Today is the day for Fox News commentator Glenn Beck to share his dream on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
King delivered his “I Have A Dream” exactly 47 years ago and will now be the scene of Beck and his followers offering their own “dream.” The article below describes supporters wearing telltale teeshirts with Palin’s name that the legend “Babies, Guns, Jesus.”
Here is another tee-shirt from the rally:
Some accounts are almost biblical of Beck’s role in reshaping America. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey explained “[w]e see Glenn Beck as a guy who is bringing revelations of understanding to the American people.”
Revelations by St. Beck will commence this afternoon.
Source: Bloomberg
Byron,
What Mike A. said.
You are indeed an idealist. They are just slightly askew ideals when the vagaries of human nature are factored into the equation. In an ideal world, we would not be having this discussion.
Elaine,
I don’t think Gyges comment was meant to be disparaging. I took it as more of a constructive twist in trying to convince Byron. This may have been before your time, but when Byron initially started posting here (under a different name), he was a full hair on fire troll with no other agenda than to “piss off some liberals”. He and I had a few arguments that you could strip paint with as did he and mespo. After getting many rocks dropped on him and quite a few constructive twists to his perceptions, he calmed down and realized liberals were not exactly what he had thought before coming here. He went on to become the constructive if sometimes obtuse contributor he is today after a mishap of his own doing earned him a brief exile to which the Prof. relented after mespo, myself and a couple of others vouched for his (mostly ;))reformed nature provided he adopt a new identity and thus Byron became a regular.
He can be obstinate but he is capable of changing his mind. It’s just sometimes a lot of hammering and twisting to get him to the “ah ha” moment. Ergo, I did not see Gyges as making a derisive remark but rather simply plying a simply different tool to the task of opening Byron to the fact there may be something wrong with his logic.
On this particular issue, it has been an ongoing battle. Due in large part to what Mike A. said about Byron’s idealism. Over time, it has become apparent he thinks most businessmen are good actors because he himself is a good actor. Because he is a good actor, he sometimes fails to see the necessities that bad actors require to protect society as a whole.
So in summary, not dogpile as dismissive (although if I’m wrong I know Gyges will say so, he has in the past without hesitation), but rather a shift in tack.
Elaine,
Four on one may or may not be a dog-pile, but five on one is.
Byron,
Rawls was a philosopher … a teacher … not a political movement. If you were his student and studied his philosophy and then went on to make a pile of money, hopefully your view towards that money would include some of the philosophy he taught you.
Here’s a teaser from Rawls: “They must be able to do this as free and equal, and not as dominated or manipulated, or under the pressure of an inferior political or social position …”
And here’s a link so that when you have some free time you may read. I think you will find that you agree with his philosophy more than believe possible right now.
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm
Gyges,
Interesting article on social capital. This helps to explain the ubiquity of gated subdivisions.
Gyges,
I don’t consider myself joining in a dogpile when I express my opinion and provide answers to people who question my knowledge/beliefs on particular issues.
ON second thought (since I’d rather have a conversation than join in the dog-pile):
Here’s a thought that may turn on a light: “Social justice” programs prove to be much more efficient way of protecting private property (which I think you would agree is at least one of the roles of government) than force alone.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-68273649/inequality-and-crime-united.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3T3SKRG-H&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F01%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1447956445&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e78bac4ba1797f31dd984e8af965b595&searchtype=a
Byron,
You are truly an idealist. I don’t say that mockingly; it is a very desirable trait. And I have no doubt that anyone dealing with you can feel confident of fair and honorable treatment. If those virtues attended all transactions between human beings, there would be no need of unions or other institutions to strengthen bargaining positions.
However, the concept of a level playing field is also an ideal. It is seldom found in nature. Unregulated capitalism operates amorally under that old perversion of the Golden Rule: “Those who have the gold make the rules.” When this view of capital merges with the structure of corporations and the statutory obligations imposed upon officers and directors, the result is oppression. In order to “level the playing field,” unions were developed. If I do not have the capital to match yours in negotiations, I may be able to amass enough bodies (labor)to offset the advantage of your capital, thereby permitting negotiations to proceed on a much more equitable basis. This idea was successful enough to produce a juggernaut manufacturing sector in this country and a middle class to share in the benefits.
But the middle class is undeniably shrinking. When competitive pressures compel manufacturers to cut costs, the most effective way to do so is to increase productivity and cut labor costs, which translates into fewer workers producing more and being paid less. This was a wonderful idea for southern states with high unemployment, low wage bases and a disdain for unions (hence the euphemistically named “right-to-work” laws prominent in the south). So manufacturing plants sprouted up in a lot of fallow cotton fields. Although it is fashionable to blame union greed for this state of affairs, that is grossly unfair. Products are going to be made where they can be made most cheaply, which ultimately means somewhere other than this country. In the meantime, we can expect the further decline of the unions and increasing downward pressure on wages. But the shareholders won’t be complaining.
With regard to your comments on the home mortgage fiasco, you are correct that blame can be spread around. However, there is much too much emphasis on blaming wannabe homeowners for making stupid loans. I have never been a part of what is known as “big law.” Although I have represented large banks and other institutions from time to time, for the most part my clients have been individuals and small business owners. I have had occasion to meet with many couples over the past few years who have been caught up in the mortgage mess. Some of them have made foolish decisions, but, in my experience, most of them have simply been hosed. It should be remembered that most homebuyers have little, if any, direct contact with lenders. They deal with mortgage brokers, that large class of folks who made money on both ends of the deals for years before quietly slipping into obscurity when everything collapsed. Much of what they said and did was pure hucksterism. Moreover, the typical mortgage documentation is Greek to most lawyers, let alone lay persons, especially those buying homes for the first time. Let me give you a sampling of what clients have been told by mortgage brokers:
1. You don’t need a lawyer. The title company will take care of everything.
2. Go ahead and sign this. I’ll fill it in later. The bank just needs it for its file.
3. Don’t worry about these numbers. We’ll be able to lock in a lower rate before closing.
4. Yes, it is an adjustable rate, but we’ll be able to refinance it for you before the adjustment kicks in.
The law is not intended to protect people from the effects of bad bargains or foolish decisions. However, it does attempt to protect people from the effects of deception. It’s just that most of the deceivers have gotten their money and disappeared. And the banks, which were undoubtedly aware of much of the shenanigans in the underwriting business, saw no evil while the record profits were pouring in.
I know I’ve probably gotten off track, but the point is that a lack of regulation and effective remedies breeds both social inequity and distrust of the law. Capitalism as you would prefer to see it practiced produces social and economic disparity. What we see now is the product of the erosion of regulation and the destruction of the union movement. Why do you think the Koch brothers and their friends are so readily willing to part with their millions to impact election results?
Byron,
I’m puzzled by your lack of logic. Plain and simple. You want to ignore punishing the crime because one side represents private capitalist business interests.
Your solution to graft is what then?
Keep in mind your proposal must punish both parties, the offeror and the acceptor, and it must do so equitably.
If you can pull this rabbit out of the hat without resorting to regulation and/or criminal sanction (both of which are functions of government, including enforcement), I’ll buy you a beer.
Byron,
I wonder how you think that wealth is protected?
Byron,
I’m willing to blame politicians and bankers and businesses for local and national financial problems. You seem to think that businessmen and women have mostly pure motives–while most politicians are corrupt. And I’d ask who corrupts the politicians? What came first–the chicken or the egg?
Pollock goes more to income earned from trusts, not inheritance taxes.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p950.pdf
Or here’s a non-legal breakdown of inheritance taxes.
http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/Federal-Inheritance-Tax/
Really, B., you’ll lose this argument. Stay on focus.
Elaine:
I am just as puzzled by yours.
Elaine:
It sounds like the pols screwed up and approached the bankers to bail them out. Typically public works of that kind are financed through a local bond or a local tax increase. You don’t need to go to Wall St. to raise property taxes a couple of cents per hundred for a few years to pay for something like that.
“You can do the same thing to wealth by limiting inheritance and taxing the Hell out of it.”
Is the 16th amendment following the constitution?
“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
Article 1 Section 9
POLLOCK V. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U. S. 429 (1895)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/157/429/case.html
Byron,
“How can you blame the banks? Except for the bribes, the rest is squarely at the feet of the local politicians.”
I wasn’t trying to prove innocence on the part of politicians. If those unscrupulous, greedy bankers hadn’t tempted and bribed the local politicians do you think that financial problem in Alabama would have happened??? It wasn’t the lit match and gasoline that started the fire–there hadn’t been any rain for weeks.
I’m puzzled by your logic.
A government out of control because of what, Byron?
Deregulation purchased by industry through graft.
That’s the one and only answer.
You can’t cure the illness without stamping out both infection vectors.
You want to paint government the villain when there is plenty of villainy to go around, including in the private sector. Your assumption about angelic behavior is simply the inverse of what you accuse of coming from Elaine’s post. You assume businessmen are all (or at least mostly) good actors.
Utter nonsense.
And the only way to ensure they do behave is the same way to ensure pols behave: regulations and harsh criminal sanctions for malfeasance and graft be it for the accepting or the offering party. Less regulation, as you constantly call for, only throws gas on the fire.
Buddha:
put the bankers in jail for the bribes, they should be. But that video Elaine posted was more an indictment of government than bankers. Hell bankers look like a sweet little puppy when compared to those politicians.
I could say it is manifestly stupid to think that those politicians are little innocent angles being taken advantage of by big bad bankers.
In the totality of what went wrong 3 million in bribes was chump change, that cost the bank 671 million in fines. I think that ledger was balanced. It sounds like a couple of bankers out to be doing a little time but this is an example of out of control government.
other than:
Bob,
Now would be a good time for our resident Kant expert to chime in on how all logical operators within the propositions are equivalent to the moments of the understanding within judgments.
pardon, “dessert”
“Other than the desert, how was that Last Supper, Jesus?”