Who Should Have The Right To Vote? Judson Phillips & Rush Limbaugh Weigh In On The Subject

Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, thinks that it makes sense that voting rights in the United States should be restricted to those who own property. He believes that property owners have more of a “vested stake” in a community than do people who do not own property. That’s what he claimed on a weekly program hosted by Tea Party Nation recently.

 


BTW, Phillips is the individual who sent an email to members of his organization in October telling them that they should vote for the Independent candidate over Rep. Keith Ellison in the November election for 5th Congressional District in Minnesota. Phillips wrote the following about Ellison in his email: “There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress.”

Meanwhile—Rushbo ranted on about poor folks recently on his radio program. In a “media tweak of the day,” Limbaugh asked listeners if they thought that people who can’t feed and clothe themselves and who receive government assistance should be allowed to vote. It was just a “think piece” Rushbo said as he asked his listeners to imagine how different the political make-up of this country would be if such people couldn’t vote.

In a Psycho Talk segment on his MSNBC program, Ed Schultz “tweaked” Limbaugh back.

Maybe Phillips and Limbaugh ought to get together to establish an organization for the purpose of taking voting rights away from certain Americans whom they deem unworthy. Why not return to the good old political days when only property-owning white men had the right to vote. Right???

Sources:

TPMMuckraker

TPMDC

Think Progress

The Maddow Blog

Middle Class Populist

– Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

300 thoughts on “Who Should Have The Right To Vote? Judson Phillips & Rush Limbaugh Weigh In On The Subject

  1. eniobob,

    Consider the kind of folks who listen to Limbaugh. You can probably make an educated guess at what kinds of responses he might have gotten to his “think piece.”

  2. My god Elaine, these people are absolutely nuts! “restricted to those who own property …”

    Down the road a piece in a neighboring community, the School Superintendent rents the house he lives in … under Judson Phillips’ plan, the Superintendent of Schools has no vested interest in the community so can’t vote.

    What about all the ministers and priests who live in church provided housing. They don’t own the property so have no vested interest in the community and thus can’t vote?

    Good lord, I could go on and on with example after example (Service men and women living in Base-housing, students studying the law, medicine living in dorms or in cheap apartments)… nuts, just nuts.

  3. Do people who vote have the right to vote themselves more handouts at the expense of others?

    Can I vote to increase my handout at the expense of the people who work.

  4. Blouise, you can take that argument further.

    Does it mean that a landlord that owns a building with 80 apartments, will get 80 votes?

    Or what about all the Canadians that live in Arizona and Florida, will they be allowed to vote because they are property owners? (Obviously they are not citizens BUT, he just says property owners)

    Sounds like Rushbo hasn’t got anything better to do with his air time than create turmoil.

  5. Elaine M.:

    I wonder how many of his listeners who are on government programs,and who can’t feed or clothe themselves felt about his questions?

    I know there are more than a few who fit that profile in his listening audience.

  6. He’s talkin about the elderly mom, who needs assistance with her daily living activities and receives Social Security payments, right? Oh, and (sometimes quite prosperous) farmers gettin crop subsidies, yeah?

    Who could possibly disagree?

  7. Nice to see that fat bloated yackster shooting his mouth off once again. Kind of flies in the face of ” equality for all” eh. Such a dumbass.

  8. You have to consider the source here. The Tea Party is a racist organization and Rush is well known for his racist leanings. These people want the Rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and if they can return to the separate but equal days they would be happy.

  9. Rafflaw:

    and how do you know Rush is a rascist? A good many of his black friends and his black producer would be interested in knowing how you know that fact.

    “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    A Time for Choosing, Address on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater,
    Rendezvous with Destiny, October 27, 1964

  10. Rafflaw:

    Do you have any blacks working for you in a position of responsibility?

    In fact I bet not one person on this blog who is currently working has hired a black person to a position of responsibility because they wanted to rather than because they had to.

    But probably no one on this blog runs a company of their own, so I suppose that is an unfair question.

  11. Chan L.
    1, December 5, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    Rafflaw:

    Do you have any blacks working for you in a position of responsibility?

    In fact I bet not one person on this blog who is currently working has hired a black person to a position of responsibility because they wanted to rather than because they had to.

    But probably no one on this blog runs a company of their own, so I suppose that is an unfair question.

    ============================================================

    You’re funny … I’m sure you’ll get to vote in Rushland.

  12. Chan,

    At the last business I ran, my second in charge was a black man. I hired him because he was the best man for the job. He could have been plaid and he’d have still gotten the job.

    As to Rush being a racist?

    Here are some quotes from his very own bloated pie hole:

    1. “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

    2. “Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.”

    3. “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

    4. “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

    5. “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

    6. [To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

    7. ”I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

    8. Limbaugh has called Obama an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’. Lovely.

    9. “We need segregated buses… This is Obama’s America.”

    10. “Obama’s entire economic program is reparations.”

    There’s plenty of evidence that Rush is a racist.

    Also a general jackass and a hypocritical whore. Because he was all for draconian drug sentencing . . . until it came time to cut a deal when he got busted trying to buy Oxy through his maid.

    Screw Rush Limbaugh and his idiot supporters. He’s a racist, two-faced pig. And the only thing worse than a racist two-faced pig is someone who acts as an apologist for a racist two-faced pig.

  13. Chan,

    Nope, which is why Congressional pay raises take effect the next term.

    That line about “voting themselves handouts” showed a stunning lack of how our system works. We don’t vote on individual federal policies, we get to pick people who vote on individual policy for us. So nobody gets to “vote themselves more handouts.”

    It’s been that way for awhile now.

  14. To Buddha is Laughing…………..I rest my case………bloated yackster….what a load of crap that is………” take the bone out of your nose and call me back”….anyone else saying that would get pilloried…………..but then again maybe that’s not a bad idea eh…….

  15. Gyges:

    so congressman X says “I will cut your benefits” and congressman Y says “I will increase your benefits”.

    So tell me again how citizens cant vote themselves a freebie?

    It’s been going on for a long time, in case you hadnt noticed.

  16. Chan,
    I apologize for not responding to your surprise that anyone might think that Rush is a Racist. I do have a life and I was busy today, but it looks like Buddha already brought up just a few quotes from the King of the Ditto heads. To answer your question about running businesses and hiring black people actually which has no bearing on the discussion, but I will answer your question. I have run businesses over the years, but they have been solo Law practices and no employees were necessary. Now that you know that, how does that erase the racist comments that Rush has repeatedly made and is still making? Even if I have had businesses that had employees, if I continually make racist comments, does that not still provide evidence that I am a racist?
    Finally, since you did not ask any questions or make any comments about the Tea Party being racist, can I assume that you agree that the Tea Party organization is racist?
    By the way Buddha, thanks! I was busy Christmas shopping for my new grandson, Emmet. This grandparenting business is getting expensive!

  17. Buddha is Laughing:

    references for your post? I know the Barrack and McNab ones are true. What about the rest?

    Didn’t some LA times reporter call Obama the Magic Negro in an op-ed piece first?

    And wasn’t McNab a tad over rated? So you cant say a black person isn’t all that good for fear of being a racist? Sounds like you are the racist to me.

    If I were black I would want someone to be truthful so I could improve myself if I had some areas that needed work and we all do. By keeping silent you deny the person the opportunity for improvement. I guess you really do want to keep blacks on the plantation. I have heard that about liberals but didn’t really believe it, I am starting to now.

  18. how about people who work for banks that got bailout money. that’s government assistance.
    farmers who get farm subsidies, i believe that includes a couple of members of congress.
    military personal, yeah mr. cyst is on their side

    rush limbaugh gives assholes a bad name.
    and chan L, go back to building snow klansmen

  19. Chan,

    If you were black, you’d be self loathing as a defender of Rush. How about this for a suggestion: the problems of the black community are theirs to solve, not theirs to be lectured on by Massa Rush. If there is a “keep ’em on the Plantation” mentality around here, it sure as Hell isn’t coming from liberals, you know, liberals – those people of conscience of all colors who marched with Dr. King and even gave their lives in the Civil Rights movement.

    As far as sources go? I found those by using Google. Type “Rush Limbaugh racist”. You’ll get approximate 750,000 pages returned. From there, you can do your own homework. Not that you will. I’ve heard conservatives can read only with their lips moving and comprehend not a bit.

  20. raff,

    If you think Christmas shopping is an expensive proposition now?

    I think they’ve starting pricing toys on logarithmic scales tied to age.

    It’ll all be worth it though, grandpa!

  21. Thanks Buddha! It was expensive when our first was born, but now that we have 2 grandsons, the costs have exploded! But I have to admit that I wouldn’t change it for anything! Have a good week.

  22. Chan,

    No, they can vote for somebody who says they’ll try and get them benefits. That person may or may not actually try, and may or may not actually succeed. Did you sleep through Civics or just decide to ignore the parts that get in the way of your rhetoric?

  23. OMG…..

    Johnson….Civil Rights….Voting….Whats left….

    Question if you are a cotin taking freak instead of a cotton picking person….does that make you better….

    Do you get to vote more if you Bass fish and own a Bass Boat worth more than your house?

  24. Gyges:

    “No, they can vote for somebody who says they’ll try and get them benefits. That person may or may not actually try, and may or may not actually succeed. Did you sleep through Civics or just decide to ignore the parts that get in the way of your rhetoric?”

    are you serious? Is that a distinction of any merit? come on.

  25. Buddha is Laughing:

    what experience does Obama have? 1.5 years in the senate doesnt cut it. He is an affirmative action candidate because a bunch of libs like you voted for him because they had white liberal guilt. The black man isnt good enough to compete on a level playing field so we, white liberals, must help him.

    But at the same time if a qualified black, a conservative, was running you wouldnt vote for him/her.

    Go lecture one of your ignorant liberal friends who believe that crap.

    I bet you look real good in that big floppy oversear hat you are wearing. It’s the standard fashion for white liberals.

    Black people should run like hell from people like you, before the great society of Lyndon Johnson they were moving up in society and creating wealth. the great society set them back 40 plus years and caused a good deal of the problems you see in the black community.

    But then liberals cause destruction whenever their policies are implemented.

  26. Eniobob:

    Are you black? Does it matter? I know racism exists and I can also read. So while I cant experience it first hand I can certainly get some idea of what it is like from black authors.

    It is despicable and soul destroying. But I do not think Rush Limbaugh is a racist, I think he does not like progressive ideology and has fought against it his entire radio career.

    But since he does not like progressive ideology he is a threat to your world view and therefore needs to be destroyed. The simplest way to do it is to call him a racist. That way you don’t need to refute his arguments.

    The 10 or so examples posted above could be taken any number of ways.

    Blacks and any minority member should understand that conservative ideas are not just for white people. Why do you think conservatives are succesful? Because they are white? or because conservative values work? Hard work, saving for a rainy day, education, those arent values only for white people.

  27. Chan L.,

    Some conservatives are successful; some are not. The same is true of liberals. Just as it’s also true that many of “us liberals” work hard and save for rainy days and to pay for our education and/or the education of our children.

    I believe all American citizens have the right to vote. How about you? Do you think voting rights should be limited to certain kinds of people? Did you ponder Rush’s “think piece?” Do you think people who are receiving government assistance should not be allowed to vote? What about people who don’t own property?

  28. There must be a way (in a free electoral system such as ours–for the moment) to compensate for the power that the many poor have over the few rich in the voting booth. Either the rich should have more weight to their votes or the poor less; otherwise the poor can vote to rob the rich blind.

    Edmund Burke’s solution to this problem was through taxation only on products and services. That way the rich automatically pay more because they buy more.

    But the thieves on the left are not happy with this.

    They want the power of the poor to rob the rich through the voting booth. This is the proverbial two-wolves-voting-to-have-one-lamb-for-supper). And it is criminal thinking.

    And that is why Rush and those like him wish to remove that power from the wolves (in this case the poor). If the left got out in front of it (and advocated a fair taxing system) the right wouldn’t have to defend itself by advocating a system I would not approve of.

    The poor has no moral right to strip money from the wealthy who have gained it legally and ethically. It is criminal for them to do so, and evil for them to wish it. The leftist intellectuals goad them into this criminal mentality.

  29. Chan L.

    “while I cant experience it first hand I can certainly get some idea of what it is like from black authors.”

    Then I rest my case,Yes I am a VERY PROUD BlACK MAN so therefore what ever garbage you are trying to sell,you take it and SHOVE IT!!

  30. Massa Chan,

    Attack Obama all you like. See if I care. It doesn’t change the fact that Palin is a total narcissistic moron who quit her state level job in which she has a record of abusing her powers of office for petty revenge. You want her as President? It’s analogous to suggesting that a minor league pitcher who quit after a year and had a bad habit of deliberately throwing at batters should be made the starter for the Yankees. She’s an idiot and those who back her are even bigger idiots without a clue about how government is supposed to work and are easily bedazzled by a pretty face with big tits.

    And that’s a fact.

    Tootles,

    I see the Theology of Greed crowd is here and they’ve chosen to eat their Bibles again instead of read them.

    Matthew 19:16-21

    Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

    “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

    “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.'”

    “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

    Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

    — So Tootles, there it is straight from the horse’s mouth without alteration according to your primitive beliefs in biblical literalism. Which part of it that bothers you the most about Jesus’ instructions? The loving your neighbor as yourself or the giving to the poor?

    It would seem that you have a problem with all of the above.

    You are also ignorant of the nature of wolves. They only become dangerous to men when they are starving and sick. So by all means, don’t feed or otherwise take care of them. Just bitch and moan about how you want to hold on to all your food until they attack and eat you in your sleep. But thanks for showing you have no problem de-humanizing your fellow humans when it suits your greed to do so. That’s the same kind of hateful nonsense we’ve all come to expect from the blog’s resident theocratic homophobic lunatic.

  31. eniobob:

    you havent rested anything, just because you are black does not mean that you are right.

    I could say I am a PROUD ASIAN MAN, so what? I am sure Rush is a PROUD WHITE MAN, so what?

    Does that make you right because you are a PROUD BLACK MAN? So I should just role over and say you are right about progressive ideas becasue you are black? And if I dont I am a racist?

    That is a crock of shit.

    As far as what I am selling, I am not selling anything. You want to be a progressive be my guest, I think you are wrong and I think blacks have been hurt by the Great Society programs and welfare. I think that had those programs not been implemented there would be more black wealth in this country and it wouldnt have taken 40 years for blacks to be accepted in our society.

    I might also point out that Bull Conner was a democrat and that most klan members were white democrats. I could also point out that republicans helped a great deal on the passage of the civil rights bill. southern democrats (white) almost opposed it.

    You need to read some conservative authors and quit drinking that liberal kool aid.

  32. Buddha is Laughing:

    “Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.””

    He didn’t force the man to sell his possessions and that is the point Tootie is making. You want to force people to help the poor, Jesus only suggested it was a good idea. The 2 are not the same.

    One is voluntary and one is subjugation of the rich by the poor.

    Do you understand the English language?

    Tootie is right and you are wrong.

  33. So you are suggesting that Jesus’ good idea (like all good ideas such as democratic voting systems and building infrastructure) isn’t sound policy to spend tax dollars on? That our government isn’t in the business of making this the strongest country possible not just militarily, but economically and socially as well? Unless you can have maximum personal profit? And ignoring that people are the most valuable part of any infrastructure?

    Not only does that show a staggering ignorance of the proper function of government, but it shows staggering arrogance that you’d think you know better than the alleged “Son of God” you greed clowns want to hide behind and just how totally self-interested you are. No wonder you like Palin.

    Narcissists of a feather flock together.

  34. You’re a racist because you keep saying racist things, badtroll.

    I merely accurately describe your actions. An observer.

    You are the doer of those actions, ergo, you make yourself a racist. The bad actor.

    The credit is entirely yours. Enjoy.

  35. You will enjoy being a racist?

    That much is also manifestly evident since you keep acting like one time and again.

  36. Buddha is Laughing:

    do you read the English laguage?

    “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

    IF YOU WANT TO BE PERFECT, see how that works. You don’t have to be perfect. Not everyone wants to be perfect and are satisfied with giving some to the poor.

    Tootie is still right and you are still wrong.

  37. I don’t love your racism, but I do love your perpetually putting your troll feet in your mouth up to the knees. Because it’s funny when bad people are their own worst enemy.

  38. Chan,

    Rationalize your greed however you want. Think that a resident theocratic homophobe is right. Think that I’m wrong. It makes no difference to me personally.

    I care even less about what a racist’s apologist thinks than I do about what a zealot like Tootles “thinks”.

  39. Chan L.,

    YOU think Tootie is right. That doesn’t make it so.

    BTW, you never answered the questions I asked you. I’ll repeat them in case you missed the previous comments that I addressed to you:

    I believe all American citizens have the right to vote. How about you? Do you think voting rights should be limited to certain kinds of people? Did you ponder Rush’s “think piece?” Do you think people who are receiving government assistance should not be allowed to vote? What about people who don’t own property?

    What happened to the “Solid South?” When/why did that region of the country change politically?

  40. For now, you venal little racists will have to be content playing with yourselves.

    I’ll be back later, but right Buddha Is About To Be Busy.

    But don’t worry.

    The other posters of good conscience and the ability to think of more than just themselves will be glad to smack you clowns around in my absence. I know this for a fact. I’ve seen them do it before.

  41. The interesting thing about this story is its timing. Debating the ravings of celebrities while Rome is burning is strange. Right now, citizens are refused access to needed information. The govt, the one in place right now, is coordinating with other govts. and corporations to refuse citizens our right to knowledge. The “right” to vote has already been manipulated by the govt by branding candidates and managing the newz in their portrayal. That’s how Obama was elected.

    All of the oligarchy, for whom the leaders of the tea party are as equally spokespersons as the newz, as the “left” think Americans have the right to vote for whomever they are told. This story is propaganda put out to draw leftists away from understanding and looking at what the govt. is doing to its citizens, right now. The ability to restrict voting will happen. However, the much more effective method of restricting people from voting or voting for the ruling classes is happening right now. The immediate threat, the one this propaganda hides, is the coordinated corporate/state ability to shut down the internet and the people’s access to information.

  42. Chan,

    “Racism is a fantasy of superiority.” Limbaugh plays to the fantasy and in so doing, encourages it. He’s a phantom of the fantasy as are those who defend him.

  43. Chan L.

    I am living the life that you have no knowledge of,and what ever you are saying dosen’t mean squat.

    “You need to read some conservative authors and quit drinking that liberal kool aid.”

    And as I said before KMBA.

  44. Elaine:

    Certainly all Americans have the right to vote once if they are legally eligible to vote.

    But they don’t have the right to vote to deprive rich people of their life’s work. As Tootie says that is immoral.

    You seem to know what happened to the solid south, why don’t you tell me your belief. I do know they voted for Ronald Reagan but how many became republicans, I couldn’t tell you that.

    Probably the racist ones remained democrats. I don’t know many racist republicans but I do know a bunch of racist democrats.

  45. I thought the TEA party was supposed to support the upholding and restoration of the constitution? I am no expert, but I assume that restricting voting to any defined demographic would violate the “equal protection” clause. I long for a day when people will stop asking governments to initiate force on other people, this ranges from parking violations, all the way up to gun control advocates. This restricting voting to people with a vested interest falls fairly high on the oppression index.

  46. Chan L. wrote:

    “Probably the racist ones remained democrats. I don’t know many racist republicans but I do know a bunch of racist democrats.”

    =====

    The expression “blind, deaf and dumb” comes to mind, with “dumb” having a different meaning, in this case. To be kind, let’s say that dumb = ignorant…

    (Who might this person be “Chan L”ing, one wonders…)

  47. Chan L.,

    Asking me to answer a question that I asked you first is a good way to avoid answering my question, isn’t it? Maybe you should do some research and find out what happened to the “Solid South.”

    BTW, I believe there are racists who are members of both of our major political parties.

    You wrote: “I don’t know many racist republicans but I do know a bunch of racist democrats.”

    Are you suggesting that one should extrapolate from your personal experience that there are more racist Democrats than Republicans? I know more selfish conservatives than I do selfish liberals. That doesn’t necessarily prove that there are more selfish conservatives than liberals.

  48. No pearls of wisdom from Chan … he’s an apologist for those who worship wealth. Your satchel is full of holes darlin’. Time for another reincarnation.

  49. “But probably no one on this blog runs a company of their own, so I suppose that is an unfair question.”

    When I retired I had 315 peope working for me in 12 locations.
    Perhaps 50% were black. I hired a good many of these workers and promoted many to to managerial positions. At the time of my retirement I helped promote a black man to take my place.

    You are a fool if you don’t believe that Rush spouts racism all the time. You are even more a fool though if you nelieve that Rush holds any true beliefs or is in any way moral. He uses what sells to dopes like you to enrich himself. To put it another way you are just another selfish, self absorbed egoist who swallowed the myth.

  50. I wonder if Rushbo had folks like Norman B. Champ III in mind when he talked about people who receive taxpayer assistance not being allowed to vote???

    From New York Press (6/15/2010)

    The Making of Manhattan’s Elite Welfare Farmers
    Want fiscal reform? Let’s start by targeting the fattest farm subsidy checks—which are mailed to the richest New York ZIP codes.
    http://www.nypress.com/article-21342-the-making-of-manhattans-elite-welfare-farmers.html

    Excerpt:
    Most people know next to nothing about this $20 billion-a-year welfare for the rich program, probably because the billionaires want it that way. Why get the masses worked up? Best to let them think the $200 billion they spent from 1995 through 2006 went to friendly farmers with cute farmhouses, rather than to Chevron or Kenneth Lay. Better to let urban entrepreneurs call themselves backyard farmers and toil away for the locavore movement, than to realize that their rich neighbors are reaping actual “farm” subsidies.

    Now, farm subsidies weren’t always this criminal and, until fairly recently, had been doing what New Deal programs were designed to do: help the little guy. But the freemarket “reforms” of the Reagan-Clinton Era warped the welfare, redirecting farm subsidies from the have-nots to the have-mores, bankrupting all but the biggest farmers and depositing farm subsides into the bank accounts of the rich.

    There’s no need to go to Iowa to see this welfare-for-the-rich in action. You can see it on the Upper East Side, where billionaire elites collect huge welfare checks from the government just for being rich, while a few blocks away, in one of the poorest, most ghettoized districts in the United States, the city’s black population is being purged from food stamp rolls for smoking some dope. Because, as Mayor Rudy Giuliani once wisely said, “As soon as they stop being dependent on the government, they’re moving in a much healthier direction.”

    But brutal freemarket ideas don’t apply to members of Manhattan’s genteel farmer class, even billionaires like Norman B. Champ III, who received nearly a half-million dollars in welfare payments for poor farmers, despite the fact he lives in a multimillion dollar co-op at 828 Park Avenue. From 1995 to 2006, he raked in a total of $405,807 in dairy, corn and soy subsidies via his stake in the Champ family’s dairy farm in Missouri, his home state. Handout-for-handout, even Reagan’s mythic Cadillac-driving Chicago welfare queen and her $150,000 welfare scam got nothing on Champ, who could buy a Lamborghini and still have money left over to reupholster his private jet.

    Norman B. Champ III, 47, was born into a wealthy, upper-crust Missouri family and lived a privileged life (the Champs had a Missouri village named after them in their honor: the Village of Champ). He graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, went to England for a masters in war studies from King’s College and earned a law degree—cum laude, of course—from Harvard, after which he finally settled down at Chilton Investment Company, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. He had added three titles to his name—Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer—by the time the markets crashed. He lost no time jumping ship to a cushy government job with the Securities and Exchange Commission, coming on board in January 2010 to start a new life as a financial regulator at the SEC’s New York Inspections and Examinations Division. He now leads a team of 100 hardworking investigators in a crusade to crack down on the shady dealings of his hedge-fund buddies.

    An upper-crust billionaire type who lives in one of the nation’s wealthiest ZIP codes and collects welfare meant for struggling farmers? Whatta champ!

  51. “before the great society of Lyndon Johnson they were moving up in society and creating wealth.”

    Not only do you appear to be totally immersed in your myth, but you are ignorant of history. Before Johnso the laws in most states were set up to discriminate against minorities.
    That certainly held them back.

  52. “There must be a way (in a free electoral system such as ours–for the moment) to compensate for the power that the many poor have over the few rich in the voting booth. Either the rich should have more weight to their votes or the poor less; otherwise the poor can vote to rob the rich blind.”

    Thank you Tootie, we can always count on you to add ignorance to any discussion. In this case though I think ignorance has crossed the line into idiocy. I can only say that you should pray for your soul since to your surprise you’re not going to wind up in Heaven.

  53. In my career which was music, no one worked for me but a hell of a lot of people worked with me. They came in all shapes and sizes from all religious backgrounds. Some had one color skin, some another. They had varying sexual preferences and political views. Some were very good because they worked hard, some were exceptionally good because they had talent and worked hard.

    Homophobes, racists, religious zealots had to quickly adjust their thinking if they wanted to succeed and/or make a living. Any music production is team work and everyone wants the most talented and the hardest working on their team to insure success. Strangely enough sexual preference, religious persuasion, race or political party played no role in the distribution of talent or the drive to succeed that produced hard work.

  54. Swarthmore mom wrote:

    “Tea Party wants Sarah Palin to run for RNC chair. Surely some of her supporters are renters.”

    ======

    Touche, Swarthmore mom. (and thanks for the link, as well as bringing a smile…)

    Many good, “able”, and compassionate people here… as evidenced by an ample number of the comments. (You know who you are, of course.)

  55. Suppose I have no intellect and unambiguously recognize this fact; such recognition is obviously a form of intellectual property which I would inextricably own; this would guarantee my right to vote were property ownership required as a pre-condition for voting?

    Hence, everyone can vote, and so can everything, once having no intellect is truthfully recognized as an inescapable form of intellectual property?

    Q.E.D.?

    What if the two most valuable forms of property anyone or anything can own are adamant ignorance and intransigent stupidity?

    Would the human condition be other than as it is?

  56. Chan L.

    Who gives a ***** what you expect,I don’t have to read a book or get someones opinion on what the Black Expierince is all about and I don’t need you trying to preach to me.
    And due to the respect I have for this blog and the people who voice their opinions here I will refrain from responding to your BS any more for civility is what this blog thrives on,and I can feel that leaving me responding to an Ahole like you and the people who think like you.

  57. Elaine:

    I answered your question. did you read beyond my questions.

    Mike Spindell:

    At least you hired black people.

    eniobob:

    Cant stand the truth? Then keep drinking the liberal kool aid.

    I didn’t answer you with a KMAA. Talk about civility.

    ***************************************************************
    I cant help it if all of you think Rush is a racist, just keep on praying to mother earth and maybe someday it will be so.

    Got news for you, more of us than of you. A good deal more. We believe in live and let live and people should keep most of what they earn. In other words Tootie, me and people like us are moral actors. We probably give more to charity as well.

    Kool Aid and Jim Jones, the only difference between yours and his is that Jim’s kool aid kills quickly. It is not a long drawn out process and it doesn’t kill an entire society just a few individuals who joined of their own free will (they were forced to drink the kool aid).

    We don’t want your kool aid, we reject your kool aid. If you want to drink it go ahead, just don’t make the people who don’t want it drink it.

    Funny how security is getting tighter under a liberal administration. Just another example of the use of force.

    here is something from Weasel Zippers you all might like:

    http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/03/video-howard-dean-praising-saul-alinsky-tactics-that-got-obama-elected/

    But guess what, that Alinsky shit works both ways and we have the talent to use it properly. That’s what happened in November if you haven’t figured it out yet and more of the same is coming in 2012.

    Except we are using it to stomp your progressive ideas.

  58. J. Brian Harris: My son went to school there. He wanted out of Texas so we traveled a bit and looked around, and he chose Carleton. It was a very good place for him.

  59. Gyges:

    they also didn’t mean for large interest groups to be able to take property from individuals.

    I am guessing doesn’t understand the basis of our government.

  60. “But guess what, that Alinsky shit works both ways and we have the talent to use it properly. That’s what happened in November if you haven’t figured it out yet and more of the same is coming in 2012.

    Except we are using it to stomp your progressive ideas.”

    ========================================================

    That rant sounds very familiar … geeze, where have I seen it before …..

  61. Chan L.,

    I read your response to my following questions.
    – What happened to the “Solid South?”
    – When/why did that region of the country change politically?
    *****

    You wrote:

    “You seem to know what happened to the solid south, why don’t you tell me your belief. I do know they voted for Ronald Reagan but how many became republicans, I couldn’t tell you that.

    “Probably the racist ones remained democrats. I don’t know many racist republicans but I do know a bunch of racist democrats.’

    *****

    That’s the totality of your knowledge on the subject? Sorry…I thought maybe you knew more than you do.

    *****

    You wrote: “Got news for you, more of us than of you. A good deal more. We believe in live and let live and people should keep most of what they earn. In other words Tootie, me and people like us are moral actors. We probably give more to charity as well.”

    I wasn’t sure if that comment was addressed directly to me and Mike Spindell–or not. Aren’t you the superior moral being?
    You make a lot of claims about liberals, Democrats, conservatives, and Republicans–but fail to provide factual information to support them. I notice, however, your use of the word “probably” in some of your comments. Not so sure about the validity of your claims?

    BTW, you have no idea how much people like me donate to charity.

  62. That rant sounds very familiar … geeze, where have I seen it before ….

    Could Chan be short for Chaney and L for Liz ?

  63. I know some Asians pronounce the last name first followed by the first and middle initial.

    I met one who’s name was Ling U. Foo, that’s what he told me.

  64. Funny how security is getting tighter under a liberal administration.

    Press Office
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Dec. 6, 2010

    BIG SIS INVADES WAL-MART: ‘IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING’

    WASHINGTON — Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the expansion of the Department’s national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to hundreds of Walmart stores across the country—launching a new partnership between DHS and Walmart to help the American public play an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation.

    “Homeland security starts with hometown security, and each of us plays a critical role in keeping our country and communities safe,” said Secretary Napolitano. “I applaud Walmart for joining the ‘If You See Something, Say Something’ campaign. This partnership will help millions of shoppers across the nation identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to law enforcement authorities.”

    The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and funded, in part, by $13 million from DHS’ Transit Security Grant Program—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.

    More than 230 Walmart stores nationwide launched the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign today, with a total of 588 Walmart stores in 27 states joining in the coming weeks. A short video message, available here, will play at select checkout locations to remind shoppers to contact local law enforcement to report suspicious activity.

    Over the past five months, DHS has worked with its federal, state, local and private sector partners, as well as the Department of Justice, to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign and Nationwide SAR Initiative to communities throughout the country—including the recent state-wide expansions of the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign across Minnesota and New Jersey. Partners include the Mall of America, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, Amtrak, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, sports and general aviation industries, and state and local fusion centers across the country.

    In the coming months, the Department will continue to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign nationally with public education materials and outreach tools designed to help America’s businesses, communities and citizens remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the county safe.

  65. eniobob,

    This week he’s Chan, next week he’ll be somebody else … the more of us than you rant are all his personalities seeking an avenue of expression … the thoughts that are posted are all the same no matter which personality is writing.

    “Got news for you, more of us than of you. A good deal more. We believe in live and let live and people should keep most of what they earn. In other words Tootie, me and people like us are moral actors. We probably give more to charity as well.”(Chan)

    The dude has a rich fantasy life.

  66. As a black man living in the deep south, I have seen the oppression of racism first hand. It is ugly and mean spirited. I dont know the political make up of the individuals, it doesnt really matter.

    Sad to see you all getting excited about something that is never going to change until people start treating people all the same.

  67. Rufus Johnson,

    I’ve been at it for the last fifty years and I will continue to fight and continue to get excited about the oppression of racism till the day I die.

  68. Rufus Johnson:

    Its not that everyone is getting excited about something that will never change,it is about when someone walks into your midst and tells you something that they only have read and heard about.

    Its like a dolphin swimming into a group of killer whales.

  69. eniobob:

    I have a few white friends, everyone of them decent people and we get along great. We all like to hunt and fish. But I understand what you are saying, it can be a bit uncomfortable, but they are not killer whales.

    They have had my back on a couple of occasions and me likewise.

    People are people, it doesn’t matter the color of their skin, I know some black people I wouldn’t give 2 cents for. And I know some white people who are worth their weight in gold. And I know some white people who you might have to loosely use the word human being when talking about them. A snake would be warmer.

  70. Chan,

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m going to assume that a) you didn’t read the short wiki article on the Federalist No. 10 and b)by they you mean “the founding fathers.”

    Here’s the relevant parts of the wiki articl:

    “No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against “factions,” or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. In today’s discourse the term advocacy group or special interest group often carries the same denotation. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. ”

    “However, he thinks “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

    So, you’re right that (at least as far as Madison Goes) the framers were concerned with checking special interest groups, and I’m right in saying that’s part of why we elect representatives instead of voting on laws.

  71. Rufus Johnson :
    re: killer whales meant Chan.L the dolphin swam into this ocean of killer whales here on the blog.

    “I have a few white friends, everyone of them decent people and we get along great.”

    I have more than a few who I would give my right arm for with no anestheshia needed.

    “People are people, it doesn’t matter the color of their skin, I know some black people I wouldn’t give 2 cents for.

    Who are you telling :=)

    Don’t be a stranger Rufus,everyone brings something to the table here.

  72. Today’s show cross posted from WND

    Limbaugh said: “Where are the WikiLeaks documents to prove 9/11 was inside job by George Bush and Dick Cheney? Let me ask you liberals, where are these cables?

    “Where are the documents to prove Bush intentionally lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to invade the country? Where is the WikiLeaks document, the State Department cable, whatever, that [Karl] Rove leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the media? Where’s all this good stuff? …

    “Where are the WikiLeaks cables proving that the CIA invented AIDS? Where is Obama’s birth certificate? Where’s the real good stuff? And how about all the hundreds of other left-wing lies we’ve been hearing about for years? [Is] WikiLeaks covering up for the United States?”

  73. Bdaman,

    Rush has got liberals mixed up with truthers. I don’t know any liberals who think Bush and Cheney had anything to do with 9/11.
    Who said the CIA invented AIDS? More crazy talk from Rushbo! Best not to listen to the inane spoutings of that portly purveyor of propaganda.

  74. Bdaman:

    I was wondering about those same things myself.

    I would think that Assange would have certainly posted those things. Although maybe he is holding those and the other one about the CIA selling crack in black neighborhoods for insurance.

    How about aliens?

  75. I just read an article that the cofounder of Wikileaks says prior to his departure Wikileaks was selling info. Maybe they are waiting and will sell those to the highest bidder

  76. bdaman: After Bush admitted to torturing, his popularity went up. I think his republican base went back to him. He looks better to them than the alternative, Palin.

  77. Tootie: “There must be a way (in a free electoral system such as ours–for the moment) to compensate for the power that the many poor have over the few rich in the voting booth. Either the rich should have more weight to their votes or the poor less; otherwise the poor can vote to rob the rich blind.”
    **
    Chan l.: “Tootie is still right…”

    _______

    She is right Chan L., right of Marie Antoinette with all the Christian compassion of Genghis Khan. You Chan L. have mistaken an argument you like for one that is correct.

    A quick look back shows that the very wealthy (the 2%ers} have done very well and are protected quite well from the desires and needs of the rabble, and with the announcement of the newly minted tax compromise, continue to be protected and insulated from eve the need of the nation. Real time news, as I type this, shows the falsehood of the premise you endorse.

  78. lottakatz:

    The poor could vote in people willing to take all the rich have. We have a bunch in the house and a few in the senate and a president that appears willing.

    But the funny thing is, you take too much from the rich and they aren’t going to produce any more. And then where will you be?

    You can fish for a day and then it is all gone.

    So Tootie is right about his/her point that the masses could vote in representatives who are willing to stick it to the rich.

    My premise isn’t built on sand but yours is.

  79. lottakatz,

    Chan likes to use words like “probably” and “could” in his comments.

    As in the following: “The poor COULD vote in people willing to take all the rich have.”

    The poor haven’t been successful at doing that yet have they? In fact, the rich have gotten much richer over the past couple of decades as the middle class and poor have gotten poorer. Those with money have access to people in power. Poor people–not so much. So much for the poor sticking it to the rich people in this country.

  80. Chan,

    You’re just full of Randian propaganda ain’t ya?

    So, there have been rich people as long as there have been poor people. Can you show me one instance in American history where the rich stopped “producing” because people took to much from them? It should be easy, we’re at a low point as far as marginal tax rates are concerned.

    Challenge: “everyone that’s gone into politics” is not an acceptable answer.

  81. Chan, the rich don’t trickle down all that wealth, I’ve heard ‘trickle down’ for 40 years and it’s just a fallacy. The 10 year tax break for the wealthy didn’t provide jobs, the 2%ers didn’t spend the money, they saved it, moved it offshore and invested enough of it to make more money. The facts are, as tabulated and reported by watchdog organizations and oversight committees, that the wealthy did not use the 10 year tax cut to spend and stimulate the economy.

    And really, what kind of medieval philosophy have the masses bought into, the gentle class is entitled to all the wealth and it is only in that they throw crumbs to the rest that anyone will, or should prosper. The wealth class has shown that that the philosophy of Noblesse oblige as a economic policy is absurd yet the Republican party still champions it.

    The Republican party, which has secured another 2 years of low taxes for the wealth class should change their name to the Medieval party. Their far-right Christians and teabaggers would feel right at home there also.

  82. Chan L.
    1, December 6, 2010 at 10:29 pm
    lottakatz:

    The poor could vote in people willing to take all the rich have

    shoulda
    coulda
    woulda

    and yet in two hundred and twenty three years it still hasn’t happened.

  83. Chan L. & Pete: ‘The poor could elect (but haven’t)’ and ‘trickle down’:

    Because a delusion is long standing and widely held doesn’t mean it’s not a delusion. It just means that it’s of long standing and generally held.

    The last several big legislative moves have been interesting though in that while public support for a public option was overwhelming it did not occur, while distain for a bailout was likewise overwhelming that bailout did take place. The repeal of DADT likewise has a heavy majority of support but it looks like it will not be accomplished. as examples.

    Maybe people do vote for people that say they will behave a certain way (make the tax code more fair or other issues) but those people when elected have in fact lied and that pattern of deception has been going on a long time.

    We disagree and we’re not going to get any closer philosophically.

  84. Number one: Ive watched people on this blog have the same conversation about who should and should not be allowed voting rights. Obviously their criteria was different then rush’s. I believe their view was if you vote republican you get your voters registration revoked? So i doubt anyone is arguing his logic of denying a certain portion of the population voting rights, merely his set of “rules”.

    Number two: rush limbaugh is a pill popping, loud mouth, fat sack of wasted humanity. How much of your time are you going to spend listening to anything he has to say?

  85. Gyges:

    “You’re just full of Randian propaganda ain’t ya?”

    Randy propaganda? I am not a purveyor of porno, if that is what you mean.

  86. when the income tax was first implemented it was around 1.5% and it was only levied on a few in the upper tax brackets. It now is between 20-35% for most everyone. and this does not incude the 15% for social security that hurts the people making 100K or less.

    So in the span of about 100 years we have gone from 1.5% on the income of a few people to between 35-50% on the income of most people.

    I would say it isnt a very far stretch, we are almost half way there.

  87. ekeyra,

    You wrote: “Ive watched people on this blog have the same conversation about who should and should not be allowed voting rights. Obviously their criteria was different then rush’s. I believe their view was if you vote republican you get your voters registration revoked? So i doubt anyone is arguing his logic of denying a certain portion of the population voting rights, merely his set of “rules”.”

    Can you be more specific about this conversation that occurred at the Turley Blawg? What were the criteria of which you speak? You may believe a lot of things about other people’s views. That doesn’t make them true.

    I believe all citizens should be allowed to vote in this country. What is YOUR set of rules about voting rights? Do you agree with Rush? Do you think people should be denied the right to vote because they are receiving government assistance?

  88. 18 years old?

    A U.S. citizen?

    Not a felon?

    Still breathing?

    If you answer “yes” to the above questions, you are be able to vote.

    The only change I’d make to that criteria is you should be required to vote, even if it’s a write in for “none of the above”.

  89. Chan,

    A quick search of the Googles shows I’m either talking about propaganda from the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Propaganda from the Upper Archaea, or propaganda from a man whose claim to fame was being able to roll cigarettes with his lips. Personally I think the last is the most interesting of the three. He also spoke several languages, was well known for his quick wit, and appeared in the Classic movie “Freaks.”

    So, since you avoided the question, should I take it that you weren’t able to find an example of the American Rich rebelling?

  90. Gyges:

    do you remember a few years ago when they had the luxury tax? It sent the yacht building business into the toilet and they had to repeal it. They weren’t necessarily not producing but at some point the return on investment isn’t enough and the risk is too high for the return. Then they shut down their companies and put their money into other things.

    Remember small businesses employ a good many people. The cost that you don’t see is the number of people who don’t start businesses because the return isn’t worth their effort.

    So you really cant tell me how many “rich” people haven’t even bothered to start businesses because they could make more money in the Dow, Hang Seng or Cac. How many jobs has that cost?

  91. Chan,

    The luxury tax didn’t stop rich people from producing, it changed their consumption. It also wasn’t taking money from them, it was raising the price of the yacht they were considering buying. I think if you’ll look into it, you’ll find that they just bought a substitute good instead. .It’s certainly hinted at in this article http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/nyregion/new-luxury-tax-trimming-boat-sales.html “The company has broken sales records in the last three months, Mr. McMichael said, but the sales have been for used boats” and The money got spent, just not on Yachts. All of which is what you’d expect, and “”What kind of a year are we having? A very good one, one of our best seasons ever,” said Guy May, the manager. ‘More people want sailboats instead of power today, and we’ve been selling a lot of used sailboats for under $10,000.'”

    By the way, I think the tax was most likely a badly designed piece of legislation. It just didn’t stop the rich from producing, and it wasn’t even all that big of an impact on their spending.

    So, try again.

  92. Gyges:

    I didn’t say it did, I used it as example of money flowing elsewhere when the return wasn’t acceptable. Your post underlined my premise.

    At some point money flows into other things. Are we there yet, I don’t know.

    But as I said above how many jobs have not been created because some person with money chose to put it into some other investment? Because it wasnt worth the risk.

  93. Chan,

    O.k. so you’re just deflecting. Glad to know you’re honest about it.

    This is what you said, “you take too much from the rich and they aren’t going to produce any more.”

    I wanted two things: for you to provide an example that backs that up, and to make that joke about entering politics. I got one of the two so I’m happy.

  94. Gyges:

    what I said was at some point the rich wont produce anymore. You gave an example of them not buying new yachts because of the luxury tax.

    Don’t you think at a certain level of taxation they will stop doing what is expensive to them and put their money in other places?

    Your example is of human behavior, do you not think it works with investing as well? A business is an investment and the owner expects to make money for his time, effort and risk.

    If someone is worth $4 million dollars and they make $650k per year in a business and out of that they get to keep $400k it is probably worth their time and effort to keep the business open. If they are making $150-250k per year it might not be worth their time and effort to keep the business open. They can retire, invest in tax free bonds and make that kind of money doing nothing and their principle is intact.

    So back to my original premise, at some point the rich are going to stop producing.

    That is as clear as I can make it. If you cant understand that go ask the owner of the company you work for (I assume you work for a company) at what level of taxation would he shut his business down and pack it in. Granted the number is not the same for all people but everyone has a set point below which they will stop working if they have other sources of income, which rich people do.

  95. Chan Gyges is correct

    By the way, I think the tax was most likely a badly designed piece of legislation. It just didn’t stop the rich from producing, and it wasn’t even all that big of an impact on their spending.

    I know this. And it really didn’t change what they bought. It just gave them something to think about before the purchase. How bad did they want a new product vs a used product.

  96. It used to be 10% of anything above $32K. If you bought a $75K car thats $4,300. Jump change especially when times were good.

  97. Here’s the problem with that: the rich producing anything is a myth.

    Capital is not labor. Capital is simply money. Labor is actual production. Capital has shown a willingness, even a desire, to screw over and sellout labor to satisfy their own lust for profits.

    U.S. manufacturing jobs have been in steady decline since Reagan. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing employment fell from ~17m in 1997 to ~14m in 2006. As a percentage, manufacturing jobs dropped from 16.5% in 1985 to 10.8% in 2007. The last decade has seen an unprecedented off-shoring of physical production jobs, spurred in part by lobbyist gained (read Congressional bribed) tax incentives for capital to move American manufacturing jobs overseas. This has been followed by a massive outsourcing of some service sectors as well, compounding the problem. The latent production capacity we as a nation tapped to fight WWII no longer exists. It has been sacrificed to the unlimited greed of capital – people who produce nothing, yet insist on an ever bigger vig like a coked up loan shark who’s too wired to realize the marks are going to club him in the head eventually.

    If you don’t make a product, you are engaged in one of two activities: providing services or arbitrage transactions. The true power of any economy is physical production capacity. We can’t expect prosperity if everyone sells insurance and trades stocks – information age or not. What capital in this country has done is systematically sellout the platform upon which our entire post-WWII economy was built and they did so out of simple personal greed. Producing nothing and abducting systemic resources to their own selfish ends, possibly to the point it kills the system.

    There’s another set of creatures that behave that way in nature.

    Parasites.

    But the rich, as a general rule, do not produce a damn thing.

  98. Well said Buddha. I especially like the parasite comment. The wealthy in many cases are only taking from the society and getting government tax breaks along the way. To claim that only the land owners can vote leads to what is next? Only the land owners of X amount of acres can vote and so on down the line. The only way the common man can protect him or herself is through the power of one person one vote.

  99. Buddha,

    Re post: Buddha Is Laughing
    1, December 7, 2010 at 6:50 pm ——

    Perfectly said … absolutely perfect … I agree with every word, every damn word!

  100. Buddha,

    You took the words right out of my mouth. A lot of wealthy people produce nothing. They just work at making more money for themselves. Think of all those rich folks on Wall Street who made millions/billions for themselves while blowing a hole in the US economy. Greedy and unethical as many of them are–they looked for loopholes in regulations, designed derivatives like credit default swaps that few people understood, bet against their own investors.

    And we–the less financially fortunate–had our hard-earned tax dollars used to bail them out…while they continued to give themselves huge bonuses.

  101. The wealthy in many cases are only taking from the society and getting government tax breaks along the way.

    From foreign governments which is why

    U.S. manufacturing jobs have been in steady decline since Reagan. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing employment fell from ~17m in 1997 to ~14m in 2006. As a percentage, manufacturing jobs dropped from 16.5% in 1985 to 10.8% in 2007. The last decade has seen an unprecedented off-shoring of physical production jobs, spurred in part by lobbyist gained (read Congressional bribed) tax incentives for capital to move American manufacturing jobs overseas.

    Look at NY and California for the proof in the pudding.
    You want jobs here stateside make it more profitable than what the profit margin is for overseas and you’ll see it here. Thats not part of the master plan though so look for high unemployment for the next several years.

  102. Really. Foreign governments tax breaks are the problem.

    *cough*cough*cough*bullshit*cough*cough*

    Anti-offshoring bill fails in US Senate

    “US Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an anti-offshoring bill, which would have restricted jobs within the country and denied tax breaks to such companies that move jobs overseas.

    The bill had envisaged a ban on government contractors from using US taxpayers’ money to move jobs offshore.

    With the Senate voting against the bill 53-45, the Democrats failed to rescue the bill from Republican filibuster tactics. The bill needed a minimum of 60 votes to overcome the obstruction.

    The Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act was aimed at small manufacturers and included a payroll tax exemption for companies that move jobs to US, but the bill also contained provisions to prevent businesses from deferring US taxes on the income they make from foreign subsidiaries.

    ‘The bill we tried to pass today (Sep 28) is based on simple common sense to keep American jobs here in America. But, Republicans continued their job-killing agenda today by protecting these tax breaks for CEOs who offshore American jobs’” Democrat Senator Harry Reid said in a statement.”

  103. BIL, your on fire tonight with your last several postings. The failure to to get rid of the tax breaks for off-shoring jobs really frosted me but Joe Lieberman and a few Dems made it possible.

  104. The United States has one of the highest effective rates among the leading national economies — at 39.2 percent. Soon, the country will be No. 1, Japan moving now to make a reduction. Melick stresses that since 1990, ”every single country in the developed world reduced its corporate tax rate save for the United States — which actually increased its tax rate.”

    Read more: http://www.rightohio.com/2010/09/27/tax-breaks-for-companies-which-ship-jobs-overseas-and-outsourcing/#ixzz17TkObQcU

  105. This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad.

    Abroad is not a woman

  106. Thanks for the link cause it confirms what I wrote above.

    “Thats not part of the master plan though so look for high unemployment for the next several years.”

    “The economy is not growing fast enough to reduce significantly the unemployment rate or to prevent a slide into deflation,” Paul Dales, a United States economist for Capital Economics, wrote in a note to clients. “This is unlikely to change in 2011 or 2012.”

  107. I’m not the one cheer leading for fascism, badracist.

    That would be you.

    Mine are crocodile tears.

    As to Mr. Denier? I don’t deny that you’re an ignorant ass when it comes to chemistry, math, science in general, politics and economics. I don’t deny you’re a demonstrated and discredited racist or bigot either. Quite simply, you’re in denial about my denial. It’s kinda funny though. In a sad and pathetic sort of way.

  108. Come on. Act as an apologist for greed some more, Mr. “Master Plan”. It’s funny to watch you twist in the wind grasping for rationalizations.

  109. More personal attacks when someone challenges you. Keep up the good work. Mr. Sunspot Denier you must be drinking dat tacklin fuel momma b talkin bout.

  110. “Maybe in your case it is Mr. Denier”

    You throw a rock, I throw a boulder.

    It’s not my fault you’re not in my league . . . at anything.

    Again, that would be your problem. Don’t like being discredited? Learn when to keep your racist bigoted mouth shut.

  111. Learn when to keep your racist bigoted mouth shut.

    You can hear me all the way ta Baton Rouge

    You sound angry. Sound like you want to open a can of some whoop ass. Dat wat you want Bobby.

  112. And you sound like an ignorant enemy of the Constitution and supporter of fascism, lil’ racist.

    Angry? The word you’re looking for is “disgusted”. It’s a natural reaction when you get dog poop on your shoes.

  113. Chan,

    You have a serious problem with either the English language, memory, or honesty. I don’t think it’s the middle one, so I’m going to be generous and give you a little lesson in Pronouns.

    When person A says something to Person B and later want to refer back to it they use the word “I, me, or mine.” That’s what’s called first person singular.

    So, since anyone can see that someone posting as Chan brought up the Yachts as an example, when (presumably) that same Chan refers to the topic, he should be saying “MY example.” Otherwise somebody might think that Chan is being dishonest.

    Now, that I’ve got that corrected. I’m done. I’ve given you ample opportunity to back up your theory with fact, you refuse to do so.

  114. In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    That is exactly what Buddha is doing.

    Go ahead, buddha-troll; try to wiggle your way out of that one. Your daily attacks on bdaman are disruptive to this blawg.

    We’re still waiting for you to tell us how you’re involved in production.

    Is mommy still supporting you?

    If JT doesn’t give a rat’s ass about civility, neither do I.

    __________ E.W.

  115. B your economic ignorance is staggering. Capital is much more than paper stamped with a fed reserve seal. See capital is factories, machines, fuel, wages, and many more critcal components that must be in place before any of your labor can even start. Where does all that come from? Well i know in buddatopia all those things just magically appear, but in the real world here’s how an economy functions. Those” rich” people you hate decide not to spend money now to save for the future. They then invest those saved resources into property, buildings, factories, and machines. This is quite a risk to take because not only are your resources at risk but so is all the time you spent accumulating those resources. Only after all this can workers come into the picture and mix their labor with the previously acquired capital goods to manufacture products. Next time, do everyone a favor and don’t pretend you know a goddamn thing about economics. Now go take your marxist labor theory of value and peddle that crap somewhere else.

  116. Who Will Stand Up to the Superrich?
    By Frank Rich (11/13/2010)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?ref=frankrich

    Excerpt:
    The wealthy Americans we should worry about instead are the ones who implicitly won the election — those who take far more from America than they give back. They were not on the ballot, and most of them are not household names. Unlike Whitman and the other defeated self-financing candidates, they are all but certain to cash in on the Nov. 2 results. There’s no one in Washington in either party with the fortitude to try to stop them from grabbing anything that’s not nailed down.

    The Americans I’m talking about are not just those shadowy anonymous corporate campaign contributors who flooded this campaign. No less triumphant were those individuals at the apex of the economic pyramid — the superrich who have gotten spectacularly richer over the last four decades while their fellow citizens either treaded water or lost ground. The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s pretax income in 2007 — up from less than 9 percent in 1976. During the boom years of 2002 to 2007, that top 1 percent’s pretax income increased an extraordinary 10 percent every year. But the boom proved an exclusive affair: in that same period, the median income for non-elderly American households went down and the poverty rate rose.

    It’s the very top earners, not your garden variety, entrepreneurial multimillionaires, who will be by far the biggest beneficiaries if there’s an extension of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for income over $200,000 a year (for individuals) and $250,000 (for couples). The resurgent G.O.P. has vowed to fight to the end to award this bonanza, but that may hardly be necessary given the timid opposition of President Obama and the lame-duck Democratic Congress.

    On last Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Obama was already wobbling toward another “compromise” in which he does most of the compromising. It’s a measure of how far he’s off his game now that a leader who once had the audacity to speak at length on the red-hot subject of race doesn’t even make the most forceful case for his own long-held position on an issue where most Americans still agree with him. (Only 40 percent of those in the Nov. 2 exit poll approved of an extension of all Bush tax cuts.) The president’s argument against extending the cuts for the wealthiest has now been reduced to the dry accounting of what the cost would add to the federal deficit. As he put it to CBS’s Steve Kroft, “the question is — can we afford to borrow $700 billion?”

  117. Ooo. More nonsense from the home schooled.

    I don’t hate rich people. I hate venal people. To be clear.

    I said capital and that’s what I meant. Not capital goods or real capital (which includes workers). Capital only exists within the mechanism of a medium of exchange in classical economics and it’s only a part of the whole. Had I meant capital goods or real capital (which can be paid for by other means that the ‘good will’ of the wealthy – such as commercial bank loans and stock offerings), I would have said capital goods or real capital. It’s the bankers and the monied elite that have broken the production capacity of this country in their desire to maximize their personal profits. One of the biggest tragedies of banking is the commingling of commercial and financial banking which allowed made up casino shell games like CDS’ possible. It’s the excess profit taking (at the expense of labor and tax payers) that is killing the system. Learn to differentiate between finance money and real capital. But that’s what you get from a home schooling. GIGO. I don’t hate rich people. I hate what the love of money makes people turn do to their fellow humans all so some asshat can have a gold plated toilet.

    As to the rest? Make your own blog and ban me. Otherwise? You’re just bitching to hear your lips flap.

    _______

    Elaine,

    I read that when Rich originally posted it. I find I agree with him more often than not, but that was a particularly good column. Thanks for posting it.

  118. ekeyra:

    Sorry there, Ekeyra, but the inventor of our economic system came down squarely on Buddha’s side as to the value of labor over capital,as this except explains:

    Adam Smith was the first to produce an analysis of the place of capital in production. His ideas were vague and indefinite, as later controversy proved; but none the less, he grasped the essentials of the use of capital. Although he believed that labor was the source of all value, he also said that the productivity of the laborer increased with the subdivision of labor, this in turn being dependent upon the quantity of capital available. Furthermore, the number of laborers could not be increased except by the augmentation of capital. In his opinion capital was accumulated by the savings of individuals, not as a social contribution but in the pursuit of self-interest. However, one who saved was a public asset; and a spender was a liability. It is impossible to discover what Smith believed to be the source of capital’s productivity or its relative contribution to the value of the total product.
    (Scarlett, History of Economic Theory & thought)

    Maybe you’d like it from the master himself:

    EVERY man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man’s own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.[emphasis mine]

    Adam Smith, (AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, Bk. 1, Ch. 5)

  119. Mespo,

    Beat me too it. Oddly enough, because I was taking a final exam for Econ 201 (one of the 2 classes I need to finish up my degree).

  120. raff,

    That would explain the cats attached to my lap and my foot.

    Also why every time I walk through the woods I get bombarded by falling squirrels. Which, when you think about it, is a lot like being attacked by trolls.

  121. http://mises.org/daily/4103

    What Smith, Ricardo, and Marx have done, and what the followers of the latter two continue to do, is to confuse the meanings of two important words: cost and value. While it may be true in the above instance that it might cost five dollars to produce the lumber from a given tree, the value of the lumber from that tree has no immediate relationship to cost.

    Value, as Eugen Ritter von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and others demonstrate is inevitably the result of a subjective judgment. Lumber may cost $5, but the intensity with which you, as a purchaser, desire the lumber determine whether it is worth $1 or $20 to you. If it is worth only $1 to you, you will not purchase it if it is priced above that sum, regardless of the cost expended in producing it. Similarly, if you would be glad to pay as much as $20 for it, you will consider it a bargain if it is priced at $10, even though the cost of producing the lumber was $5 and the other $5 represents a profit to the producer.

    In short, as a purchaser, you do not consider either cost or profit to others. You concern yourself with value, which relates to your own desire and your own ability to pay. It is in this area that Smith, et al., come to grief. They conclude that cost and value are the same thing.

  122. Sorry meps, noone “invented” economics. He may have had some insights hitherto undiscovered, but economics as a phenomenon has been around since the first caveman gave another caveman a saber tooth for a wooly mammoth fur. In fact it was most likely the need to articulate the finer points of mutually beneficial cooperation that lead to the development of verbal languages in the first place. Also other people have had some thoughts about the subject well after the 17th century.

    B the problem with modern banking is multi-faceted, but you are only scratching the surface and diagnosing symptoms rather than the disease. The root problem is the existance of a central bank, which tinkers with interest rates which massively distorts price signals crucial to economic decisions across the entire spectrum of production. Couple that with fractional reserve banking that allows banks to surreptitiously inflate the supply of credit by loaning out many times the actual amount of deposits they have, and the moral hazard of fdic and “too big to fail” mentality insuring private bank investments with taxpayer money and you have a system teetering on the brink of implosion.

    Also if your going to insist i was home schooled id prefer autodidact.

  123. That would explain the cats attached to my lap and my foot.

    ‘Cause I’ve got friends in low places

    Where the whiskey drowns
    And the beer chases my blues away
    And I’ll be okay
    I’m not big on social graces
    Think I’ll slip on down to the oasis
    Oh, I’ve got friends in low places

    I blame the cold medicine.

    which you drink alot

  124. Gyges:

    thank you for the English lesson, it was most welcomed. I studied the hard sciences (being Asian, I didn’t have a choice). So in my position we usually have English majors write our specifications for us.

    It’s kinda funny though, they are rather arrogant just like you, maybe it’s because they are driving KIA’s while the technical people either drive BMW’s, Mercedes or Porches and live in much nicer houses and have better looking wives for the most part.

    I wouldn’t brag too much about being good at English, you know what they say about English majors:

    They usually ask their client/customer-“do you want fries with that shake” or “would you like paper or plastic with your purchase”.

  125. should read Porsches, but the old timers drive a porch during lunch hour.

    So that is why we need English majors, we do the thinking and you correct the grammer and spelling since you cant do the thinking.

  126. ekeyra:

    good analysis. Wasting your time though on Mespo and Buddha, they cant understand. It’s that education thing. They have been educated to a level beyond their ability to comprehend. Especially when it comes to economics. Maybe they went to public schools and didn’t have the benefit of home schooling?

    By the way you are right on about Ricardo and Smith and Marx was just a fool who wanted to control the world through the proletariat. Labor was just a tool for Marx, he probably laughed at them in private.

    Right about the Federal Reserve as well, they don’t let the market set interest rates and so you have all kinds of distortions in investments.

    Good posts above.

  127. Yes, Buddha is Laughing be careful in the woods and speaking of Aesop’s Fables:

    The Ass in the Lion’s Skin

    AN ASS, having put on the Lion’s skin, roamed about in the forest and amused himself by frightening all the foolish animals he met in his wanderings. At last coming upon a Fox, he tried to frighten him also, but the Fox no sooner heard the sound of his voice than he exclaimed, “I might possibly have been frightened myself, if I had not heard your bray.”

    everyone has your number.

    Deep Cover 7:

    That Aesop was a pretty sharp guy, eh?

  128. government and labor are much more parasitic than “rich” folk:

    Mark Hemingway: Mandatory PLAs put tax dollars into union coffers
    • TAGS:
    • Mark Hemingway
    COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
    By: Mark Hemingway 12/05/10 8:05 PM
    Unemployment rose to 9.8 percent Friday, prompting taxpayers to ask yet again, “Hey, what happened with all those jobs that were supposed to be created with that $814 billion stimulus bill?”
    There are a lot of reasons why the Obama stimulus failed, but perhaps the bill’s most insidious problem is that it was used to pay off special interests, especially the labor unions. In fact, this is happening right now on the White House doorstep.
    On Sept. 14, the General Services Administration awarded a $52.3 million stimulus-funded contract to renovate the Lafayette Building at 811 Vermont Ave. NW — right across Lafayette Square from the White House.
    The building houses a number of government entities, including the Department of Veterans Affairs. The contract went to the builder who offered the bid with the best overall score under federal procurement regulations and the lowest price.
    But then, as usually happens in Washington, things got political. On the same day the contract was awarded, the GSA ordered the winning contractor, Grunley Construction, to use a “Project Labor Agreement (PLA),” thus forcing the firm to use more expensive unionized labor.
    Even in the Washington region, union labor only makes up 12 percent of the construction industry, so the price of forcing the PLA on Grunley added $3.3 million to the cost of the Lafayette renovation, courtesy of the taxpayer.
    Unless you’re in the construction business, you’ve probably never heard of PLAs. Accepting a PLA locks a company into an iron-clad construction contract that virtually guarantees cost overruns. Typically, construction projects with PLAs cost 12 to 18 percent more than those without them.
    Nationally, unions only make up about 14 percent of the construction industry. There’s no shortage of competition. So why would anyone hire union labor knowing it will make their project cost more?
    The answer is political pressure. One of President Obama’s first actions was to rescind an executive order signed by his predecessor in 2001 that protected taxpayers from PLAs on federally funded construction projects of $25 million or more.
    Why? Because unions collectively spent $400 million to elect Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress in 2008. They spent hundreds of millions more this year trying to keep Democrats in power on Capitol Hill.
    Thanks to the stimulus bill, the federal government now has $140 billion in new federally assisted construction projects to oversee. And Obama is doing his best to insure all of them use PLAs.
    Instead of fair bidding on the open market, GSA awards extra points to bidders who agree in advance to use PLAs. While it’s not an explicit requirement, the message to government contractors is clear – accept a PLA or be at a huge disadvantage to rivals who do.
    If PLAs were added to all stimulus-funded construction projects, it would add $17 billion to $25 billion to their total costs, money that would be better spent creating new private-sector jobs or reducing the federal deficit.
    Meanwhile, the White House has the temerity to suggest its actions are good economic policy. The Annual Report of the White House Middle Class Task Force released earlier this year had an entire section inexplicably touting PLAs. Nowhere does the report acknowledge the added costs PLAs impose on taxpayers.
    If you can figure out how awarding billions of tax dollars to a powerful special interest that represents a small slice of a single employment sector helps the middle class, you might be smart enough to work for the White House economic team.
    The rest of us are left wondering why those 814 billion stimulus dollars didn’t create jobs.
    Mark Hemingway is an editorial page staff writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at mhemingway@washingtonexaminer.com.

    you can vent all your hostile liberal crap on poor Mr. Hemingway. But that is how all of you operate, like thugs and brutes. Doesnt surprise me you are all for stealing other people’s money. That is what thugs and brutes do.

  129. Buddha is Laughing:

    you might like this one, just change Jew to rich folk. Goebbles didnt have anything on you, but then this is the type of stuff I expect from people who want to take other peoples money. To do that you first have to dehumanize them.

    You firing up your ovens?

  130. roflmao

    You trolls are so cute when you’ve had your asses kicked!

    Goebbels indeed. Trying to smear me with your own sins, Rove?

    Let’s be perfectly clear – you’re defending people who would have most of humanity live in grinding poverty to support the decadent lifestyles of 1-2% of the population.

    Out of simple greed.

    But I’m the Nazi.

    ROFLMAO

    If you’re looking for a historical comparison that’s more accurate, you should look to the French – Jean-Baptiste Louvet de Couvrai.

    Careful puppets! Your strings are showing.

  131. Buddha,

    Hey, at least they didn’t insult what they think your major is using a stale joke.

    And calling me arrogant for pointing out that he completely misrepresented what actually happened. That just hurt.

  132. Buddha & Gyges,

    It’s just a lot of Goebbledygook! Remember–some people see Nazis everywhere–just ask Glenn Beck.

    Here’s one of my favorite Back in Black segments from The Daily Show:

  133. Gyges:

    here is what I said:

    “But the funny thing is, you take too much from the rich and they aren’t going to produce any more. And then where will you be?”

    Just like your example of the luxury boat tax, the rich decided not to buy new yachts and that hurt people.

    So I think I have been pretty consistent.

    So see what I wrote above.

    I know it’s a stale joke, but the best humor is also truthful.

    Tell me what you do for a living and we will see how right or wrong I am.

    I know young engineers that are graduating with salaries and bonuses over $60,000 per year. Can English majors say the same thing?

  134. Buddha is Laughing:

    people arent poor because of rich people, ekeyra is right, your knowledge of economics could fill Thumbalina’s thimble.

    Socialism/communism/fascism creates poverty.

    Since ekeyra is very good at explaining economic issues, I will leave it to him/her to tell you why. It seems his/her home schooling was far better than your public education.

  135. Chan,

    O.k. so I was wrong, you’re just dishonest. It’s not MY yacht example, it’s yours. I’ve already given my analysis of it.

    One more little thing and then I’m done (feel free to keep telling people I said what I didn’t):

    For kicks and grins, I’m going to do a “find word” on this page. The word I’m having the computer search for is “yacht.”

    The FIRST time Yacht appeared:

    “Chan L. 1, December 7, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Gyges:

    do you remember a few years ago when they had the luxury tax? It sent the yacht building business into the toilet and they had to repeal it. “

  136. Yeah, Chan. I’m so wrong for following the teachings of Adam Smith, an actual economist, instead of someone like you who is following the equivalent of economics learned off the backs of sugar packets at Denny’s.

  137. Gyges:

    My mistake on that. You are correct.

    However you did not rebut the argument I made. The custom boat builders were hurt badly and the tax was repealed.

    I stand by what I said, if you tax the rich (business owners) too much they will do other things with their money or they wont have money to invest in new ventures.

    It is really pretty simple.

    Did or did not the luxury boat tax hurt the custom boat (yacht) business? Did rich people stop buying yachts because they did not want to pay the extra money for the new tax?

    The principle is the same, money follows the highest rates of return in most cases. A high rate of return could also be avoiding taxes.

  138. The Bush tax cuts have been in place for years. Where are all the manufacturing and other jobs the rich supposedly created because they were allowed to keep more of their money?

  139. Buddha is Laughing:

    “Yeah, Chan. I’m so wrong for following the teachings of Adam Smith, an actual economist, instead of someone like you who is following the equivalent of economics learned off the backs of sugar packets at Denny’s.”

    So are Von Mises, Hayek and Say, dipstick.

  140. Elaine M.

    I guess Bush spent all that money on TARP and then Obama spent all that money on fake stimulus and there you go. Plus the drag to our economy by the war in Iraq and it is amazing we dont have higher unemployment.

    Maybe its a good idea to keep taxes low. I wonder what would have happened if he hadnt lowered them?

  141. Von Mises?

    Yeah, Ol’ Mad Ludwig is a go to guy for fascist apologists and libertarians who can think of only money. He – like all libertarian economists – only works if you’re stupid, evil or venal enough to think people are property.

    Hayek?

    Von Mises’ buddy and employee. Fascists of a feather flock together. Rationalization of greed is still rationalization.

    Say?

    Never amounted to much of lasting impact other than Say’s Law – which he didn’t coin by the way but rather only popularized. Supply creates demand is a paraphrase of Keynes – a paraphrase that Keynes himself criticized. One way of restating his favorite phrase is “Built it and they will come.” Which is patently ridiculous despite being a key line in a good baseball movie. Now before you defend that idea of Say’s?

    Edsel.

    Enjoy being wrong some more, apologist for greed. You certainly are good at it.

  142. ekeyra:

    While economic activity has existed since man emerged from the forets and in primarily barter form, the inventor of our system of free emterprise based-economics was clearly Adam Smith. He is widely-regarded as the “founding father of economics.” Also, Smith goes to great lengths to discuss the concepts of “labor” and “price” (which you call “cost”). Smith equates price not with the cost of the production of the item but the amount you are willing to pay to avoid undergoing those costs yourself in producing it – time. material costs, etc. Of course, there have been refinements of his thought and gaps filled in by men such as Ricardo, but essentially his concepts fuel today’s economies.
    Were it not for reading Smith’s works, Ricardo would have become just another wealthy stock broker like his father.

    It’s easy to weed the path when another has cut it through the forest for you.

  143. Think Apple Ipad or Amazon Kindle you economic dipstick. Or how about any other popular product. Companies create products to increase market share. Consumers don’t go and run tell Steve Jobs what they want, he determines it through research and then he produces a shit load of them (supply) and then people see the shiny new toy and go buy one (demand). If ole Steve did his homework right he hits a home run and makes a boat load of money for himself, his shareholders, the people who work at Apple, the companies that sell them and the companies that market them.

    Those people in turn go out and buy other goods and services. It is like talking to a retarded sheep trying to splain economics to you.

    All you can do is call someone a fascist apologist, sh… you don’t even know what a fascist is, that would be my guess.

    I give up, you win. I’m a troll and you are a polymath/genius/man about town/titan of Mars/King of the Hill/top of the heap/A number 1

  144. Chan L.,

    I’d like to ask you why you have such a low regard for English majors. I was a teacher for many years. I observed children who had a variety of intelligences and talents. You appear to think that those with a so-called “scientific” intelligence are superior to those with a “language/English” intelligence. Do you think you could write a masterful novel? Could you paint/sculpt a great work of art?

    Have you ever read Howard Gardner’s book “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences?”

  145. B ludwig was a fascist? So… why not stick around when the fascist nazis were taking over? Seems like a dream come true? Why bother to flee the country? Why not take a cushy post in nazi ruled academia like his forgotten counterpart otto bauer.
    Ill wait while you google it.

  146. Elaine M:

    I was giving Gyges a hard time. I love literature and think we would have a pretty dull world without the color good writers bring to us.

    And good teachers as well, I remember the good ones I had.

  147. Elaine M:

    “I’d like to ask you why you have such a low regard for English majors. I was a teacher for many years. I observed children who had a variety of intelligences and talents. You appear to think that those with a so-called “scientific” intelligence are superior to those with a “language/English” intelligence. Do you think you could write a masterful novel? Could you paint/sculpt a great work of art?”

    that depends on what you consider good art and literature. Most smart people are good at a number of different things. A good many engineers I know are also decent musicians.

    I can paint as well as Jackson Pollock and probably write a novel. But what is your definition of good? I couldn’t write a novel on par with Victor Hugo nor could I paint as well as DeVinci nor sculpt as well as Michelangelo if my life depended on doing so. But then not many people can. I can make the argument that both DeVinci and Michelangelo were scientists in their own right.

    Intelligence is a funny thing and there are many components to it. I have met many engineers who couldnt walk and chew gum at the same time, but they can come up with some really great ideas.

    I just met a guy, I believe he has autism, who can calculate the day of the week my birthday will be on in the year 2679. But he cant tell you your name 10 minutes after you meet him.

  148. What is it exactly that Jobs researches? It couldn’t be what the market wants as expressed by consumer desires gathered through survey techniques, could it? He didn’t create a supply without assessing an actual demand first . . . general dipstick. He could have built 10 times the number of iPads and if no one wanted them, he’d have been as screwed as Edsel. It’s demand that drives suppliers, it’s resources and practicality that constrain manufactures/suppliers in providing that supply. Want and need drive demand which in turn drives corporations to try to find an economically viable (read: profitable) models for meeting that market niche call for supply. Say, like Von Mises and Hayek, had it backwards and off kilter – demand creates the potential for supply. Other market forces constrain the ability to meet that supply. Quantity of supply primarily drives price.

    You’re right about one thing though, Chan-bot.

    I win.
    ____

    Home Schooled Happy Meal,

    Von Mises was technically a libertarian and I called him a libertarian economist. What I said was he “is a go to guy for fascist apologists and libertarians”.

    Learn to read and to comprehend what you read. Being autodidactic does you no good if you don’t understand the language you are learning in. Might I suggest something more in line with your demonstrated skill set. Like auto-erotic asphyxiation. Since you’re a do-it-yourself-er.

  149. Buddha is Laughing:

    people have a general idea of what they want, but they don’t really know. It is the objective of the producer to make something people want.

    The market research is general or if you are smart enough and Jobs probably is, you give people what they want.

    The supply creates the demand. You are thinking necessaries like toilet paper and bread.

    If I was a really good architect I could design some very exciting houses and build them, people would buy them. I have created demand through superior design.

    You lose again.

  150. Buddha is Laughing:

    “Might I suggest something more in line with your demonstrated skill set. Like auto-erotic asphyxiation. Since you’re a do-it-yourself-er.”

    he doesn’t need to, your bullshit is creating enough methane to asphyxiate an entire town.

  151. You could build the best damn house the world has ever seen.

    If no one is buying houses, you’re still screwed.

    The rest is you flapping your lips in self-rationalization.

    You lost and you admitted it. Run along now.

  152. Chan L.,

    I agree that there are individuals who are multi-talented. I also know some who are brilliantly talented in one area who lack any talent in other areas.

    BTW, my passions are poetry and science…and good food.

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One of my poetry idols is Nobel Laureate Wislawa Szymborska. I think E. B. White’s “Charlotte’s Web” is one of the finest works of children’s literature ever written. I love the paintings of Van Gogh. I think DaVinci was a genius.

    A lot of people THINK they can write. It’s not as easy as one might suppose to compose a well-crafted novel…to absorb readers in a story…to have them care about the well-defined characters.

  153. Elaine:

    I didnt say I could write a good novel or even a fair novel. I could probably write a book but it would not be that good. It is very hard to write, let alone write well.

  154. Hey Buddhass (rhymes with dumbass):

    “You could build the best damn house the world has ever seen.

    If no one is buying houses, you’re still screwed.

    The rest is you flapping your lips in self-rationalization.”

    No one would be buying houses because the dipsticks in congress think just like you do and no one has any money to buy houses because of stupid policies you support.

  155. Awww.

    Isn’t that just precious!

    Stupid policies? No, I don’t support stupid polices which by default means I don’t support Congress. Especially the Senate. Haven’t for a long time. Most of them are complicit in the ongoing treason and subversion of the Constitution. They don’t get my support. They get my scorn for not upholding their oath of office to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic – largely because many of them are domestic enemies of the Constitution or anything that threatens the bottom line of their corporate masters.

    People don’t have money to buy houses because venal nitwits such as yourself stole their money and outsourced their jobs. The banks took $700,000,000,000 of their hard earned and paid tax dollars (all the while avoiding their own corporate tax liabilities), promised to open consumer lending up and didn’t open consumer lending but instead took that money – money that people could have bought houses with money from consumer loans – and paid themselves and the other corporate directors – who produce NOTHING – big fat bonuses to match their big fat egos.

    Stupid? People who love money over principle, the rule of law and social stability are stupid. People who think other people are property are stupid. It’s that kind of venal mentality that enabled Grand Theft TARP in the first place. It’s that kind of mentality that ruined the manufacturing base in this country. It’s that kind of mentality that says only property owners should have the right to vote. It’s that kind of mentality that fights for continued tax cuts for the rich parasites that screwed up things for . . . everybody else.

    Libertarians are and libertarianism is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It’s nothing but a cult of greed, avoidance of responsibility for their bad actions and the desire to pass on costs of their voluntary high risk/high cost transactions to the rest of society to protect their personal profits. The ultimate in criminal welfare. You get to steal and abuse, face no punishment and get government subsidies to protect your profits when your Ponzi schemes fail.

    Come on. Run that mouth some more to rationalize your greed, hot rod. It’s funnier than Hell.

  156. Elaine,

    He thinks I’m an English major. No idea why, but he does. Also, he was trying to goad me into pissing match.

    Buddha,

    My brother in law once tried to convince me that the world was ending. As proof he used Biblical prophecy. I asked him “what if I don’t believe in the Bible? How will you prove to me that it’s true?” Which shut him up.

    Very satisfying experience. Might even be repeatable.

  157. Judson Phillips is a fool, so all our military personnel, firemen, policemen and elderly who don’t own property can’t vote?

    How about all people who have filed bankruptcy can’t vote (like Judson Phillips), or those you fail to answer questions about our country history can’t run for public office (like Sarah Palin or Christine O’donnell), how about that, please.

  158. Gyges,

    Perhaps. For a social science, economics seems to encourage many people to forget the science part and treat it like a religion. I’m not sure if this is specifically endemic to the topic or if it’s a result of 75 years of economic propaganda which was further exacerbated by the Cold War. Probably a little of both.

    I find the same phenomena often comes up in discussing psychology. You get people who are locked into a preferred mode – psychoanalytics, behavioralism, gestalt, etc. – and their tunnel vision from being locked in that mode blinds them to considering that no model work in a vacuum. I’m not saying favoring a particular approach is necessarily wrong. For some applications, a narrower approach is simply more practical. For example, I know Canadian Eh has a preference for behavioralism from conversations with her. It is simply the better tool box for her job. However, she’s also not closed minded about other approaches. She’s both reasonable and pragmatic about application. But when modal thought blinds you to flaws in the model or useful functionality from other models? That’s a reasoning problem.

    I submit that your suggested tactic only works on people with enough reason to realize the futility of their actions.

  159. “Smith equates price not with the cost of the production of the item but the amount you are willing to pay to avoid undergoing those costs yourself in producing it – time. material costs, etc.”

    Price, cost, value, whatever term you want to use for subjective human preference, is irrelevant to any factors regarding any items production and relies solely on the subjective usefulness of the item sought by the consumer vs. the subjective usefulness of what that same consumer is willing to give up in exchange for it. google marginal utility theory of value. Like I said there have been people thinking about this stuff long after adam smith.

    B libertarians, who oppose government action on principle and are fundamentally opposed to government intervention into the free market are just in it for the government corporate handouts, which they oppose? Keep spinning that wheel.

    Also people cant afford houses because home prices were bid up by an inordinate amount of price speculation fueled by cheap credit provided by the federal reserve interest rate tinkering and fractional reserve banking. Then when prices fell and the market tried to correct itself the 700 billion in taxpayer funds you accused chan of stealing went to politically connected financial institutions to keep them from collapsing under the weight of their own bad investments. When private risks are backed by public funds there is a term for it, moral hazard, and it is why libertarians oppose government intervention in principle. If the government had done nothing at all and allowed home prices to fall they would be affordable to a vast majority of people who are still unable to meet the artificially inflated prices.

  160. Buddha is Laughing:

    “Stupid policies? No, I don’t support stupid polices which by default means I don’t support Congress. Especially the Senate. Haven’t for a long time. Most of them are complicit in the ongoing treason and subversion of the Constitution. They don’t get my support. They get my scorn for not upholding their oath of office to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic – largely because many of them are domestic enemies of the Constitution or anything that threatens the bottom line of their corporate masters.”

    then you will really like this article by Walter Williams:

    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williamns120810.php3

    here are a couple of excerpts:

    “My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it’s easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.”

    “First, let’s ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it’s not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets. The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.”

    I really like this part, that James Madison guy was a real smart fellow.

    “When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they’ve sworn to uphold and defend. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

    You might answer, “He forgot the general welfare clause.” No, he had that covered, saying, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.””

  161. ekeyra:

    I heard an interesting item on the radio yesterday and may explain why Buddha is Laughing thinks that capitalism is so bad. Warren Buffet, that liberal shit head, is for the death tax which doesn’t necessarily make sense until you know that he has ownership of life insurance companies which make a hefty profit because of the death tax. Life insurance proceeds are not subject to the death tax. Pretty funny huh?

    So here we have a liberal captain of industry lobbying Washington to keep the death tax so he can line his pockets off the hard work of others. Buddha has his number but what Buddha doesn’t seem to realize is that socialism makes this kind of shit possible due to the control exerted by central planning.

    Buffet also likes the death tax because he can buy family owned companies when they have to sell to pay the tax. Buffet is a real piece of shit, but he is not a free market capitalist. He is a liberal. Rather ironic isn’t it?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So Buddha and Gyges why don’t you take some of your own advice. Maybe the crap you learned in school about economics isn’t really so. There is much more evidence that ekeyra and I are correct about everything we have said.

    The only people who believe socialist dogma are poor people and intellectuals educated to a point beyond there ability to comprehend. Oh and people who like to use the force of government to compel other people to accept their ideas.

  162. ekeyra:

    Like I said there have been people thinking about this stuff long after adam smith

    *****************

    AS most of them have acknowledged, none any better.

  163. Chan L.,

    First, I have to begin by admitting that I, while I was a physics major in college, once shared the same disdain for literature majors as you have. However, a couple of courses in metaphysics and epistemology turned out to be quite humbling. Mastery of the mother tongue is a necessity for communicating; delegating your rhetoric and argumentation to others is simply weakness on your part. If your principles are truly worth being heard and defended then the best person to ensure that is you. To that end you’ll want to read “Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert Pirsig.

    That aside, regarding your post on self-ownership, please note that this nation’s theory of property, i.e. ‘the pursuit of happiness, is predicated on the theory of self-ownership as explained in Ch. 5 of Locke’s 2nd Treatise:

    “Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”

    Your best delineation of moral implications regarding duties owed to self v. duties owed to state are spelled out by Kant in his Metaphysics of Morals

    “All duties are either duties of right, that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or duties of virtue, that is, ethical duties (officia virtutis s. ethica). Juridical duties are such as may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical duties are those for which such legislation is not possible. The reason why the latter cannot be properly made the subject of external legislation is because they relate to an end or final purpose, which is itself, at the same time, embraced in these duties, and which it is a duty for the individual to have as such. But no external legislation can cause any one to adopt a particular intention, or to propose to himself a certain purpose; for this depends upon an internal condition or act of the mind itself. However, external actions conducive to such a mental condition may be commanded, without its being implied that the individual will of necessity make them an end to himself.”

    http://www.constitution.org/kant/ntrometa.htm

    As you’ll find in Pirsig’s arguments in “Zen,” a finely tuned scientific mind is only half the equation.

  164. Bob Esq:

    If you will read above in my post to Elaine M., I made it quite clear that I was making a point to Gyges. I also made it quite clear that I thought literature wsa just as important as science.

    Science and philosophy are both necessary.

    “Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.”

    But thank you for your insights.

  165. McHome Schooled,

    “The only people who believe socialist dogma are poor people and intellectuals educated to a point beyond there ability to comprehend. Oh and people who like to use the force of government to compel other people to accept their ideas.”

    And people who able to comprehend that society is like any chain – only as strong as the weakest links – and are capable of empathy, unlike sociopaths. Which oddly enough, most Libertarians are sociopaths. The rest are just dumb. Some are even dumb sociopaths.

    You’re still stuck in that 16th Century abusive market model by confusing free markets with free trade.

    _____________

    Chan,

    You did forget the Equal Protection Clause though.

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    By desiring the removal of taxation and regulation of business, you are looking to pass costs of your voluntary market transactions on to society which is also a form of income redistribution as it forces society to pay the costs of your voluntary transactions which you are unwilling to bear in the name of profitability. It’s welfare for the wealthy – combined with a desire to avoid responsibility for your bad actions – born on the backs of the majority, without their consent, due process and without representation. The Equal Protection Clause makes this kind of evasion of taxation and regulation untenable as a duty of justice. You don’t get to be more equal than others in the blind eye of the law. That includes forcing your costs of your chosen business onto others not directly involved in your transactions. You seek to avoid the tyranny of the masses by replacing it with the tyranny of the few. And that’s not just dumb – it’s as anti-American ideal as desiring a monarchy. What you and people like Rush want is simply oligarchy, not democracy. Corporatism – Mussolini’s preferred term for fascism – is just another form of oligarchy. This country was founded to escape tyranny – of all sorts – not just the sort that keeps you from living out your venal oligarchical dreams of unlimited profit and unconscionable avoidance of responsibility for your bad acts. Two-tiered societies create inequity, inequity creates injustice, injustice creates social strife, social strife creates warfare. Ask the French and the Russians. Yours is a destructive path with the transactional costs of the few being born by the many, and like all destructive paths, ultimately self-destructive.

    Nice try, but no cigar.

  166. What I want to know is how my transaction, if it is of mutual benefit to the 2 people involved, harms someone else?

    If it does harm someone else then they can call a lawyer and sue the 2 parties who did the harming. I am not a lawyer but I don’t think the equal protection clause is germane to a mutually agreeable exchange of goods and services.

    By your logic we should all be paying for each other, last time I looked provide for the General Welfare doesn’t mean that. As Madison said ““If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”

    So anyway you slice it what you want is unlimited government which is tyranny. And you try and pose as a defender of freedom. My ass. You wouldn’t know Lady Liberty if she knocked you in the head, you have too much Mao and Lenin and Marx on the brain.

    You insulted a good many decent people by calling Libertarians sociopaths. That is exactly what the Nazis did before they fired up the gas chambers, they dehumanized the Jews.

  167. Buddha,

    Honestly, I think he was just shocked that somebody has read the Bible and still didn’t believe the Bible. Sort of like how shocked Byron was when I said “yeah I’ve read Mises and didn’t find him convincing.” I actually get mises.org’s daily e-mail. It’s mildly interesting sometimes, and a good way to expose myself to different view points.

    As to the religion of economics, maybe it’s because (as my wife is fond of pointing out) there’s a lot of it that’s not really science. Although there’s some economists that sure are trying. (I really like like Dan Ariely. http://danariely.com/)
    I can’t think of any field of study that invites pseudoscience like economics. There’s just this left over streak of “who needs empiricism? We’ve got a PHILOSOPHY!”

    Ekerya and Buddha,

    As a former libertarian (I never joined the party because they made you sign this weird pledge thing), I think Buddha’s missing a third type (and I honestly think this, if not the majority, than a significant minority): the Utopian. They think if we can change this one thing about society, it’d solve all the other problems. That’s probably naive, but it’s also such a part of human nature that calling it stupid is calling most of us stupid. Including myself.

  168. “What I want to know is how my transaction, if it is of mutual benefit to the 2 people involved, harms someone else?”

    Example: The deal to store toxic waste at Love Canal was to two parties benefit. And to the physical and economic detriment of an entire town. It was created by private interests and the proper clean up by government was hindered by corporatist graft riddled politicians (oligarchs).

    “If it does harm someone else then they can call a lawyer and sue the 2 parties who did the harming.”

    See above. The Equal Protection Clause is germane to the application of the law – all of it. You seek unequal application of the law – plain and simple. Also, this statement naively assumes special interest lobbyists haven’t watered down the law in favor of their corporate masters or that corporations aren’t hiding their liability behind a shell game of “sell the toxic asset” like the chemical companies did at Love Canal. The neutering of Federal agencies like the FDA and EPA – and recent attacks on class actions in Federal court by big business – are perfect examples of inequity that favors the few over the needs of the many. The root of both problems – bad business practices and corporate graft – lies squarely with business.

    “By your logic we should all be paying for each other, last time I looked provide for the General Welfare doesn’t mean that.”

    It’s not my fault you are too dense to realize general welfare and common good are synonymous. That Madison didn’t understand that would fall under the category of his failing as well.

    “You insulted a good many decent people by calling Libertarians sociopaths.”

    Awwww. You like to throw stones at the liberals but whine like a little kid when they throw stones back. Suck it up, buttercup.

    Except I’m not de-humanizing anyone. Sociopaths are human. They are just not very good humans. I’m merely offering an accurate description of Libertarians selfish behavior. You also assume I think Libertarians are good or decent people. By definition, sociopaths are not good and decent people. Since Libertarians act just like sociopaths (only concerned with themselves, looking to avoid responsibility for their bad acts), they are not good and decent people. If that insults you? Good.

    To be clear: I have not called for the rounding up and/or mass execution of Libertarians. I have simply attacked the foundations of their ridiculously selfish and myopic beliefs. If you also want to suppress dissent by intimating I’m a Marxist Nazi, then I guess you’re a totalitarian propagandist on top of being an oligarchical sociopath – which makes you far more of a Nazi than me, the declared and demonstrated egalitarian humanist and democratic socialist. If I don’t think anyone is special, I sure as Hell don’t think Libertarians are special, let alone deserving of any kind of respect based on both their venal beliefs and ridiculous actions. If you don’t like being discredited for bad ideas and selfish behavior? Don’t adopt bad ideas and act selfish.

    _____

    Gyges,

    First, your wife is on to something there. Economics, like psychology, is not called a “soft science” for no reason.

    Second, Utopians are idealists, usually of the seeking type and they usually quit seeking perfection when they realize perfection is impossible. I have no issue with those who try on different hats in search of an ideal, but when you put the hat on for good? If it’s a bad hat, I’m going to say so.

  169. Far be it from me to but in at this point to this ongoing discussion, where basically those I agree with, like Buddha, are pulverizing thse whose views I disdain. I must say though that I am taken with Buddha’s views on libertarianism and sociopathy. There is a correllation I think between the intellectual leaders of the movement and being a true sociopath. Then there are those, like L.Chan perhaps, who have deluded themselves into believing this stuff because it is an excuse for their own good fortune.

    This is not dissimilar to Donald Trump writing books and doing seminars on creating wealth, when his greatest accomplishment was to be born into a family that was rich and owned a large amount of real estate, at a time when real estate prices were booming. I don’t know if L.Chan is wealthy, or is even a “self made man,” but he certainly exhibits similar smugness of belief, even as his every argument is destroyed.

    The saddest type of libertarian to me though is the one believing the John Wayne macho myth, because this type is merely deluded into acting afainst their own self interests, on the basis of a nostalgic reality that never was.

    Finally, any movement whose Saint is Ayn Rand, a third rate writer of bodice ripping romance novels, is lacking a connection to reality. Libertarianism can’t work, ever, because those who get the guns will always wind up running things, especially with the rest of the people “doing their own thing” with no thought for others.

  170. Mike,

    And here I thought Libertarianism could never work because it’s based on the idea that we’re all individuals working towards our own self interest. We’re really individual members of a pack working towards the pack’s self interest as well as our own.

    Buddha,

    (Warning incredibly clumsy segue to follow)

    My wife is usually on to something.

    Like when she kept telling everyone “no the Baby’s going to be a Girl.” We all doubted her because, well there hasn’t been a female born to my part of the family in 30 some odd years. Going to have to start that count again come April.

  171. McHome Schooled,

    “The only people who believe socialist dogma are poor people and intellectuals educated to a point beyond there ability to comprehend. Oh and people who like to use the force of government to compel other people to accept their ideas.”

    B that was from chan’s post…so feel free to go back and actually read what i said and respond to that instead of attributing chans thoughts to mine.

    Also love how you keep accusing me of being stuck in the 16 century but then keep bringing up adam smith as the end-all of economic thought.

  172. Mike Spindell:

    yay, your team won. Good for you.

    By the way, ekeyra cleaned Buddha is Laughing’s clock above. But how do you have an discussion/argument with someone who thinks James Madison is wrong about the Constitution. Now that’s just funny and I will assume you think him (Madison) to be wrong as well from your comments.

  173. ekeyra:

    he doesn’t like Von Mises and other contemporary economists who believe in free markets and free trade. He also doesn’t want us to know that Marx is his man, so he uses Adam Smith.

    But he is a polymath so who knows, maybe he thinks Adam Smith is the best. Since he is a genius he is right and you are wrong.

    Why are you arguing with a polymath?

  174. Because she, like a typical Libertarian, is too dumb to realize she’s lost.

    You two have that in common.

    Which is nice.

    Von Mises was a fool.

    Also something you and your buddy have in common.

    As to the mislabeled response? It’s hard to tell you two apart since you’re both equally greedy and ignorant. Peas in a rotten pod.

    As to Madison? I may be smarter than Madison, but certainly not smarter than Jefferson, however – and more importantly – I’m in agreement with Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court. Hamilton argued that the general welfare clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was decided 150 years later in United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936) where the Court found that Hamilton’s interpretation was the correct interpretation.

    Sucks to be wrong yet again, doesn’t it, apologists for greed?

  175. Hey chan, thanks for being on my side and all, but i really have to address that quote of yours buddha attributed to me. I think the vast majority of poor people dont believe in socialism. I think they realize that their hard work has a much better chance of lifting their level of income than relying on static government payments.

  176. ekeyra:

    you are right, when I was poor I worked my but off.

    My apologies to the decent poor people trying to make it.

    I hope you are right, although you have been right about most everything you have posted. So I will take your word for it.

    It’s been awhile since I was poor, so please forgive my mistake.

    I guess I read too many left wing pundits and have had some of that kool aid myself.

  177. “I think the vast majority of poor people dont believe in socialism. I think they realize that their hard work has a much better chance of lifting their level of income than relying on static government payments.”

    Thinking isn’t your strong suit, is it?

    The only person who mentioned “static payments” is you.

    I’m talking about basic social support mechanisms like adequate and equal educational opportunities, health care for everyone, safe public housing so no child has to spend the night out in the cold and programs to keep them fed in a land of plenty where some people consider eating a damn sport, safe and reliable public transportation so that people can get to jobs and incentives for actual domestic job creation instead of rewarding those who kill jobs or move them overseas for profit.

    You know – things that benefit the common good by giving people to tools to uplift themselves out of poverty.

    Actually, you don’t know. All you can see is the rationale for your own greed and desire to avoid consequences. Well here’s an unavoidable consequence: if you make enough people suffer in poverty with no chance of escaping? They will eventually come kill you in your own kitchen and simply take what they need.

    Say “howdy” to Marie Antoinette when you see her.

  178. Buddha is Laughing:

    wasnt Hamilton a believer in central banks? Didnt Jefferson think that was a real bad idea?

    You make me laugh, you don’t even know what you think. Just a bunch of convolutions interposed with fascist pig/greedy pig.
    And delusions of grandeur.

  179. And after all those starving people finished murdering and pillaging, then what? What happens when youve stolen and distributed all available resources B? Thats it you still starve. Noone has any incentive to accumulate resources if theyre just going to be murdered for their troubles so everyone starves anyway. Its unsustainable.

    Also all those things provided by government are not dynamic, any service levels are decided by bereaucrats, rather than what the recipients of those services are willing to give in exchange for those goods and services. So perhaps “payouts” may have been the wrong word but static is definately the nature of the beast.

  180. EKEYRA:

    if you don’t mind me asking, were you really home schooled? If you were, your parents did a good job.

    Just out of curiosity how did you get turned on to free market thinking? Are you an economist or is economics a hobby?

    I wont take any offense if you tell me to mind my own business.

  181. Chan,

    You make me laugh as well. You know exactly what you think – me, me, me. Isn’t that right, hot rod? All you can do is rationalize greed. It’s pretty pathetic. What makes it funny is you think you’re some kind of hero for stroking yourself. You and Nero would have loved each other if either of you was capable of loving anyone but yourself.

    As to Hamilton? He was a sharp guy. He was right about a lot of things – including the counterpoint to Madison about the general welfare/common good. Which was my precise point, not a general endorsement of Hamilton. I’m a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist, not a Hamiltonian Constitutionalist. While Hamilton was right about a lot of things, banking wasn’t one of them. He wasn’t smarter than Jefferson either. Banks and corporations are indeed destroying this country. Just read the news. Just like the greed that drives those organizations. Just like Jefferson said they would.

    McHome Schooled,

    Did I say I wanted that outcome? No. I don’t want anarchy, but by creating an underclass with no hope, it’s what exactly what your lot invites. Creating a hopeless underclass is what the retrograde and sociopathic ideals of Libertarianism invites abuses and poverty. As to anarchy and its outcome? Who knows. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Anarchy is a synonym for chaos. Chaos is systemic instability. You can argue with me all you like, but only a fool argues with proven math. Chaos is inherently dangerous because it makes all outcomes uncertain.

  182. Chan L.: “wasn’t Hamilton a believer in central banks? Didn’t Jefferson think that was a real bad idea?”

    Jefferson and Madison were strongly against it; see McColluch v. Maryland.

    But then you also have to ask other questions like where did Jefferson get the authority to make the Louisiana Purchase, etc.

  183. Speaking of the Founders, today is the 10 year anniversary of the Stay of December 9, 2000; wherein Scalia and cadre violated the separation of powers doctrine (i.e. such as why the case was non-justiciable) to such an extent as to render the constitution into nothing more than a urinal puck.

    “In yet another piece of incriminating circumstantial evidence, Scalia, in granting Bush’s application for the stay, wrote that “the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner [Bush] has a substantial probability of success.” But Antonin, why would you believe this when neither side had submitted written briefs yet (they were due the following day, Sunday, by 4 pm), nor had there even been oral arguments (set for 11 am on Monday)? It wouldn’t be because you had already made up your mind on what you were determined to do, come hell or high water, would it? Antonin, take it from an experienced prosecutor–you’re as guilty as sin. In my prosecutorial days, I’ve had some worthy opponents. You wouldn’t be one of them. Your guilt is so obvious that if I thought more of you I’d feel constrained to blush for you.” (Vincent Bugliosi, ‘None Dare Call It Treason’)

    http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason

  184. Bob,

    Got to love that Bugliosi and loathe that Scalia.

    In re Louisiana Purchase: Although disliked by the Federalists because an expansion westward threatened their power base and their (unfounded) fears that Spain actually owned the land, the idea that it was an unconstitutional expenditure was specious as Hamilton’s own interpretation of the general welfare and the spending clause (irony for sure) were later validated in Butler. I’ve always felt the Federalist objections were more related to the perceived loss of power and Jefferson and Hamilton’s general beef with each other as Hamilton’s own position vis a vis spending and general welfare backed Jefferson’s concerns about Spain or France being able to block the Port of New Orleans. Once France proved the rightful seller, war with Spain was a remote threat at best and Napoleon was happy to set up a counter to his hated British while lining French coffers.

  185. Buddha:

    Amazing how the free marketeers always have reasons to justify their own greed. As we’ve discussed ad infinitum, the founder of capitalism had no such self-serving illusions but our neo-con/libertarian/self-absorbed friends surely can improve on his little contribution. Let me know when you tire of playing with the kindergärtners.

  186. Meps Thanks for the name calling and avoidance of any economic discussion whatsoever. Stay classy.

    B allowing the poor to ascend the social strata by letting their hard work bring substantial returns maintains a hopeless underclass, but leaving transportation, education, housing and healthcare to be provided at the whim of bureaucrats elevates all of humanity?

  187. lol

    Oh, I’m done playing already, mespo. I get bored easily, but I refuse to resort to Holmes’ infamous 7% solution. I need an actual challenge. In absence of an actual challenge, this diversion has run its course.

  188. Please refute the complete dismantling of his “water diamond paradox” by marginal utility theory, which states, value is not derived from the labor neccessary to produce any given item, but the subjective usefulness it would provide to the purchaser of that item in relation to what he is willing to part with to acquire that item. Which means a man with a waterfall would easily trade a 1000 gallons of water for a diamond yet a man dying of thirt would easily give a diamond for one glass of water. Kind of blows your entire labor theory of value out of the water, so give it your best shot. I imagine it will be feeble.

    Also please note how hilarious it is that after all your incessant prattling about the dangers of the free market you are now firm believers in the invisible hand of everyone’s self interested motivations.

  189. I’ve never seen this water-diamond issue as a paradox. Smith quite properly says, “The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

    The man owning the waterfall little values the water since it is plentiful and his trade makes perfect sense to him since the diamond enjoys universal value. The real question is why the man with the diamond wants the water. If he, like your second example, lives in the desert, his inconvenience in acquiring the water may outweigh the value of the diamond which may be more plentiful to him under his circumstances.

    The dying man example is a red herring since one does not assume barter under duress as free trade. (Would you really consider the cost of rescuing your child when his life is threatened by a kidnapper? That is not commerce but duress and extortion as with the man dying of thirst. You would do well to read about benevolence in Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and not assume Smith encouraged avarice or exploittaion). A more telling example is the thirsty man with a diamond who may trade for a glass of water now or walk another mile for cheaper water. Are we not then squarely in Smith’s analysis of “the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

    A better explanation in the context of money is here: “The butcher has more meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the different productions of their respective trades, and the butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer, which he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case, be made between them. He cannot be their merchant, nor they his customers; and they are all of them thus mutually less serviceable to one another. In order to avoid the inconveniency of such situations, every prudent man in every period of society, after the first establishment of the division of labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry.”

    “In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompence for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not the money, but in the money’s worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them.”

    (Wealth of Nations)

    Your understanding of the “invisible hand” in the overall context of Smith’s philosophy (he was after all a Professor of Moral Philosophy)is about as superficial as you can get. You clearly understand the nuances of the trunk but miss the import of the elephant.

  190. Meps the paradox is this, water is very useful to human beings in that without it we die. On the other hand diamonds are, with few exceptions, gaudy trinkets, yet most humans value them exponentially more than water or air. True the water is plentiful to the man with the waterfall, but simply because another man may offer him a diamond for it tells us everything about how that one man values diamonds, but nothing about how plentiful those diamonds may be.

    Also the dying man and kidnapped children are not red herrings nor duress. The man dying of thirst is a circumstance of nature not of threats of a human origin, and unless I was the kidnapper of your children, there is no duress on my part just because I have the means available to rescue them. Simply because you are dying of thirst does not mean you are entitled to my water, nor would your kidnapped child entitle you to the use of my expertise in hostage rescue, or to put myself and my team at risk. It is benevolent to offer these things without any thought of recompense, precisely because it is up to the providers of those goods and services to decide for themselves if giving up a glass of water is worth saving a man’s life, or putting the lives of your men at risk to save a child.

    Lastly your thoughts on the be-jeweled and thirsty traveller walking further to find cheap water are misguided. If he had nothing to offer in exchange for water that would be one thing, but he has diamonds which someone with access to more water than him would most likely trade for. Which means his decision to travel further for cheaper water does not say anything about how much he values water, or the “toil and trouble” of walking further. What it does tell us is that this man values his diamond, which he is not willing to give up for life saving water, holds his diamond in high enough regard to potentially risk his life by forgoing water now and exerting himself further in an already precarious state.

    An actual discussion, now your classy.

  191. ekerya:

    “Simply because you are dying of thirst does not mean you are entitled to my water, nor would your kidnapped child entitle you to the use of my expertise in hostage rescue, or to put myself and my team at risk.”

    ***************

    According to Smith I would be so entitled:

    “As benevolence bestows upon those actions which proceed from it, a beauty superior to all others, so the want of it, and much more the contrary inclination, communicates a peculiar deformity to whatever evidences such a disposition. Pernicious actions are often punishable for no other reason than because they shew a want of sufficient attention to the happiness of our neighbour.”

    ~Theory of Moral Sentiments, VII.II.76

    Not exactly a “laissez-faire” capitalist sentiment at all would you say? BTW Smith never used either term in his writings.

  192. In todays weathers not climate news

    “Gore Effect” strikes again: new coldest ever December record low temperature in Cancun.

  193. Mespo727272:

    ““As benevolence bestows upon those actions which proceed from it, a beauty superior to all others, so the want of it, and much more the contrary inclination, communicates a peculiar deformity to whatever evidences such a disposition. Pernicious actions are often punishable for no other reason than because they shew a want of sufficient attention to the happiness of our neighbour.”

    ~Theory of Moral Sentiments, VII.II.76

    Not exactly a “laissez-faire” capitalist sentiment at all would you say? BTW Smith never used either term in his writings.”

    Am I to understand you believe the highest value we can aspire to is to help our neighbor?

    What is the limit of our benevolence toward our fellow man? To what extent must we go to help someone in need? How much do we need to do/give to be considered moral?

    Do we give 1/2 of our grain to our hungry neighbor or only 10%? Or do we expect the community to take 2% from everyone to give to the hungry neighbor? I would want to be benevolent, but I would not want to give 1/2 of my grain to my neighbor. I would want to share my morality with the community so I only had to pay 2%. But if being benevolent is such a good thing why dont I want to give 1/2 or more of my grain to the poor? I could gain moral superiority.

    Is there any limitation on benevolence, do we give to the drunk as much as we give to those who cannot provide for themselves?

    I am just wondering what are the limits of the moral sentiment.

  194. “I am just wondering what are the limits of the moral sentiment.”

    In your case, as with most Libertarians, the end of your nose seems to be the limit.

  195. Ask a question, dont get an answer.

    ekeyra still cleaned your clock and he/she was home schooled. You must be really hating life.

    Heyo Buddhaman, your socialist model (I guess) England is descending into mob rule because the goodies are being taken away.

    So tell me again about Marie Antoinette? You got that story all wrong. Now what was King Louis? He was a prick who took all the money for himself and didn’t do anything but spend other peoples money (he got it by inheritance because his ancestors stole it from the working man). Now where have I heard that before?

    Now everyone in England is in a huff because the goodies are being taken back. The goodies I might add that were taken from the working man by, lets hear a big shout out to BIG GOVERNMENT.

    I’m seeing a pattern here, how about you?

    Seems to me if Louis’s great great grandfather would have let the working man keep the dough he made instead of using it on military adventures and lavish meals for the king (read big government), the working man would have had no reason to rise up.

    Same in England, if the government hadn’t stolen from the working man and paid for someone else’s education maybe those students parents wouldn’t have needed to get a handout from the government to pay for college.

    So again I ask what are the limits of the moral sentiment?

    You don’t have a clue because everything your kind touches, turns to shit. And GW Bush was exactly your kind and what happened was the logical outcome of your way of thinking.

    Buddha and GW Bush, tied at the philosophical waste (on purpose).

    Compassionate conservatism is nothing but socialism wrapped up in a pretty bow for the dupes.

  196. That phrase you keep using, “cleaned your clock”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Just like your misuse of the words “free market”, “free trade” and “capital”.

  197. Cleaned your clock is what we used to say as kids when we played football and hockey (you probably played some candy ass sport like soccer or shuffleboard) and someone had a good hit or check on another player.

    Yep we were violent little competitors and we liked to win. Although when we played an opposing team who wasnt as good as us we would not run up the score, kept it to around 4 points.

    So in my lexicon cleaned someones clock is used to mean a good fair hit. Therefore ekeyra cleaned your clock.

    I believe it is still used in the more manly sports to indicate a good hit.

    Just because you have a socialist lexicon does not mean that you are using the words correctly.

  198. “In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.”

    this is a good and straight forward defitiniton of free market.

  199. see above for free trade. That which occurs in a free market, unencombered by government regulation among individuals or nations.

  200. English.
    Politics.
    Economics.
    Verbal combat.
    What separates normal people with empathy from sociopaths.

    You can’t properly evaluate very much, can you? (rhetorical)

  201. capital is that which is used to increase ones wealth or to extend ones life.

    You grow wheat and you eat some, trade some and put some away for the next years harvest. The wheat put away for next year is your capital.

    Assuming of course men like you don’t come along and steal it to give to their followers in return for favors.

  202. You make me laugh.

    You still havent answered my question about the limits of the moral sentiment.

    Good deflection technique, you learn that at the ACORN SCHOOL FOR LIBERAL PROPOGANDISTS?

  203. Meps, i would actually agree with you that adam smith is not the laissez fare economist most people see him as. However, this was not our disagreement. Our disagreement was whether or his labor theory or value is correct. You still have not challenged that.

    Also you cannot enforce benevolence. You disconnect the act with the sentiment if it is done so only in an effort to avoid punishment and aleviate ones own suffering rather than aleviate the suffering of the recipient of your generosity. To advocate that kind of enforcement of human behavior is not to advocate any type of economic system. What you are actually advocating is a system of theocracy based on what you and adam smith deem to be “moral” behavior.

    Chan,

    Sorry i missed your questions. My mom taught me how to read before i ever attended public school, so i dont know if that counts but that would be the extent that i was home schooled. As for economics, I would consider myself and amatuer but by no means would i classify my interest as merely a hobby.

    see what you learn when you ask questions rather simply making huge assumptions like some people around here…

  204. ekeyra:

    “What you are actually advocating is a system of theocracy based on what you and adam smith deem to be “moral” behavior.”

    ********************

    That is precisely what Adam Smith did and why I am an ardent follower. It’s not theocracy by definition but an ethical system. Would anyone really prefer to live free of an enforced ethical system? By the way, we enforce benvolence everyday with every tax dollar paid to social welfare. That’s what makes the conservatives scream.

  205. Why would anyone prefer to live free of an enforced ethical system?

    Perhaps the ethics you enforce are not they’re own. Perhaps they dont agree with or understand your ethics. You would be outraged if women were stoned to death for committing adultery, and rightly so. Yet there are societies that deem this moral, ethical, and good.

    You’re also conveniently forgetting that those taxes which pay for your preferred social welfare also subsidize america’s grand adventures in mass murder across the globe. There is no way to seperate the two. You cannot petition the government to please only use your money to feed the poor and not blow them up. Its as far from ethical as you can get.

  206. Hmmm

    To elborate more on my point about taxes funding wars, just as you advocate the punishment of people who do not contribute to the well being of their fellow man, the same government that enforces that code also punishes those that do not wish to pay for the destruction of their fellow man. It is a schizophrenic system that usurps the power of the many to fund what they believe is right and enhances their lives, and delivers it into the hands of psychopaths who dole out generosity with one hand and genocide with the other. Whichever you recieve being ultimately a matter of circumstance rather than merit.

  207. In summation if you are poor in america you get food stamps, and free cell phone service. If you are poor and live in Iraq you get cluster bombs and perhaps a missing limb. Paid for and delivered by the same people. It is madness. It is the very chaos buddha wishes to eliminate.

  208. ekeyra:

    what is your solution for the madness? Can Buddha’s democratic socialism eradicate it? In my opinion democratic socialism is what we have now. Democratic socialism is the problem.

    People who are traders “deal with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment.” A society of traders would not want to engage in foreign wars because “trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble.”

    Although “democratic socialism” has managed to profit on wars since WWI, progressives like Buddha call it fascism and blame capitalism.

    Correct me if I am wrong but there is really very little difference between fascism and socialism. They both consider man to be subservient to the state.

  209. Chan

    There is no “solution” to chaos. It is inherent in nature, and the uncertainty of life is what makes it worth living. If someone told you how and when you were to die, wouldnt it syphon some of the exhileration of living? The not knowing? There will always be murderers and theives and rapists and frauds. Their number however, is relatively low in relation to the number of people who go about their lives harming noone. If this werent the case and the psychopaths outnumbered or even came close in number to ordinarily good people, we would have no way of stopping them anyway.

    That being said, funneling widespread individual acts of aggression and the lesser qualities of man and condensing them into a “government”, which is nothing more than the organization and monopolization of violence is a much greater recipe for disaster than having faith in the general morality of your fellow man.

    The example I always give is this: what is more frightening, hitler the furher with the might of an army and the resources of an entire nation, or hitler the guy who paints your house and mumbles about jews under his breath? Both are capable of acting on their basest instincts of hatred and predujice, but the scale of atrocity commited by the house painter can in no way match the scale attained by the hitler who organized an entire nation into genocide.

    So I guess I dont have an answer for you but I do not feel uncomfortable not having an answer to the infinite possibilities that life presents us, good and bad, on a daily basis.

  210. Also, the inherent irony in limbaugh’s discussion of only allowing property owners to vote is rendered gut-bustingly funny if you acutally do have a libertarian mind-set because no matter how destitute, everyone is a self owner. You own your body, it is your property. Therefore you could deny noone the right to vote since everyone is technically a “property owner”.

    Meps homework, ponder this:

    Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives.
    – Jean-Paul Sartre

  211. personally i like robert heinlein’s starship troopers model for voting citizenship. full citizenship requires military service. (air national guard doesn’t count).

  212. I’ve always looked askance at those laws that disenfranchize community members. The most notorious of these are, I suppose, those that deny convicted felons the right to vote. We all know how well that worked out in the 2000 election.

    It seems astonishing to of that just a generation ago many countries such as the United States and Britain were widening the franchize by lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 and, in the southern US, getting rid of the ancient, disreputable racial impediments to voting. Now people who expect to be taken seriously are proposing drawing back the reach of democracy.

  213. Tony

    I think after you guzzle a pharmacy inventory worth of oxycotin from your maid you dont really get to be taken seriously?

  214. ekeyra, knowing very little about Limbaugh I was only just able to interpret your comment as a reference to an addiction problem suffered by Limbaugh a decade or so ago. Looking at more recent events I notice that Limbaugh gave a keynote address to CPAC and extracted an apology from the chairman of the Republican National Committee after the latter made disparaging comments about his influence.

    I suppose this really says more about the marginalism of Mr. Limbaugh’s many enthusiastic followers than it says about the plausibility of his opinions. He is an effective communicator, even though the American people having heard his opinions always reject them.

  215. I just couldn’t depart your web site prior to suggesting that I really enjoyed the usual info a person provide to your visitors? Is going to be again continuously to check up on new posts

Comments are closed.