Seems to me as if they are only being fair and balanced.

A veritable smorgasbord of whackjobbery this week, Roy. I think I'll go rest for a bit - I'm feeling a little queasy after ingesting that much concentrated insanity in one sitting.

So far the right is hysterically afraid of foreign governments, our own government, foreigners, liberals, minorities, women, gays, the poor, the Anti-Christ, sex, history, biology, physics, home gardens, national health, taxes, gun control, public schools, the Queen of England, and peace.

No wonder they are having trouble thinking up more enemies.

Thanks for doing this. I hoope you hold your nose

Instead of realizing they are not scaring us any more, they keep trying. One of these days they will realize they need to produce actual ideas and content and contribute to solving problems to get the attention of the voters back.

What a horror! Real work! The public expects results now! Sheesh, the world is so unfair.

What are they worried about? Haven't they all gone Galt yet?

They need to quit wasting their time calling Democrats fascist and start using an argument with punch: elect Republicans or we'll keep shooting people in random mass killings.

Jesus told them to leave everything and follow him. Galt told them the same thing. Yet here they still are, whining and moaning and wetting their beds at the thought of the commies coming to get them.

Is there a special intervention just for wankers?

They need to quit wasting their time calling Democrats fascist and start using an argument with punch: elect Republicans or we'll keep shooting people in random mass killings.

I think they've already started doing that:

A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and "lying in wait" opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.

Police Chief Nate Harper said the motive for the shooting isn't clear, but friends said the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/pittsburgh_shooting

Well, U$A is a fascist corporate state, good they are spreading the vocabulary.

I see what you did there Pete, with the $. If only there were some way of "speaking truth to power", what with all the fascism and the corporatism and the stifling going on. What's that smell? I think it's human flesh, but it might just be the burger joint down the street. Do I dare ask?

I think it is legitiate to discuss the meaning of facism. Afterall if you would has asked Moussoline he would have said he was a man of the left and before WWII the left agreed with him. Why wasn't Hitler a lefty. We might think today that the epicenter of antiSemitism is on the left because it has moved. Well, maybe it didn't.

Fascism. New word, same poo.

"Right-wingers objected that when left-wingers used the word 'fascist' it didn't really mean anything. Therefore, when right-wingers use the word 'fascist,' it must not mean anything, either."

That's the argument at the front of this incisive column. Wow, what a compelling argument: Person "A" misuses a word, so if person "B" uses the same word, he must be misusing it too. QED.

The one possibility you do not explore at all in this article is the correct one -- that all those bloggers are actually using the word ACCURATELY.

And you wonder why we don't think leftists are capable of reason...

"Right-wingers objected that when left-wingers used the word 'fascist' it didn't really mean anything. Therefore, when right-wingers use the word 'fascist,' it must not mean anything, either."

That's the argument at the front of this incisive column. Wow, what a compelling argument: Person "A" misuses a word, so if person "B" uses the same word, he must be misusing it too. QED.

The one possibility you do not explore at all in this article is the correct one -- that all those bloggers are actually using the word ACCURATELY.

And you wonder why we don't think leftists are capable of reason...

And you wonder why we don't think leftists are capable of reason...>

We don't wonder what you think. We wonder *if* you think.

Here's some traits of fascism:

Using a pretext to invade another country.

Use of torture.

Using the state's coffers to fill the pockets of your industrialist friends.

And you wonder why we leftists don't care what the likes of Plumb Bob have to say anymore.
~

Afterall if you would has asked Moussoline he would have said he was a man of the left and before WWII the left agreed with him.

Wrong. He moved right in 1914, after Italy joined the Allied side against the Triple Alliance. He then edited a right-wing newspaper. He helped to organize right-wing parties into the Fascist Party in the early 1920s and by 1922, was appointed by the King to crackdown on communists. In 1929, he outlawed left-wing parties and turned Italy into a one party state.

In other words, there was no such thing as fascism until Mussolini moved right after being a self-described man of the left.

The one possibility you do not explore at all in this article is the correct one -- that all those bloggers are actually using the word ACCURATELY.

Right. That's reasonable. The fallacy you use here is the old "I'm a fucking moron and therefore Obama is TOO a fascist" fallacy. It's common among people who think Glenn Beck is smart.

"The Democrats of Il Mondo want to know our program? It is to break the bones of the Democrats of Il Mondo" - Benito Mussolini

The poor things hear one of Jonah Goldberg's boilerplate lectures/temper tantrums on Glenn Beck and think they've learned the secret history of the universe--from a man with journalism degree from a former girls' school.

Why do they all worship former drug and alcohol addicts (Beck and Limbaugh), lazy fake scholars ((Goldberg), and high school drop-outs (Mark Steyn)?

Seriously Susan. Read the book Rich Dad Poor Dad. You will realize that true wisdom and understanding comes from an open mind, thinking outside the box, and not from a University campus. The problem with Liberals is they society and don't have their own convictions. Glenn Beck is self taught. Which is why he understands that both the right and left are nothing but govt as usual.

Ron Paul Revolution!

Seriously Susan. Read the book Rich Dad Poor Dad. You will realize that true wisdom and understanding comes from an open mind, thinking outside the box, and not from a University campus. The problem with Liberals is they society and don't have their own convictions. Glenn Beck is self taught. Which is why he understands that both the right and left are nothing but govt as usual.

Ron Paul Revolution!

I didn't know Glenn Beck was self taught. That explains a lot, if he learned to read from staring at John Birch Society pamphlets.

Just noticed that the two double posts are both by wingers. Guess they missed the notice "Comments may not show up immediately" right under the freakin' comment box. Coincidence?

Coincidence?

No, they are self taught.
~

Glenn Beck is self taught.

What is, "The least surprising fact in the history of facts," Alex?

Glenn Beck is self taught.

What is, "The least surprising fact in the history of facts," Alex?

I dunno, "taught" implies that something was "learned." A rather tenuous assumption in Glenn's case, I would say.

I'm one of those guys who makes more than $250k a year. Is it really my responsibility to pay other people's healthcare, children's medical insurance, and education? Should the wants of the masses triumph over the rights of the individual? Is seizing earned wealth by taxation and distributing to others because they want but did not earn it, right? Does anyone have the right to force their social belief system on another? Does defending individual property rights and concern of U.S. financial collapse make me a "right winger?"

Am I a "right winger" if I have enough experience to recognize that substituting CEOs by some head of state will damage those companies?
Employees certainly will not respect the new "CEO" since he did not earn the position. Most likely the new "CEO" will be chosen for political alignment, make bad decisions, and probably won't be qualified - given his salary will be government controlled and low by industry standards. The better employees will start writing resumes. I would.
Will that allow the company to prosper?

Hey, unique name, you're either a liar or a moron.
Why?
Because if you understand how taxes work you wouldn't be complaining about a 4% marginal tax increase.
And since you don't fucking understand that,
I doubt very much that earn that much.
Seriously, the morons who think they'll be "going Galt" or whatever by keeping below 250K are too stupid to engage with.
Why?
Because you won't have to pay the increase in taxation that is below that amount, you mathematical ignoramus.

Rick:

Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a piece of crap book that serves no purpose except to further the poor-and-greedy's fantasies of putting one over on the smart people they always envied, and it has been thoroughly fisked by, of all people, a hardcore libertarian (John T. Reed, real estate writer).

unique_name:

Uh... these companies are already destroyed, barely hanging on to life. Can government management possibly do any worse to them than they've already done to themselves?

As for taxation... those that have more can and must give more. That is how civilized societies levy taxes; if you want another approach, I'm sure you can buy your way into some African kleptocracy that will give you all the tax breaks you want.

Rick Sulivan says:

Rick McMillian says:

Doesn't Rick Whatever realize that knowing your own name is a prerequisite for being taken seriously?

"Is it really my responsibility to pay other people's healthcare, children's medical insurance, and education?"

Yes. It is your responsibility to help maintain the society you live in and benefit from.

Isn't it funny when people advocate thinking outside the box and end up with a cheer for their favorite demagogue?

Tell you what, unique--you can stop paying for everyone else's education when I can stop paying for your roads and water purification plants and highways. You're rich, you pay for them.

Glenn Beck taught himself to become a freak that weeps on tv? Taught himself to become a Mormon? Tell me, are your doctors and lawyers self-taught too, or do those universities have some purpose after all? Would you reward them with millions like the CEOs if they let you get sued or botched an opperation?

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck"

It looks like fascism and dictatorship, It TALKS like fascism and dictatorship, BUT, it is walking like it thinks its GOD.

Twentieth Century European fascism was ans is a socialist phenomenon in practice and in the proclamations of its adherents. Ownership of the means of production is not necessary to achieve centralized control of the economy. The same socialist planning and control can be attained through the forced implementation of government planning on the private sector. The socialist means of Marxists and fascists are different, but their effects are identical.

Marxists and fascists existed in the exact same social space competing for the exact same segment of society. The fiction that fascism is a right wing phenomenon originated in the Soviet Union following the collapse of their alliance with the Nazis. That fiction is still maintained by clueless liberals today.

Barack Obama’s doctrinal and emotional roots are firmly planted in twentieth-century European fascism. The followers of fascists have always looked for governmental solutions delivered by leaders with cult of personality appeal. There is nothing new here except shiny new packaging for a new generation.

The followers of fascists have always looked for governmental solutions delivered by leaders with cult of personality appeal.

You mean leaders like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

What would happen to the takers if the producers clammed up and stopped producing?
If the marginal tax rate above $250k were so high that there was little incentive to work beyond that, would any rational person work beyond that?
Does merely existing give anybody inalienable rights to other's industry or property?
What happens to societies where the takers greatly outnumber the producers?

What would happen to the takers if the producers clammed up and stopped producing?

The rich would be screwed.

Walker, you're babbling. The words might make sense to you in your head but we don't live there, thank god. You are wrong. Your facts are wrong. Your definitions are wrong. Your reasoning process is wrong. Your conclusions are wrong. You are in error, mistaken, incorrect, erroneous, and faulty. Socialism and fascism are not the same thing, you poor dolt, and nothing you say will change that reality.

If the marginal tax rate above $250k were so high that there was little incentive to work beyond that, would any rational person work beyond that?

Funny, I can't say I recall that discouraging anyone back during the decades when the marginal rate went as high as 94%. Maybe I'm just forgetting about the dire shortage of rich folks in those days. Or maybe rich people were simply made of sterner stuff in the past than most of today's mollycoddled millionaires.

synykyl said "You mean leaders like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?"

President Reagan had a bit of a personality cult about him but he certainly wasn't in the business of nationalizing the economy as is the current fascist-in-chief. Furthermore, Reagan's admirers most absolutely did not look to him for governmental solutions to economic problems. As Reagan said during his first inaugural address:

"The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

No leader who holds that government is cause of, rather than the solution to, economic problems can every be properly considered fascist.

Whatever George W. Bush was, he most certainly was not the subject of a personality cult.

Unique would Go Galt but he has to wait for his Dockers to come back from the cleaners.

Walker would Go Galt but his homeschooling plan doesn't cover Ayn Rand until next year.

Susan of Texas, your post is nothing more than contradiction. It in no way undermines anything I wrote. It is the rhetorical equivalent of shouting, "Nuh uh!"

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

--Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927

"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." -- Benito Mussolini, April 21, 1927

If the marginal tax rate above $250k were so high that there was little incentive to work beyond that, would any rational person work beyond that?

And if the clouds were made of marshmallows would anyone buy Fluffanutter? What about that, smart guy?

Mr. 250K+ (hahahahahahahahahah) if you are going to posit outlandish hypotheticals to justify your horror at the 3 perecent increase in the marginal tax rate, at least do it in a way that would make your panic look a little more dignified.

And since you really don't understand fascism Walker, I'm not surprised you don't understand other things (note: corporations did VERY WELL under fascism — both Hitler and Mussolini let them do what they wanted. Really. Just ask IBM. Or Bayer. Or Mercedes-Benz.). This is hilarious (because WE LIVED THROUGH IT): Whatever George W. Bush was, he most certainly was not the subject of a personality cult.

Just because you woke up with a bit of regret after an 8 year orgy with the unshaven transvestite, it doesn't mean you weren't really into him when he was fucking you up the ass.

Jay B: How corporations "did" under fascism is irrelevant, they were under state control; de facto socialism. To argue that Hitler and Mussolini "let them do what they want" is a farcical absurdity. Corporations were under strict governmental control, or subject to strict governmental control, in both regimes.

I know you desperately want the fiction that fascism is not a leftist phenomenon to be preserved, but thinking people know the truth.

Wrong.

Jay B: How corporations "did" under fascism is irrelevant,

To whom? Stockholders? CEOs? Middle managers? There's an entire philosophy based on the notion that free markets do better than socialist ones, now you're saying that, sure, corporations in (the correct word here is "Corporatist") Italy and Germany were doing well, but that doesn't matter because in your fantasy history it just doesn't, OK? It's nonsensical because it's nonsense. Even that Mussolini quote you pulled out doesn't even defend your thesis of state control. He said when there's a justified reason (which they could make up on a whim, of course), the state would intervene, but it seems obvious that he didn't think this was ALWAYS THE CASE. Only when "privative initiative" is lacking, or there's a political reason to assist or intervene.

Also, it's nice that Hitler wanted, in 1927, to stir up the pot with the proles. It's also a fact that as he ruled Germany (you might want to look this up, champ -- what a politician says and what he does are often TWO DIFFERENT THINGS), corporations were not only given carte blanche in his regime, the first thing the Nazis did when they got power was to destroy the unions. It's no secret that the wealthy class in Germany was HUGELY pro-Nazi to the extent that corporations were also given slave labor to use for fun and profit. You are so fundamentally wrong as to be nearly fucking retarded on the subject. I don't give a shit about "left or right", but I do care about such utter fucking stupidity being bandied around.

RD Walker:

Kinder, Küche, Kirche?
Direct pandering to the Roman Catholic Church?
Massive corporate welfare?

That you call leftist?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

Where in the famous poem above by Martin Niemoller does it say that they ever came for the dumbfuck wignuts like R.D.Walker, unique name, Ashe Dina, Plumb Dumb Bob, the two Ricks, and Gaither?

Please keep hitting yourself. You can only make the Republican party more pathetic in the eyes of sane Americans if that is even possible.

Okay Jay, you set the bar for civility of discourse so I will oblige....

Look fuckwad, slavery is still slavery even if if the slaves are financially successful. Nowhere in anything I wrote here or elsewhere did I make a claim one way or the other as to whether or not financial success is a necessary component of fascism. Pay attention asshole. Socialism is centralized control of the economy. That is what existed in Germany during the Nazi era. There wasn't one person or business who could even for a second consider saying "no" to a demand from the government and the government made many demands. Nazi Germany was not free. You are a fucking moron if you claim it was. Nazi Germany reserved all control over all financial and economic decisions for the government. You are a submoron if you claim otherwise.

Socialism is centralized planning of the economy. Ownership is a detail that is optional. Socialists can control the economy through ownership or through legal mandates. Marxist chose the former, fascists chose the latter. The fascist-in-chief is a practitioner of the latter. You can come on this piece of shit blog and beclown yourself but it won't change reality dumbass. Fascists control corporations. You know, like GM, AIG etc... Go ahead and get down on your fucking knees and lick the fascist hand that you hope feeds you. You are just one more fucking drone giving a hearty seig heil to the Obamanation. Fucking automatons like you sicken me.

Hit the link on my name and come on over to The Real Revo, pussy, we got something for your punk ass.

Epic wrong.

Look fuckwad, slavery is still slavery even if if the slaves are financially successful.

Classic. Here's a clue genius, most Germans didn't consider themselves slaves. They were willing participants in the Nazi era. The rich especially. The Nazis broke unions. Profits soared. Good times, for them. But real wages declined. You could just as easily describe the Reagan era in this way. Reagan used the power of the state to brake unions while allowing big business to wallow in record profits. What's your point?

Socialism is centralized planning of the economy.

Wrong. And historically illiterate. There are plenty of socialist countries have mixed public-private economies. Right now. On Earth.

Fascists control corporations. You know, like GM, AIG etc... Oh bullshit. The government barely did anything to GM except loan them money. And their useless CEO was part of the deal. Boo-hoo. The government isn't and won't be making cars. This tends to make your fevered prose even more of a joke. And AIG? The government isn't being cruel enough to them. AIG helped destroy the world economy and they're worried about capping bonuses? So that's two foundering businesses that the government stepped in to ostensibly help — and provided certain conditions in the process. This, to you, is fascism. It's really really really stupid.

Go ahead and get down on your fucking knees and lick the fascist hand that you hope feeds you. You are just one more fucking drone giving a hearty seig heil to the Obamanation. Fucking automatons like you sicken me.

Blah, blah, blah. I suppose it's way more heroic to whine and bluster about your entirely made up idea of "socialism" and "fascism" while threatening me with your blog. Keep living in fear chickenshit.

How precious. It seems R.D. Walker managed to read the cover and most of the liner notes to Jonah Goldberg's magnum dopus, Liberal Fascism. (i know, i know, it must be right, it has footnotes!) Clearly Mr. Walker is as much of a scholar on the subject of fascism as the Load himself (if not more!). How could anyone NOT be convinced that fascism, all evidence and experts (except for Goldberg) to the contrary, is actually a leftist phenomenon!

Gentlemen, this is the true fruit of Liberal Fascism that we have all been waiting for: an unending circlejerk of wingnuts citing Doughbob Loadpants' stupid arguments to each other and to anyone who would listen as if they are obvious to anyone. Because EVERYONE knows that the "white male is the Jew of liberal fascism," that Hitler was really a communist, that Mussolini LOVED labor unions, and that Barack Obama is a fascist, but also, somehow, a communist.

So I went over to R.D's shitstain of a blog and cut and pasted my above comment. It seems that now he considers me the equal of a famous German theologian.

Hey R.D., I'm not ignoring the stench of fascism. In fact shall I point out that your written farts help to give it its aroma. A fan of torture and Gitmo concentration camps I see. How very, what is the word, fascist of you.

R.D. Walker :
Date: April 7, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

Gocart Mozart is exactly like the author of the poem. He ignored the increasing stench of fascism until it was too late.

That's the thing isn't it? You can spy on Americans, set up kangaroo courts for people who may or may not be someone who knows something about someone who might be a terrorist. You can torture people. You can set up a global "black site" network to kidnap people. You can set up an extralegal concentration camp at a military base. You can datamine, you can set up no-bid contracts for your former company, you can suspend habeas corpus, you can have your own lawyers concoct some bullshit about how you are above the law during a "time of war", you can shovel tax money to the wealthy and investor classes -- all OK to patriots like R.D. They don't say shit. They don't have a fucking clue or don't care.

But put the weakest, barest restraints on a couple of global mega-companies? They piss themselves and scream about ovens.

They literally can't be any more gullible or useless.

It's like this thread, in comic form!

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/04/07/tomo/

President Reagan had a bit of a personality cult about him but he certainly wasn't in the business of nationalizing the economy as is the current fascist-in-chief.

Whoa! I thought you were just ignorant and/or stupid, but now I see that you're a raving lunatic. Thanks for clarifying that.

If Reagan was a 'fascist' He would have NEVER left office.

Hussein Obama already thinks he has 8-TEN (10) years- the wild jokerman Magician-in-Chief is wanting to repeal the 22nd Ammendment.

Poor Obama people are gone. I thought the repubs were GONE, but this is REALLY gone!

Just repeat: Hope, Change, and Yes we can.

I hope it makes you through the economic crisis that's coming.

You can always look at some of those old videos on Youtube to psych yourself out.
:)

Synykyl:

Excuse you...Reagan had a DEMOCRAT congress- it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have been a 'fascist.'

The SCARY part about all of this is that Obanana has a FAR LEFT DEMOCRAT congress.

He's only one vote short of a filibuster-proof Senate.

You all thought it was bad unter the repub congress with Bush...

YOU AINT SEEN NOTHIN YET.

Change: Hillary is the S.O.S.
Panetta is the Head of the CIA

Be afraid...be very afraid...

I hope it makes you through the economic crisis that's coming.

There's a crisis coming? Why the fuck wasn't it in the news?! Holy shit. I hope AIG is OK. I had a ton of shares.

Oh, and not that it needed to be said but this: Hussein Obama already thinks he has 8-TEN (10) years- the wild jokerman Magician-in-Chief is wanting to repeal the 22nd Ammendment. is Nigerian email quality shit. Is Chief Korir still in the game? If not, go viral with it, yo. You crazy nut, you.

AsheDina,

I didn't say that Reagan was a Fascist. I just pointed out that he was a "leader with a cult of personality appeal". (A trait R.D. Walker said fascists always look for)

I recommend that you work on your reading comprehension skills ... and take your medication.

Oh no, someone spilled the beans! Tell--everyone--the--revolution---has---been---callled---off. Lord Obama will give further instructions via subliminal message on Friday's rerun of Will and Grace. Instructions from the Gay Reeducation Ministry will resume as normal next week.

And don't tell the right wing what's going on!

I'm one of those guys who makes more than $250k a year.

If that's actually true (and I doubt it), why not thank your lucky stars for your good fortune, pay your fair share of taxes, and STFU?

You're welcome.

Barack Obama mentioned in the same breath with Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. This is bad, how?

I've seen the mouthpieces of Conservative pundits parroting each word that drips from the lips of their heroes, but I had no idea the Right was that rabid in perpetuating this canard. Particularly shocking was the suggestion that putting our nation back to work, educating our children and protecting our people from getting tossed out of their homes equates to the activities of the Third Reich.

Go ahead, Conservotards, look me in the eye and tell me your, mine and our neighbours deserve to lose their houses and the weak must be culled from the herd. GMAFB.

*Sigh* Still…it's blogs. I might not agree with what they say, and I won't tell them they can't say it, but tolerance does not equal giving up my right to call you out for hyperbole.

Meanwhile, I'll see you guys at Teabag-a-Con 09 next Wednesday!

Excuse you...Reagan had a DEMOCRAT congress- it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have been a 'fascist.'

But 'Ol Dutch sure liked to act facist -as in the case of Iran Contra. He both defied congress by violating the Boland Amendment, illegally supplying a terrorist army in Nicaragua and selling HAWK missiles to Iran. All of this done underground.

Add to the list gutting unions, making the workplace increasingly dangerous, bellicose rhetoric against rival nuclear superpowers and dumping billions down the SDI / Star Wars toilet. Oh yeah, he also used a teleprompter.

Anyone who reveres Reagan's legacy probably wasn't even born during his presidency or if they were, they simply decided to stay stupid.

What would happen to the takers if the producers clammed up and stopped producing?

My guess is, the "takers" - those folks who use far more in government resources via entire areas of law (intellectual property, etc), by buying off politicians to legislate stuff like making sure their heirs pay no taxes on unearned income while the "producers" pony up on every measly buck they earn through work - my guess is those folks would fucking starve, given that they don't know how to grow food or do much of anything useful for basic survival. What you call the "producers" are people who largely have amassed fortunes by shoving pieces of paper around, not by "producing" anything. They're the leeches who suck profits off the actual work performed by those you call "takers". Dumbass.

If the marginal tax rate above $250k were so high that there was little incentive to work beyond that, would any rational person work beyond that?

If a person decided that they'd rather forego earning that additional $30,000 over and above $250,000 due to the onerous burden of the additional $900 in taxation, that person by definition would not be "rational". As clearly, you are not. Here in the land of the sane, only being allowed to keep $18,300 of that additional income instead of $19,100 as under the old tax rate is not a disincentive to any rational person for reaching out and picking up that extra $18+K.

I spent the last 20 years working as hard as I could, jumping to better companies, and ended up in Silicon Valley during the mid 90's internet boom. That final company I worked 12 hour days, even weekends for three years helping it become wildly successful.
The computers and internet you use to insult me exist, because my friends and I designed them with superhuman effort - only because of the expectation of great reward. No government mandate or socialized economy could have persuaded us to put in nearly that amount of effort.

Does this sorry blog really represent America's latest generation?
"Enlightened" insolent thugs who would do their social engineering using other's wealth, rather than earning and contributing themselves? Must be why stores now have so many anti-theft measures. Hey, they've got stuff you want, and they have a social responsibility to share.

So, Promethean-computer man, I take it we can summarize your learned opinion as follows:

The highest goal of democratic government is to allow the unfettered accumulation of wealth beyond measure to those in the position to scoop it up, even when said accumulation of wealth results in an over-concentration of said wealth into fewer and fewer hands until the vast majority of the populace has little or none. Even when pursuing such policies brings us to places such as...gee, I dunno...where we are now. Where the majority are so burdened by the debts they owe to those few who benefitted from policies promoting untrammeled concentration of wealth that they cannot continue to spend and the economy crashes for one and all - please note - including your Galtian supermen of Wall Street, many of whom now find themselves unemployed.

This, to your enfeebled mind, is what we should expect as the highest value and good to be produced by democratic government, which is supposed to benefit us all? Really? The highest expression of "democracy" can only be achieved when 1 in 100 of us lives in a mansion behind fortified walls while the other 99 live in shanties by open running sewers?

If so, who the fuck needs democracy?

Why don't you be honest for one fucking second of your life and admit that you're a Tory, one who supports an aristocracy of wealth above all else. There's no "principle" there - it's just about setting up a caste system based on wealth - and putting in power a government that will enforce it. Call me stupid, but if I'm remembering correctly, getting rid of that crap was one of the main reasons we set this bitch up in the first place.

In short, you're a fucking moron devoid of all scruple or understanding of the meaning of "democracy".

unique, you ignorant slut, the internet was invented by the government with taxpayers dollars. I guess by your view that makes it fascist and you just a cog in the fascist regime. Then you became mentally ill. That's a shame. I hope you were able to qualify for disability insurance.

Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Our government is really a republic, and I don't think government should have a goal. If it did, it would have to make people do things they normally wouldn't in order to achieve that goal. Nobody likes being told what to do.

It's much harder to hold onto wealth than most people think. It gets taxed, mismanaged, devaluated from inflation, suffers bad investments, property gets damaged, or stolen. Wealth is very hard to protect.

Our current financial problems are disgusting, and the result of corruption in the banking system, and in government. Bush was very corrupt. He and Paulson broke into the treasury to bail out their banking friends at our expense. The current administration is looting the treasury, under the guise of economic "stimulus." Those banks, insurance, and auto companies should be allowed to fail. Socializing risk using bailouts and making all of us pay is corruption in government. A bankrupt AIG with no bailout would have no bonuses. Those crooks who changed the regulations and caused the problems are still in congress!

I would agree with Milton Friedman that an economy with largely free trade benefits the most people. Yes, I got paid well because I contributed greatly. But, you can now go to Best Buy and purchase a laptop computer for less than $500, and it's much better than even 2 years ago.
Where else but the United States with relatively low taxes, and enforced property rights could those companies risk making those products and people would work hard so everyone can buy one at low cost?

We tend to look at the few horribly corrupt examples in the news, and ignore the 99% who supply what we need, and only ask they be allowed to keep what they're paid.

I will conclude in saying that wealth is not static. In our system it gets generated and improved if allowed to. By wealth, I mean products, goods and services. All you see now is not all there ever will be.

I spent the last 20 years working as hard as I could, jumping to better companies, and ended up in Silicon Valley during the mid 90's internet boom. That final company I worked 12 hour days, even weekends for three years helping it become wildly successful.

Yeah, so? There are tons of us who worked our tails off helping our employers "become wildly successful". Unfortunately, only a few of those companies actually became wildly successful. That makes us neither saints nor martyrs nor Moochers/Looters (a la Rand). But those of us who actually learned something in life realize that becoming "wildly successful" is not a validation of what a stud you are - it just means you were in the right place at the right time.

Oh, and "12 hours a day, even weekends"? Big deal. That's pretty much par for the course in most start-ups - even the ones that didn't "create the intertubes".

The computers and internet you use to insult me exist, because my friends and I designed them with superhuman effort - only because of the expectation of great reward. No government mandate or socialized economy could have persuaded us to put in nearly that amount of effort.

Look, not to put too fine a point on it, but, you're either an idiot, or you're exceedingly insecure and need to comfort yourself by telling yourself (and anyone who won't tell you to STFU) what a stud you are. "Superhuman effort"? Twelve hours a day is not "superhuman" in my book, nor in the book of any other techie with whom I've worked over the years. Yes, it's a lot of time at the job, but you still get 8 hours of sleep (a luxury to many of us, Stud) plus 4 hours/day to spare. When you get to a year of 100-hour weeks - plus 2-3 hours/day of commuting - then you might be able to garner some respect.

And a word of advice: if you're doing it "only because of the expectation of great reward", then you're not only a fool, but I would also bet a beer that your contribution wasn't that fucking crucial. Everyone wants to strike it rich, but the guys who truly lead in high-tech (or any other thriving industry) are the ones who are doing it because of their non-dollar-focused drive and commitment.

And your government mandate bullshit is just a straw man: you and your zipperhead brethren are trying to turn Obama's "firing" of Wagoner into "governmental control of industry". That concept, i.e. gov control, is intellectually dishonest, and ignores the facts of the situation. GM went to the government and said "Help us, pleeeeeze!" Obama et al. said "OK, but these are the conditions you'll have to meet, if you want to get/keep the money". Wagoner didn't meet his end of the deal, and was told either to get out of Dodge (so to speak), or forget about any more bailout $$$. AIG and the other financial firms were screaming about the $500K salary cap - but no one forced them to take Federal $$$. So, please, if you're going to try to make an argument, at least respect our intelligence enough not to bullshit us as you have tried. I realize your fellow Randians have a tough time discerning fact from fantasy, but the lefties here have no such problem.

(Susan, Jennifer, and other commenter-babes: my use of "guys" above was not intended to imply that only guys are the hard workers, etc.)

(Even though we are.)

Our government is really a republic, and I don't think government should have a goal.

Thanks so much for that lesson in semantics. Nice way to avoid the topic, though not at all out of character for your ilk. You don't think governments should have goals? Really? I wonder what the value of making laws is, then, since these utopian goal-less governments would have no stake in preserving social order which is admittedly hard to preserve when no one is enforcing rules against things like murder and theft. Or maybe you haven't read our founding documents, in which the goals of our form of self-government were pretty clearly spelled out. Maybe the Founders were just a bunch of "fascists" too, eh?

If it did, it would have to make people do things they normally wouldn't in order to achieve that goal. Nobody likes being told what to do.

Yes, none of us like being told what to do, which is why I've been saying for years that my parents were fascists, because for 18 years they maintained a fairly firm grip on what I could and could not do, and even after that, they continued to tell me what I should and should not do. Real Il Duces, the both of them. You are absolutely correct - if our government was utopian - that is, goalless - then I would be free to hop into any car on the street I like and drive away in it, and it would be mine, all mine. That would work out real well for me, at least temporarily. Of course, it probably wouldn't work out all that well for the person who actually paid for the car, and of course, someone else might show up a few hours or days later and decide that they should actually have possession of the car and take it, so "holding onto wealth" in this goalless utopia you describe would actually become quite a bit harder than it is now - but hey, at least it would be ideologically pure. Likewise, I'm sure it would appeal to industries that would prefer to dump dioxin into the local water supply rather than clean up their mess - but for the folks downstream developing cancer it probably wouldn't seem like such a bargain. I'm sure said industry would much prefer not "being told what to do," but for the rest of us, that's a really shitty goal-less outcome.

And that's really all that matters to you dolts. Not whether something works or not, not whether or not it produces a good end result, but whether or not it agrees with some half-baked notion of ideological purity - and one picked up from a work of fiction, no less.

Otherwise, you would accept what the cold hand of reality that continues to slap you in the face is trying to tell you - which is, you can't have a working capitalist consumer economy in which all wealth is held by a few percent of the people. I know, it's sad, but the fact remains that if a few percent of the people own everything and everyone else has nothing, then no one can buy anything and you have an economy even worse than the one we have now, which has come about at root because we've pushed concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands beyond what is sustainable for a healthy economy. And that's not a good thing for anyone involved - ask the French royalty and aristocrats of 1789 how that worked out for them. Moreover, anyone who thinks that the model we should stive for in this country is Brazil or the Phillipines is a damned idiot - if those countries with their vast disparities of wealth are the ideal, it would be much easier for you to pack up and move there than it would be for the rest of us to re-tailor everything here to suit your desires.

Last, but certainly not least, it is clear that from your perspective, a government with goals is really not the issue - as long as those goals are based on promoting concentration of wealth upwards, as they have been for the past 30 years. Because that's really what this all boils down to - your basic disagreement with the notion that government has a legitimate interest in preserving fair play in the commerce and distribution of wealth of the nation. I hate to tell you sunshine, but it does have such an interest, as do we all, in this REPUBLIC of, by, and for the people. Note that it says "the people" meaning, collectively - it doesn't say "for 1-2% of the people". The histrionics of you and yours aside, the majority of us are well aware that raising taxes 3 cents on the dollar for those who have already benefitted far more financially than most from the stability and structure provided by this "fascist" government that "tells you what to do" is not going to bring the world crashing down around our ears. Eisenhower's 90%+ rates didn't destroy it, nor did Nixon's 70% rates, nor did Reagan's 50% rates...as such, I think the rate of a mere 39% under Obama is not only sustainable, it's far better than those who have reaped the benefit of the past 30 years of policy designed to enrich you at everyone else's expense have any right to expect, and that you're a little bitch for whining so piteously about it.

Yes, none of us like being told what to do, which is why I've been saying for years that my parents were fascists, ...

Yours, too? Damn, I thought I was the only one!

Did your parents have a nightly ritual, where they burned an effigy of Ayn Rand, as mine did? Good times, good times.

The computers and internet you use to insult me exist, because my friends and I designed them with superhuman effort - only because of the expectation of great reward.

Unique_name, this has already been pointed out but, regardless of the amount of work you put into its creation, the internet would never even have existed without an enormous expenditure of government money, and legislative attention, which extended over decades, and it was originally created for the purposes of the state.

The computers and internet you use to insult me exist, because my friends and I designed them with superhuman effort - only because of the expectation of great reward. No government mandate or socialized economy could have persuaded us to put in nearly that amount of effort.

Feh! Which critical component of the internet did *you* design? How useful would that component have been without all the other bits whose design and development was paid for by the U.S. government?

because my friends and I designed them with superhuman effort - only because of the expectation of great reward

Others have already pointed out that your claim about being responsible for the availability of computers and the internet is bullshit. But even the claim that no one would work hard without the promise of great financial reward is bullshit. I've seen people do it, and the history of science is full of examples.

Let us also not forget that a number of people who "worked hard" and put in a lot of hours "only because of the expectation of great financial reward" are the ones who put our economy in the shitter.

But even the claim that no one would work hard without the promise of great financial reward is bullshit.

Not true! My aunt worked 80 hours a week for Legal Aid in New York City because it was fucking rolling in money. Same with my mom who worked her way through night school for an MSW so she could work nearly her whole life to make sure the elderly had the proper nutrition, human contact and social opportunities so they wouldn't die lonely and alone. It was all for money. That's why everyone does everything.

As for the guy who thinks our government "shouldn't have a goal," I suggest he read the Preamble to the Constitution.

Ever hear about things like "provide for the common defense," or -- more to the point -- "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE"?

No? You don't remember hearing about those...wow...GOALS? Those concepts are new to you?

I am not the least surprised. Just another patriotic guy for whom the Constitution is a fathomless mystery.

(Better trolls, please. These guys are pitiful.)

Same with my mom who worked her way through night school for an MSW so she could work nearly her whole life to make sure the elderly had the proper nutrition, human contact and social opportunities so they wouldn't die lonely and alone. It was all for money. That's why everyone does everything.

What a sucker. It's not like the elderly were contributing anything to society. I mean, really - how many of them invented a machine that would produce energy by pulling the static electricity out of the air? How many of them could single-handedly run a Transcontinental railroad company? How many of them invented Rearden Metal?

Their pitiful lack of Randian accomplishments, coupled with their inability to create the computers and stuff that allow LLLLLieberals to use the intertubez, augmented by their unwillingness to work 26 hours a day, shows them to be beneath contempt.

So why your mother would want to care for those losers is beyond me. As Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser might say, "Compassion? We ain't got no compassion. We don't need no compassion. I don't have to show you any stinking compassion. And now I'm going to 'Go Galt!', so piss off".

So there.

I appreciate the viewpoints.
Apparently, you're all for wealth redistribution as long as it's not coming from you.
What do you all think the goal is of the Obama/Geithner administration?
Will it lead to economic prosperity, and why?

Are any of you concerned he's blowing $10^12 yearly spending deficits?
If you do the math, do you really believe a 3-4% marginal rate increase on top 20M households will bring budget deficits to $0?

Obama has access to the best financial minds, and yet he is doing exactly the opposite of what is required to get the U.S. out of debt, most of which is owned by foreigners. As a country, the way to do that is stop spending, produce more than we consume, and export the difference. The private sector is best equipped to do that.

Has he reinstated Glass-Steagall to stop financial corruption?
Does the "stimulus" package encourage private investment towards production to repay our debt, or is it really politically directed spending towards consumption, promising people hope, and free stuff?
Is government cost overhead increasing or decreasing?

My personal opinion is this mishandling is purposeful. It can't be anything else.
We are going to witness hyperinflation, (people are already hoarding gold), and most likely financial collapse.

"The private sector is best equipped to do that."

It was the private sector's malfeasance and incompetence that got us into the mess we're currently in. What is your faith in *them* based on.

Even if Obama could push Congress to re-instate Glass-Steagall, wouldn't that be like closing the barn door after the horse is already gone? And wouldn't you complain that he was a power mad fascist, trying to hamstring the financial industry? ;-)

I appreciate the viewpoints.

Actually, you don't. But I hope you feel better for saying it.

Apparently, you're all for wealth redistribution as long as it's not coming from you.
As usual, you're making stupid - and incorrect - statements, pulled out of either thin air or your rectum. We've said, either explicitly or implicitly, that if we were fortunate enough to be making over $250K per year, we wouldn't be whiny little bitches (to borrow a term) like you and your soulmates who talk about Going Galt!, over a few extra hundred or thousand $$$ in taxes.

Are any of you concerned he's blowing $10^12 yearly spending deficits?

Well, if your number was even within an order of magnitude of the real figure, we might be. But since today must be "Make Up A Bullshit Number" Wednesday, probably we aren't.

If you do the math, do you really believe a 3-4% marginal rate increase on top 20M households will bring budget deficits to $0?

No, but that isn't the current plan, anyway.

Obama has access to the best financial minds, and yet he is doing exactly the opposite of what is required to get the U.S. out of debt, most of which is owned by foreigners.

Getting out of debt is not his current primary goal. His primary goal is to keep the Bush Recession from becoming the Bush Depression.

As a country, the way to do that is stop spending, produce more than we consume, and export the difference.

As a country, if we follow your "plan", we'll end up with the Bush Depression. Stop spending? Yeah, that'll help rebuild the economy that your buddies helped destroy. Except it won't.

The private sector is best equipped to do that.

Actually, when the private sector is in "hunker down" mode, as it currently is, the Federal Government is the sector best equipped.

Has he reinstated Glass-Steagall to stop financial corruption?

Let's see, he's been President for about 80 days, and you want him to get it reinstated ASAP? While Glass-Steagall is/was important, Obama has more pressing matters to attend to than Glass-Steagall.

Does the "stimulus" package encourage private investment towards production to repay our debt, or is it really politically directed spending towards consumption, promising people hope, and free stuff?

Neither. It's to help keep unemployment from spiking to Depression-era levels.

My personal opinion is this mishandling is purposeful. It can't be anything else.

My personal opinion is that you are about as clueless a wingnut as we've seen here in awhile. Unfortunately for you, my opinion is a lot closer to reality than yours.

Ya see, you insist on demonstrating, time and again, your utter lack of comprehension of:
A) What the President is trying to do
B) What should be done to help fix the economy
C) What motivates people
D) What rational (i.e. non-wingnut) people really think and do
E) Economics (hyperinflation? only if your wingnut buddies get their way)
F) Myriad other concepts, the understanding of which is required to be able to discuss things at anything higher than Dull-Normal level.

Normally, I'd wish (vainly) that someone would come along and show you how reality, the economy, and this country work. In this case, however, I'd be concerned that, if the scales really did fall from your eyes, you'd commit seppuku out of a sense of shame.

I appreciate the viewpoints.
Actually, you don't. But I hope you feel better for saying it.

That's the only good observation you've made so far.

Allow me the courtesy of 5 years and let history judge this statement:
Obama despises the U.S. and what it stands for, and is doing his best to fuck it up.

Allow me the courtesy of 5 years and let history judge this statement:
Obama despises the U.S. and what it stands for, and is doing his best to fuck it up.b

We don't have to wait for 5 seconds. We know you're full of crap right now.

Apparently, you're all for wealth redistribution as long as it's not coming from you.

Pssst...hey, dumbfuck, it HAS been coming from us for the past 30 years. Or did you think the 250% increase in rich people's incomes & wealth got picked off a money tree?

Now it's your turn. So hand over the wallet, sit down, and shut the fuck up, and maybe we won't burn your house to the ground, steal your stuff, and confiscate the ill-gotten gains you have socked away in investments. There are about 50 times as many of us, you know. And you don't want to piss us off any more than you already have. France, 1789 & c.

Got it? We've more than paid our fair share; now it's your turn, bitch.

Let's make this simple for the simple-minded. A man breaks into your store and steals all your merchandise. You call in repair people to fix the lock and put in a new window. They hand you the bill. You scream that they're stealing from you to give the money to the poor. The world laughs at you and then tells you to shut up and pay for the repairs. You whine and cry and piddle your pants in fear that the mean locksmith and glazier are cheating you and are going to ruin the entire country. The world tells you to shut the hell up. You whine and bitch some more about how the world doesn't understand you. The world shakes its head and goes back to work.

This is how societies collapse.
I'm seeing it.

That's the only good observation you've made so far.

No, it's the only observation you've understood so far.

Allow me the courtesy of 5 years and let history judge this statement:
Obama despises the U.S. and what it stands for, and is doing his best to fuck it up.

Yeah, OK, Rush, you keep shrieking about the scary (black/Muslim/Islamofascist/commie/pedophile/transvestite/gay/pick-whatever-slur-strikes-your-fancy-at-the-moment) man in the Oval Office.

After eight years of Presidents Cheney and Bush doing their level-best to enrich their pals, and destroy the country for the rest of us, I guess it takes an admirable level of chutzpah to make a whiny-ass-titty-baby statement like that.

I guess I should be grateful, though: if you had written anything showing the slightest bit of intelligence or rational thought, the shock would probably have given me a massive heart attack. I know you're disappointed to hear that you didn't help my ticker transcend to a different level, but I'm sure you'll get over it.

But once you get over your disappointment, here's some free advice:
You should probably stick to providing superhuman efforts for your latest economy-saving, Intertubes-creating (or whatever) company. It's something you purport to know, and your dimwitted regurgitation of RNC/Randian talking points shows that you don't know nor understand anything about this stuff.

Now run along and play with the other infants who share your "views". If you want to come back, you'll need a permission slip from Mommy.

Go Galt, young man! Change your underwear and flee for Colorado, where you can rebuild a society by and of the Elite, using nothing but raw materials and your brains and will! You can do it! Go! Hurry up, before all the good miraculous new methods of production are taken! That'll teach Them a lesson!

This is how societies collapse.
I'm seeing it.

Yeah, all because the marginal tax rate might increase from 35% to 39.6% after $250K. Who would have thought that after dealing with the threats of USSR/communism, Islamic terrorism, Hurricane Katrina, and all the other disasters and near-disasters that have occurred, Western Civilization would collapse because of a slight tax increase. Had we but known, we could have stopped that America-hating, Allah-loving, baby-eating, grandmother-murdering, dog-kicking, not-born-in-America, Bush-blaming, communofascist, scary-guy Obama from destroying life as we know it.

But it must be gratifying to know that you're contributing to that collapse in a major way.

You really are just a scared little baby, aren't you?

As I suggested above: run along, and let the adults, i.e., the lefties whom you fear and hate, get back to the job of preventing the Bush/Cheney/Republican Recession from becoming the Bush/Cheney/Republican Depression. But if you post your address, I'm sure we'll be glad to send you a case of Pampers (or Depends), and a blankie.

Susan -
Most of the reichtard Randians are onto that one, but this guy's so dim, it just might work.

Allow me the courtesy of 5 years and let history judge this statement:
Obama despises the U.S. and what it stands for, and is doing his best to fuck it up.

The last refuge of the sore loser: yelling, "One day you'll see I'm right! And amid your wailing I'll laugh and laugh! Then you'll be sorry!"

Hey, unique, take your own advice. Give the President the courtesy of 5 years and let history judge, instead of making outrageous predictions about the collapse of society.

Dickhead.

SFAW -- epic work. You can tell it worked because all the Master Debater could do was spunk out a little smarm on your "observation" calling him on his faux manners.

He went from annoying concern troll to apocalyptic wingnut in no time flat — all without even trying to make a case that wasn't an assertion. Freaked out about debt without once understanding what is really out there in the world. And then, freaking out about additional taxation needed so the debt doesn't get too high!

Stimulus is to provide jobs? What about the debt? Taxes are used to pay for things so we won't go overboard with debt! How awful!!!

Also neat: having claimed to invent the Internet, then comes back several times without commenting on the fact that the government helped create it.

Must be all those 12 hour days (rolls eyes).

Jay B. -
Thanks for the kind words.

After I posted my response to his "End of the World, Ma" (oops, wrong movie!) comment, I was thinking about the Roman Empire. [Standard Pantloadesque disclaimer] I'm not much of a student of Teh Decline and Fall [/Disclaimer], but I thought part of the problem was all them rich folk partying like it's 1999. Now, call me crazy, but doesn't that description seem to fit the Rethugs and their acolytes more than it fits Obama and Teh Left?

But then again, I didn't labor for 28 hours a day to create the Intertubez, so what do I know?

P.S. I heard a rumor that unique_name's contribution was the first emoticon -->> ):(

Of course, it needed some work, but he spent the next 27 years perfecting it. And for that, he earned the thanks of a grateful nation.

SFAW, I googled Gibbons and it turns out he's some kind of ape. Can someone help me out here? Is that right? An ape wrote the definitive history of the Roman Empire? I guess if one could type out a book called Liberal Fascism anything is possible.

Anyway, I don't know if anyone's enjoyed the last decade or so on a Roman level — although the mortgage derivative players and the hedge fund thieves had a hell of a time. Oh, and the bloodthirsty war criminals who had complete access to wars and the White House, they must have had a load of laughs and drank much grog from the skulls of their slave children. But we seem to be smack in a poisonous Low Period of weak minds and flabby pantloads.

Still, despite some ugly moments, Obama still looks refreshing to most normal people. We've been drinking in the piss wind for so long that basic competency and vaguely intriguing newness seems revolutionary.

And sure, there are already a string of disappointments. I could do without his crack economics team, for example. Still, in so far as the quality of a man can be measured by the enemies he attracts — I still feel oddly enthusiastic about Obama. I mean it has only been three months.

But what his lunatic enemies don't understand is that they are playing right into his hands. The more they are screaming about End Times and the Coming of Socialism, the less normal people worry about the future and the less they hate socialism. It's quite a neat trick and one Bill Clinton was pretty good at, but Obama is thirty trillion times better at taking advantage of it.

That and the right wing has gone even insaner. So long as O doesn't cross that Rubicon, whatever it might be (Afghanistan? Iraq? Camps for Republican Children?) I think we'll be better than we have been.

I googled Gibbons and it turns out he's some kind of ape. Can someone help me out here? Is that right? An ape wrote the definitive history of the Roman Empire? I guess if one could type out a book called Liberal Fascism anything is possible.

Damn fine work there Jay B.

Jennifer:"So hand over the wallet, sit down, and shut the fuck up, and maybe we won't burn your house to the ground, steal your stuff, and confiscate the ill-gotten gains you have socked away in investments. There are about 50 times as many of us, you know. And you don't want to piss us off any more than you already have. France, 1789 & c."

If you follow through on these threats, that isn't societal collapse?
And you've read "The Bell Curve"; yes there's lots more than 50 times you than me.

BTW, I'm absolutely certain all of you have had my design work in your PC at one time or another. I'm in your house!

The "stimulus" capital has to come from somewhere. It isn't created by government, just appropriated and redirected. So any jobs government "creates" is by taking resources and jobs from somewhere else.

SFAW:"Western Civilization would collapse because of a slight tax increase."

Actually no. It will collapse because we won't be able to service our increasing debt. I think we're beyond the point of no return now.

You forgot loans from banks. That's the problem--they aren't lending. They aren't lending because nobody will borrow money from them, because they don't know if the banks are secretly broke because their loans have gone bad. The government money was, we were told, to go to banks to get them to loan again. They didn't because they're greedy bastards.

It's possible that in time we won't be able to service our debt. But you don't look at the real culprits, because it doesn't make you feel superior to realize that your lord and masters stole your 401k, your retirement fund, your pension, your stock portfolio. Now they're maxing out your credit cards. Next they'll take social security and medicare. Then you really will see civilization collapse.

Like all conservative you whine and cry about the poor taking pennies from your left pocket, while the rich as taking your entire wallet from the right pocket.

Susan, I agree with most of what you say.
However, my thinking has changed in that now all people are greedy bastards. Doesn't matter whether it's Wall St.'s elite, our presidents, congress, people wanting free healthcare or retirement given to them, or even my wanting to keep what I earned. It's human nature we never can fix.

So all we can do is enforce property rights and not allow one group to take from another. That means keeping banking and investment laws that work (I didn't say I was an anarchist!), not bailing out private enterprise no matter how much they plead, not allowing so much centralized legal and financial control in Washington, and not redistributing wealth by government mandate among people. I wouldn't mind a little, but a little has never been enough.
This approach will give citizens more responsibility over themselves, and with it the freedom our founding fathers hoped for.

You're spot on about the 401k, pensions, stocks, and even value of the dollar. Those will all collapse with the currency.
With that, so will our society.

The only way out of this problem is to not bankrupt the treasury. That means no more handouts to bank - ask for the stolen money back, contraction rather than expansion of social programs - people have to be responsible for their own well being, and we'll need government layoffs. We'll never repay debt without reducing overhead.
Unfortunately, Obama is doing the opposite of those things. He has the world's best advisors, so I only can deduce it's intentional.

You nor I want to be in a collapse, but I think it will happen.

And you've read "The Bell Curve"; yes there's lots more than 50 times you than me.
You wish. One assumes you're implying that you're at about +3 or 4 sigma. Based on the quality of your writing, and your inability to construct a logical progression of thought, and your inability to follow anyone else's arguments, I would say you'd be lucky to be at +1.5. But, hey, your hero was a solid x-bar, so you're at least close to him.
Re: "The Bell Curve"? Too bad Herrnstein and Murray couldn't be bothered with peer-review before publishing that piece of tripe. It might have saved a lot of people time and heartache.

BTW, I'm absolutely certain all of you have had my design work in your PC at one time or another. I'm in your house!

So? There are only about a million other hardware engineers and as many code jockeys who can say the same thing. I doubt many of them are as full of themselves as you are.

The "stimulus" capital has to come from somewhere. It isn't created by government, just appropriated and redirected. So any jobs government "creates" is by taking resources and jobs from somewhere else.
I would have thought someone who thinks he's at the upper end of the bell curve (lower case) would understand that his premise is "flawed" (which is politician-speak for FUBAR). Stimulus-created jobs are not coming at the expense of other jobs, except perhaps in rare instances. So enough with the zero-sum bullshit already.

Actually no. It will collapse because we won't be able to service our increasing debt. I think we're beyond the point of no return now.

Fortunately for us, you've been deeply wrong about every situation you've analyzed, and have graced us with your wisdom after said analyses. So after reading the pearl you just cast before this swine - and on Passover, even! - I guess I'm feeling a little better about the economy.

Seriously, u_n, you're out of your depth here. You'd be better served by working on your latest emoticon design. But if you want to keep coming back, to demonstrate to us that even dimwits can comment in blogs, we'll be more than happy to demolish your "points", and heap scorn on you while doing it. A twofer! Hot damn! Howls of derisive laughter!

I mean, really, I'd need to have a PFL before this would be challenging. And I'm nowhere near the best here.

Nice tap dance back from your original position that Obama despises America and everything it stands for.

Your glorified sense of self-importance won't help you in the future. It's the people you despise who will know we have to help each other in a crises. In a good way, not in a tea-bagging, gun-hoarding, shriveled soul kind of way.

That last "Anonymoses" was yours truly, just in case it weren't obvious.

The only way out of this problem is to not bankrupt the treasury. That means no more handouts to bank - ask for the stolen money back, contraction rather than expansion of social programs - people have to be responsible for their own well being, and we'll need government layoffs. We'll never repay debt without reducing overhead.
Unfortunately, Obama is doing the opposite of those things. He has the world's best advisors, so I only can deduce it's intentional.

For some reason, I am reminded of Jon Stewart when he appeared with Tucker Carlson (Crossfire?), when he said something like "Please stop".

Your talking points are wonderful, with respect to the use of intelligent-sounding words. But when one tries to parse their actual meaning, one realizes that your underlying assumptions are so screwed up, that it's difficult for us to believe that you have ever been gainfully employed as anything other than a (non-Galt-like) ditch-digger. If I were your employer, and knew that you wrote this, I'd be looking for your replacement pretty f'ing quick.

So, before you confirm any further the belief that you're Dull-Normal, "Please stop". It's painful to watch.

Believe what you will..

We believe it because of what you wrote. Unless you are one of the growing number of spoof trolls (credulously citing The Bell Curve may be a tell, or may send the few of us left even farther down the rabbit hole) who are so entirely indistinguishable from average wingnuts it becomes exausting. You are writing gibberish.

Not content with inventing the Internet in some form, you're now claiming that it's really the PC you can claim? So, Mr. Commodore, you really don't stimulus? Things like multiplying effect, hell, even ROI, these things are beyond you? Really? Say the government gives me money in the form of a stimulus check. And I decide to spend it on an HDTV at Best Buy. Best Buy now has my money, enabling it to stay in business and pay everyone from its CEO to its wage monkeys on the floor. These people, armed in part with my money, continue to pay taxes, buying other goods and services and the company continues to pay rent. All of these things build off the government investment (or, "stimulus") and, theoretically, will pay off the initial expenditure.

Stimulus, of course, can also take the form of infrastructure. The government pays money to people -- contractors, suppliers, labor -- to build, say, a bridge. Perhaps this bridge is in dire need of repair, or perhaps it is a vitally necessary new bridge which connects two formerly removed or isolated parts of a city. The construction immediately spurs the immediate economy -- the contractors, suppliers, labor -- and will most likely aid the local economy for years in one way or another. Or train-based transport. Developing public transportation helps entire community and proximity to it raises property values, which adds to the tax rolls, etc.

None of this is particularly theoretical. It has happened throughout recent history. But it seems the old saw is true. Dishonest people whose world view requires them not to believe something will not see it or admit it. It describes your conservative movement these days.

"these days"?

On cue.

Dishonest and off-message. Awesome.

SFAW, maybe I have sepia-toned nostalgia, or remember the only Republican I ever voted for (on my first ballot no less) Silvio Conte, but I remember a time when there were some Republicans willing to address reality as we all saw it, not as they wanted to perceive it.

But everything was better when I was young and making gadgets which some of you may know as "iPods". I called them mixed tapes. Yeah, I invented those.

On cue was supposed to link to this:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/chambliss-spending-isnt-stimulus-unless-its-defense-spending.php?ref=fp1

It's great to have something I hate more than JS-Kit!

But everything was better when I was young ...

You mean, outside of walking 20 miles to and from school, uphill in both directions, through blinding snowstorms in June, right?

But, yes, there once was a relatively liberal (gasp!) wing of the Republican party. But then Rocky had to go and boink Megan Marshack that night, and the rest is history.

Conte was a good man, and I really liked his choice of cars. Unfortunately, he was a commie-fascist, at least by the standards of today's Rethug party.

"Here's some traits of fascism:

Using a pretext to invade another country.

Use of torture.

Using the state's coffers to fill the pockets of your industrialist friends."

---

Unf., Obama is not disengaging from any of these things. Still in Iraq; Still in Afghanistan; Still running Gitmo; Geithner and Summers giving the $$$ to the banks.

When this stuff actually stops, let me know. It hasn't.

Still in Iraq;

Hold on a second ... abra cadabra! OK, the troops are all home now!

Still in Afghanistan;

Shazam! Al Qaeda all gone now!

Still running Gitmo
1/22/09: "Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay facility"

Geithner and Summers giving the $$$ to the banks.

Fucking up the execution of the bailout does not necessarily mean malice, perhaps just incompetence. That being said: I would not have chosen Geithner/Summers to run this.

I'm expecting to hear Rush say, any day now:
"Douglas Watts held hostage! Day 85 of the Obama Disaster!"

Or maybe not.

This is why we have to stop thinking in terms of political parties. They're busywork for the masses, while the real bosses do their real boss thing.

Obama believes in American Exceptionalism, therefore we are adding troops to Afghanistan. "We" might leave Iraq, but those million and billion dollar bases won't.

I think that when all the dust settles we will find that we have become the United States of Goldman Sachs without even knowing it. Molly Ivans said you dance with who brought you to the dance, and that's true for Obama as well as Bush.

There is no Republican or Democrat. There is the rich and the rest of us. We tell the Republicans that and forget that the same is true for us.

Susan:"There is no Republican or Democrat. There is the rich and the rest of us. We tell the Republicans that and forget that the same is true for us."

Do you object to the rich because they may use their influence to corrupt politicians into writing laws that give them something without earning it, or do you object to the rich because they resist the rest of you influencing politicians into writing laws that give you something without earning it?

Don't play this game with me, kid. You think you can make up shit and I'll just tolerate it? You think you can call me lazy or a moocher and then titter and run back to your mama? I've been carving up people like you for a decade, and to me you're just another Sunday roast.

You want a smackdown? Bring it on.

Susan -
Why do you bother? He clearly ran out of "ideas" two weeks ago, and now can only drop random insults - without understanding what he's writing.

Oh, how I yearn for the days of Floyd Alvis Cooper and Kaye Grogan. At least they were funny (even though they didn't know it). Maybe if "unique_lame" started writing about "the two dirts", he'd gain some standing.

I mean, going against him is like shooting fish in a barrel, with a 155mm.

Susan, why are you having trouble answering my question?

Susan, why are you having trouble answering my question?

Gee, maybe because she answered it early in the string.

Of course, that would require such advanced skills as reading comprehension and inference. Since you apparently possess neither, one can understand your confusion.

Fish in a barrel is too generous--more like sardine in a tin.

No courage.

As opposed to "no clue", which describes you, laddie.

Ironically, it is the True fascists who are hurling that charge against Obama. But since they already look themselves mighty fascistic, these Orwellian charges bounce harmlessly off the President.

Fourteen points of Fascism

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

Fourteen points of Fascism

Dr. Britt's thesis is obviously flawed, because he did not include Obama in the select group he studied.

"Like all conservative you whine and cry about the poor taking pennies from your left pocket, while the rich as taking your entire wallet from the right pocket."

Hey BITCH. Stay away from my pennies!

It's real simple. The Left, during Bush's days didn't, and apparently still don't, know the meaning of the word fascist. Which is, a privately owned enterprise run by the government. Socialist, on the other hand, is government owned and run, like GM for example.

Thanks for the post, This is exactly the thing I needed this morning :D