDR, who spent his way out of the Great Depression to the tune of 128% actual debt to GDP.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Ed Bisner Chances are Odummy WILL NOT get re-elected. The polls show that just in June alone only 46% of voters want the a-hole back, while 51% say no way. The longer his reign goes the less people will openly say they support him.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140810/voters-split-obama-election-2012.aspx
19 hours ago · Like
Brian Ragle Actually, mid-term polling is massively unreliable. Ask George W. Bush, the worst rated president in polling history. Also, 46% approval? That's still 3% better than the 43% approval Reagan had 2 years into his first term.
Bill Clinton, who had higher average polling than Reagan, reached a low of 37% in his first term and still was re-elected.
So, predictions of an Obama single term presidency are pre-mature at best, and woefully ignoring the Republican woes at worst. They simply don't have that "great white hope" that Lynn Jenkins publicly said they were looking for.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Oh, and sources for the above stats? Same gallup website you pulled yours:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Fun fact: George H.W. Bush, the last single term US president, reached a low of 29% approval, according to Gallup.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Again, you post opinion without factual backing. Try harder next time. Oh, and the fact that you consider taking a few minutes to post via a mobile devices to be an intrusion into your life shows how behind the times you actually are. I can post to Facebook while driving, using an iPad. Try harder.
18 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle For example, what has Obama screwed up? He has managed to historic health care reform, and now financial regulatory reform through, all with a hostile minority. How did Brown work out for the GOP considering he has been as likely to break ranks and vote with the Democrats as he has to toe the party line.
9 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle No personal insults. Just an observation of facts. You posted baseless opinion, per the usual and then got snippy when called out on it. *shrug* Not my problem, but the whining is certainly noted.
4 hours ago · Like ·
John Sterling Ed I think you got a troll....
4 hours ago · Like
Ed Bisner Hey Brian, just where in the hell do you get off telling me that I need too post to facebook using a mobile device? A damn cell phone is just that, a damn PHONE.
about an hour ago · Like
Brian Ragle I was telling you to do anything. My comment about posting from a mobile device was directed at John and even then, it wasn't telling him what to do so much as commenting on his whining about bothering to post here.
As for John and his "troll" comment, it's interesting the first time someone went personal here was not me. I merely responded to blatantly stupid spin. Right wingers appear to have real trouble with both facts and keeping their emotions in check as is evidence by both the blatantly bad spin present in this thread along with the chest thumping and heated invective hurled amongst opinions and whining about being corrected.
a few seconds ago · Like ·
OK Brian, sorry for getting vocal there......I thought what you said was directed at me.
19 hours ago · Like
Brian Ragle John, a troll is someone who says something deliberately inflammatory in the hopes of provoking a heated reaction in the audience, regardless of the personal beliefs of the troll. In this case, I have known Ed for a number of years and have had numerous political and heated debates with him both here and other forums. Thus, he can reliably expect me to disagree with him on issues such as this. Further still, the means I am not a troll and more like an expected opposition.
Further still, trying to negate my comments by calling them those of a troll simply reveals a bankruptcy of argument.
19 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle But you have time to post to tell us you don't have time to respond, after taking the time to respond and then taking the time to delete said responses?
9 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle And self-contradictory, as I am sure you also noticed.
3 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle Of course you disagree. That much is to be expected, given the above and similar baseless disagreements for no other than reason than to be contrary.
But it's clear you no longer are interested in those topics. You were out-facted a long time ago. You just resort to silly one liners now to keep the thread alive and make it appear you still have some relevance to the discussion.
Without facts, however, you aren't relevant.
2 hours ago · Like ·
Brian Ragle No, I am still just doing what I always did: observe, correct, and comment. I don't really understand why this bothers you. You haven't made a single factual comment on the original topics of this thread, choosing instead to ME the topic or object of your comments.
Is this a right winger thing? Or is this just a personal failing on your part? I would be tempted to describe you as an American Ahab, something I seeing a lot more of in recent months.
http://brianragle.com/main/?p=348
about an hour ago · Like ·
John Sterling Look Rangle, your just being a troll, period. I'd have a debate with you but I see myself as supercilious to you and your doing a really good job reinforcing it. If you recall this whole thing started out with me saying I liked Dick Cheney and you attacking and immediately drawing up conclusions with no evidence what-so-ever. I find that rather offensive and rather uncivil. All the characteristics of a troll...
The reason for my vague statements and general lack of interest in you? Wouldn't you like to know, no it's not a right wing thing, no personal failing and I have not been maimed by any whales. I would describe myself more as a Lieutenant McClane.
I left a reply on your website but I am sure you won't allow it's posting so, "yippie-ki-ay motherfucker". Now I'm done with you; your boring the shit out of me and I try not associate with those this far beneath me. Just bad for business.
36 minutes ago · Like
Brian Ragle Simply repeating "you're a troll" over and over again, doesn't make it so, especially given how this was already explained to you previously. Further still, you bely your comments about having no interest when it's clear you DO have interest, just not ability. Thus, you resort to making me the issue.
The comparison to a fictional character in a series of increasingly bad movies is also rather telling of the simplistic, un-nuanced view you appear to have of life. It's similar to how Bush Jr. appeared to think the TV show "24" was a documentary instead of an over-the-top fiction and subsequently based foreign policy on it.
5/07/2010
Adam Smith on Progressive Taxation
Ran across this gem from "The Wealth of Nations", which is pretty much the instruction manual for capitalism:
"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country."
5/06/2010
The Contemptible "Small Government" Fraud Of The Tea Party
From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
Exhibit A from a WaPo online chat:
Seriously? I mean: seriously? We're talking about a debt larger than we've ever contemplated outside of the Second World War and he's talking about eliminating "waste"? And I thought Glenn Reynolds was dishonest ... Of course, we later find out that defense is off the table. But he does mention entitlements, when challenged further:
Pork is a teensy part of the problem. He does later argue that social security disability checks are the source of the spending problem. Yep: seriously, that's his one actual specific recommendation, apart from cutting taxes further! Yes, this tea-partier is still drinking the Laffer curve Kool-Aid. What does he specifically propose for entitlement cuts that come close to the scale of the problem? Nada. And he doesn't even have the excuse of being a pathetic politician trying to get elected. He's not running for office; he's heading up a protest movement against government spending - and he yet he can't offer any serious specifics on what he'd cut that would solve the problem. In fact, he barely seems to have thought about the actual fiscal choices before us for a split second.
Taxes? Pure denial of reality:
Of course not. And the past has to be airbrushed as well:
If I have contempt for these non-arguments, it is because I retain some smidgen of a belief in honest politics and small government. These people are thoroughgoing frauds - a bunch of right-wing victim-mongers whining about something they have no actual ideas about confronting. They are not something new. They are the decaying stench of the Republican corpse. If they get into power somehow, it will be Weekend At Bernie's for conservatism.
Exhibit A from a WaPo online chat:
Boston, Mass.: Here is my question for the Tea Party. What are your solutions to today's problems? For example, I hear the word socialism used alot and government getting too big. But then what would you cut? Or what would the Tea Party members have done about the financial crisis from 2008? I assume that they would not vote to bailout the banks, but what would they do if the biggest banks in the world go under?Judson Phillips: First, cut taxes to increase economic growth. That works everytime. Second, let's go through the entire federal budget and eliminate programs that are consumed by waste, fraud or abuse. Start eliminating them.
Seriously? I mean: seriously? We're talking about a debt larger than we've ever contemplated outside of the Second World War and he's talking about eliminating "waste"? And I thought Glenn Reynolds was dishonest ... Of course, we later find out that defense is off the table. But he does mention entitlements, when challenged further:
Judson Phillips: Let's start with entitlement programs. They are the biggest source of out of control spending. Then let's go to congressional pork programs.
Pork is a teensy part of the problem. He does later argue that social security disability checks are the source of the spending problem. Yep: seriously, that's his one actual specific recommendation, apart from cutting taxes further! Yes, this tea-partier is still drinking the Laffer curve Kool-Aid. What does he specifically propose for entitlement cuts that come close to the scale of the problem? Nada. And he doesn't even have the excuse of being a pathetic politician trying to get elected. He's not running for office; he's heading up a protest movement against government spending - and he yet he can't offer any serious specifics on what he'd cut that would solve the problem. In fact, he barely seems to have thought about the actual fiscal choices before us for a split second.
Taxes? Pure denial of reality:
Washington, D.C.: Judson -- Are you willing to admit that taxes have actually gone down for the vast majority of Americans under President Obama?
Judson Phillips: No
Of course not. And the past has to be airbrushed as well:
Alexandria, Va.: Are you willing to admit that marginal tax rates went up for the majority of Americans during the Reagan administration? Do you know the difference between average and marginal tax rates? Could you answer a simple econ 101 questions regarding the impact of progressive taxation on the labor-leisure choice?
Judson Phillips: No.
If I have contempt for these non-arguments, it is because I retain some smidgen of a belief in honest politics and small government. These people are thoroughgoing frauds - a bunch of right-wing victim-mongers whining about something they have no actual ideas about confronting. They are not something new. They are the decaying stench of the Republican corpse. If they get into power somehow, it will be Weekend At Bernie's for conservatism.
5/01/2010
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
I had a conversation about capitalism and socialism (of course) online recently and brought up this comic strip as an example of how modern right wingers' views would be applied to the teachings of Jesus. Enjoy!
Reprinted from Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them-A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken by permission of Dutton, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Copyright c Al Franken, Inc., 2003. "Supply Side Jesus" illustrations c Don Simpson. All rights reserved. This excerpt, or any parts thereof, may not be reproduced without permission.
Reprinted from Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them-A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken by permission of Dutton, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Copyright c Al Franken, Inc., 2003. "Supply Side Jesus" illustrations c Don Simpson. All rights reserved. This excerpt, or any parts thereof, may not be reproduced without permission.
4/30/2010
Goldman Sachs, justice and stock price
The SEC announced last night they were remanding some of their findings to the Department of Justice for possible criminal charges against Goldman Sachs. The effect on their stock price can be seen below (note, screen shots only, check your broker for current data):
[gallery]
***UPDATE***
Goldman had a bad day:
[caption id="attachment_601" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Image is a screenshot from the iPad Bloomberg app. Click for bigger version."]
[/caption]
[gallery]
***UPDATE***
Goldman had a bad day:
[caption id="attachment_601" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Image is a screenshot from the iPad Bloomberg app. Click for bigger version."]
[/caption]
4/25/2010
More Malarkey About Health Care
Here is another item found which is worth repeating and sharing. See more at FactCheck:
The legislative debate is over, but the false and exaggerated claims just keep on coming.
We’ve seldom seen a piece of legislation so widely misrepresented, and misunderstood, as the new health care law. We stopped counting the number of articles and items we turned out on the subject after the total reached 100.
Some of that is understandable. The debate went on for more than a year, while the different House and Senate bills changed their shape constantly. The final law was the product of an awkward two-step legislative dance that first enacted the Senate’s version, then quickly amended it with a reconciliation "fix." No wonder people are confused.
And even now the misrepresentations continue. The new law is no longer a moving target, but some opponents persist in making false or exaggerated claims about it. Our inboxes are filled with messages asking about assertions that the new law:
For details on these claims about the new law, please read our Analysis section.
As opponents pointed out during debate, the House and Senate health care bills were very long and complicated documents. They also changed several times, making it difficult even for those who had read (or written) the bills to keep up with what was in them. This was a perfect breeding ground for wild rumors. We picked off a lot of them while the bills were still under consideration, but now that the legislation has been signed into law, we’d like to start cleaning up the rest.
Will the law require all patients to be implanted with microchips?
No. Nothing like this appears in the new law, or in any of the bills that Congress considered. This claim stems from a wild misinterpretation of a provision in the original House leadership’s bill (H.R. 3200) that did not require implantation of anything, and that was, in any case, not part of the final legislation. The part of the original House leadership’s bill that’s usually referenced to support this rather paranoid claim actually would have set up a registry for class III medical devices and class II devices that are "implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining." The Federal Drug Administration’s classifications determine how much oversight and regulation the device has — class III devices (such as, for example, replacement heart valves or artificial hips) need pre-market FDA approval; class I devices (like x-ray film or tongue depressors) need only general quality controls. Class II devices, which need to meet performance standards but don’t need pre-market approval, cover a wide range — blood pressure cuffs are class II, but so are cerebral shunts. That’s why the bill specified implantable, life-supporting and life-sustaining devices.
But the bill did not mandate implantable devices of any kind, least of all microchips. Rather, it said that implantable devices will be registered so that physicians can access data about safety and effectiveness in a way that "protects patient privacy and proprietary information." And again, it didn’t become law.
Is TRICARE coverage for military families and retirees affected?
No. Some early scuttlebutt spread by chain e-mails claimed that the House bill would reduce benefits for TRICARE, but we were among the many debunking that false report. See "Health Care Overhaul and TRICARE." And as things have turned out, there’s nothing like that in the new law. Dr. Charles Rice, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, has said that the beneficiaries will not see any change as a result of the new legislation: "For the Department of Defense, and specifically for our 9.6 million TRICARE beneficiaries, this law will not affect the TRICARE benefit. Eligibility, covered benefits, copayments and all other features of our TRICARE program remain in place.” The Department of Defense TRICARE site says the same thing: "This law will not affect the TRICARE benefit. Eligibility, covered benefits, copayments and all other features of our TRICARE program remain."
Will the Amish, Muslims and other religious groups be exempt from the coverage requirement?
Some Amish may. It’s unlikely that other groups will. We’re still checking out this rumor, but the versions we’ve seen are likely overblown. The law does say that some religious groups may be considered exempt from the requirement to have health insurance, and it uses the definition from 26 U.S. Code section 1402(g)(1), which defines the religious groups considered exempt from Social Security payroll taxes. Eligible sects must forbid any payout in the event of death, disability, old age or retirement, including Social Security and Medicare. They must also be approved by the Commissioner for Social Security. The law was originally designed to apply to the Old Order Amish, and we have yet to find any cases in which members of other religious groups were successfully able to claim exemption.
The Social Security bureaucracy has been slow to respond to our queries about which religious groups have been granted exemptions from the payroll tax. But both the federal government and the courts have been very strict on such exemptions in the past. For instance, in 1982 the Supreme Court found that a member of the Old Order Amish claiming exemption under 1402(g) was in fact subject to payroll tax for his employees. That section, the Court said, is applicable only to the self-employed. And in two cases where self-employed individuals claimed a religious opposition to Social Security but weren’t members of approved sects, they were also ordered to pay the tax.
The Christian Science Church, a religious group with restrictions on health care use, has stated publicly that members will be subject to the insurance requirement.
Will the law allow insurers to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions?
In theory, maybe, but the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans has said they will not do so. The health care law was supposed to forbid insurers from denying coverage for children’s preexisting conditions, starting in 2010 (four years before a similar provision kicks in for everyone else). Democrats pushed this as a major selling point of the bill, but it was called into question just a few days after the law’s enactment when insurance companies said that vague language allowed them to continue denying coverage. Previously, insurers might grant coverage to an uninsurable family if a child had a preexisting condition, but exclude that condition from coverage — that is, the insurance companies wouldn’t pay any costs associated with the condition. The new law forbids them from doing so. But, the insurance companies argued, it does not forbid them from denying coverage outright to the entire family.
However, on March 29, the president of AHIP, the insurers’ lobbying group, wrote a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius promising that insurance companies would follow the spirit of the law. "Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," AHIP President Karen Ignani wrote. "With respect to the provisions related to coverage for children, we await and will fully comply with regulations consistent with the principles described in your letter."
Does the law provide for armed IRS agents to enforce penalties?
No. This is a fantasy. GOP lawmakers claim the law might require “as many as 16,500” new jobs in the IRS, a figure inflated by dubious assumptions. But the agency’s role will be mainly to hand out tax credits, not to enforce penalties. And the IRS won’t be sending armed agents to enforce the health care mandate, as falsely claimed by Texas GOP Rep. Ron Paul. The law specifically waives any criminal penalties for those who both decline to obtain insurance coverage and refuse to pay the tax enacted to penalize lack of coverage. For more on this subject, see our Ask FactCheck “IRS Expansion."
Does the law set up a "private army" for Obama?
No. The health care law establishes a Ready Reserve Corps of doctors and other health care workers who can be called upon in the case of a public health emergency. E-mails that call them "Hitler youth" and speculate that they may be administering "lethal injections" are thoroughly false and malicious. For more on this subject, see our Ask FactCheck "Obama’s Private Army."
Are members of Congress and their staffs "exempt" from the law?
No. House and Senate members must obtain coverage just like everybody else — and the new law may give them more limited choices than they have now. The notion that they would somehow be "exempt" is a twisted idea pushed by some conservatives who opposed the creation of exchanges through which individuals could buy coverage and claimed that everyone except Congress would be forced into the exchange plans. Others opposed creating a new government-run "public option" insurance plan, and claimed (falsely) that most non-lawmakers would be herded into that, while members of Congress continued to get their coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which also covers 8 million federal workers, retirees and family members. But the "public option" isn’t even part of the new law. Meanwhile, Congress adopted a Republican amendment that takes House and Senate members and their staff workers out of the FEHB, and forces them to obtain coverage through the new state-run insurance exchanges that will be set up in 2014. In the exchanges, private insurance companies will compete for the business of millions of currently uninsured Americans, those who already buy their own coverage and many small-business owners. These exchanges are modeled on the FEHB, and could turn out to offer a more limited selection of policies. That remains to be seen. For more details, see our Ask FactCheck, "Congress Exempt from Health Bill?"
Lately, the debate has shifted to whether some congressional staffers are "exempt" from this Republican-sponsored requirement to get coverage from state exchanges, which is another matter. The law defines congressional “staff” as “full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.” That language comes from an amendment to the Senate HELP committee bill written by Republican Tom Coburn, who now says that his own definition is too narrow. Coburn and others argue that this definition excludes committee and leadership staff, including those working for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The Congressional Research Service agrees that this is possible. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman told Politico that the provision does apply to leadership staff, but not committee staff. So some Capitol Hill staff workers may still continue to get coverage the same way they always have.
Does the new law cover Viagra for convicted sex offenders?
There’s no change from current law. Convicts who are not in prison can purchase whatever health plan they’d like and some plans could cover erectile-dysfunction drugs. The Congressional Research Service said that there was nothing in the new law that would "require health plans to limit the type of benefits that can be offered based on the plan beneficiary’s prior criminal convictions."
This mini-controversy erupted when Republicans introduced a string of amendments in a final effort to obstruct passage of the reconciliation bill. Republican Sen. Coburn of Oklahoma proposed the amendment to bar sex offenders from getting health plans that covered such drugs with federal money through the state-based exchanges. Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montanacalled the amendment "a crass political stunt." And it failed by a 57-42 vote.
Does the law provide federal funding for abortions?
Not directly, and there are provisions in place to prevent it from doing so indirectly. There’s language in the law that says subsidies from the government can’t be used to pay for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. It’s true that many women who now lack insurance might obtain private policies that cover wider abortion services as a result of the new legislation and with the help of federal subsidies. But insurance companies must keep any subsidy money they receive segregated from premium payments made by private individuals, and must use only private money to pay for abortion coverage. That doesn’t satisfy either side in the abortion debate. Anti-abortion groups are also concerned about increased federal funding for community health centers, but we’ve seen no evidence these centers perform abortions. For more on this subject, see our Ask FactCheck “The Abortion Issue."
– by Jess Henig
Reynolds, Maura. "Health bills allow some a religious exemption." CQ Politics. 3 Aug. 2009.
United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252. U.S. Supreme Court, 23 Feb. 1982.
Jaggard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 582 F2d 1189. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8 Sep. 1978.
Droz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 48 F.3d 1120. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1 Mar. 1995.
Church of Christ, Scientist. "New federal health care reform law and Christian Scientists." Press release. 25 Mar. 2010.
Pear, Robert. "Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print." New York Times. 28 Mar. 2010.
Ignani, Karen. Letter to Kathleen Sebelius. 29 Mar. 2010.
Lovley, Erika and Patrick O’Connor. "Health bill may exempt top Hill staffers." Politico. 24 Mar. 2010.
Fox News. "GOP Senator: Health Care Law Will Permit Sex Offenders to Get Viagra." 6 Apr. 2010.
Condon, Stephanie. "GOP Rolls Out Last-Ditch Efforts to Stop Health Care Bill." CBS News. 24 Mar. 2010.
Frates, Chris. "Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders." Politico. 24 Mar. 2010.
POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010 AT 10:43 AM
FILED UNDER ARTICLES · TAGGED WITH ABORTION, AMISH, BARACK OBAMA, EXEMPT, HEALTH CARE,HEALTH CARE REFORM, HEALTH INSURANCE, IRS, MICROCHIP, MUSLIM, PREEXISTING CONDITIONS,PRIVATE ARMY, TRICARE, VIAGRA
The legislative debate is over, but the false and exaggerated claims just keep on coming.
Summary
We’ve seldom seen a piece of legislation so widely misrepresented, and misunderstood, as the new health care law. We stopped counting the number of articles and items we turned out on the subject after the total reached 100.
Some of that is understandable. The debate went on for more than a year, while the different House and Senate bills changed their shape constantly. The final law was the product of an awkward two-step legislative dance that first enacted the Senate’s version, then quickly amended it with a reconciliation "fix." No wonder people are confused.
And even now the misrepresentations continue. The new law is no longer a moving target, but some opponents persist in making false or exaggerated claims about it. Our inboxes are filled with messages asking about assertions that the new law:
- Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)
- Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)
- Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)
- Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)
- Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)
- Gives President Obama a Nazi-like "private army." (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)
- "Exempts" House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)
- Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)
- Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)
For details on these claims about the new law, please read our Analysis section.
Analysis
As opponents pointed out during debate, the House and Senate health care bills were very long and complicated documents. They also changed several times, making it difficult even for those who had read (or written) the bills to keep up with what was in them. This was a perfect breeding ground for wild rumors. We picked off a lot of them while the bills were still under consideration, but now that the legislation has been signed into law, we’d like to start cleaning up the rest.
Will the law require all patients to be implanted with microchips?
No. Nothing like this appears in the new law, or in any of the bills that Congress considered. This claim stems from a wild misinterpretation of a provision in the original House leadership’s bill (H.R. 3200) that did not require implantation of anything, and that was, in any case, not part of the final legislation. The part of the original House leadership’s bill that’s usually referenced to support this rather paranoid claim actually would have set up a registry for class III medical devices and class II devices that are "implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining." The Federal Drug Administration’s classifications determine how much oversight and regulation the device has — class III devices (such as, for example, replacement heart valves or artificial hips) need pre-market FDA approval; class I devices (like x-ray film or tongue depressors) need only general quality controls. Class II devices, which need to meet performance standards but don’t need pre-market approval, cover a wide range — blood pressure cuffs are class II, but so are cerebral shunts. That’s why the bill specified implantable, life-supporting and life-sustaining devices.
But the bill did not mandate implantable devices of any kind, least of all microchips. Rather, it said that implantable devices will be registered so that physicians can access data about safety and effectiveness in a way that "protects patient privacy and proprietary information." And again, it didn’t become law.
Is TRICARE coverage for military families and retirees affected?
No. Some early scuttlebutt spread by chain e-mails claimed that the House bill would reduce benefits for TRICARE, but we were among the many debunking that false report. See "Health Care Overhaul and TRICARE." And as things have turned out, there’s nothing like that in the new law. Dr. Charles Rice, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, has said that the beneficiaries will not see any change as a result of the new legislation: "For the Department of Defense, and specifically for our 9.6 million TRICARE beneficiaries, this law will not affect the TRICARE benefit. Eligibility, covered benefits, copayments and all other features of our TRICARE program remain in place.” The Department of Defense TRICARE site says the same thing: "This law will not affect the TRICARE benefit. Eligibility, covered benefits, copayments and all other features of our TRICARE program remain."
Will the Amish, Muslims and other religious groups be exempt from the coverage requirement?
Some Amish may. It’s unlikely that other groups will. We’re still checking out this rumor, but the versions we’ve seen are likely overblown. The law does say that some religious groups may be considered exempt from the requirement to have health insurance, and it uses the definition from 26 U.S. Code section 1402(g)(1), which defines the religious groups considered exempt from Social Security payroll taxes. Eligible sects must forbid any payout in the event of death, disability, old age or retirement, including Social Security and Medicare. They must also be approved by the Commissioner for Social Security. The law was originally designed to apply to the Old Order Amish, and we have yet to find any cases in which members of other religious groups were successfully able to claim exemption.
The Social Security bureaucracy has been slow to respond to our queries about which religious groups have been granted exemptions from the payroll tax. But both the federal government and the courts have been very strict on such exemptions in the past. For instance, in 1982 the Supreme Court found that a member of the Old Order Amish claiming exemption under 1402(g) was in fact subject to payroll tax for his employees. That section, the Court said, is applicable only to the self-employed. And in two cases where self-employed individuals claimed a religious opposition to Social Security but weren’t members of approved sects, they were also ordered to pay the tax.
The Christian Science Church, a religious group with restrictions on health care use, has stated publicly that members will be subject to the insurance requirement.
Will the law allow insurers to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions?
In theory, maybe, but the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans has said they will not do so. The health care law was supposed to forbid insurers from denying coverage for children’s preexisting conditions, starting in 2010 (four years before a similar provision kicks in for everyone else). Democrats pushed this as a major selling point of the bill, but it was called into question just a few days after the law’s enactment when insurance companies said that vague language allowed them to continue denying coverage. Previously, insurers might grant coverage to an uninsurable family if a child had a preexisting condition, but exclude that condition from coverage — that is, the insurance companies wouldn’t pay any costs associated with the condition. The new law forbids them from doing so. But, the insurance companies argued, it does not forbid them from denying coverage outright to the entire family.
However, on March 29, the president of AHIP, the insurers’ lobbying group, wrote a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius promising that insurance companies would follow the spirit of the law. "Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," AHIP President Karen Ignani wrote. "With respect to the provisions related to coverage for children, we await and will fully comply with regulations consistent with the principles described in your letter."
Does the law provide for armed IRS agents to enforce penalties?
No. This is a fantasy. GOP lawmakers claim the law might require “as many as 16,500” new jobs in the IRS, a figure inflated by dubious assumptions. But the agency’s role will be mainly to hand out tax credits, not to enforce penalties. And the IRS won’t be sending armed agents to enforce the health care mandate, as falsely claimed by Texas GOP Rep. Ron Paul. The law specifically waives any criminal penalties for those who both decline to obtain insurance coverage and refuse to pay the tax enacted to penalize lack of coverage. For more on this subject, see our Ask FactCheck “IRS Expansion."
Does the law set up a "private army" for Obama?
No. The health care law establishes a Ready Reserve Corps of doctors and other health care workers who can be called upon in the case of a public health emergency. E-mails that call them "Hitler youth" and speculate that they may be administering "lethal injections" are thoroughly false and malicious. For more on this subject, see our Ask FactCheck "Obama’s Private Army."
Are members of Congress and their staffs "exempt" from the law?
No. House and Senate members must obtain coverage just like everybody else — and the new law may give them more limited choices than they have now. The notion that they would somehow be "exempt" is a twisted idea pushed by some conservatives who opposed the creation of exchanges through which individuals could buy coverage and claimed that everyone except Congress would be forced into the exchange plans. Others opposed creating a new government-run "public option" insurance plan, and claimed (falsely) that most non-lawmakers would be herded into that, while members of Congress continued to get their coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which also covers 8 million federal workers, retirees and family members. But the "public option" isn’t even part of the new law. Meanwhile, Congress adopted a Republican amendment that takes House and Senate members and their staff workers out of the FEHB, and forces them to obtain coverage through the new state-run insurance exchanges that will be set up in 2014. In the exchanges, private insurance companies will compete for the business of millions of currently uninsured Americans, those who already buy their own coverage and many small-business owners. These exchanges are modeled on the FEHB, and could turn out to offer a more limited selection of policies. That remains to be seen. For more details, see our Ask FactCheck, "Congress Exempt from Health Bill?"
Lately, the debate has shifted to whether some congressional staffers are "exempt" from this Republican-sponsored requirement to get coverage from state exchanges, which is another matter. The law defines congressional “staff” as “full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.” That language comes from an amendment to the Senate HELP committee bill written by Republican Tom Coburn, who now says that his own definition is too narrow. Coburn and others argue that this definition excludes committee and leadership staff, including those working for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The Congressional Research Service agrees that this is possible. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman told Politico that the provision does apply to leadership staff, but not committee staff. So some Capitol Hill staff workers may still continue to get coverage the same way they always have.
Does the new law cover Viagra for convicted sex offenders?
There’s no change from current law. Convicts who are not in prison can purchase whatever health plan they’d like and some plans could cover erectile-dysfunction drugs. The Congressional Research Service said that there was nothing in the new law that would "require health plans to limit the type of benefits that can be offered based on the plan beneficiary’s prior criminal convictions."
This mini-controversy erupted when Republicans introduced a string of amendments in a final effort to obstruct passage of the reconciliation bill. Republican Sen. Coburn of Oklahoma proposed the amendment to bar sex offenders from getting health plans that covered such drugs with federal money through the state-based exchanges. Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montanacalled the amendment "a crass political stunt." And it failed by a 57-42 vote.
Does the law provide federal funding for abortions?
Not directly, and there are provisions in place to prevent it from doing so indirectly. There’s language in the law that says subsidies from the government can’t be used to pay for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. It’s true that many women who now lack insurance might obtain private policies that cover wider abortion services as a result of the new legislation and with the help of federal subsidies. But insurance companies must keep any subsidy money they receive segregated from premium payments made by private individuals, and must use only private money to pay for abortion coverage. That doesn’t satisfy either side in the abortion debate. Anti-abortion groups are also concerned about increased federal funding for community health centers, but we’ve seen no evidence these centers perform abortions. For more on this subject, see our Ask FactCheck “The Abortion Issue."
– by Jess Henig
Sources
Reynolds, Maura. "Health bills allow some a religious exemption." CQ Politics. 3 Aug. 2009.
United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252. U.S. Supreme Court, 23 Feb. 1982.
Jaggard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 582 F2d 1189. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8 Sep. 1978.
Droz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 48 F.3d 1120. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1 Mar. 1995.
Church of Christ, Scientist. "New federal health care reform law and Christian Scientists." Press release. 25 Mar. 2010.
Pear, Robert. "Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print." New York Times. 28 Mar. 2010.
Ignani, Karen. Letter to Kathleen Sebelius. 29 Mar. 2010.
Lovley, Erika and Patrick O’Connor. "Health bill may exempt top Hill staffers." Politico. 24 Mar. 2010.
Fox News. "GOP Senator: Health Care Law Will Permit Sex Offenders to Get Viagra." 6 Apr. 2010.
Condon, Stephanie. "GOP Rolls Out Last-Ditch Efforts to Stop Health Care Bill." CBS News. 24 Mar. 2010.
Frates, Chris. "Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders." Politico. 24 Mar. 2010.
POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010 AT 10:43 AM
FILED UNDER ARTICLES · TAGGED WITH ABORTION, AMISH, BARACK OBAMA, EXEMPT, HEALTH CARE,HEALTH CARE REFORM, HEALTH INSURANCE, IRS, MICROCHIP, MUSLIM, PREEXISTING CONDITIONS,PRIVATE ARMY, TRICARE, VIAGRA
4/22/2010
Obama and SEC: Conspiracy to Uphold the Law
Several days ago, the SEC charged Goldman Sachs with fraud for its alleged role in deceiving investors regarding a mortgage bond which lost over $1 billion in value. The charges allege that Goldman did not inform investors that the bond's portfolio of mortgages was picked by a hedge fund which was betting against the bond's success. In short, Goldman allegedly allowed someone with a vested monetary interest in the bond's failure to pick the kinds of investments the bond held and then didn't tell people who bought the bond.
These are very serious allegations which strike right at the heart of some of the things occurring on Wall Street leading up to the 2008 crash of the financial sector. The charges were announced at a time when President Obama and the Congress are pursuing new financial regulatory reform targeted at stopping just these types of things from occurring.
Yet, the right wing and Republicans view this as being a sinister conspiracy between the White House and the SEC to bring the fraud charges as part of a PR push to gain support for the financial reform bill. I'll address the very obvious problems with this conspiracy theory in just a bit, but let's examine some of the alleged evidence for this conspiracy theory first.
Rush Limbaugh's show featured an anonymous caller who described himself as having been an intern for Google during his graduate school. The caller, identified only as a "John Doe" claimed to "have some information about the Goldman Sachs SEC key word on Google that you [Limbaugh] might be interested in". He then described the manner by which an organization or business could buy keywords from Google. These keywords, when entered into a Google search, would result in that organization's website featured at the top or side of the search results as a "Sponsored Link". He then described how one such set of keywords, "goldman sachs SEC", would result in a paid link to www.barackobama.com, thus indicating that someone from the campaign office of President Obama paid for those search terms in order to promote the President's regulatory reform push.
Other right wing sites jumped all over this as evidence of collusion between the White House and the SEC to politicize the reform debate at a time the bill is winding its way through the Congress, along with tabloids like the New York Post. They even posted a screenshot as PROOF of their claim:
[caption id="attachment_527" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="The smoking gun of a conspiracy?"]
[/caption]
Now, again, what this conspiracy would actually be trying to accomplish is vague. The SEC has been sifting through the rubble of the financial collapse for almost two years. The investigator examining the Lehman Brothers collapse, for example, is STILL working on sorting out the details of what level of malfeasance, if any, occurred which lead to the company's collapse. The SEC's investigative efforts would have a similar timeline or longer, with an even larger scope, as Goldman was just one player in the much larger derivative bond market. The charges coincide with the new push for regulatory reform from the White House, the Democratic Congress, and even the public at large. Given such widespread agreement that reform needs to happen and those who are responsible for the collapse need to be regulated and investigated, it's unclear what a conspiracy between Obama and the SEC would be seeking to accomplish. Would it be to make people more in favor of reform than they are already? It's unclear, but let's get back to the Google angle to this conspiracy theory for a moment.
In seeking to replicate this experiment, I entered the same search terms in a browser (latest version of Firefox, on a Mac system). This is what I came up with:
[caption id="attachment_528" align="aligncenter" width="892" caption="Right wing conspiracy to hijack Google and oppose financial reform?"]
[/caption]
The website featured in the "Sponsored Link" box is stopthebailouts.org, which redirects the visitor to a right wing website called The Freedom Project, a PAC founded by Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner. What would be the alleged conspiracy here? That a right wing site would seek to undermine the reform bill by buying up Google keywords so visitors are brought to the site's page on it? Is this a conspiracy between Republican leadership to oppose financial reform through Google ad buys? Does the right wing consider it okay for a sitting Congressman's political action committee to buy ads on Google, but not a sitting President's political arm?
Further adding to the conspiratorial nature of this story is Rush Limbaugh's use of an "anonymous source", allegedly providing "inside information" on this process. The truth is that its publicly available from Google's own website. Google provides complete online purchasing of the keywords to promote your link, depending on how much you wish to spend. There was no need for a stagecraft of an "anonymous tipster" who claims to have FORMERLY worked for Google as a mere intern. Anyone with questions about how a sponsored link appears could have just searched Google's own business site.
While this debunks the notion of evidence of a conspiracy, it's still unclear what the alleged conspiracy would be aiming to do. Uphold the law? Goldman Sachs, if found guilty, violated the law and mislead investors through fraudulent advertising of their bond instrument. There may even yet be more charges against them and other players in that market as investigations continue to uncover new information. Does President Obama have a vested political interest in promoting what the investigation has uncovered in his push for his regulatory reform bill? Absolutely, every bit as much as Republican John Boehner has in using the same methods to oppose and undermine it.
There is no conspiracy here. The SEC is an independent agency of the government does not coordinate its enforcement activities with any other branch of government, according to the SEC's own chairperson. Why would they? What's in it for them? The current chairperson was appointed in January of 2009, meaning she has a 5 year term from that point. There's no threat to her job security until then. Given her background as being an appointee of both Republican and Democratic presidents, trying to allege she would be acting on party interests in using an 18 month investigation seems implausibly silly.
These are very serious allegations which strike right at the heart of some of the things occurring on Wall Street leading up to the 2008 crash of the financial sector. The charges were announced at a time when President Obama and the Congress are pursuing new financial regulatory reform targeted at stopping just these types of things from occurring.
Yet, the right wing and Republicans view this as being a sinister conspiracy between the White House and the SEC to bring the fraud charges as part of a PR push to gain support for the financial reform bill. I'll address the very obvious problems with this conspiracy theory in just a bit, but let's examine some of the alleged evidence for this conspiracy theory first.
Rush Limbaugh's show featured an anonymous caller who described himself as having been an intern for Google during his graduate school. The caller, identified only as a "John Doe" claimed to "have some information about the Goldman Sachs SEC key word on Google that you [Limbaugh] might be interested in". He then described the manner by which an organization or business could buy keywords from Google. These keywords, when entered into a Google search, would result in that organization's website featured at the top or side of the search results as a "Sponsored Link". He then described how one such set of keywords, "goldman sachs SEC", would result in a paid link to www.barackobama.com, thus indicating that someone from the campaign office of President Obama paid for those search terms in order to promote the President's regulatory reform push.
Other right wing sites jumped all over this as evidence of collusion between the White House and the SEC to politicize the reform debate at a time the bill is winding its way through the Congress, along with tabloids like the New York Post. They even posted a screenshot as PROOF of their claim:
[caption id="attachment_527" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="The smoking gun of a conspiracy?"]
[/caption]Now, again, what this conspiracy would actually be trying to accomplish is vague. The SEC has been sifting through the rubble of the financial collapse for almost two years. The investigator examining the Lehman Brothers collapse, for example, is STILL working on sorting out the details of what level of malfeasance, if any, occurred which lead to the company's collapse. The SEC's investigative efforts would have a similar timeline or longer, with an even larger scope, as Goldman was just one player in the much larger derivative bond market. The charges coincide with the new push for regulatory reform from the White House, the Democratic Congress, and even the public at large. Given such widespread agreement that reform needs to happen and those who are responsible for the collapse need to be regulated and investigated, it's unclear what a conspiracy between Obama and the SEC would be seeking to accomplish. Would it be to make people more in favor of reform than they are already? It's unclear, but let's get back to the Google angle to this conspiracy theory for a moment.
In seeking to replicate this experiment, I entered the same search terms in a browser (latest version of Firefox, on a Mac system). This is what I came up with:
[caption id="attachment_528" align="aligncenter" width="892" caption="Right wing conspiracy to hijack Google and oppose financial reform?"]
[/caption]The website featured in the "Sponsored Link" box is stopthebailouts.org, which redirects the visitor to a right wing website called The Freedom Project, a PAC founded by Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner. What would be the alleged conspiracy here? That a right wing site would seek to undermine the reform bill by buying up Google keywords so visitors are brought to the site's page on it? Is this a conspiracy between Republican leadership to oppose financial reform through Google ad buys? Does the right wing consider it okay for a sitting Congressman's political action committee to buy ads on Google, but not a sitting President's political arm?
Further adding to the conspiratorial nature of this story is Rush Limbaugh's use of an "anonymous source", allegedly providing "inside information" on this process. The truth is that its publicly available from Google's own website. Google provides complete online purchasing of the keywords to promote your link, depending on how much you wish to spend. There was no need for a stagecraft of an "anonymous tipster" who claims to have FORMERLY worked for Google as a mere intern. Anyone with questions about how a sponsored link appears could have just searched Google's own business site.
While this debunks the notion of evidence of a conspiracy, it's still unclear what the alleged conspiracy would be aiming to do. Uphold the law? Goldman Sachs, if found guilty, violated the law and mislead investors through fraudulent advertising of their bond instrument. There may even yet be more charges against them and other players in that market as investigations continue to uncover new information. Does President Obama have a vested political interest in promoting what the investigation has uncovered in his push for his regulatory reform bill? Absolutely, every bit as much as Republican John Boehner has in using the same methods to oppose and undermine it.
There is no conspiracy here. The SEC is an independent agency of the government does not coordinate its enforcement activities with any other branch of government, according to the SEC's own chairperson. Why would they? What's in it for them? The current chairperson was appointed in January of 2009, meaning she has a 5 year term from that point. There's no threat to her job security until then. Given her background as being an appointee of both Republican and Democratic presidents, trying to allege she would be acting on party interests in using an 18 month investigation seems implausibly silly.
4/15/2010
Historical Reality: Boston Tea Party
Often, historical stories get changed in the retelling and can come to mean entirely different things than their original facts indicated. I explore these "myths by retelling" in the series Historical Reality.
#1 Boston Tea Party
In honor of Tax Day in the US and with a growing tide of protesting voices calling themselves "tea partiers", it's time to take a look at the Boston Tea Party, the traditional "anti-tax/anti-government" story. First, let's hear how the story is currently told. Here's one example from the Re-Tea Party:
What were they protesting? Lack of representation in the British Parliament? Hmm. Let's look at another. This one, from the Tea Party Patriots, doesn't so much tell the story as it sums up what they believed the tea party was all about:
Interestingly enough, another portion of their mission statement, regarding their beliefs, reads:
That's an intriguing, if off-topic, blurb which I might explore later. For now, suffice it to say that the Boston Tea Party is generally believed to be a response by patriotic proto-American citizens to an oppressive government with its huge tax burden.
The Reality
The Boston Tea Party occurred on December 16, 1773. One of the main protagonists was Samuel Adams, a Whig Party member and tea smuggler, who worked closely with John Hancock, another well known smuggler. What they and their cohorts were protesting wasn't the high taxes on tea. Quite the contrary, actually.
By early 1773, the Townshend Act tax on tea had been place for almost 6 years and was pretty much a fixture of the colonial tea trade. In fact, the tax was higher in England than it was in the colonies, meaning that such merchants as the East India Company with growing warehouse surpluses in England due to poor sales even as their colonial exports did okay (they received a refund of some of the taxes they collected from tea exported to the colonies).
Meanwhile, in the American colonies, the tea taxes were either grudgingly paid or were bypassed altogether with the burgeoning tea smuggling such notables as Adams and Hancock engaged in with tea from Denmark. By the middle of the year, the EIC was lobbying the Parliament for some help to deal with their surplus tea stock (a bailout, if you will ;) ). The Parliament responded with some changes to the law which allowed the EIC to pay the colonial taxes in England instead of collecting them in port and also gave a subsidy for tea shipments to the colonies. This resulted in a net decrease in the tax on tea the colonists paid.
Let's say that again: the taxes the colonists paid on tea went down.
This was a win for the colonists. They got to pay less for their tea than before and enjoy a fine cup of the good EIC stuff. Yet, this wasn't something all colonials welcomed. Re-enter, the smugglers.
Hancock and Adams, et al, found themselves facing an undercut tea price. You see, the lowering of the tea tax meant the colonists could enjoy not only a lower cost tea, but a lower cost than even the smugglers could sell it. This threatened the bottom line of Hancock's lucrative shipping business and that of his loyal lackey Adams. What to do?
Well, protesting against lowered taxes was out because who wants to protest that? So, those early tea partiers (smugglers) focused instead on another thorny issue: representation in the Parliament.
"No taxation without representation" was the shrill cry. Except, this was also wrong.
You see, the colonists did have representation in the Parliament. In England, at that time, the Parliament was comprised of voted-in members. The people doing the voting? Roughly 3% of British citizens. Nearly all British subjects, colonists included, had virtual representation in the Parliament. According to the great English statesman, Samuel Johnson, the colonists are represented by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England." This was especially true for the colonists given their distance from the English mainland and the sheer costs of protecting the colonies from other countries and the natives.
In effect, the tea smugglers of the colonies jumped on the traditional notion for how British Parliament worked in an effort to stir sympathy to their cause of protesting a 6 year old tea tax which was recently lowered.
So, what did they do? On the night of December 16, the last night the EIC ships could remain in harbor without offloading and being paid their taxes or risk confiscation by the local authorities, a group of men left the meeting Samuel Adams was holding nearby. They dressed like Mohawk natives, apparently to play on fears of native invaders and to hide their identities, boarded the ships, and dumped all the tea overboard, thereby securing smuggler trading for weeks and months to come.
And it didn't stop there.
The tea was stored in tightly packed bags inside crates and chests. Many such bags and chests continued to float in the harbor and eventually float out to sea. Enterprising colonists, hearing about the previous evening's "party", peered out on the water to, sure enough, see a wealth of floating tea. Everyone from store merchants to poor people and anyone else who could row a boat floated out to collect some of the floating tea.
The tea smugglers (tea partiers) not wanting to allow even this small loophole in their plans to secure their smuggling business also rowed out. They physically threatened and turned away anyone trying to collect the floating tea bales. They then beat the bales with their oars in order to soak and sink them forever, ruining the tea and preventing anyone from getting a freebie.
Samuel Adams used this incident to begin a long series of propaganda pieces, depicting the tea partiers (smugglers) as patriotic heroes who were standing against an unjust government. This, combined with similar monied interests, fomented the beginnings of the American revolution.
Myth: American patriots struck a blow against Big Government and excessive taxes.
Reality: Monied smugglers, acting under the guise of populist sentiment, struck a blow against their legitimate competition and ensured their smuggling profits, made from the colonists themselves, weren't affected by the lowered taxes.
#1 Boston Tea Party
In honor of Tax Day in the US and with a growing tide of protesting voices calling themselves "tea partiers", it's time to take a look at the Boston Tea Party, the traditional "anti-tax/anti-government" story. First, let's hear how the story is currently told. Here's one example from the Re-Tea Party:
The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct protest by American Colonists demanding representation in the British Government. They became known as the original patriots.
What were they protesting? Lack of representation in the British Parliament? Hmm. Let's look at another. This one, from the Tea Party Patriots, doesn't so much tell the story as it sums up what they believed the tea party was all about:
The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.
Interestingly enough, another portion of their mission statement, regarding their beliefs, reads:
...united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers
That's an intriguing, if off-topic, blurb which I might explore later. For now, suffice it to say that the Boston Tea Party is generally believed to be a response by patriotic proto-American citizens to an oppressive government with its huge tax burden.
The Reality
The Boston Tea Party occurred on December 16, 1773. One of the main protagonists was Samuel Adams, a Whig Party member and tea smuggler, who worked closely with John Hancock, another well known smuggler. What they and their cohorts were protesting wasn't the high taxes on tea. Quite the contrary, actually.
By early 1773, the Townshend Act tax on tea had been place for almost 6 years and was pretty much a fixture of the colonial tea trade. In fact, the tax was higher in England than it was in the colonies, meaning that such merchants as the East India Company with growing warehouse surpluses in England due to poor sales even as their colonial exports did okay (they received a refund of some of the taxes they collected from tea exported to the colonies).
Meanwhile, in the American colonies, the tea taxes were either grudgingly paid or were bypassed altogether with the burgeoning tea smuggling such notables as Adams and Hancock engaged in with tea from Denmark. By the middle of the year, the EIC was lobbying the Parliament for some help to deal with their surplus tea stock (a bailout, if you will ;) ). The Parliament responded with some changes to the law which allowed the EIC to pay the colonial taxes in England instead of collecting them in port and also gave a subsidy for tea shipments to the colonies. This resulted in a net decrease in the tax on tea the colonists paid.
Let's say that again: the taxes the colonists paid on tea went down.
This was a win for the colonists. They got to pay less for their tea than before and enjoy a fine cup of the good EIC stuff. Yet, this wasn't something all colonials welcomed. Re-enter, the smugglers.
Hancock and Adams, et al, found themselves facing an undercut tea price. You see, the lowering of the tea tax meant the colonists could enjoy not only a lower cost tea, but a lower cost than even the smugglers could sell it. This threatened the bottom line of Hancock's lucrative shipping business and that of his loyal lackey Adams. What to do?
Well, protesting against lowered taxes was out because who wants to protest that? So, those early tea partiers (smugglers) focused instead on another thorny issue: representation in the Parliament.
"No taxation without representation" was the shrill cry. Except, this was also wrong.
You see, the colonists did have representation in the Parliament. In England, at that time, the Parliament was comprised of voted-in members. The people doing the voting? Roughly 3% of British citizens. Nearly all British subjects, colonists included, had virtual representation in the Parliament. According to the great English statesman, Samuel Johnson, the colonists are represented by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England." This was especially true for the colonists given their distance from the English mainland and the sheer costs of protecting the colonies from other countries and the natives.
In effect, the tea smugglers of the colonies jumped on the traditional notion for how British Parliament worked in an effort to stir sympathy to their cause of protesting a 6 year old tea tax which was recently lowered.
So, what did they do? On the night of December 16, the last night the EIC ships could remain in harbor without offloading and being paid their taxes or risk confiscation by the local authorities, a group of men left the meeting Samuel Adams was holding nearby. They dressed like Mohawk natives, apparently to play on fears of native invaders and to hide their identities, boarded the ships, and dumped all the tea overboard, thereby securing smuggler trading for weeks and months to come.
And it didn't stop there.
The tea was stored in tightly packed bags inside crates and chests. Many such bags and chests continued to float in the harbor and eventually float out to sea. Enterprising colonists, hearing about the previous evening's "party", peered out on the water to, sure enough, see a wealth of floating tea. Everyone from store merchants to poor people and anyone else who could row a boat floated out to collect some of the floating tea.
The tea smugglers (tea partiers) not wanting to allow even this small loophole in their plans to secure their smuggling business also rowed out. They physically threatened and turned away anyone trying to collect the floating tea bales. They then beat the bales with their oars in order to soak and sink them forever, ruining the tea and preventing anyone from getting a freebie.
Samuel Adams used this incident to begin a long series of propaganda pieces, depicting the tea partiers (smugglers) as patriotic heroes who were standing against an unjust government. This, combined with similar monied interests, fomented the beginnings of the American revolution.
Myth: American patriots struck a blow against Big Government and excessive taxes.
Reality: Monied smugglers, acting under the guise of populist sentiment, struck a blow against their legitimate competition and ensured their smuggling profits, made from the colonists themselves, weren't affected by the lowered taxes.
RIAA Wants Gov. to Delete Your Illegal Downloads
RIAA Wants Gov. to Delete Your Illegal Downloads.
They are welcome to try. Then they will learn what things like "consumer encryption" and "PGP" mean.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying desperately to prop up a failed business model. This will make their eventual downfall as a viable business that much harder on those involved.
They are welcome to try. Then they will learn what things like "consumer encryption" and "PGP" mean.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying desperately to prop up a failed business model. This will make their eventual downfall as a viable business that much harder on those involved.
Teabaggers protesting historically low taxes?
From the CBPP:
By Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet
April 14, 2010
RELATED AREAS OF RESEARCH
Tax — Federal
2001/2003 Tax Cuts
Individuals and Families
Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That’s true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.
Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the second-lowest percentage in the past 50 years.
Overall federal taxes: Middle-income households are paying overall federal taxes — which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes — at or near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Federal Income Taxes Have Declined Significantly in Recent Decades
Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades (see Figure 1).
In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut that President Bush and Congress enacted, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates — a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999). [1] The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations.
This year, the Making Work Pay tax credit, which President Obama and Congress enacted as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is providing a credit of $800 to married joint filers ($400 to single filers). A median-income family with two children thus will receive an $800 tax cut in the return it files this year.
With the new tax cut, the median family’s federal income taxes will equal just 4.6 percent of its income in 2009. That is lower than in any year since 1955 (the first year for which these data are available) except for 2008, when another stimulus-related tax cut was in effect.
The 4.6 percent effective tax rate — the percentage of its income that a family pays in taxes — is well below the 15 percent marginal tax rate that a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum faces. Typically, such a family reduces its effective tax rate by taking the standard deduction (or, in some cases, itemized deductions), personal exemptions, and tax credits such as the child tax credit. The Making Work Pay tax credit further reduces that family’s effective tax rate.
Overall Federal Taxes Also at Low Levels
The decline in income taxes on middle-class households in recent years has driven a decline in these households’ overall federal taxes.
Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid an average of 14.2 percent of their income in overall federal taxes in 2006, the latest year for which data are available, according to CBO.[2] This is just slightly above this group’s effective tax rate of 13.8 percent in 2003, which was the lowest level since at least 1979.
Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare, than they do in income taxes. Thus, the 14.2 percent figure reflects the impact of payroll taxes far more than income taxes.
Due to the impact of the recession and the temporary tax cuts in the Recovery Act, particularly the Making Work Pay tax credit, CBO data for 2009 (when they become available) will likely show that middle-income families faced significantly lower effective overall federal tax rates than in 2006.
End Notes:
[1] Tax Policy Center, “Historical Federal Income Tax Rates for a Family of Four,” April 12, 2010. The Tax Policy Center’s estimates were derived by updating (using Treasury’s methodology) a 1998 Treasury Department analysis that examined changes since 1955 in the percentage of income that the median-income family of four pays in federal income taxes.
[2] The CBO study covers the 1979-2006 period and includes federal income, payroll, and excise taxes. Congressional Budget Office, “Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates, 1979-2006,” April 2009.
By Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet
April 14, 2010
RELATED AREAS OF RESEARCH
Tax — Federal
2001/2003 Tax Cuts
Individuals and Families
Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That’s true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.
Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the second-lowest percentage in the past 50 years.
Overall federal taxes: Middle-income households are paying overall federal taxes — which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes — at or near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Federal Income Taxes Have Declined Significantly in Recent Decades
Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades (see Figure 1).
In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut that President Bush and Congress enacted, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates — a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999). [1] The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations.
This year, the Making Work Pay tax credit, which President Obama and Congress enacted as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is providing a credit of $800 to married joint filers ($400 to single filers). A median-income family with two children thus will receive an $800 tax cut in the return it files this year.
With the new tax cut, the median family’s federal income taxes will equal just 4.6 percent of its income in 2009. That is lower than in any year since 1955 (the first year for which these data are available) except for 2008, when another stimulus-related tax cut was in effect.
The 4.6 percent effective tax rate — the percentage of its income that a family pays in taxes — is well below the 15 percent marginal tax rate that a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum faces. Typically, such a family reduces its effective tax rate by taking the standard deduction (or, in some cases, itemized deductions), personal exemptions, and tax credits such as the child tax credit. The Making Work Pay tax credit further reduces that family’s effective tax rate.
Overall Federal Taxes Also at Low Levels
The decline in income taxes on middle-class households in recent years has driven a decline in these households’ overall federal taxes.
Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid an average of 14.2 percent of their income in overall federal taxes in 2006, the latest year for which data are available, according to CBO.[2] This is just slightly above this group’s effective tax rate of 13.8 percent in 2003, which was the lowest level since at least 1979.
Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare, than they do in income taxes. Thus, the 14.2 percent figure reflects the impact of payroll taxes far more than income taxes.
Due to the impact of the recession and the temporary tax cuts in the Recovery Act, particularly the Making Work Pay tax credit, CBO data for 2009 (when they become available) will likely show that middle-income families faced significantly lower effective overall federal tax rates than in 2006.
End Notes:
[1] Tax Policy Center, “Historical Federal Income Tax Rates for a Family of Four,” April 12, 2010. The Tax Policy Center’s estimates were derived by updating (using Treasury’s methodology) a 1998 Treasury Department analysis that examined changes since 1955 in the percentage of income that the median-income family of four pays in federal income taxes.
[2] The CBO study covers the 1979-2006 period and includes federal income, payroll, and excise taxes. Congressional Budget Office, “Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates, 1979-2006,” April 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
