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 taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
7/03/2011
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
10/13/2010
Facebook Debates
Sometimes, you just have to take a private debate, public. Names are omitted, but the following is an exchange I am having on my Facebook account, or I should say, on a post on someone else's Facebook account:
Actually, not only is it now favored by a majority of Americans, it actually grew in popularity after it was passed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/polls-indicate-support-for-health-care-reform-has-increased-since-sunday-vote/?fbid=UOpdcnIl9IM
The Democrats and Republicans in the Congress indeed passed the proposed budget by then-president Bush, which he then signed off on. It was a record breaking $3 trillion, the largest budget in history at that time. Indeed, it was a Democratic majority in the Congress at that time. It's still a Democratic majority in the Congress and a Democratic president, with a reduced deficit over his predecessor.
While the stimulus wasn't big enough to keep unemployment below 8%, it did, in fact, stave off the worst of the crash overseen by Bush. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the stimulus added jobs to our economy:
http://factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/
As you may or may not recall, Obama said he would set a timetable upon entering office, which he did. Iraq, even now, isn't even fully settled and corruption remains rife, especially the Chalabi elements Bush allowed to proliferate, along with their theocratic constitution. Yet, we still drew down in accordance with Obama's stated timetable and exit strategy, something Bush never seemed capable of providing.
As for Afghanistan, it was Bush's war and it will always be Bush's war no matter how many presidents have to oversee it.
I guess you missed this, then: President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum dated December 15, 2009 formally closing the detention center and ordering the transfer of prisoners to the Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base
He also assured us that the rest of the world would love us. It's worse than ever.
I guess you also missed this:
http://pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/obama-more-popular-abroad-than-at-home/
Congressional approval has been down for years now, yet Democrats still rate more favorably than Republicans and Obama rates better than all of them.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142898/job-approval-ratings-low-parties-congress.aspx
And this is where your rant deviates from debatable facts and into the realm of hyperbolic rhetoric and paranoia. Neo-Marxist? Really? Have you ever even read Marx? Can you actually show where Obama has decried capitalism even as he continued the tradition of suckling up to corporate interests in this country? Can you show how Obama's spending habits differ all that much from Bush, who doubled the national debt, or Reagan, who tripled the national debt?
No, I think November isn't going to hold the surprise you think it does. November will be the status quo because the US keeps electing the same folks, or similar to run things. That's a clue for you. Government isn't imposed on you by some foreign entity. It's your fellow citizens and while you have aligned yourself, apparently, with a vocal fringe, you will find that the majority are pretty moderate, even liberal on most issues.
The health care bill was and is opposed by the vast majority of the American people and is probably the single most important reason for the coming debacle on November 2. If it is not stopped, it will destroy the best health care system in the world.
Actually, not only is it now favored by a majority of Americans, it actually grew in popularity after it was passed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/polls-indicate-support-for-health-care-reform-has-increased-since-sunday-vote/?fbid=UOpdcnIl9IM
For Bush's last fiscal year, the Democrats were in control of the Congress. The President cannot spend one nickel, cannot raise or lower the deficit one nickel, without the approval of Congress. Am I to understand that you believe that the Democratic-controlled Congress did Bush's bidding? It is disingenuous to suggest that "Bush" did anything with regard to the budget.
The Democrats and Republicans in the Congress indeed passed the proposed budget by then-president Bush, which he then signed off on. It was a record breaking $3 trillion, the largest budget in history at that time. Indeed, it was a Democratic majority in the Congress at that time. It's still a Democratic majority in the Congress and a Democratic president, with a reduced deficit over his predecessor.
Obama did not promise to "stabilize" the unemployment rate. He promised to lower it. He solemnly assured us that if Congress passed his "stimulus" act, the unemployment rate would not go above 8%.
While the stimulus wasn't big enough to keep unemployment below 8%, it did, in fact, stave off the worst of the crash overseen by Bush. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the stimulus added jobs to our economy:
http://factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/
The reason we are able to withdraw from Iraq is that Bush's "Surge" worked, after Obama promised us that it would not. Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam. In the long run, I believe that neither country can be saved.
As you may or may not recall, Obama said he would set a timetable upon entering office, which he did. Iraq, even now, isn't even fully settled and corruption remains rife, especially the Chalabi elements Bush allowed to proliferate, along with their theocratic constitution. Yet, we still drew down in accordance with Obama's stated timetable and exit strategy, something Bush never seemed capable of providing.
As for Afghanistan, it was Bush's war and it will always be Bush's war no matter how many presidents have to oversee it.
He also assured us that he would close Gitmo. Hasn't happened. Won't happen.
I guess you missed this, then: President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum dated December 15, 2009 formally closing the detention center and ordering the transfer of prisoners to the Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base
He also assured us that the rest of the world would love us. It's worse than ever.
I guess you also missed this:
U.S. favorability ratings remain high in Western Europe and have increased markedly in China and Russia. But opinions remain negative in many Muslim nations. Mexican views of the U.S. tumbled following passage of Arizona’s immigration law. Confidence in Obama is high across much of the world, but support for his handling of specific policies is less widespread.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/obama-more-popular-abroad-than-at-home/
Congressional approval rating is at a record low. 60%+ of the people say we're on the wrong track. The Republicans are farther ahead on the "generic ballot" than at ANY time in the past, ever. In other words, the Democrats are farther behind. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda is the reason.
Congressional approval has been down for years now, yet Democrats still rate more favorably than Republicans and Obama rates better than all of them.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142898/job-approval-ratings-low-parties-congress.aspx
What we are supposed to be regretting is expanded government power, increased government spending, more intrusion of government into our private lives, and (with the help of Congress) setting the United States on the road to financial disaster. Look at Zimbabwe and you'll know.
What we are supposed to be regretting is a narcissistic President who believes government is the answer to everything. We are supposed to be regretting a neo-Marxist who believes that America, capitalism and the free market is the problem.
Bottom line: "Yeah, but Bush . . . " just doesn't work for me any more. Bush is not President any more. Obama has been President for two years. This is not about Bush. This is about Obama. The Democrats will lose, and lose big, because of Obama and his agenda.
And this is where your rant deviates from debatable facts and into the realm of hyperbolic rhetoric and paranoia. Neo-Marxist? Really? Have you ever even read Marx? Can you actually show where Obama has decried capitalism even as he continued the tradition of suckling up to corporate interests in this country? Can you show how Obama's spending habits differ all that much from Bush, who doubled the national debt, or Reagan, who tripled the national debt?
No, I think November isn't going to hold the surprise you think it does. November will be the status quo because the US keeps electing the same folks, or similar to run things. That's a clue for you. Government isn't imposed on you by some foreign entity. It's your fellow citizens and while you have aligned yourself, apparently, with a vocal fringe, you will find that the majority are pretty moderate, even liberal on most issues.
When greed needs to discredit Social Justice
In his essay titled "The 'Social Justice' Fallacy: Wolves in Sheep's Clothing", Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson attempts to peel back the covering on the modern notion of "social justice". Or, at least, his notion of what modern social justice is and says. The entirety of his argument can be boiled down to the 3rd paragraph:
And there we have it. A neat, tied with a bow right wing talking point which includes the following key aspects:
As support for his point regarding "Biblical justice", this apparently-Christian author puzzlingly invokes ancient Hebrew law, which is neither applicable to his religious belief nor is part of what the Christians consider their "New Covenant" with their god.
Leviticus being the go-to book of non-applicable law the Christian right wingers use for a quick and direct condemnation of something they dislike, the above passage is about fairness. The chapter lists multiple things the ancient Hebrews were to do in conducting themselves with their neighbors. It's the usual stuff we would expect, such as don't cheat someone in a business deal, don't lie, don't steal, and don't mess with the handicapped.
But Dr. Hendrickson picked out the verse about not paying attention to the poor or the rich during judgment as being the example of Biblical justice out of step with "social justice". He claims that when we attempt to create an egalitarian society, wherein the poor are taken care of and the rich pay their fair share of taxes, it's a form of punitive judgment, with the economic classes being treated differently.
This is a familiar screed to those versed in the various tax arguments used by Republicans, teabaggers, Libertarians, and the like. Taxing the rich is described as "punishing" the rich. After all, isn't the fact that the rich pay more in taxes than the poor a form of discrimination? Aren't forced taxes which are then used to feed the poor a method of income redistribution akin to the monstrous Marxists and Communists?
The answer is, ironically enough, within the very same chapter Dr. Hendrickson quote mined. Several verses prior to the passage about judgments (more on that in a minute), we find this:
The ancient Hebrew lawgivers, and by extension, their god, weren't strangers to the notion of taxes for the purpose of a social safety net. In the same list of commands their law dictates blind justice, respecting no economic class where the dispensation of justice is concerned, it also commands a portion of the harvest, one's income at the time, to be held back and given over to the poor and "strangers", Bible-speak for foreign travelers. The verse Dr. Hendrickson picked out was for judgments, for the courts and his use of it to conflate the meaning of "social justice" is all the more egregious as a result.
Social justice as a concept has its very roots in Christianity, first coined by a Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli and based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. It doesn't use "justice" in the legalistic sense Dr. Hendrickson misrepresented it as, but in a larger, more abstract moral sense. Justice even in terms of when Jesus said "whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do also unto me."
Dr. Hendrickson is simply one among many in the right wing who would seek to make the Christian god into a capitalist, his son Jesus into a Supply Sider. Whether through ignorance or malice, they rip passages from context from a book which has many fantastical, unbelievable claims, but also serene nuggets of comfort for the afflicted and downtrodden. As a recent Pew study confirmed, atheists tend to be the best educated regarding religions and holy books. With that, I offer Dr. Hendrickson some sorely needed education on what the Bible has to say about helping the poor:
More income tax:
More protection for the poor:
Social Justice:
The rich need to share:
Uplift the poor:
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="463" caption="Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson --kind of a dickhead"]
[/caption]
The modern left’s “social justice” strives for economic equality. It endeavors to reduce, if not erase, the gap between rich and poor by redistributing wealth. This is “justice” more akin to Marx and Lenin, not according to Moses and Jesus.
And there we have it. A neat, tied with a bow right wing talking point which includes the following key aspects:
- It creates a distinction between "left" and "right", thus making it into a polar issue one must decide on
- It uses scary buzzwords commonly used by right wing political candidates and office holders, such as "redistributing wealth"
- It invokes the scary specters of Marx and Lenin to drive home the point.
- It invokes Jesus and Moses as being in agreement with the right wingers.
As support for his point regarding "Biblical justice", this apparently-Christian author puzzlingly invokes ancient Hebrew law, which is neither applicable to his religious belief nor is part of what the Christians consider their "New Covenant" with their god.
“Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty” -Leviticus 19:15
Leviticus being the go-to book of non-applicable law the Christian right wingers use for a quick and direct condemnation of something they dislike, the above passage is about fairness. The chapter lists multiple things the ancient Hebrews were to do in conducting themselves with their neighbors. It's the usual stuff we would expect, such as don't cheat someone in a business deal, don't lie, don't steal, and don't mess with the handicapped.
But Dr. Hendrickson picked out the verse about not paying attention to the poor or the rich during judgment as being the example of Biblical justice out of step with "social justice". He claims that when we attempt to create an egalitarian society, wherein the poor are taken care of and the rich pay their fair share of taxes, it's a form of punitive judgment, with the economic classes being treated differently.
This is a familiar screed to those versed in the various tax arguments used by Republicans, teabaggers, Libertarians, and the like. Taxing the rich is described as "punishing" the rich. After all, isn't the fact that the rich pay more in taxes than the poor a form of discrimination? Aren't forced taxes which are then used to feed the poor a method of income redistribution akin to the monstrous Marxists and Communists?
The answer is, ironically enough, within the very same chapter Dr. Hendrickson quote mined. Several verses prior to the passage about judgments (more on that in a minute), we find this:
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
The ancient Hebrew lawgivers, and by extension, their god, weren't strangers to the notion of taxes for the purpose of a social safety net. In the same list of commands their law dictates blind justice, respecting no economic class where the dispensation of justice is concerned, it also commands a portion of the harvest, one's income at the time, to be held back and given over to the poor and "strangers", Bible-speak for foreign travelers. The verse Dr. Hendrickson picked out was for judgments, for the courts and his use of it to conflate the meaning of "social justice" is all the more egregious as a result.
Social justice as a concept has its very roots in Christianity, first coined by a Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli and based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. It doesn't use "justice" in the legalistic sense Dr. Hendrickson misrepresented it as, but in a larger, more abstract moral sense. Justice even in terms of when Jesus said "whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do also unto me."
Dr. Hendrickson is simply one among many in the right wing who would seek to make the Christian god into a capitalist, his son Jesus into a Supply Sider. Whether through ignorance or malice, they rip passages from context from a book which has many fantastical, unbelievable claims, but also serene nuggets of comfort for the afflicted and downtrodden. As a recent Pew study confirmed, atheists tend to be the best educated regarding religions and holy books. With that, I offer Dr. Hendrickson some sorely needed education on what the Bible has to say about helping the poor:
More income tax:
At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. --Deuteronomy 14:28-29
More protection for the poor:
Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise, says the LORD, I will protect them from those who malign them. --Psalm 12:5
Social Justice:
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. --Proverbs 31:8-9
The rich need to share:
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. --1 Timothy 6:17-19
Uplift the poor:
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. --1 John 3:17-19
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="463" caption="Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson --kind of a dickhead"]
[/caption]
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.
4/25/2010
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
2 Million Teabaggers Myth
I was confronted again today with the myth of the 2 million teabagger rally in DC from last year. I sat down to write up a scathing debunking, again, of the claim, but discovered others had already beaten me to the punch and done so very well. Here is Brendan Nyhan:
Chris Orr beat me to the metaphor, but has there ever been a more absurd game of political Telephone than the way the two million protestors myth was created and propagated online?
Eric Boehlert of Media Matters documents the carnage:
Amazingly, as Boehlert later pointed out, the Los Angeles Times then framed the story as a "he said," "she said" debate in its headline and subhed:
In the lede, the LAT noted crowd "estimates ranging from 60,000 to 2 million" before finally clarifying in the fourth paragraph that the actual turnout was under 100,000 people.
But that's not all! As Ben Dimiero pointed out on Media Matters,a new meme later circulated in which a quote was attributed to a National Park Service spokesperson saying the rally was the largest Washington march ever. The problem is that he was talking about the Obama inauguration:
When people said the Internet would revolutionize democracy, I don't think this is what they had in mind.
Update 9/16 2:22 PM: Broken links fixed (sorry about that).
Update 9/17 6:37 AM: Per David Smith's comment below, Glenn Reynolds was more skeptical of the two million figure than Boehlert's language suggests. He previously called it "improbably high" and wrote of the Daily Mail headline "So maybe I was wrong to be so skeptical. But cut it in half and it’s still a huge number."
Chris Orr beat me to the metaphor, but has there ever been a more absurd game of political Telephone than the way the two million protestors myth was created and propagated online?
Eric Boehlert of Media Matters documents the carnage:
The conservative comedy of errors began on Saturday when Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, took to the rally stage and unfurled a massive lie. He told the crowd ABC News had reported that between 1 million to 1.5 million people had gathered to protest Obama's policies. (Later, a FreedomWorks flackconceded she had no idea know why Kibbe manufactured the claim about ABC News.)
Immediately, conservative activist Tabitha Hale (aka "pinkelephantpun") tweeted Kibbe's lie but added an additional 500,000 people to the tally: "ABC reporting 2 million people."
Seven minutes later, Malkin re-tweeted Hale's claim. Then, one minute after that, Malkin turned that tweetinto part of her ongoing protest coverage. Intrepid "reporter" Malkin took an unsupported tweet and reported it as news:12:34pm Eastern: Police estimate 1.2 million in attendance. ABC News reporting crowd at 2 million -- tweets Tabitha Hale from D.C.
Teeny, tiny fringe, huh?
Note that in her blog post there were no links for Malkin's utterly fantastic claim, no place on the Web where readers could go and confirm that D.C. police had pegged the crowd at 1.2 million or that ABC had made the staggering claim of 2 million. The lack of live links should have been a massive red flag for readers and fellow bloggers, especially when it was associated with such a controversial and news-breaking claim.
But, of course, Malkin had no links or any real facts to go on. All she had was a couple of tweets from Hale, who, in retrospect, appeared to have spent much of Saturday just making shit up.
But again, none of that mattered, because Malkin had spoken (2 million!) and the right-wing bloggers knew what to do. Let's take a stroll through the far-right blogosphere and see which sites did their best to spread Malkin's patently absurd claim about 2 million protesters. [Emphasis added.]
Pajamas Media's Roger Simon:I can remember telling Glenn Reynolds during CPAC that these Tea Party demonstrations were rinky-dink and going nowhere. Barely more than a half-year later, they're putting two million people on the Washington Mall. Wow!
Jawa Report:UPDATE:(Newbie): Crowd estimated by ABC NEWS: 2 MILLION!
Looking at the Left:ABC News reports that two million Americans flooded D.C. in what people in the crowd were calling "a conservative Woodstock" Like the liberal Woodstock of the '60s, thousands were rumored stranded on freeways.
Atlas Shrugs:The two photos above show a tiny fraction of the two million ABC estimates attended.
NewsBusters, the day after the 2 million people story had been debunked:You'll note no mention of the D.C. rallyyesterday that drew an estimated 1-2 million people.
Wizbang:Michelle Malkin reported on her site thatABC News estimated the crowd to be 2 million people.
[...]
Rick at Brutally Honest linked to this awesome time lapse video showing progression of the approximately 2 million people who marched in DC today:
Riehl World View:ABC Reports 2 Million At DC Rally
Right Pundits:Michelle Malkin is reporting that estimated turnout is now 2 million people.
And then there was the sad, confused work of blogger Stephen Green. Doing his best to spread the word about the supposedly massive crowd size on Saturday, Green first claimed that CNN had reported the crowd was 2 million strong. (CNN never did any such thing.) Then later under a banner that read "correction," Green, following Malkin's phony lead, reported it was ABC News that reported 2 million protesters were on hand. (Green then failed to correct his "correction.")
Of course, the 2 million tally never made sense. Not only couldn't anybody find ABC's alleged reporting, but no other news organization (not even rally co-sponsor Fox News) were going anywhere near the 2 million mark. Instead, most of Saturday's reports used phrases like "tens of thousands" to describe the crowd size.
Just after 4 p.m. Saturday, New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen tweeted the glaring discrepancy:http://michellemalkin.com/: "ABC News reporting crowd at 2 million." Front page, ABCNews.com: "thousands march on Capitol"
By the end of that 4 o'clock hour, ABC's News' Yunji de Nies also weighed in:
Later that afternoon, ABC News took the unusual stepof reporting an article about itself. Headlined "ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size," the dispatch, designed solely to knock down the false rumor that Malkin helped hype, was quite emphatic:At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands."
Finally, near day's end, Malkin finally addressed her bogus ABC News claim and pointed the finger of blame at FreedomWorks' Kibbe. (He's the one who first mentioned ABC News.) Malkin then thanked ABC News for "clearing this up," without noting that "this" was launched when Malkin broadcast a completely fictitious claim without the slightest hint of attribution and then waited most of the day to acknowledge her colossal blunder. And note that Malkin blamed Kibbe because Kibbe told the rally that ABC News had estimated the crowd to be between 1 million and 1.5 million. But Malkin told the world ABC News had claimed it was 2 million. So how was that Kibbe's fault?
Post-protest, some conservatives, such as Instapundit, still tried to push the phony 2 million claim by clinging to a typically awful and unsubstantiatedarticle from the British press that originally suggested "up to two million people" marched on Washington. The article, though, lacked any sourcing. It was just another case of the British press regurgitating a right-wing lie. (The article was later changed to include an equally misleading claim: "As many as one million people flooded into Washington for a massive rally.")
By Saturday night, RedState blogger Erick Erickson, conceding the 2 million number was pure fantasy, did his best to clear up the confusion:I've been talking all night to people who are there and involved. The 2 million number was generated by the media, but truly seems to be a gross inflation of what is there.
And with that we traveled full circle in the unstable world of the right-wing blogosphere. According to press-hating Erickson, it was the media that concocted the wildly inflated 2 million number. (ABC News again?) In the new, sanitized telling, Malkin's dirty hands, of course, had been completely washed and her leading role in the embarrassing charade had been forgotten and forgiven. Because at the end of the day,it was the media's fault all along.
Amazingly, as Boehlert later pointed out, the Los Angeles Times then framed the story as a "he said," "she said" debate in its headline and subhed:
Crowd estimates vary wildly for Capitol march
How many angry conservatives showed up to protest Obama's policies? Was it 2 million? Or 60,000? It all depends on whom you ask.
In the lede, the LAT noted crowd "estimates ranging from 60,000 to 2 million" before finally clarifying in the fourth paragraph that the actual turnout was under 100,000 people.
But that's not all! As Ben Dimiero pointed out on Media Matters,a new meme later circulated in which a quote was attributed to a National Park Service spokesperson saying the rally was the largest Washington march ever. The problem is that he was talking about the Obama inauguration:
Yesterday on his radio program, while discussing the crowds at this weekend's 9/12 protests, Glenn Beck claimed that the LondonTelegraph "quote[d] a source from the Park Service, the National Park Service, saying that it is the largest march on Washington ever." This led to a good deal of confusion here, as the Telegraph article contains no such quote. Just another case of Beck making things up? Actually, the story behind this turns out to be much funnier than we could have anticipated.
Several conservative blogs have been quoting National Park Service spokesman "Dan Bana" as saying the 9/12 protest was "the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever." This appears to be a repurposing of this quote from David Barna (who, unlike Dan Bana, appears to be a real person):David Barna, a Park Service spokesman, said the agency did not conduct its own count. Instead, it will use a Washington Post account that said 1.8 million people gathered on the US Capitol grounds, National Mall, and parade route.
"It is a record," Barna said. "We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever."
Very impressive! Unfortunately, as Little Green Footballs pointed out, that quote was actually about the inauguration:This is so pathetic I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Dozens - if not hundreds - of right wing blogs are running with this quote, portraying it as a statement about the tea party held last weekend: 'We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever.'
The quote is from January. The National Park Service spokesman was talking about Barack Obama's inauguration.
When people said the Internet would revolutionize democracy, I don't think this is what they had in mind.
Update 9/16 2:22 PM: Broken links fixed (sorry about that).
Update 9/17 6:37 AM: Per David Smith's comment below, Glenn Reynolds was more skeptical of the two million figure than Boehlert's language suggests. He previously called it "improbably high" and wrote of the Daily Mail headline "So maybe I was wrong to be so skeptical. But cut it in half and it’s still a huge number."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
