Republicans want to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Democrats want to repeal the cuts for those making over $200,000 (single) and $250,000 (family). Republicans say this would raise taxes on small businesses.
I wasn’t surprised to learn that this is not true.
Talking to conservatives, I often hear about Obama’s “failed stimulus.” They say it’s obviously failed because he, the president, promised that unemployment would stay below 9%. And it has subsequently reached 9% and more. Ergo, it is a failure. And also bankrupting us through debt, yadda, yadda. Worst president ever, etc.,etc. If you talk to your conservative friends (or just watch Fox News) you’ve no doubt heard the same thing.
And of course I think it’s totally wrong.
First of all, this “promise” wasn’t a promise; it was a projection. The difference is outlined here.
Second, just because the projection was wrong doesn’t mean the stimulus didn’t work. The CBO says it did. Noteworthy economists say it did. I just read about a couple more economists who say they can prove it–including one who was John McCain’s economic advisor.
The stimulus wasn’t big enough and contained too many tax cuts and not enough direct spending. That’s why we’re still struggling more than we should be at this point in the economic recovery. And it’s ironic that the very people who are so eager to say that it’s a failure are the very people who prevented it from working better in the first place.
Andrew Leonard is being tempted. He thinks we should care.
Recently I began receiving threatening and anti-semitic comments on my blog. You may or may not have seen them. The name and email address associated with them belong to a local blogger, Chris, with whom I am acquainted. Of course it isn’t him who is leaving the comments; one can put in any name and email address one wants.
Chris told me that someone has been leaving similar impersonated comments on other local blogs. I’m just the latest.
Doing a whois on the IP address leads nowhere. Or rather, leads to an anonymizing service–a dead end. You’d think that if someone was making threats you’d be able to go to the company, perhaps through the police, and demand to know who the perpetrator is. But no. In theory, it works that way. In practice, it does not.
But there are things I can deduce without this information. First of all, the person is local or has local ties. Who else would be impersonating a local in order to comment on local blogs? The Cheddarsphere is a small place. Nobody who lives in Toledo gives a shit what we say.
That being the case, it also seems likely that it’s either another local blogger or a regular commenter on one of them. Perhaps even someone I’ve met before in person, such as at gatherings of local bloggy-type people.
And of course we can assume it’s someone of decidedly conservative political opinion. No liberal is going to get that heated over the things I write here.
So. A conservative local, who’s known in the local political blogosphere, who knows how and why to use an anonymizer, and who’s a big enough asshole to leave these kind of comments.
Guesses?
Or perhaps the individual himself would care to weigh in on my deductions.
Another thing I feel pretty confident about: Anyone who’s too chickenshit to sign his own name to his remarks is extremely unlikely to represent a genuine threat of any kind. Fear not for my safety, dear reader. And stay tuned for the next hilarious example of just how nutty local conservatives can get.
I heard it again today. The idea that the government takes in more tax dollars if it lowers taxes. This time it was Wisconsin senatorial candidate Ron Johnson on Joy Cardin’s Wisconsin Public Radio show. Let’s have a listen.
One might make the case that Geithner is wrong; that raising any taxes on anyone is a bad idea in these economic times. But that isn’t what Johnson is saying. He’s flatly saying that cutting taxes increases tax revenue, full stop.
Do you believe him? I don’t. There may be a theoretical point at which cutting taxes does increase tax revenue, but the idea that we’re at such a point, or that this principle is axiomatic and true under all circumstances, strikes me as complete bullshit. Need more? For the wonkish, here’s an article discussing why tax cuts that pay for themselves are myths and here’s another.
I’m generally against the illegal downloading of movies or music. It’s theft. And as much as we might decry the profiteering of distributors and record/music industry “suits,” the creative people who make these things get paid, too, when we pay for them.
Still, it bugs the shit out of me when I want to see a movie and it’s not available online legally. I had a hankering to watch The Return of the Living Dead (1985) last night. I don’t own it on DVD, so I went to see if it was available for streaming on Netflix. It wasn’t. I went to Amazon to see if they had a download. They didn’t. I went to iTunes to see if I could rent or buy it as an instant download–but no. Nothing.
On a whim I searched for it on youtube–and there it was, divided up in to 16 parts. It was mostly all there, too, except for a 5 minute section mysteriously missing from the middle. (I think it was the part where Trash strips in the graveyard, which tells me it had probably been pulled for the nudity rather than copyright infringement.) The quality was surprisingly watchable, even full-screened on my laptop.
I would have gladly paid a few bucks to rent it or a few more to buy it as a digital download. Since it wasn’t available, I went the path of least resistance. Was it wrong? I suppose it was. But it’s also bad business to fail to provide your customers what they want.
I’m a communist. No, really. A communist.
I was asked “in all seriousness and with all due respect” why I didn’t move to Cuba or whether I might not be happier in the old USSR. I was asked this not by a man who was just trying to take a jab at me. He wasn’t being rhetorical or hyperbolic. He was serious. I was asked this by a man who apparently cannot distinguish between what passes for a liberal in the United States of America and, say, Vladimir Lenin or Fidel Castro or Kim Jong-Il. I was asked this not by some anonymous kook, but buy a local guy on a local blog; we could be neighbors. He also opined that “militias” were one of the things which would turn the tide against the pernicious attacks on America by president Obama. I’d had enough.
In all seriousness [name withheld], and with all due respect, you’re a fucking moron.
You really believe that American liberals such as myself are pining for, and would be happier in, a communist country? I’d like to give you a chance to back out of this asshattery, but you’ve pretty clearly already exposed yourself so what’s the point. You’re a dumbass who knows absofuckinglutely nothing about politics. You think that I—who happen to believe in things like a modicum of regulation of business and industry, who favors a modest increase in our social safety net, and who thinks taxation could be a couple of points more progressive—is exactly the same as Mao Zedong? You honestly cannot distinguish between what passes for a liberal in the United States of America and member of the communist party in the old USSR?
Dude, whatever political crack you’re smoking put it down and back away slowly.
I’m not even going to get into your hoped-for “militia” action against the Obama administration other than to reiterate that you’re an idiot and add that you should probably not be allowed to own a gun, operate heavy machinery, touch sharp objects or be left unsupervised with small children.
I went on to invite the other conservative commenters to renounce his lunacy. They did not. In fact, two or three of them proudly held up their hands in the idiot poll to be counted with him.
Not long ago I wrote that I was in favor of single-payer health care in the United States.
A position that puts me exactly in line with our staunchest (and probably most conservative) ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United Kingdom.
A position that elected Democrats did not even bring to the table in the recent health care reform debates.
This, apparently, makes me a communist.
I would like to see taxes become as progressive as they were a decade or two ago. Not some confiscatory, unprecedented tax policy. Give me a percentage point or two.
For that, I am exactly the same as a true believer member of the communist party in Soviet Russia.
I was also enlightened about other matters. First, the president runs General Motors. He just “took it over.” Nationalized it in exactly the same way Venezuela nationalized it’s oil industry. Second, the federal government similarly has seized complete control of the American health care industry. And they’re making a list of fat people so they can be reeducated or discriminated against or something. Really.
The people who hold these kind of beliefs are not some distant lunatics who live on the webbertubes somewhere. They are our colleagues and our neighbors. Now you know.
Where are they getting this shit? The right-wing blogosphere. Right-wing talk radio. And of course Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others.
Dear reader, I ask so little of you. But I do ask something today. When you see, hear or read this kind of insanity please don’t remain silent. Call it out for the bullshit that it is. These kind of knuckleheads may indeed be a minority, but they’re a sizable one with influence. Don’t let them lie with impunity. Don’t let them distort unchallenged. Don’t let them hit you without hitting back.
That is all.
A point-and-shoot camera. A pocket video camera. A portable music player. A standalone GPS device. A handheld gaming unit. A dedicated e-reader. A PDA.
And a phone that doesn’t include all the above functionality.
Looks like PC Mag agrees with me about the whole antennagate thing.
I was reading some guy’s comment on the internet recently and he used a phrase that caught my eye: “I’m not a traditional man.” Which got me wondering. What’s a traditional man? Am I one?
Off the top of my head, a “traditional” (or perhaps we could use the term “stereotypical”) man would be:
I could go on. I’m sure you could, too. So let’s analyze the list vis a vis me.
So that’s 3 for traditional and 6 for non-traditional. Plus I get an additional non-traditional for having used the phrase “vis a vis” and another one for referencing the k-12 curriculum earlier in this post which brings us to a 3-to-8 ratio for being a non-traditional man.
Bonus: Dig this video. What if men acted like women and vice versa?