More things you learn on conservative blogs
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.
July 22nd, 2010
Hit ‘em where it hits, sir! I beg you!
July 22nd, 2010
In my state of mind 15 years ago I probably would have joined in labeling you a communist. I have learned much and my views have evolved quite a bit since then. Despite our disagreements on certain issues, there’s no way would I make such an incendiary (an inaccurate) accusation like that today.
Having been one of those people back then, I know how one comes to such a conclusion. For them, “communist” and “socialist” is a distinction without a difference. That has grown to “Democrat” and “communist” being a distinction without a difference. For them, there is no political, economic, or philosophical spectrum or continuum. It’s all black and white. Support a tax increase of any kind? Well then, you obviously must be opposed to all private property rights. Support a safety net program like social security or Medicaid? Well then, you obviously must advocate state control over all means of production and distribution of profits. Just like Marx!
You ask where they get this shit. You’re right that it overflows from FNC and the right-wing talk radio and blog environment. But the real reason people go from being relatively grounded Republicans who just want to raise a family and have a modest retirement, to people who hoard weapons and supplies in preparation for the great (and inevitable) Islamofascist-Marxist-racial “War for America” is because they listen only to Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the limitless right-wing conspiracy nuts with Internet blogs. It’s the isolation.
I know it’s annoying, but try not to let it get to you. You have this tendency to go on debating with those guys long past the point where their arguments have devolved below anything well-intentioned or meaningful. I’m not sure if it’s just your personality, or if you’re really trying to reach these guys. I think that most are beyond reach. I’ll make a point in opposition when I see stupid shit like the example you give in this post, but after a few back-and-forths in the thread I move on.
July 22nd, 2010
Well, information “isolation” can’t help, but I don’t believe Glenn Beck can be a healthy part of any complete breakfast. He’s a fucking loon.
As far as why I keep mixing it up with these guys, I don’t know. It’s fruitless that’s for sure. Maybe it’s just my blind insistence that people should make sense, even though I know that’s not how people are wired. It gets under my skin when people are not just wrong but choosing not to even think clearly about what they’re talking about. It’s a character flaw of mine. Like a scab I keep scratching at.
July 23rd, 2010
Just my opinion:
Government Spending:
Government should not spend more than it has. It is our money that is being spent. It is not “free” money when it comes from the federal government to the state, county, or municipality. It does not result in a project or program costing less. It is our money first and foremost and then through taxation goes to the government. Government must be accountable to the taxpayer. A balanced budget is a must.
Jobs:
We must create a business friendly environment. Business must feel welcome in this state with no favoritism toward businesses who donate money to politicians. We must lower taxes across the board. Lowering taxes for businesses, and lower taxes for the residents of this state, will be the common sense factor to Create Jobs!
Taxes and Fees:
Common sense again applies. The more money taken out of our pockets the less commerce activity there will be. A dollar paid in taxes or a dollar paid for a fee is still a dollar, no matter which pocket it comes out of. This is where a balanced budget would prevent the government from over spending and then coming back to the taxpayer for more money.
Health Care:
In my opinion, health care should be treated no differently than automobile insurance, life insurance, risk insurance, disability insurance or homeowners insurance. It should be an individual transaction, no employer involvement, no government involvement. Purchase should be across state lines and open to competition. Health care coverage would remain with an individual for life, tailored to individual or family needs. Medicare costs should be treated as a tax deduction, if we pay a percentage of the premium.
July 23rd, 2010
The federal government has always spent more than it has. I think there has only been one brief period in history when the government has not been in debt. I agree that there are limits to how much debt should be used, but it isn’t necessary nor is it a sign of fiscal health for a government to be debt-free. And while I would very much be in favor of a balanced, deficit-free budget, I am definitely not in favor of it right now. In the depressed economy if the government does what we’re all doing (holding back our spending) then even more of us will be unemployed. This will cause us to spend even less, resulting even more unemployment… rinse, repeat. When we’re approaching full employment again, I’ll be all over a “paygo” bill and a balanced budget–but not before then.
Lowering taxes across the board sounds fine, especially considering my own wallet. But that will create an even bigger deficit in the state budget. We’re already looking at some historic cuts necessary to close the gap. What do you want to further cut in order to reduce everyone’s taxes? I don’t think the issue is as easy as you think. Frankly, we’re going to have to lean heavily on the feds, who can run a deficit, to help us through the recession. We can’t cut our way out.
Drivers in many states are required to have auto insurance issued by a government-regulated private insurance company. So in that sense, yes, health insurance is going to be a lot more like auto insurance.
July 23rd, 2010
I disagree with your argument that the government provides a stable economic infrastructure, and should engage in attempts to stabilize the economy.
Classical economic models suggested that the economy is self-equilibrating and tends to move toward a full-employment equilibrium relatively rapidly. These models suggest that there is no need for governments to engage in activist fiscal or monetary policies.
Goverment has never spent us out of a recession. Small business and employers, and cutting taxes have proven time-and-time again, that it is what pulls us out.
July 23rd, 2010
I definitely hear you. I just think you’re wrong.
July 23rd, 2010
Back at ya!
July 23rd, 2010
Thing about the tax-cutting rhetoric is that while it sounds good and all, we’ve got all sorts of government subsidies for businesses. Let those go, and then talk about cutting taxes. Even then, you can’t believe with a straight face that trickle-down actually works. A corporation that starts paying less taxes will not suddenly start hiring more. These are the guys who spent the last decade offshoring as many jobs as possible to increase their profits.
Michele, when you say government has never spent us out of a recession, one has to wonder how you think we got out of the Great Depression. Public works projects and WWII were all based on government spending. Crazy, right?
Only if you privatized everything would it make sense to start really cutting government spending. And as soon as you do that, the services suffer because of the profit motive.
July 23rd, 2010
A 2004 UCLA study concluded was that inflated prices and wages were the cause of the slowed recovery, and the NIRA which FDR signed into law was the cause of that inflation, resulting in a 60% weaker recovery.
And, these programs continue to hinder us today.
The economy was turned around by the war – not FDR programs
July 23rd, 2010
I’m sure you’re aware that this is not a mainstream view. Even an economic noob such as myself can see that GDP had already fallen to its lowest level before FDR was even sworn in as president. After that it climbed pretty steadily. And if the war helped, that’s probably because it spurred a heck of a lot of government spending and employed a lot of people.
July 23rd, 2010
Government was a part, but most of the spending for the war was through job creation from businesess needed to support the war effort, not just government spending. This type of goverment spending is very different then creating and supporting long outdated funded government programs way past their life span. Don’t you agree?
This is not a radical view. NIRA showed as a failed policy, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Act
July 23rd, 2010
Too bad someone doesn’t execute you behind a liquor store. Faggot.
July 23rd, 2010
Too bad someone doesn’t grow a bigger set of balls and sign his own name to his threatening comments.
July 23rd, 2010
I am Chris Liebenthal, loser. Fucking better know who I am. In the Wisconsin blog scene, I am a MOTHERFUCKING LEGEND.
July 23rd, 2010
Dude, the real Chris Liebenthal is enough of a slimeball without you pulling crap like this. You’re not helping conservatives or hurting him.
July 23rd, 2010
It’s helping me, though. He makes my point much more clearly than my original post.
July 23rd, 2010
Welcome to the blogosphere. People do bad stuff under the cover of anonymity. Film at eleven.
July 23rd, 2010
I give 50% odds that it’s Peter. He’s always been unstable. I once tried to gather a coalition of local bloggers of every political stripe to do some kind of intervention on him before he harmed himself but could find no one willing to reach out to him. I ended up sending him a heartfelt email expressing concern. Which he brushed off.
July 23rd, 2010
I obviously don’t know any more about it than what you’ve said, but as you’ve described him, sounds like he’s simply ignorant. And you responded with obscenities & personal attacks.
July 24th, 2010
Thanks for the reality-check, Locke. It’s true, I went off on the guy. But there’s a lot of context surrounding this exchange that you can’t be aware of. There’s a long history of me and these guys, this guy in particular. David sums up the gist nicely:
For them, “communist” and “socialist” is a distinction without a difference. That has grown to “Democrat” and “communist” being a distinction without a difference. For them, there is no political, economic, or philosophical spectrum or continuum. It’s all black and white. Support a tax increase of any kind? Well then, you obviously must be opposed to all private property rights. Support a safety net program like social security or Medicaid? Well then, you obviously must advocate state control over all means of production and distribution of profits. Just like Marx!
It’s more than just a blurted out piece of nonsense. It’s fundamental to their entire political worldview. Just today I was told that there’s absolutely no difference between the NAACP and a white supremacist group. Really.
Was I inappropriate? For a public meeting, sure. But this is a pretty rough-and-tumble site we’re talking about. And I felt I’d reached a point where it’s dishonest to keep trying to make reasonable points with people who aren’t themselves reasonable. At some point you have to call a spade a spade: these guys are extremists, they’re nuts.
He’s ignorant and I responded by insulting his intelligence, true. But he’s not just ignorant. He’s willfully and persistently and dangerously ignorant. One can remove the swear words from my response, but I still stand by my basic premiss: He’s nuts and his position deserves exactly that response.
July 24th, 2010
Fair enough – I sort of suspected there might be a larger history there which is why I sort of qualified my words. I know full well that sometimes the words that most accurately convey your feelings and your message are ones you wouldn’t use under other circumstances.
There’s also this issue of whether to engage in order to convince or simply to flame back & forth. I’ve really tried to get away from the latter because it serves no purpose. If they’re too dumb to change no matter what, and don’t actually give any thought at all to what you’re going to say, the only thing that will come of it is an ulcer. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not perfect.
My guess is that despite agreeing with this guy on some level I most certainly would disagree with his approach and hyperbole. Actually that’s probably not accurate to say hyperbole – because these people (on both extremes of the political spectrum) tend to be true believers.
July 25th, 2010
Scott… You have suggested that, for the time being, the US continue with deficit spending. While I am not completely sold on the idea, I do believe there is merit to the argument. My question for you is: why you advocate for higher taxes at the same time? If we’re going to continue with deficit budgets for the next few years (or more), what difference does it make if the Bush tax cuts are extended? Why not let that income remain in the economy and fuel commerce, keep more people employed, etc.?
July 25th, 2010
A good question. Let me begin by conceding that if I were king of the United States and could do whatever I wanted, totally unimpeded, I would leave the Bush tax cuts in place for stimulative effect and worry about the deficit in another year or two.
Another point of clarification: I have no desire to see all of the Bush tax cuts disappear. Just the ones going to the top few percent of earners. This is an important distinction, because one might argue that tax cuts are stimulative in exactly the same way that direct government spending is. But it’s not. And definitely not at that level. People making that much money don’t really change their spending habits based on their tax rates. They could save the money, pay down debt, whatever–something that has no immediate stimulative effect. Unlike government spending, which goes immediately into the budget of a road construction company and gives 15 guys paychecks which they spend at Wal-Mart. Unemployment benefits are better than tax cuts, even.
Still, more money in the economy is more money, and you’re right, I’d let the Bush tax cuts ride while we do our stimulus spending. Every little bit helps.
But the problem is, I’m not the king and we don’t exist in a political vacuum. Bush’s tax cuts were written to expire at the end of this year. Politically, this is where and when the argument happens over what is to become of them. And I think Democrats have the right idea. Let low and middle-income people keep what little they got out of it, let the tax breaks for the rich expire as written. They aren’t contributing a lot to economic stimulation and long term, it’ll help a lot with regard to balancing the budget when that time does come around.
July 26th, 2010
<>
Thanks for noting the distinction. Considering the vast majority of the time, the left – and the main stream media – call the Bush “tax cuts tax breaks for the rich.” We can argue over the point of whether the rich or the poor were more helped (I’d argue seeing your marginal rate drop from 15 to 10 percent is a larger cut than 31 to 28, 36 to 33 or even 39.6 to 25) but calling it simply “tax cuts for the rich” is factually wrong and either ignorant or dishonest.
<>
Agreed to some extent – as a general rule, the stimulative effects of the poorer having a little more money is generally greater than the rich. Of course us in the middle are destined to get screwed – not poor enough that we’ll spend every extra dime especially in down times, we’ll save and not rich enough to have all kinds of exemptions carved out for us. That said, the situation is in fact, more complicated. The rich are much more more likely to open or expand their business and hire additional employees. I think the investment aspect gets overinflated in that investing in the stock market doesn’t do anything on the stimulus front. But investment in their own business – either people or capital investment does benefit the economy. Adding a $25,000 job where one didn’t exist adds a hell of a lot more to the economy than the government giving out that same amount of money. I can’t help add the irony of looking at using any extra money to pay down debt as a negative. I get it – it’s less stimulating to the economy than spending it, but overall, we’d have a lot less problems if more people did that. And the sad, hard truth is that in many cases, it’s as much about intelligence as much as income. Many get rich or poor and stay that way because they choose to – they make the choice to spend on things that puts them where they are (for example lottery tickets).
<<"Unlike government spending, which goes immediately into the budget of a road construction company and gives 15 guys paychecks which they spend at Wal-Mart. Unemployment benefits are better than tax cuts, even."??
Um…no. Government spending doesn't go immediately anywhere. Case in point, what percentage of the stimulus money has actually been spent? It get's funneled & cycled through layers of bureaucracy and waste many times over before it eventually gets to where it's intended. Generally speaking, in terms of "bang for the buck" of actually delivering help where it is most needed, charities do a much better job. While there are bad apples in every bunch, and corruption in charitable organizations happens, were President Obama to end or severely curb deductions for charitable contributions as has been suggest, it would be a tremendous blow to those in need.
Back to the issue of spending & in particular, deficit spending during recessionary times like now…I absolutely agree that when the economy is struggling, that's not the time for serve cuts. I'm a deficit hawk (and always have been, just as much during the Bush years as I am now) but during the hard times, I have no problem with running a deficit. However, what we're doing now is obscene – and will come at great cost to future generations. I think Krugman is an idiot or just totally in the sack for the Obama Administration and does not deserve to be called an economist any more due to his insistence that the deficit doesn't matter right now and spending including another stimulus of a trillion dollars or more should occur without any consideration to deficits. That's madness especially from someone with an economics background. It's more important than ever that we concern ourselves with how we spend it – every dime wasted is that much more destructive. Will it help those most in need? Will it help spur the economy? Will it provide critical infrastructure support? Any money that doesn't go to those things should be heavily scrutinized and in many cases, eliminated, reduced or transferred to be better utilized. And that includes defense spending.
July 26th, 2010
calling it simply “tax cuts for the rich” is factually wrong and either ignorant or dishonest.
It’s the kind of shorthand necessary for politicking in America. It’s a one-sentence way to refer to the fact that most of the money returned to taxpayers went to the people who make the most income. You can make a case for why that’s ok–such as citing who got how many percent cut, etc–but many of us think that they didn’t need any “relief” in the first place. And it’s a huge part of our budget deficit right now.
The rich are much more more likely to open or expand their business and hire additional employees.
The problem with the economy right now isn’t that businesses aren’t hiring because they don’t have money to do so. The problem is nobody has money to buy their stuff if they did expand.
what we’re doing now is obscene
You think it’s obscene because we over did it. I think it’s obscene because we half-assed it. The stimulus should have been larger and it should have included more government spending and less tax cuts.
that includes defense spending.
On that we agree. There are weapons systems being built right now that the pentagon does not need or want. They’re being done for the benefit of the companies who get the contracts and for the congresspeople who represent the states they operate in. Of course, I’m not for any huge cuts in even this spending right now. Talk to me in a couple of years. I bet we could easily cut 10% of our military spending while simultaneously increasing the number of servicemen and women, paying them better, and increasing our security.
July 26th, 2010
This is a great discussion. It’s not like we all agree on everything, but we’re getting somewhere and can remain civil. Why the hell can’t it happen on other forums?
Example:
Talk to me in a couple of years. I bet we could easily cut 10% of our military spending while simultaneously increasing the number of servicemen and women, paying them better, and increasing our security.
I agree 1000%. But say that at your local GOP/Tea Party blog and they’ll be claiming you were happy when 9/11 happened (and that you want another one to happen – because you’re a bin Laden sympathizer or something).
People making that much money don’t really change their spending habits based on their tax rates.
I think it depends on the person. Some rich folk are high flying, spend everything, types. But I would submit that most of them got rich in no small part because they kept their personal discretionary spending in check. They’ll typically have a set percentage of income that they set aside for saving and investments. A budget for fixed and long-term costs (regular “living” expenses, debt service, etc.). And everything else is discretionary (parties, cars, gadgets, trips, gifts). In my experience, when income is reduce via higher taxes, it comes almost dollar-for-dollar out of discretionary spending. If one with a $1M salary is left with $200k in discretionary spending, and then next year that’s down to $175k due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, I don’t see that guy changing the amount of money he saves. I see him cut back a trip or two, re-think the decision to buy Jr. and new car for his birthday, etc.
All that being said, however, you make a very good point with this:
Let low and middle-income people keep what little they got out of it, let the tax breaks for the rich expire as written. They aren’t contributing a lot to economic stimulation and long term, it’ll help a lot with regard to balancing the budget when that time does come around.
Taxes are going to have to go up at some point – for everyone, not just the rich. The rich have been expecting all along that these tax cuts would expire. Being rich people who are purportedly smart with their money, they most likely already maneuvered to deal with it.
July 26th, 2010
Why the hell can’t it happen on other forums?
It doesn’t always happen here, either. But I think it happens when the people involved aren’t so blindly partisan that they are incapable of intellectual honesty and reasonableness.
most of them got rich in no small part because they kept their personal discretionary spending in check.
I’m not at all sure that’s true. I think a lot of it is determined before you ever reach adulthood. If you live in a community with shitty schools, high unemployment, lots of crime, many single-parent families and uneducated parents you’re pretty screwed. It takes a lot of good luck and an uncommon amount of hard work to rise above that to become wealthy. If on the other hand, you grew up in Brookfield with two married, professional parents who have post-graduate educations, in a community filled with upper middle-class friends and neighbors plus terrific schools.. well, it’s no guarantee, but who will be shocked that you end up with an MBA, knock down $80k your first year out and at 40 end up as one of those $250k a year households? Nobody.
Taxes are going to have to go up at some point – for everyone, not just the rich.
I’m not so sure. Presuming we get back to something like full employment, and presuming we don’t have another ten year war, and presuming we put the top tax bracket where it was under Clinton, I don’t see that everyone’s taxes would have to be raised. Remember, we were actually running a budget surplus at one point not too long ago.
July 26th, 2010
I think a lot of it is determined before you ever reach adulthood.
True – but whether they were born into privilege and education, or whether they were born into poverty and then emerged later into a high earning status, they still have to keep the personal discretionary spending in check. Becoming rich may have been easier for the former, but staying that way for both groups requires money management skills that are, sadly, never taught in schools. Look at how many pro athletes, actors, and rock stars who once had millions and are now broke. Me being one of those statistical outliers – grew up in a poor, single-parent household and now has the MBA and lives in a $250k+ household – I made a shitload of stupid mistakes along the way to get here. If I had that Brookfield childhood I’d (hopefully) be where I am now, but would have without question arrived here earlier than I did.
We’ll see what happens on the tax thing. If a bunch of rich people cash out of securities and appreciated assets before the end of the year in order to take advantage of the last time they’ll enjoy taxes on income and capital gains at this level (I know I’m going to), it may spur the banks to start lending again. There’s only so many tax shelters wherein to put all that cash. They’ll be forced to leave a substantial portion into the banks. Better yet, maybe they’ll just spend some of it and party it up in 2011. As long as they’re not donating it to the GOP I think we’ll be ok.
July 29th, 2010
If you live in a community with shitty schools, high unemployment, lots of crime, many single-parent families and uneducated parents you’re pretty screwed. It takes a lot of good luck and an uncommon amount of hard work to rise above that to become wealthy.
I don’t grant this premise at all. People are entirely too quick to believe their lot in life is set – when the fact is, this is almost never the case.
For example, sure, moving from inner city to the burbs might not be feasible. But tell me – what is this big, immovable object preventing that single parent family from picking up & moving out of that shitty school, high unemployment, high crime neighborhood and out into one of the thousands of small or mid-sized towns & cities? Fear of the unknown doesn’t cut it.
July 29th, 2010
People are entirely too quick to believe their lot in life is set – when the fact is, this is almost never the case.
People are entirely too quick to believe that our lives are determined by ourselves alone. It’s how we’re wired. But the evidence shows quite a lot is determined by genetics and experience. It’s hard, if not impossible, to act is if this were the case. But it is.