Values voters as explained on Bill Maher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3qOTRN8dP0
Monday, February 9, 2009
BS Economics of the Right Wing Part 2
Great comment on why tax cuts are bullshit from a great guy I know on another forum. To paraphrase:
Voters: But if tax cuts are so awesome, why are we paying those taxes to begin with?
GOP: To pay for services and infrastructure.
Voters: But you also said we need more infrastructure, how do we pay for this?
GOP: With the tax cuts.
Voters: How does that work?
GOP: Tax cuts stimulate the economy.
Voters: So by giving voters more money, we're going to go out and rebuild bridges and built alternative energy plants ourselves?
GOP: Um.....let me get back to you on that.
The absolute intellectual poverty of this position is amazing to behold.
Then we get to the argument where the Republican says something along the lines of "But the American people want tax cuts." to which Fred Durst had a great response:
"Well, duh. The American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free."
What's also prof0undly sad is that the same retarded arguments made against FDR in 1933 (it will cost too much, it won't work, we need to balance the budget, we need tax cuts) are the same arguments being made today by the same assholes.
Voters: But if tax cuts are so awesome, why are we paying those taxes to begin with?
GOP: To pay for services and infrastructure.
Voters: But you also said we need more infrastructure, how do we pay for this?
GOP: With the tax cuts.
Voters: How does that work?
GOP: Tax cuts stimulate the economy.
Voters: So by giving voters more money, we're going to go out and rebuild bridges and built alternative energy plants ourselves?
GOP: Um.....let me get back to you on that.
The absolute intellectual poverty of this position is amazing to behold.
Then we get to the argument where the Republican says something along the lines of "But the American people want tax cuts." to which Fred Durst had a great response:
"Well, duh. The American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free."
What's also prof0undly sad is that the same retarded arguments made against FDR in 1933 (it will cost too much, it won't work, we need to balance the budget, we need tax cuts) are the same arguments being made today by the same assholes.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
BS Economic Arguments of the Right Wing
So we finally have a stimulus package passed. Even though it was almost neutered by "centrists".
I guess what disturbs me about the stimulus package is the vast array of BS arguments used by people against it. Even putting aside the obvious untruths of Senator Mitch McConnell bringing up parts of the stimulus package that had already been removed from it (and the obvious hypocricy of Republicans bemoaning the size of the $800 billion stimulus when they themselves were all in favor of $1.3 trillion worth of Bush tax cuts not to mention the cost of the Iraq War), there's a huge amount of insanity masquerading as punditry out there.
First, let's look at the "pork" that was cut from the stimulus package:
1. $40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization and $7.5 billion in State Incentive Grants
Isn't this what states need right now? How does cutting $40 billion from helping states meet payrolls qualify as "pork"?
2. $16 billion School Construction and $3.5 billion in higher education construction.
Let's see. Building schools, creating jobs, and improving education. Obviously no jobs being created there...
3. $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
Okay, this one isn't about creating jobs, but it is about saving money. Preventative health is a huge, huge thing we can all do to cut the costs of health care in this country. But of course, to a Republican, this is "pork".
4. $3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
Again, lowering energy costs and creating jobs equals "pork" to crazed conservatives.
5. $2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminated)
Neighborhood Stabilization would be all about helping neighborhoods that have a massive number of foreclosed homes but again, who cares about working people, right?
6. $2 billion broadband
How many jobs got cut with this? Maybe the goal of the GOP is to just keep America behind everyone else on the planet.
So Republicans are deranged.
But above and beyond this, check out some of their insane arguments:
1. Anyone can make it in America, why just look at Bill Gates or Chris Garnder.
Um...yeah. Bill Gates dropped out of college, but the college he dropped out of was Harvard. He didn't exactly come from a middle class family, and his family helped him start Microsoft.
Chris Gardner isn't exactly the role model conservatives think he is since they've once again mistaken a movie ("The Pursuit of Happyness") with reality. Unless they think wife-beating, child abandonment, adultery, and drug dealing are family values, which given the current state of the GOP, they actually might believe this. Gardner also used public transportation, collected welfare, and lived in a homeless shelter, but obviously all of this to conservatives is "making it on your own without government intervention".
In reality, most 'rags to riches' stories are complete and utter crap. The idea that one can get ahead through hard work without any help is BS. Conservatives keep listening to all sorts of crazy people from Dave Ramsey to Rush Limbaugh to reinforce this fantasy life, but in fact it's just a fantasy life, as exemplified by Joe the Plumber who believed Barack Obama would prevent him from being able to buy a plumbing business when in fact Joe didn't have the money, the qualifications, or the knowhow to actually buy a plumbing business any more than he had the ability to be a war correspondent. Maybe Joe will understand now that he's actually unemployed, but I doubt it.
2. Less government intervention is great and the free market will correct itself. So said Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. Um.....fail. Adam Smith, when he invented the idea of the "invisible hand", was speaking about local bartering arrangements, and did not subscribe to the current conservative BS arguments. Adam Smith also had no use for tax cuts for the rich: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Friedrich Hayek, the godfather of the Chicago School of Economics, had this to say: "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Compared to the current crop of intellectual prostitutes that make up the conservative movement, Smith and Hayek seem almost socialistic. And besides, in Smith's case, it's a huge stretch to assume that anything the man wrote in 1775 has any relationship at all to today's global multinational economy.
3. Tax cuts are beautiful and wonderous things.
Economic conservatism has now reached it's ultimate dead end. If times are booming, we need a tax cut. If times are bad, we need a tax cut. If we have an $8 trillion deficit, we need a tax cut. Absolutely nothing can dissuade them from the cult that is tax cuts. In reality, they are basically a group of rich assclowns who are greedmongering sociopaths who just want more bling.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and Moody's cite the following chart:
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/cbo.png
Notice a few things?
Impact on GDP?
- Government spending by feds: Between 2.5 and 1.0. In other words, for every dollar spent, somewhere between $1 and $2.50 gets injected into the economy.
- Transfers to state and local governments for Infrastructure: between 2.5 and 1.0.
- Transfers to state and local governments for non-Infrastructure: between 1.9 and 0.7
- Transfers to persons (i.e. welfare): between 2.2 and 0.8
- Two year tax cuts for lower and middle income people: 1.7 to 0.5
- One year tax cuts for higher income people: 0.5 to 0.1
Tax cuts do not help. They take money OUT of government coffers and do NOT help the economy, particularly if they go to the rich. This is because government spending can be directed at worthy projects, a tax cut let's Ebenezer Scrooge redecorate his office with $1 million, blow $350,000 on strippers, or buy crap from Europe and Asia, thereby NOT helping the American economy.
Although it isn't in the link, the best tax cut is in fact a payroll tax holiday for three months. That would put more money into the economy than any other kind of tax cut, and yet is still woefully inadequate compared to government spending.
Let's also consider that a tax cut is in fact a form of government spending. Either way, through increased spending or decreased revenues, the government is increasing the deficit. It's not like tax cuts are suddenly going to jump start the economy.
And didn't we already do this twice under our 43rd President? Yeah, those tax cuts, which are still in place, really have helped a lot, haven't they? Middle income salaries have declined, the middle class is being squeezed more than ever, unemployment is at it's greatest height since 1974, and so on.
Anyone who seriously suggests tax cuts for the rich or corporations at this stage should be freely laughed at. In fact, it is your responsibility to do so.
4. Let's do nothing because the current crisis isn't really that bad.
Yes, conservatives (at least some of them) actually believe this. Oh, unemployment is only 7.9%. Big deal. Um...guys, if you measured unemployment the way we did in 1980, the unemployment rate is about 13.7%....
Besides, check out this comparison by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics comparing the 1990, 2001, and current recessions: http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/jobsrecessions_small.jpg
Yeah, let's continue to "do nothing". Are these people serious? Are they on medication? If not, why not?
I guess some people just are incapable of empathy and don't get it until they themselves are hit by it.
5. The New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression, World War Two did, and therefore government spending won't work.
This is my all-time favorite current Right Wing meme and it wins for three reasons: the premise is faulty, the source is discredited, and the entire idea is illogical to begin with. Few other places can you see a complete intersection of Right Wing fantasy, lies of omission, sheer ignorance, and downright stupidity.
First, the people promoting this don't understand that the Civilian Conservation Corps during the New Deal created:
Bridges: 46,854
Lodges and museums: 204
Historic structures restored: 3,980
Fire lookout towers: 3,116
Wells and pumphouses: 8,065
Forest roads: 2,500 miles
Roads and truck trails: 7,442 miles
Large Dams: 197
Water supply lines: 5,000 miles
Fences: 27,191 miles
Fish rearing ponds: 4,622
Beaches improved: 3,462
Trees planted: 3 billion
Fires fought: 6.5 million days
The Civil Works Administration contributed:
New roads: 44,000 miles
Road repairs: 200,000 miles
Drainage and irrigation ditches: 9,000 miles
Levees: 2,000 miles
New water mains: 1,000 miles
Sanitary and storm sewers: 2,700 miles
Bridges: 7,000
Pumping stations: 400
Swimming pools: 350
Athletic fields: 4,000
Schools, new or improved: 4,000
Airports, new or improved: 1,000
The WPA contributed:
Urban streets 67,000 miles
New Sidewalks: 24,000 miles
New street lighting: 838 miles
New traffic signs erected: 937,000
Rural roads: 532,000 miles
New bridges: 78,000
Tunnels Vehicular: 26 Pedetrian: 193
Schools New: 5,900 Additions: 2,170 Renovated: 31,300
Libraries New: 151 Additions: 67 Renovated: 856
Hospitals New: 226 Additions: 156 Renovated: 2,168
Office and administrative Buildings: 6,400 New: 1,536 Additions: 323 Renovated: 4,524
Firehouses: 2,700
Jails and prisons: 760
Airports New: 350 Enlarged: 700
I could cite the Public Works Administration, the SEC, the FHA, or just saving the banks alone, but you get the idea. The New Deal improved our lives in ways still felt today. So the premise itself is faulty.
Second, the sources of information are a book by Amity Shales, a right-wing hack discredited here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104430/amity-meet-eric
and a paper written by two UCLA professors, which has been debunked here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_the_new_deals_mistakes
This didn't stop Fox News from repeating these incorrect assertions or George F. Will from likewise trumpeting them. George F. Will was eviscerated by Paul Krugman here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo
Along with a faulty premise and implausible source material, the actual assertion is illogical and makes no sense.
Think about it: the argument used is that since WW2 brought us out of the Great Depression, the New Deal was therefore a failure, and therefore government spending is a failure.
Really?
How do these idiots think World War Two was paid for, private charity?
The argument is so ludicrous it actually goes like this: since government spending during WW2 got us out of the Great Depression and government spending on the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, government spending is evil and wrong-headed.
Again, are these people serious? I mean, I'd be charitable and say they cannot understand economics, but they also cannot even make logical arguments. Nor do they fact-check their data, nor do they even stop to think: is what I am saying even making sense? Such is the mark of not someone who wants the best for the country, or even their own party, but someone who is either knowingly arguing disingenuously or is so addled they are basically a member of a non-thinking cult.
Either way, dismissing their arguments out-of-hand is a necessity.
I guess what disturbs me about the stimulus package is the vast array of BS arguments used by people against it. Even putting aside the obvious untruths of Senator Mitch McConnell bringing up parts of the stimulus package that had already been removed from it (and the obvious hypocricy of Republicans bemoaning the size of the $800 billion stimulus when they themselves were all in favor of $1.3 trillion worth of Bush tax cuts not to mention the cost of the Iraq War), there's a huge amount of insanity masquerading as punditry out there.
First, let's look at the "pork" that was cut from the stimulus package:
1. $40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization and $7.5 billion in State Incentive Grants
Isn't this what states need right now? How does cutting $40 billion from helping states meet payrolls qualify as "pork"?
2. $16 billion School Construction and $3.5 billion in higher education construction.
Let's see. Building schools, creating jobs, and improving education. Obviously no jobs being created there...
3. $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
Okay, this one isn't about creating jobs, but it is about saving money. Preventative health is a huge, huge thing we can all do to cut the costs of health care in this country. But of course, to a Republican, this is "pork".
4. $3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
Again, lowering energy costs and creating jobs equals "pork" to crazed conservatives.
5. $2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminated)
Neighborhood Stabilization would be all about helping neighborhoods that have a massive number of foreclosed homes but again, who cares about working people, right?
6. $2 billion broadband
How many jobs got cut with this? Maybe the goal of the GOP is to just keep America behind everyone else on the planet.
So Republicans are deranged.
But above and beyond this, check out some of their insane arguments:
1. Anyone can make it in America, why just look at Bill Gates or Chris Garnder.
Um...yeah. Bill Gates dropped out of college, but the college he dropped out of was Harvard. He didn't exactly come from a middle class family, and his family helped him start Microsoft.
Chris Gardner isn't exactly the role model conservatives think he is since they've once again mistaken a movie ("The Pursuit of Happyness") with reality. Unless they think wife-beating, child abandonment, adultery, and drug dealing are family values, which given the current state of the GOP, they actually might believe this. Gardner also used public transportation, collected welfare, and lived in a homeless shelter, but obviously all of this to conservatives is "making it on your own without government intervention".
In reality, most 'rags to riches' stories are complete and utter crap. The idea that one can get ahead through hard work without any help is BS. Conservatives keep listening to all sorts of crazy people from Dave Ramsey to Rush Limbaugh to reinforce this fantasy life, but in fact it's just a fantasy life, as exemplified by Joe the Plumber who believed Barack Obama would prevent him from being able to buy a plumbing business when in fact Joe didn't have the money, the qualifications, or the knowhow to actually buy a plumbing business any more than he had the ability to be a war correspondent. Maybe Joe will understand now that he's actually unemployed, but I doubt it.
2. Less government intervention is great and the free market will correct itself. So said Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. Um.....fail. Adam Smith, when he invented the idea of the "invisible hand", was speaking about local bartering arrangements, and did not subscribe to the current conservative BS arguments. Adam Smith also had no use for tax cuts for the rich: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Friedrich Hayek, the godfather of the Chicago School of Economics, had this to say: "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Compared to the current crop of intellectual prostitutes that make up the conservative movement, Smith and Hayek seem almost socialistic. And besides, in Smith's case, it's a huge stretch to assume that anything the man wrote in 1775 has any relationship at all to today's global multinational economy.
3. Tax cuts are beautiful and wonderous things.
Economic conservatism has now reached it's ultimate dead end. If times are booming, we need a tax cut. If times are bad, we need a tax cut. If we have an $8 trillion deficit, we need a tax cut. Absolutely nothing can dissuade them from the cult that is tax cuts. In reality, they are basically a group of rich assclowns who are greedmongering sociopaths who just want more bling.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and Moody's cite the following chart:
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/cbo.png
Notice a few things?
Impact on GDP?
- Government spending by feds: Between 2.5 and 1.0. In other words, for every dollar spent, somewhere between $1 and $2.50 gets injected into the economy.
- Transfers to state and local governments for Infrastructure: between 2.5 and 1.0.
- Transfers to state and local governments for non-Infrastructure: between 1.9 and 0.7
- Transfers to persons (i.e. welfare): between 2.2 and 0.8
- Two year tax cuts for lower and middle income people: 1.7 to 0.5
- One year tax cuts for higher income people: 0.5 to 0.1
Tax cuts do not help. They take money OUT of government coffers and do NOT help the economy, particularly if they go to the rich. This is because government spending can be directed at worthy projects, a tax cut let's Ebenezer Scrooge redecorate his office with $1 million, blow $350,000 on strippers, or buy crap from Europe and Asia, thereby NOT helping the American economy.
Although it isn't in the link, the best tax cut is in fact a payroll tax holiday for three months. That would put more money into the economy than any other kind of tax cut, and yet is still woefully inadequate compared to government spending.
Let's also consider that a tax cut is in fact a form of government spending. Either way, through increased spending or decreased revenues, the government is increasing the deficit. It's not like tax cuts are suddenly going to jump start the economy.
And didn't we already do this twice under our 43rd President? Yeah, those tax cuts, which are still in place, really have helped a lot, haven't they? Middle income salaries have declined, the middle class is being squeezed more than ever, unemployment is at it's greatest height since 1974, and so on.
Anyone who seriously suggests tax cuts for the rich or corporations at this stage should be freely laughed at. In fact, it is your responsibility to do so.
4. Let's do nothing because the current crisis isn't really that bad.
Yes, conservatives (at least some of them) actually believe this. Oh, unemployment is only 7.9%. Big deal. Um...guys, if you measured unemployment the way we did in 1980, the unemployment rate is about 13.7%....
Besides, check out this comparison by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics comparing the 1990, 2001, and current recessions: http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/jobsrecessions_small.jpg
Yeah, let's continue to "do nothing". Are these people serious? Are they on medication? If not, why not?
I guess some people just are incapable of empathy and don't get it until they themselves are hit by it.
5. The New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression, World War Two did, and therefore government spending won't work.
This is my all-time favorite current Right Wing meme and it wins for three reasons: the premise is faulty, the source is discredited, and the entire idea is illogical to begin with. Few other places can you see a complete intersection of Right Wing fantasy, lies of omission, sheer ignorance, and downright stupidity.
First, the people promoting this don't understand that the Civilian Conservation Corps during the New Deal created:
Bridges: 46,854
Lodges and museums: 204
Historic structures restored: 3,980
Fire lookout towers: 3,116
Wells and pumphouses: 8,065
Forest roads: 2,500 miles
Roads and truck trails: 7,442 miles
Large Dams: 197
Water supply lines: 5,000 miles
Fences: 27,191 miles
Fish rearing ponds: 4,622
Beaches improved: 3,462
Trees planted: 3 billion
Fires fought: 6.5 million days
The Civil Works Administration contributed:
New roads: 44,000 miles
Road repairs: 200,000 miles
Drainage and irrigation ditches: 9,000 miles
Levees: 2,000 miles
New water mains: 1,000 miles
Sanitary and storm sewers: 2,700 miles
Bridges: 7,000
Pumping stations: 400
Swimming pools: 350
Athletic fields: 4,000
Schools, new or improved: 4,000
Airports, new or improved: 1,000
The WPA contributed:
Urban streets 67,000 miles
New Sidewalks: 24,000 miles
New street lighting: 838 miles
New traffic signs erected: 937,000
Rural roads: 532,000 miles
New bridges: 78,000
Tunnels Vehicular: 26 Pedetrian: 193
Schools New: 5,900 Additions: 2,170 Renovated: 31,300
Libraries New: 151 Additions: 67 Renovated: 856
Hospitals New: 226 Additions: 156 Renovated: 2,168
Office and administrative Buildings: 6,400 New: 1,536 Additions: 323 Renovated: 4,524
Firehouses: 2,700
Jails and prisons: 760
Airports New: 350 Enlarged: 700
I could cite the Public Works Administration, the SEC, the FHA, or just saving the banks alone, but you get the idea. The New Deal improved our lives in ways still felt today. So the premise itself is faulty.
Second, the sources of information are a book by Amity Shales, a right-wing hack discredited here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104430/amity-meet-eric
and a paper written by two UCLA professors, which has been debunked here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_the_new_deals_mistakes
This didn't stop Fox News from repeating these incorrect assertions or George F. Will from likewise trumpeting them. George F. Will was eviscerated by Paul Krugman here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo
Along with a faulty premise and implausible source material, the actual assertion is illogical and makes no sense.
Think about it: the argument used is that since WW2 brought us out of the Great Depression, the New Deal was therefore a failure, and therefore government spending is a failure.
Really?
How do these idiots think World War Two was paid for, private charity?
The argument is so ludicrous it actually goes like this: since government spending during WW2 got us out of the Great Depression and government spending on the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, government spending is evil and wrong-headed.
Again, are these people serious? I mean, I'd be charitable and say they cannot understand economics, but they also cannot even make logical arguments. Nor do they fact-check their data, nor do they even stop to think: is what I am saying even making sense? Such is the mark of not someone who wants the best for the country, or even their own party, but someone who is either knowingly arguing disingenuously or is so addled they are basically a member of a non-thinking cult.
Either way, dismissing their arguments out-of-hand is a necessity.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The Losing Side of History
The modern American conservative movement cannot get beyond the Cold War, even though it has been dead and buried for 18 years. The current state of the Republican party only makes sense in a context of the Cold War. This has become a sort of cliche on the Left in America and yet it does have merit.
Now, to start, we have to define a few terms. Communism means collective ownership of land, property, and machinery, as used in the Soviet Union and other Communist states. This entire philosophy, economic and social, is pretty much gone, as even nominally Communist states such as China and Cuba have now invested heavily in private industry and privatization schemes. What Communism does not mean is wealth redistribution, large government, higher taxes, or any of the above. These were traits of the Soviet Union to be sure, but were a byproduct of that regime and not specifically traits of Communism.
The American conservative movement does deserve recognition for opposing the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. But their continued insistance at looking at the world and the country through this prism has led to many grave mistakes and incorrect assumptions.
First, the typical modern conservative looks at everything as black or white. There is no gray area since during the Cold War you opposed the Soviet Union or you did not. Everything, every subject tends to be seen in either/or combinations. Either you are for abortion or against it. Either you are for higher taxes or against them. Nuances of disagreement or different solutions are not allowed.
This means that if you supported anything that was anti-conservative, you also were anti-American, pro-Soviet, anti-freedom, and so forth.
They defined themselves only in relation to the USSR. If the USSR was atheist, the American conservative would be Christian and would become even more Christian to show the godless anti-American Communists his opposition. If the USSR was for more government control in all areas of life, the American conservative would be against all government control in all areas of life. See how this works?
Because the current conflicts within the Republican party make no sense until you realize that the social conservative evangelical Christians and the pro-corporation libertarian economists have no reason to be on the same side unless they are opposing the USSR.
There is also no understanding of the difference between socialism and communism among American conservatives. Remember, everything not capitalist is automatically evil and anti-American, so can be safely dismissed as one opposing philosophy, even though there is a whole range of thought about individual sectors of the economy from capitalism to socialism with varying degrees of government regulation in between. Any regulation to the modern conservative is bad, because it is more government, and more government is bad because more government = USSR.
This is why some feverishly called Barack Obama a Communist even though absolutely nothing in his programs or proposals is remotely Communist, or even Socialist. Indeed, the policies of George W. Bush are more socialist than Obama's.
Conservatives perversely and blissfully ignore the history of their own thought and theory. Since they hate Communism, they love Christianity, which leads to opposing the idea of global warming (government regulation bad, idea that humans can destroy nature bad since nature was created by God), opposing evolution, opposing all forms of abortion, and opposing government funded stem cell research. Even an anti-science tinge has crept into conservative politics, fueled by the embracing of all things Christian even if illogical. This is also why conservatives can claim to be libertarians and oppose gay marriage in the same breath.
Again, this only makes sense looking through a Cold War, anti-Soviet lens.
Conservatives believe America to be a totally and wholly unique nation, probably due to God's will, but this is supported by evidence that America was the chief opponent of the USSR during the Cold War. American decisions are therefore better for everyone and the world would be a better place if everyone aped America. America ostensibly is democratic, and uniquely so in the world, so the rest of the world should likewise be democratic.
Combining a black/white mentality with the idea of America as unique in the world and the desire for global democracy America-style, and then throw in opposition to all regimes ever supported by the USSR and you get the precise mentality needed to invade Iraq in 2003.
Now, you might say, so what?
The so what is in the details. Consider the following quotes:
Jeane Kirkpatrick stated in 1979 (http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25258/pub_detail.asp) that some dictatorships are good and wonderful things, as long as they oppose communism.
Rush Limbaugh hates Nelson Mandela, because in his view, Mandela was backed by communists. He restated this again as late as 2007 (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1223). Never mind that Mandela was trying to overthrow a racist dictatorship that Limbaugh loved and supported because they were pro-American and anti-communist. Indeed, in 1993, the day Mandela received the Nobel Peace Prize, he was trashed by Limbaugh.
Limbaugh praised then-Senator Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal" in 1993 (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895). In 1994, he stated "When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation."
Conservatives hated Mikhail Gorbachev from the outset because they feared his perestroika and glasnost were smokescreens. Remember, anything Soviet is automatically evil. President George H.W. Bush even told the Ukrainians to not try to become independent of the USSR, to great dismay of freedom-lovers everywhere.
Conservative ideas stemming from the Cold War have led them down a garden path of philosophy that is no longer relevant to their party, their movement, the country, or anything else. It has blinded them and it is worth remembering that conservatives used to despise gays, atheists, and agnostics, and supported dictatorships and assassinations as late as the 1990s. So when a conservative tells you you are a communist or socialist for opposing them or claims that conservatism has always been on the side of freedom, it is past time to call them on it.
Now, to start, we have to define a few terms. Communism means collective ownership of land, property, and machinery, as used in the Soviet Union and other Communist states. This entire philosophy, economic and social, is pretty much gone, as even nominally Communist states such as China and Cuba have now invested heavily in private industry and privatization schemes. What Communism does not mean is wealth redistribution, large government, higher taxes, or any of the above. These were traits of the Soviet Union to be sure, but were a byproduct of that regime and not specifically traits of Communism.
The American conservative movement does deserve recognition for opposing the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. But their continued insistance at looking at the world and the country through this prism has led to many grave mistakes and incorrect assumptions.
First, the typical modern conservative looks at everything as black or white. There is no gray area since during the Cold War you opposed the Soviet Union or you did not. Everything, every subject tends to be seen in either/or combinations. Either you are for abortion or against it. Either you are for higher taxes or against them. Nuances of disagreement or different solutions are not allowed.
This means that if you supported anything that was anti-conservative, you also were anti-American, pro-Soviet, anti-freedom, and so forth.
They defined themselves only in relation to the USSR. If the USSR was atheist, the American conservative would be Christian and would become even more Christian to show the godless anti-American Communists his opposition. If the USSR was for more government control in all areas of life, the American conservative would be against all government control in all areas of life. See how this works?
Because the current conflicts within the Republican party make no sense until you realize that the social conservative evangelical Christians and the pro-corporation libertarian economists have no reason to be on the same side unless they are opposing the USSR.
There is also no understanding of the difference between socialism and communism among American conservatives. Remember, everything not capitalist is automatically evil and anti-American, so can be safely dismissed as one opposing philosophy, even though there is a whole range of thought about individual sectors of the economy from capitalism to socialism with varying degrees of government regulation in between. Any regulation to the modern conservative is bad, because it is more government, and more government is bad because more government = USSR.
This is why some feverishly called Barack Obama a Communist even though absolutely nothing in his programs or proposals is remotely Communist, or even Socialist. Indeed, the policies of George W. Bush are more socialist than Obama's.
Conservatives perversely and blissfully ignore the history of their own thought and theory. Since they hate Communism, they love Christianity, which leads to opposing the idea of global warming (government regulation bad, idea that humans can destroy nature bad since nature was created by God), opposing evolution, opposing all forms of abortion, and opposing government funded stem cell research. Even an anti-science tinge has crept into conservative politics, fueled by the embracing of all things Christian even if illogical. This is also why conservatives can claim to be libertarians and oppose gay marriage in the same breath.
Again, this only makes sense looking through a Cold War, anti-Soviet lens.
Conservatives believe America to be a totally and wholly unique nation, probably due to God's will, but this is supported by evidence that America was the chief opponent of the USSR during the Cold War. American decisions are therefore better for everyone and the world would be a better place if everyone aped America. America ostensibly is democratic, and uniquely so in the world, so the rest of the world should likewise be democratic.
Combining a black/white mentality with the idea of America as unique in the world and the desire for global democracy America-style, and then throw in opposition to all regimes ever supported by the USSR and you get the precise mentality needed to invade Iraq in 2003.
Now, you might say, so what?
The so what is in the details. Consider the following quotes:
Jeane Kirkpatrick stated in 1979 (http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25258/pub_detail.asp) that some dictatorships are good and wonderful things, as long as they oppose communism.
Rush Limbaugh hates Nelson Mandela, because in his view, Mandela was backed by communists. He restated this again as late as 2007 (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1223). Never mind that Mandela was trying to overthrow a racist dictatorship that Limbaugh loved and supported because they were pro-American and anti-communist. Indeed, in 1993, the day Mandela received the Nobel Peace Prize, he was trashed by Limbaugh.
Limbaugh praised then-Senator Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal" in 1993 (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895). In 1994, he stated "When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation."
Conservatives hated Mikhail Gorbachev from the outset because they feared his perestroika and glasnost were smokescreens. Remember, anything Soviet is automatically evil. President George H.W. Bush even told the Ukrainians to not try to become independent of the USSR, to great dismay of freedom-lovers everywhere.
Conservative ideas stemming from the Cold War have led them down a garden path of philosophy that is no longer relevant to their party, their movement, the country, or anything else. It has blinded them and it is worth remembering that conservatives used to despise gays, atheists, and agnostics, and supported dictatorships and assassinations as late as the 1990s. So when a conservative tells you you are a communist or socialist for opposing them or claims that conservatism has always been on the side of freedom, it is past time to call them on it.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Fair Tax is Bullshit
Honestly, there's a lot of BS out there masquerading as truth. There always has been, and in fact there's probably less today, if you think about it. It was in most of our lifetimes that plenty of idiots actually believed that divorce was evil.
But I digress.
One of the absolute worst ideas to ever come down the pike is the idea of Fair Tax. Fair Tax is a new tax plan proposed by a number of disingenuous scumbags, chief among them Neal Boortz, who wrote a book on Fair Tax. The basic idea of Fair Tax is to replace the current Federal Income Tax with a sales tax on all new goods, but not used goods. This new program is claimed to be able to do a number of things including revitalize the economy, lower prices, and goodness knows what else, but in truth why people promote the Fair Tax boils down to two reasons:
1. they think they will have to pay less taxes under Fair Tax
or
2. they want to piss off citizens and make people realize how eeeevil taxes are and therefore create a firestorm of anti-tax anger to shrink the size of government in general.
Both are stupid and Fair Tax actually will not help accomplish either goal.
Let's start with the basic premise and why it's garbage. First, the Fair Tax proponents lie through their teeth and say that the proposed Fair Tax is 23%. Even reading Neal Boortz's book shows that in their own example given, the Fair Tax imposed is 30%. If I buy a candy bar for $1.00 and you tax me 30 cents, that's a 30% tax rate. The Fair Tax people use a complicated algorithm based on gross payment to get that 30 cent tax to 23%. Even their basic figures lie. And that should raise a red flag right there for most people, but with quite a few people Fair Tax has become almost a religion.
Secondly, even at 30% tax rate, the Fair Tax proponents claim this will result in most people's taxes going down. Now, being that the top marginal income tax rate in 2008 is 35% for the ultra-wealthy and is likely to only be raised to 38% even if Obama let's Bush's tax cuts expire, this means the vast majority of the middle class pay around 20-22% Federal income tax now in real dollars. Believe me, your taxes will go up under Fair Tax and people who know more about this than I do calculate you'd have to be making well over $200,000 a year now to break even. Which is why the Fair Tax proponents love Fair Tax. You'll notice most of them are rich jerks or wannabes.
The astute among you might have also noticed that Fair Tax only replaces Federal Withholding and does not replace social security or medicare taxes. Nor does it replace any state income taxes, local or state sales taxes, excise taxes, corporate taxes, gasoline taxes, tariffs, user fees, tolls, property taxes, and so on. All this would continue under Fair Tax. So basically the very rich would be crying all the way to the bank and the rest of us would pay more money so that the well-to-do could be even more well-to-do.
Fourth, Fair Tax is basically a consumption tax and it will nail the poor to the wall. The poor have less discretionary income and have a lot more fixed expenses than the rich. The rich can invest, save, or spend money overseas. The poor have to buy shelter, food, clothes, and transportation. While Fair Tax does have an allotment for the poor and does not tax food, you can bet your life that the poor will still get hosed under this plan. Now, this rebate is monthly and is that everyone gets a credit under Fair Tax based on income. Only problem is that this wonderful allotment is a rebate after the fact. If you are a single mom washing toilets for a living you first have to pony up for the tax, and only after you prove your income is lower class do you get the wondrous tax rebate. Ask yourself how many people making minimum wage could fork over 30% of their income to get it back at the end of the month. My guess is, oh, about 0%.
Three people who make $30,000 a year spend more money on goods than one guy making $90,000 and Fair Tax would therefore hit the people making $30,000 the hardest, without question.
Far from being a boon to the economy, the Fair Tax would cripple the economy. If all prices suddenly went up 30% even if you didn't have to pay any income tax anymore, would you start buying? I bet not. Consumption would plummet, at least initially, and the economy would go into a tailspin.
Gets better. Neal Boortz assumes 100% compliance when he trots out his 30% tax rate. And lies about it. But anyway. Show me a tax and I'll show you someone who is trying to get out of paying it. No tax has ever had 100% compliance. Furthermore, a 30% consumption tax is not going to collect the same amount of revenue as a 30% tax rate, and even libertarian economists think that a more reasonable Fair Tax rate is at least 33% if not 39%. National Review, not known for it's socialistic bent, calculates 36% as a reasonable figure.
Still sounding like a good plan, peeps?
Even better, remember that you have to pay up front and receive a rebate. Far from weaning the American citizenry off government, Fair Tax would make a government dolee of every single one of us since the feds would be sending each of us a check every month. It's 100% government dependency. No one supporting Fair Tax can even remotely call themselves libertarian, egalitarian, or sane.
Even the basic premise is flawed. If the rich pay less tax, where do you think the shortfall is going to come from? Just simple logic says this: if one person is paying LESS tax, someone else is paying MORE tax.
Oh, and what happens when prices go up? Inflation. Remember inflation? Now, the Fair Tax proponents believe that companies who sell goods will lower their prices because they themselves will be paying less taxes.
I will stop and wait for you to stop laughing out loud. Because that should be your response to this. I advise you to go look at gasoline prices and tell me how corporations will lower prices in response to lower costs.
And even if domestic goods get cheaper, foreign goods won't. How much of what you buy was actually made in this country?
And, while you're at it, you might want to look at the fact that Fair Tax does not stop the federal tax agency (whatever it's called under Fair Tax since they want to replace the IRS) from auditing you. And you have to prove, just like now, that you've paid the tax. Except that with the current federal withholding tax, you can easily prove this. Since Fair Tax is based on what you buy over the course of a year, you have to save every single receipt to prove you paid your tax. Anyone want to do this? I want a show of hands.
Yes, you, the buyer are responsible for this tax, not the seller. You'll have to have a receipt to prove you bought that can of beans, that computer, or that car “legally.” Lose your receipt and you could be required to pay that 30+ percent tax all over again – plus penalties and interest. And since Fair Tax is reported monthly, instead of doing your taxes once a year, you get to do them once a month.
Fair Tax would be so wretched that people would do damn near anything to get out of paying it. Which means a nice, thriving black market.
Now, Neal Boortz and people supporting this measure in Congress and the media and business are not stupid men. They know precisely how the Fair Tax will affect the poor, the middle class, you, and me. They are bald-faced liars and they are greedy, grasping prevaricators and anything that comes out of their mouths should be fact-checked.
Fair Tax is the worst idea since Adolf Hitler said "Hey, dudes, let's invade Russia. It worked out great for that Napoleon guy."
But I digress.
One of the absolute worst ideas to ever come down the pike is the idea of Fair Tax. Fair Tax is a new tax plan proposed by a number of disingenuous scumbags, chief among them Neal Boortz, who wrote a book on Fair Tax. The basic idea of Fair Tax is to replace the current Federal Income Tax with a sales tax on all new goods, but not used goods. This new program is claimed to be able to do a number of things including revitalize the economy, lower prices, and goodness knows what else, but in truth why people promote the Fair Tax boils down to two reasons:
1. they think they will have to pay less taxes under Fair Tax
or
2. they want to piss off citizens and make people realize how eeeevil taxes are and therefore create a firestorm of anti-tax anger to shrink the size of government in general.
Both are stupid and Fair Tax actually will not help accomplish either goal.
Let's start with the basic premise and why it's garbage. First, the Fair Tax proponents lie through their teeth and say that the proposed Fair Tax is 23%. Even reading Neal Boortz's book shows that in their own example given, the Fair Tax imposed is 30%. If I buy a candy bar for $1.00 and you tax me 30 cents, that's a 30% tax rate. The Fair Tax people use a complicated algorithm based on gross payment to get that 30 cent tax to 23%. Even their basic figures lie. And that should raise a red flag right there for most people, but with quite a few people Fair Tax has become almost a religion.
Secondly, even at 30% tax rate, the Fair Tax proponents claim this will result in most people's taxes going down. Now, being that the top marginal income tax rate in 2008 is 35% for the ultra-wealthy and is likely to only be raised to 38% even if Obama let's Bush's tax cuts expire, this means the vast majority of the middle class pay around 20-22% Federal income tax now in real dollars. Believe me, your taxes will go up under Fair Tax and people who know more about this than I do calculate you'd have to be making well over $200,000 a year now to break even. Which is why the Fair Tax proponents love Fair Tax. You'll notice most of them are rich jerks or wannabes.
The astute among you might have also noticed that Fair Tax only replaces Federal Withholding and does not replace social security or medicare taxes. Nor does it replace any state income taxes, local or state sales taxes, excise taxes, corporate taxes, gasoline taxes, tariffs, user fees, tolls, property taxes, and so on. All this would continue under Fair Tax. So basically the very rich would be crying all the way to the bank and the rest of us would pay more money so that the well-to-do could be even more well-to-do.
Fourth, Fair Tax is basically a consumption tax and it will nail the poor to the wall. The poor have less discretionary income and have a lot more fixed expenses than the rich. The rich can invest, save, or spend money overseas. The poor have to buy shelter, food, clothes, and transportation. While Fair Tax does have an allotment for the poor and does not tax food, you can bet your life that the poor will still get hosed under this plan. Now, this rebate is monthly and is that everyone gets a credit under Fair Tax based on income. Only problem is that this wonderful allotment is a rebate after the fact. If you are a single mom washing toilets for a living you first have to pony up for the tax, and only after you prove your income is lower class do you get the wondrous tax rebate. Ask yourself how many people making minimum wage could fork over 30% of their income to get it back at the end of the month. My guess is, oh, about 0%.
Three people who make $30,000 a year spend more money on goods than one guy making $90,000 and Fair Tax would therefore hit the people making $30,000 the hardest, without question.
Far from being a boon to the economy, the Fair Tax would cripple the economy. If all prices suddenly went up 30% even if you didn't have to pay any income tax anymore, would you start buying? I bet not. Consumption would plummet, at least initially, and the economy would go into a tailspin.
Gets better. Neal Boortz assumes 100% compliance when he trots out his 30% tax rate. And lies about it. But anyway. Show me a tax and I'll show you someone who is trying to get out of paying it. No tax has ever had 100% compliance. Furthermore, a 30% consumption tax is not going to collect the same amount of revenue as a 30% tax rate, and even libertarian economists think that a more reasonable Fair Tax rate is at least 33% if not 39%. National Review, not known for it's socialistic bent, calculates 36% as a reasonable figure.
Still sounding like a good plan, peeps?
Even better, remember that you have to pay up front and receive a rebate. Far from weaning the American citizenry off government, Fair Tax would make a government dolee of every single one of us since the feds would be sending each of us a check every month. It's 100% government dependency. No one supporting Fair Tax can even remotely call themselves libertarian, egalitarian, or sane.
Even the basic premise is flawed. If the rich pay less tax, where do you think the shortfall is going to come from? Just simple logic says this: if one person is paying LESS tax, someone else is paying MORE tax.
Oh, and what happens when prices go up? Inflation. Remember inflation? Now, the Fair Tax proponents believe that companies who sell goods will lower their prices because they themselves will be paying less taxes.
I will stop and wait for you to stop laughing out loud. Because that should be your response to this. I advise you to go look at gasoline prices and tell me how corporations will lower prices in response to lower costs.
And even if domestic goods get cheaper, foreign goods won't. How much of what you buy was actually made in this country?
And, while you're at it, you might want to look at the fact that Fair Tax does not stop the federal tax agency (whatever it's called under Fair Tax since they want to replace the IRS) from auditing you. And you have to prove, just like now, that you've paid the tax. Except that with the current federal withholding tax, you can easily prove this. Since Fair Tax is based on what you buy over the course of a year, you have to save every single receipt to prove you paid your tax. Anyone want to do this? I want a show of hands.
Yes, you, the buyer are responsible for this tax, not the seller. You'll have to have a receipt to prove you bought that can of beans, that computer, or that car “legally.” Lose your receipt and you could be required to pay that 30+ percent tax all over again – plus penalties and interest. And since Fair Tax is reported monthly, instead of doing your taxes once a year, you get to do them once a month.
Fair Tax would be so wretched that people would do damn near anything to get out of paying it. Which means a nice, thriving black market.
Now, Neal Boortz and people supporting this measure in Congress and the media and business are not stupid men. They know precisely how the Fair Tax will affect the poor, the middle class, you, and me. They are bald-faced liars and they are greedy, grasping prevaricators and anything that comes out of their mouths should be fact-checked.
Fair Tax is the worst idea since Adolf Hitler said "Hey, dudes, let's invade Russia. It worked out great for that Napoleon guy."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Only Six Deadly Sins?
When did this happen? Only six deadly sins?
Seriously?
Think about it. The seven deadly sins are: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.
Now, even a secular type like me I think would agree these are unpleasant traits for anyone to have, if not precisely sins. I don't begrudge anyone having sex with consenting adults, but you can take it too far when lust rules your life. I don't begrudge anyone a square meal, but eat a salad once in a while, huh? I don't begrudge people having days where they do nothing, but sloth shouldn't be a lifestyle choice. I don't begrudge people getting pissed off and having a catharsis, and I understand that envy and pride are quite natural to have in moderation.
But in 21st century America, it seems only six of the seven qualify as anything to be ashamed of, no matter how much or how little you have of them.
Lust is hated by Americans. Americans consume billions of dollars of pornography behind closed doors and yet decry it in the streets. Homosexual lust is considered evil and degenerate and certainly the lustful in our society are not rewarded. Indeed, they are checked into sex addiction clinics.
Gluttony is hated by Americans. Whenever we see a fat person, most people are repulsed and blame the person for their own weight problems. Fat people in fact, are one of three minorities it is still okay to disparage in public.
Sloth is nearly punishable by death. In 21st century America, one cannot presumably work too many hours, nor work too hard.
Wrath is so openly despised we put people in anger management classes.
Envy is despised as well, and anyone who despises anyone else is considered to be engaging in class warfare, adultery in their heart, or any other number of vices.
Pride also pisses people off. No one likes the arrogant or the condescending. If one makes a success in life, everyone expects that person to be humble, or at least not boast about thier own success.
So 21st century America hates Lust, Gluttony, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.
But apparently not Greed.
When Oliver Stone had Gordon Gecko say "Greed is Good" in the movie Wall Street back in the freewheeling Reagan years, never in his worst nightmares did he forsee hedge fund managers bringing down the economy, obsessed tycoons shipping jobs offshore, or sociopathic talk show hosts claiming greed as a virtue.
Like the other six deadly sins, I've no problem with greed in moderation. We all want to have a decent and comfortable life. It is when you sacrifice others for your own greed that I believe you have become evil. A CEO who destroys a town to move factories to Mexico so he can get a bonus: that's evil, and we should recognize this and make no bones about it. We do not reward the lustful, the gluttonous, the slothful, the wrathful, the envious, nor the prideful. But somehow we have come to venerate the greedmongers among us to the point where we want to become them and copy them.
Now, I could attack the douchebags on Wall Street who started the economic mess in this country, but let's face reality: all of us are to blame. Every man-jack one of us. All of us subscribed to the doctrine that 'Greed is Good'. We all wanted $6.00 lattes and monster SUVs and 3000 square foot homes and iPods and iPhones and iPhucks and goodness knows what else. Nearly 70% of the American economy is now consumer driven and the only amazing thing is how anyone thinks this is even remotely sustainable.
One apparently cannot have too many gadgets, widescreens, electronic devices, clothes, and so forth. And we now measure our success with trinkets. And the size of our bank accounts or 401(k)s. Is it any wonder most people are in the grip of ennui? My parents house was built in 1973 and was originally 1200 square feet. My house was built in 1985 and is 1700 square feet. My boss's house was built in 2003 and is 2500 square feet. Good luck finding new homes today that are actually that small. And this with the number of children per household shrinking. Yes, because we need living rooms, family rooms, game rooms, workout rooms, sun rooms, Arizona rooms, and it's enough to give me a headache.
Among the many lost opportunities of George W. Bush was after 9/11 when he decided to tell the American people to shop to stimulate the economy. We did, and we all went into debt. We were in debt before, but not like this. Most people have six credit cards. Most people own more home than they need, much less afford. Most people own more car than they need, much less afford.
But Swordsman, you say, I have a right to buy whatever I want as long as I can afford it!
And my reply is "get lost".
Seriously, go to Hell.
You really think this mentality isn't to blame? I guarantee it is. If you think any society can absorb 70% consumer spending while actual production of goods is only 30% or less of the economy then you have taken leave of whatever senses you have left. If you think that you buying an SUV doesn't impact anyone else, then you are just plain nuts. It fucks up the economy, it fucks up the environment, and it sure as Hell affects my personal fucking space when you park it in a compact parking space next to me. "Compact" is an adjective, not a verb, dumbass.
We have mortgaged not only our future, but our present. None of us raised a fuss when we created mass deficit spending. No, deficits didn't matter of course. We could lower taxes and spend more and more and more and more! Or not. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and the imitators of Icarus who flew the highest are likely going to fall the hardest.
Along with the seven deadly sins, the Bible also says that the theological virtues are faith, hope, and charity. Indeed, we must all hope, religious and secular, that the sociopaths do not drag us all down into their economic mire.
Seriously?
Think about it. The seven deadly sins are: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.
Now, even a secular type like me I think would agree these are unpleasant traits for anyone to have, if not precisely sins. I don't begrudge anyone having sex with consenting adults, but you can take it too far when lust rules your life. I don't begrudge anyone a square meal, but eat a salad once in a while, huh? I don't begrudge people having days where they do nothing, but sloth shouldn't be a lifestyle choice. I don't begrudge people getting pissed off and having a catharsis, and I understand that envy and pride are quite natural to have in moderation.
But in 21st century America, it seems only six of the seven qualify as anything to be ashamed of, no matter how much or how little you have of them.
Lust is hated by Americans. Americans consume billions of dollars of pornography behind closed doors and yet decry it in the streets. Homosexual lust is considered evil and degenerate and certainly the lustful in our society are not rewarded. Indeed, they are checked into sex addiction clinics.
Gluttony is hated by Americans. Whenever we see a fat person, most people are repulsed and blame the person for their own weight problems. Fat people in fact, are one of three minorities it is still okay to disparage in public.
Sloth is nearly punishable by death. In 21st century America, one cannot presumably work too many hours, nor work too hard.
Wrath is so openly despised we put people in anger management classes.
Envy is despised as well, and anyone who despises anyone else is considered to be engaging in class warfare, adultery in their heart, or any other number of vices.
Pride also pisses people off. No one likes the arrogant or the condescending. If one makes a success in life, everyone expects that person to be humble, or at least not boast about thier own success.
So 21st century America hates Lust, Gluttony, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.
But apparently not Greed.
When Oliver Stone had Gordon Gecko say "Greed is Good" in the movie Wall Street back in the freewheeling Reagan years, never in his worst nightmares did he forsee hedge fund managers bringing down the economy, obsessed tycoons shipping jobs offshore, or sociopathic talk show hosts claiming greed as a virtue.
Like the other six deadly sins, I've no problem with greed in moderation. We all want to have a decent and comfortable life. It is when you sacrifice others for your own greed that I believe you have become evil. A CEO who destroys a town to move factories to Mexico so he can get a bonus: that's evil, and we should recognize this and make no bones about it. We do not reward the lustful, the gluttonous, the slothful, the wrathful, the envious, nor the prideful. But somehow we have come to venerate the greedmongers among us to the point where we want to become them and copy them.
Now, I could attack the douchebags on Wall Street who started the economic mess in this country, but let's face reality: all of us are to blame. Every man-jack one of us. All of us subscribed to the doctrine that 'Greed is Good'. We all wanted $6.00 lattes and monster SUVs and 3000 square foot homes and iPods and iPhones and iPhucks and goodness knows what else. Nearly 70% of the American economy is now consumer driven and the only amazing thing is how anyone thinks this is even remotely sustainable.
One apparently cannot have too many gadgets, widescreens, electronic devices, clothes, and so forth. And we now measure our success with trinkets. And the size of our bank accounts or 401(k)s. Is it any wonder most people are in the grip of ennui? My parents house was built in 1973 and was originally 1200 square feet. My house was built in 1985 and is 1700 square feet. My boss's house was built in 2003 and is 2500 square feet. Good luck finding new homes today that are actually that small. And this with the number of children per household shrinking. Yes, because we need living rooms, family rooms, game rooms, workout rooms, sun rooms, Arizona rooms, and it's enough to give me a headache.
Among the many lost opportunities of George W. Bush was after 9/11 when he decided to tell the American people to shop to stimulate the economy. We did, and we all went into debt. We were in debt before, but not like this. Most people have six credit cards. Most people own more home than they need, much less afford. Most people own more car than they need, much less afford.
But Swordsman, you say, I have a right to buy whatever I want as long as I can afford it!
And my reply is "get lost".
Seriously, go to Hell.
You really think this mentality isn't to blame? I guarantee it is. If you think any society can absorb 70% consumer spending while actual production of goods is only 30% or less of the economy then you have taken leave of whatever senses you have left. If you think that you buying an SUV doesn't impact anyone else, then you are just plain nuts. It fucks up the economy, it fucks up the environment, and it sure as Hell affects my personal fucking space when you park it in a compact parking space next to me. "Compact" is an adjective, not a verb, dumbass.
We have mortgaged not only our future, but our present. None of us raised a fuss when we created mass deficit spending. No, deficits didn't matter of course. We could lower taxes and spend more and more and more and more! Or not. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and the imitators of Icarus who flew the highest are likely going to fall the hardest.
Along with the seven deadly sins, the Bible also says that the theological virtues are faith, hope, and charity. Indeed, we must all hope, religious and secular, that the sociopaths do not drag us all down into their economic mire.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Statistics That Should Change the World But Don't
No surprise, your government is lying to you. What is interesting is how they are doing it.
So the U.S. is lurching into recession. And you might be saying, well, you know, Nine the Swordsman, that sort of sucks. And you'd be right. But it's actually worse than that. Because our economy is a basket case and has been so for some time.
But wait, you might be saying, we've had full employment since 2003 and the economy was doing really well in the 1990's.
Yeah, Bill Clinton and the government would like you to believe that.
Well, what are you going to do? I mean, other countries have worse economies than we do.
Do they? Really. Sure about that, audience?
Here's an article describing the different ways our United States Bureau of Ignorance Labor Statistics calculates unemployment: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/09/a-closer-look-a.html
You'll notice that the government reports U3 as the unemployment rate. Back in 2007, it was 4.6% and has since risen to about 5.4%, which still sounds pretty good. Hell, it's 6.5% now and that doesn't seem completely catastrophic.
Except that the internationally recognized standard is to report U6 as the unemployment rate. Yes, when you compare the U.S. unemployment rate to the rest of the planet, the U.S. government reports U3 and the rest of the planet (mostly) reports U6. Apples and oranges anyone?
Note this awesome disclaimer from the BLS: "The indexes provided by BLS are from the national consumer price indexes as published by each country. They are not adjusted for comparability, except to convert the indexes to a common base year. " Well, isn't that special.
As of October 2008, U6 was not 6.5% but 11.1%.
Well, but poverty rates are still low here, right?
The US government (actually the CIA factbook, if you want source data) reports poverty as around 12%. Ah, but wait. What if they juggle the figures for poverty just as they do for unemployment? If you're thinking this way now, you'd be correct.
Eurostat, the European official statistical warehouse, defines poverty as only having 60% of the median income. I couldn't find those figures for the US, but I did find figures for those only having 50% of the median income.
US poverty rate: 17%. Anyone feeling the love yet? And these figures are from 2007-2008, before the economy cratered.
But you might say our incomes are far and above that of most of those countries. If you look at GDP per capita as per the awesome CIA World Factbook, the US comes out at a robust $45,660 per capita, for seventh place, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. Go us.
Well, except GDP per capita really doesn't tell the entire story, since it includes the hyper-rich. Bear with me here. If there are 10 guys in a bar, and 9 of the 10 make minimum wage and the 10th guy is Bill Gates, it looks like on paper, everyone in the bar is rich since the average wage is very high. But that obviously isn't accurate. What we really need to do is compare median incomes across the board.
US median income per person is $26,000, significantly less than the GDP figure (see what I mean?). So let's check this out per person, shall we? US incomes are actually 11th.
And this pisses me off.
I want the US to be the best place on the planet to live. Not 11th.
Now someone will undoubtedly say that we are better off than Yemen or Zimbabwe. So? That's your standard? Really want to go there?
These figures should change people's perspective.
But they won't.
So the U.S. is lurching into recession. And you might be saying, well, you know, Nine the Swordsman, that sort of sucks. And you'd be right. But it's actually worse than that. Because our economy is a basket case and has been so for some time.
But wait, you might be saying, we've had full employment since 2003 and the economy was doing really well in the 1990's.
Yeah, Bill Clinton and the government would like you to believe that.
Well, what are you going to do? I mean, other countries have worse economies than we do.
Do they? Really. Sure about that, audience?
Here's an article describing the different ways our United States Bureau of Ignorance Labor Statistics calculates unemployment: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/09/a-closer-look-a.html
You'll notice that the government reports U3 as the unemployment rate. Back in 2007, it was 4.6% and has since risen to about 5.4%, which still sounds pretty good. Hell, it's 6.5% now and that doesn't seem completely catastrophic.
Except that the internationally recognized standard is to report U6 as the unemployment rate. Yes, when you compare the U.S. unemployment rate to the rest of the planet, the U.S. government reports U3 and the rest of the planet (mostly) reports U6. Apples and oranges anyone?
Note this awesome disclaimer from the BLS: "The indexes provided by BLS are from the national consumer price indexes as published by each country. They are not adjusted for comparability, except to convert the indexes to a common base year. " Well, isn't that special.
As of October 2008, U6 was not 6.5% but 11.1%.
Well, but poverty rates are still low here, right?
The US government (actually the CIA factbook, if you want source data) reports poverty as around 12%. Ah, but wait. What if they juggle the figures for poverty just as they do for unemployment? If you're thinking this way now, you'd be correct.
Eurostat, the European official statistical warehouse, defines poverty as only having 60% of the median income. I couldn't find those figures for the US, but I did find figures for those only having 50% of the median income.
US poverty rate: 17%. Anyone feeling the love yet? And these figures are from 2007-2008, before the economy cratered.
But you might say our incomes are far and above that of most of those countries. If you look at GDP per capita as per the awesome CIA World Factbook, the US comes out at a robust $45,660 per capita, for seventh place, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. Go us.
Well, except GDP per capita really doesn't tell the entire story, since it includes the hyper-rich. Bear with me here. If there are 10 guys in a bar, and 9 of the 10 make minimum wage and the 10th guy is Bill Gates, it looks like on paper, everyone in the bar is rich since the average wage is very high. But that obviously isn't accurate. What we really need to do is compare median incomes across the board.
US median income per person is $26,000, significantly less than the GDP figure (see what I mean?). So let's check this out per person, shall we? US incomes are actually 11th.
And this pisses me off.
I want the US to be the best place on the planet to live. Not 11th.
Now someone will undoubtedly say that we are better off than Yemen or Zimbabwe. So? That's your standard? Really want to go there?
These figures should change people's perspective.
But they won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
