Today on Blogcritics
Home » Hey America, Get Ready for Two Years of Hell!

Hey America, Get Ready for Two Years of Hell!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Decisions made in anger can often get you into a great deal of trouble. This is as true in politics as it is when you decide to take a swing at the ex-convict bouncer who tells you you've had one too many at your local bar. It seems so right at the time you do it, but you wake up the next morning in an alley with your wallet missing, your pants down around your ankles, blood in your urine, and you're walking kind of funny.

Today it's just dawning on America that we're like that angry drunk who has to live with the consequences of his actions the next day. We turned on the Republicans in power – and I admit to making some vengeance votes of my own – and now we have to live with the results for at least the next two years. Results most of us probably didn't even think about in our eagerness to punish the GOP for whichever of their failures irritated us the most, be it the lack of social security reform, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act or their hollow lip service on gay marriage and abortion.

When we voted we didn't think about anything but teaching the Republicans a lesson. Those of us who thought about it at all figured that we'd be okay if one house of Congress passed to the Democrats because it would probably just lead to gridlock and the government would do nothing for two years and we'd cruise along and everything would be okay. We didn't consider that the Democrats might take both houses, and we certainly didn't think about a relatively obscure issue like which specific Democrats were in positions where they would suddenly have a great deal of power after the election.

You see, it's not the idealistic and promising young Democrat challengers who got voted into office this week who are going to wield any real power in Congress, it's the creepy old dinosaurs of the party who have seniority and are in position to become the chairmen of the key committees which determine the course of government. They've been working for years to position themselves where they can have the most power and do the most damage. These guys have old scores to settle, they have unsavory connections and deeply ingrained corruption as bad as any Republican, and quite a few of them subscribe to extreme and dangerous views which their party tries to hide behind a facade of liberalism. These are the monsters of profligate spending and bureaucratic statism who we voted the GOP in to suppress in 1994, and in their years in the minority they've become crazy and embittered and spiteful, and now we've handed them the keys to power.

In partcicular, four of the most powerful positions in the House of Representatives are going into the hands of four of the most partisan and socialistic.

First we have Charles Rangel (D-NY) the incoming Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means committee, which originates legislation on taxes, social security, and other aspects of the budget. Rangel has voted for every tax increase which has been proposed since he took office and he is on record as saying that he "cannot think of one" of President Bush's tax cuts he would consider preserving. He's also stated total opposition to privatization of Social Security, saying "If they want to get that on the agenda, they better take privatization off the table." So, Rangel alone has the power to reverse the one really successful program of the Bush administration, and permanently obstruct one of the most promising and creative ideas the administration has had to offer.

Like many of the rising Democrat leaders, Rangel is a member of the Progressive Caucus which represents the agenda of the Democratic Socialist Alliance in Congress. The DSA is part of the Socialist International and advocates policies which include redistribution of property, nationalization of business, "massive redistribution of income", unilateral disarmament, the surrender of US legal sovereignty to the United Nations and massive expansion of a comprehensive welfare state.  This is not the benign, grassroots socialism of organic farmer cooperatives and workers collectives.  Socialism from the bottom up isn't such a bad thing.  What these legislators support and can implement is socialism from the top down, imposed with the force of the state, and it is inherently incompatible with the basic principles of individual liberty which are the basis of our society and nation.  It is the oppressive socialism which has destroyed nation after nation and always ends in oppressive dictatorship.

Rangel fully embraces the DSA agenda and has been outspoken in his defense of basic principles of socialism and international socialists, including commenting favorably on Fidel Castro and complaining about US legislators "that refuse to give the [Cuban] government the respect that it deserves." Rangel is also notorious for his politicization of race and penchant for calling anyone he doesn't agree with a racist, including the entire Republican party. He's also spoken out in defense of terrorists like Hezbollah and made the bizarre claim that Social Security reform would assign benefits based on race to exclude African Americans. He was also the sponsor of a hypocritical bill to institute a national draft despite the fact that he opposes the War in Iraq.

Another frightening prospect is that Representative David Obey (D-WI) will be Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Obey is one of the biggest budget busters in Congress, rated at a remarkably low 28% by the National Taxpayers Union. He's one of the few people to vote against every single tax cut proposed while he's been in office, including eliminating the 'marriage penalty' and reducing the Alternative Minimum Tax (which many Democrats favor doing).

I actually have a soft spot for Obey because he's rabidly pro-gun, but the one thing he likes more than guns is massive pork spending in his home district which received $37 million in funds for completely unnecessary government funded programs in 2005 alone according to Citizens Against Government Waste. He's bought and paid for by the milk industry and the International Dairy Foods Association, one of the most powerful and notoriuously greedy agricultural lobbies. He makes the notorious Ted Stevens (R-AK) look like an amateur porkmeister. Putting Obey in charge of the committee that oversees the budget is absolutely terrifying. It's like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

If you want to find socialists in Congress you need look no farther than the Judiciary Committee where a good third of the Democrats are international socialists and members of the Progressive Caucus discussed earlier. The the new chairman of the committee is going to be Representative John Conyers (D-MI). Conyers is known for his fondness for conspiracy theories, particularly about 9/11 and the 2004 election. Conyers is also notable for his questionable associations. He's been involved with socialist front-group MoveOn.org as well as the radical North Korean backed Marxist group International A.N.S.W.E.R. and in 2005 he spoke at an event sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche, giving rise to accusations that he shared LaRouche's anti-Semitic beliefs. Conyers has also supported reparations for slavery, hate-crime legislation, and instituting a national military draft, expressed support for Communist Cuba and opposed US support for Israel. Conyers represents the most heavily Muslim district in the nation and as a result has taken a very soft stand on terrorism.

Conyers' biggest claim to fame is his ongoing campaign to promote the idea of impeaching President Bush. He's held a conference to promote the idea of impeachment and introduced a measure to censure the president as a first step towards impeachment last spring. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Conyers would have direct control over the framing of articles of impeachment and their approval for submission to Congress. Despite Nancy Pelosi's recent comments that impeachment would not be on the agenda for the new Congress, up until very recently Conyers' website still announced: "Join me to demand the creation of a Special Committee to investigate administration abuses of power and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment if warranted."

Now that the Democrats have the House we may have to bring back the old title "Witchfinder General" and give it to Conyers because he will be presiding over the witch hunts for the next two years.

Finally, at the very top of the pyramid of power is Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who will be Speaker of the House. Despite her time as Minority Leader, Pelosi has been less outspoken and visible than some of her colleagues, but she is also a member of the Progressive Caucus. In fact, she served on its executive committee for a number of years. Like Conyers and Rangel, Pelosi has consistently voted to oppose tax cuts and raise taxes whenever possible. Pelosi is a classic example of a 'limousine liberal' on the Kennedy model. She comes from a family background of privelege and politics. Her father was Mayor of Baltimore and a Congressman from Maryland. Her husband is a multimillionaire real estate investor from San Francisco.

Pelosi may personally be the least dangerous of the group, but she's a socialist true believer and no supporter of tax fairness, constitutional rights or free enterprise. Like a lot of the leftist elite she would like to redistribute wealth, knowing that she can afford it. The problem is that those of us in the middle class don't have the same kind of extra income lying around. With her in charge there won't be much real opposition to the efforts of her comrades like Rangel and Conyers. She'll just talk nice and run interference while they do the dirty work.

With this cabal in power in the House we can expect to see almost immediate movement to reverse the Bush tax cuts, a rapid pullout in Iraq leading to full-scale civil war, a middle east policy hostile to Israel and appeasing to terrorists, massive increases in spending on social programs and local pork projects, an attempt to create an expensive and inefficient national healthcare system and interminable, pointless hearings and investigations into the past activities of the Bush administration. I'm not sure who the good guys are – if there are any. But there's no question that on Tuesday we voted to give the bad guys more power.

The great irony of this situation is that the only person who can offer us hope now is the one man who embodies all the dissatisfaction we had going into this election. Our entire future rests in the hands of the man who even Republicans have thought of as spineless, weak and needlessly devious, because only George W. Bush – who has never vetoed a single bill – has the power through that veto to stop the disaster which is coming our way.  Failing that we have to hope some votes change sides on key issues, or that the Democrats hold off in a false show of bipartisanship aimed at winning the White House in 2008.  Of course, if they do get the White House then the worst case scenario I present here will seem mild and optimistic.

When they've had two years to do their worst, and you're looking around at the ruins of your life, and Bush didn't stand up to stop them, remember that we have only ourselves to blame.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Did you channel the Ghost of Senator McCarthey and phone Rush Limbaugh for help on this one Dave?

  • Clavos

    A scary scenario.

    Let’s hope that GW has a good supply of veto forms (do they use a form?) handy, and the balls to use ’em.

    It’s decidedly unfashionable to say anything good about Republicans since 11/7, but nonetheless, they deserve recognition for the fact that they took their loss a lot more gracefully and with a lot less bitterness than the Dems did in 2000 and 2004.

  • Les Slater

    Many will look to the Democrats to do some of the things Dave is afraid of.

    The Dems will have to find excuses not to do them.

    So far they’ve been able to point to a Repub Pres and both houses in the hands of the Repubs? Now what? They still got Bush and his veto to blame.

    Well, just wait until 2008 when the have the Pres AND both houses. There will be a Dem Pres that will veto the irrisponsible legislation, those bills that go too far.

    Then the Dems will call for a veto-proof congress.

    When they have it all they can point to their courage to do the unpopular thing.

  • Clavos

    Les #3:

    A good argument for Bush not to use the veto for the next two years…

  • TheLastFreeMan

    If you accept the basic premise that socialism is an unqualified evil then it’s hard to deny that things look pretty grim.

  • Joey

    The only thing that we have to be concerned about is having a milk toast congress that will not go far enough in prosecuting criminals who have taken over the White House and tossed the Constitution. This is not an issue of vengeance. Rational people do not operate out of vengeance. It is an issue of taking back the Bill of Rights. Ever hear of the “Patriot” Act? Now we have the Military Commissions Act (MCA). These two White House initiated unconstitutional pieces of legislation effectively destroyed the United States. The only rational course of action needed is a thorough and impartial investigation of this administration’s activities during the past six years. This investigation should be lawful and the defendants accorded their Constitutional rights. (This is more than this administration would afford its “enemies”, though).

    Do not be surprised, however, should we not clean our own house to see an International Tribunal make it’s way to our shores and drag this administration off to the Hague.

  • Les Slater

    Clavos #4

    It’s a game. The Dems will propose and pass legislation that they know will not get past a veto. Bush did this with his right ‘base’. He would propose things that did not have ‘a snowballs chance’. Well, he did try.

    Of course Bush could call their bluf.

  • Clavos

    Les,

    Yeah, he could.

    But what I meant in #4 was that, based on the points you made in 3, and assuming the Rs don’t want a D prez in ’08, then Bush not vetoing all the D initiatives over the next two years and letting them go through, could turn the voters back toward the Rs for president in ’08.

    That, of course, assumes that the Ds will pass legislation unpopular with the voters, as Dave suggests in the article.

    Lots of assumptions, but interesting to think about…

  • Clavos

    PS Les:

    You’re right about it being a game, but it’s a pretty high stakes game…

  • Maurice

    Dave – I don’t share your paranoia. There is a large conservative base of voters that will slap these guys silly if they get out of hand.

    Joey – the illegitimacy of your comments are highlighted by your misspelling of the word milquetoast. You remind me of Bush.

  • Les Slater

    it’s a pretty high stakes game…

    And the expectations are high.

    The war was an issue but in no way was it an anti-war vote, nor did the Democrats present it as such. The Democrats are promissing a face saving exit. This will entail continuation of the military occupation, along with the casualties.

    The economy is an issue. The Democrats will under great pressure to do something. They may legislate an increase in minimum wage and Bush may not veto it.

    Whatever happens in crongress, vetos notwithstanding, the economy for the majority of us will get worse.

    Vetos or not, it will be both parties spinning to blame the other.

  • Bob Jones

    Nancy Pelosi the weakest? Oh … how wrong you must be.

    She is in fact the worst with her San Fransico values: ‘Paying for Drug Abuse since 1987′. Not only would he Income Redistribution cripple the economy, it would be paying for Drug Abusers – like in Frisco.

  • Clavos

    Les,

    Whatever happens in crongress, vetos notwithstanding, the economy for the majority of us will get worse.

    Vetos or not, it will be both parties spinning to blame the other.

    Again, we agree. Fasten your seat belt…

  • RedTard

    I’m not so sure bush will veto much unless it’s totally over the line. He’s not very conservative in my opinion and seemed a little too happy with the recent democrat win. Perhaps now his true colors will really stand out.

  • Les Slater

    “He’s not very conservative in my opinion…”

    He never was.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Very [and deliberately] provocative, Dave. But if we lefties started throwing around ‘fascist’ as frequently as you use the word ‘socialist’ in your piece, we would [justifiably] be pilloried for it. Yours is a vast overreaction. A year from now, you should be reminded of these extraordinarily intemperate words. [I will, I promise.]

    The very narrow margin in the Senate, where in practice it takes 60 votes to pass anything, along with the President’s [still unused] veto power will prevent anything extreme from happening, and you know it. There will be plenty of rhetoric in committee hearings, certainly, and since last time I looked, this is a democracy, bully for them. It’s about time other voices were heard at least, if not listened to. The one-party rule of the last 6 years has been the true hell.

    If Bush’s badly articulated Social Security ideas were a nonstarter in the Republican Congress, why would the hostility of Rangel to the idea now make any difference? If the Dems are foolish enough to propose any major tax increases, they’re toast, and they know it; they may try to target incomes over $200,000, but probably nothing below that, and even that will never pass the Senate or the President’s desk. And worrying that pork spending will get worse, following the disgraceful example of the current Congress, seems to me a fantasy. Surely the Dems will realize the political advantage in avoiding that, since they’ve been howling about the deficit for 3 years. [But this is the one area you may be right about, if old habits overcome the D’s sounder political instincts.]

    I also would expect better from you than adopting the Fox News usage of ‘Democrat’ as an adjective.

    And guns? What’s so wonderful about guns? Jeez.

  • JP

    Dave, you’ve gone off the deep end here. Regarding the next two years, my philosophy was best spoken by Bush himself at one point: “Bring it on!”

  • JP

    Clavos, #2 – Invalid comparison. These were Congressional races, and the 2000 and 2004 races were for President.

    When and if the Dems win another Presidential race, let’s see how the Republicans respond. If they are indeed as “graceful” as they’ve been in 2006, I’ll buy your premise.

  • http://www.pearlsbee4swine.blogspot.com jayson

    Congratulations! False Analogy of the Week!

    “Today it’s just dawning on America that we’re like that angry drunk who has to live with the consequences of his actions the next day.”
    But, as usual, of some entertainment value.

  • Richard

    WOW .. what ignorance.

    The entire planet earth breathed a sigh of relief watching the republicans go down in flames. Now we get this masterpiece of genius suggesting “the next two years could be hell”.

    Watch out for “socialists”, “marxists” and liberals .. none of whom led us into the worst military blunder in American history or gave up the lives of more than 3,000 US troops or spent nearly a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money only to make IRAN more powerful .. not the US .. IRAN.

    We’ve LOST influence, stature, credibility, and respect all over the world and made IRAN more powerful in the process.

    What genius.

  • Will

    The Dems are actually more likely to work toward finding common ground between each other. Don’t expect a hard swing to the left, guys. Part of the reason for their failure over the past twelve years has been the Clinton camp’s centrist politics, which I’m not personally against, hurting party unity. Reconciliations are underway. Expect the Dems to pick a few moderate issues and ideals that are at least pallatable with the entire party. Expect a gently liberal climate over the next few years.

  • Clavos

    Clavos, #2 – Invalid comparison. These were Congressional races, and the 2000 and 2004 races were for President.

    Which, since they change the makeup of the Congress, and it is Congress that runs the country (Bush would not have been able to make most of the changes he did without the Republican-majority Congress) makes my point even stronger.

    What happened this year will affect America’s future path much more than the outcome of any presidential election.

  • http://www.pearlsbee4swine.blogspot.com jayson

    OH, my God!!! It’s a far left socialist takeover! A coup! To arms, to arms! Dave is calling all you fellow anarchists and fascists! Stomp out the all-powerful DSA which claims: “Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.”
    Long live invisible unelected and uaccountale government! Down with government! Down with laws! Long live freedom to screw your fellow citizen ’til the cows come home and then ask him/her to lay down his life for you and your country. Beware! Beware! Join the libertarian-fascist-anarchists.

  • ILoz Zoc

    Definitely more frightening than most of the horror films this year. We need to get this into script form.

  • Clavos

    @#23:

    You had one good point:

    Down with government!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    A good argument for Bush not to use the veto for the next two years…

    Les presents an even stronger argument for why we should vote these guys back out of power in 2008.

    Dave

  • http://mrbounce.blogspot.com/ Melita Teale

    Dave, you might as well calm down. It’s true the ineffectual and rather crap old guard of the Democrats are ‘in charge,’ but it doesn’t matter.

    They’ve been so busy getting a bunch of southern or wherever “blue dogs” in, who are farther to the right then tonnes of Republicans, that the Democrats as a party are now as diffuse, even ludicrously fractured and visionless as the GOP as a party.

    How the hell do you people stand this unrepresentative shit?

  • ClubStyle_DJ

    He hasn’t vetoed anything because in his warped mind he can/has & will break the law if he wants to. No need to veto when your title is legislativejudicalexecutivecommanderandchief.

    Quotes from a site read recently:

    WASHINGTON — President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

    Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ”to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ”execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional.

    after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ”signing statements” — official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

    In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

  • Clavos

    Dave,

    Les presents an even stronger argument for why we should vote these guys back out of power in 2008.

    Agreed, but I thought that was self-evident.

  • Martin Lav

    Dave,

    This article was very predictable based on your past articles such as:

    Apocalyptic Dreams for the New Millenium

    Where you predict: “The difference between 2008 and 2004 might be that unlike the whining protestors of the outraged left, the disenfranchised of the southern and western states are better armed, have old scores to settle, and might make a stand on principle against an oppressive left-wing government.”

    So, if you are one of the “beter armed” I would suggest that you be placed under immediate survellance by Homeland Security as you seem to be announcing a call to arms. Since you believe that the democrats are socialist in disguise, then I presume you believe it is your duty to protect your rights and therefore arm yourself for the upcoming civil war here in America.

    I think that may be grounds for treason, but I’ll let Homeland Security decide.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Bah! The Democrats aren’t stupid, Dave. They’ll do nothing really dramatic until after the 2008 election. It’s *that* election we’ll need to worry about. If the Dems — if *either* party — ends up with control of both houses *and* the presidency, that’s when the trouble really starts.

    That Speaker-to-be Pelosi has managed to restrain herself for as many months as she has means she’s planning to do so for two more years, at least.

    But hey, go ahead and buy that falling-sky insurance. Rates are reasonable.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Hey America, Get Ready for Two Years of Hell!”

    Ok Dave, that’s it. You’re on hyperbole alert.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The only thing that we have to be concerned about is having a milk toast congress that will not go far enough in prosecuting criminals who have taken over the White House and tossed the Constitution.

    For there to be prosecutions there have to be actual crimes. Finding the crimes will be the challenge for the witchhunters, because contrary to popular opinion you cannot call actions you don’t like crimes just because you don’t like them and have that be prosecutable.

    This is not an issue of vengeance. Rational people do not operate out of vengeance.

    Rational people don’t believe in socialism. The people profiled in this article DO believe in socialism, therefore they are not rational.

    For that matter, rational people don’t think that the things the Bush administration has done are crimes – extremely bad policy, perhaps – but not crimes.

    It is an issue of taking back the Bill of Rights.

    Don’t you mean destroying the Bill of Rights?

    Ever hear of the “Patriot” Act?

    Of course, and I’ve written articles opposing the Patriot Act. But that’s an act passed by Congress and supported by a majority of the Democrats who you now think are going to save you from it. The Patriot Act needs to be struck down – or at least parts do – by the Supreme Court. That’s how law works in this country. Not through some sort of process of mob rule as you’d prefer.

    Now we have the Military Commissions Act (MCA).

    Indeed we do. I bet you haven’t even read it.

    These two White House initiated unconstitutional pieces of legislation effectively destroyed the United States.

    OMG, and people said that I was overreacting. Tell me about a few of your friends and neighbors who have been impacted by these acts. Far more harm has been done by the unconstitutional measures used in the War on Drugs, but you’re not complaining about that because it was mostly done on Clinton’s watch.

    The only rational course of action needed is a thorough and impartial investigation of this administration’s activities during the past six years. This investigation should be lawful and the defendants accorded their Constitutional rights. (This is more than this administration would afford its “enemies”, though).

    I’m sure an investigation will happen. I doubt that it will be impartial, but I look forward to it. Ought to be entertaining as hell.

    Do not be surprised, however, should we not clean our own house to see an International Tribunal make it’s way to our shores and drag this administration off to the Hague.

    At which point I would expect them to be opposed with military force. Hey, there’s a good reason to get the troops back from Iraq.

    Dave

  • http://www.blogger.com Georgio

    God how I hope your head hurts only half as bad as what we Democrats have had to put up with for the last six years ..We still have to look at your rotten President for two more years and then the real nightmare will be over.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    But what I meant in #4 was that, based on the points you made in 3, and assuming the Rs don’t want a D prez in ’08, then Bush not vetoing all the D initiatives over the next two years and letting them go through, could turn the voters back toward the Rs for president in ’08.

    Bush letting them go through might be too costly and damaging to be acceptable. Plus he’d score enough points bu vetoing a bunch of socialist nonsense that he’d earn enough credit to put a picked man in the White House.

    The question, as I pointed out in the article, is whether Bush will have the spine to use the veto.

    That, of course, assumes that the Ds will pass legislation unpopular with the voters, as Dave suggests in the article.

    If they’re smart they won’t let power go to their head and wait until 2008 and try to get the White House too. If they can pull that off then my screed here will probably prove to be an understatement.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The war was an issue but in no way was it an anti-war vote, nor did the Democrats present it as such. The Democrats are promissing a face saving exit. This will entail continuation of the military occupation, along with the casualties.

    The latest comments from prominent Democrats suggest that they’re considering encouraging Bush to escalate the war substantially, which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. The military seems to be swinging towards the idea of a massive escalation to back up the Iraqis in their desire to exterminate every terrorist or insurgent and to hell with the collateral damage. Not a bad idea.

    The economy is an issue. The Democrats will under great pressure to do something. They may legislate an increase in minimum wage and Bush may not veto it.

    The minimum wage issue is a total joke. I’m sure they’ll raise it and no one will care because it’s utterly meaningless.

    Whatever happens in crongress, vetos notwithstanding, the economy for the majority of us will get worse.

    Certainly true if they are able to implement some of the bad ideas that have been on their agenda for years. Raising the minimum wage won’t do it, but rolling back the tax cuts and raising taxes certainly will.

    Dave

  • Martin Lav

    IT WAS THE WAR STUPID!
    …..any idiot could see that, but believe what you denial at all costs mind tells you. Escalate the war!

    “Not a bad idea” — Dave Nalle

    after all:

    ” deep down no one in America really gives a rat’s ass about a bunch of people dying in Iraq. Half of us think they deserve it and the other half aren’t paying attention most of the time.”
    — Dave Nalle

    I say they were paying attention and will not stand for escalting the war. How absurd!

  • Arch Conservative

    You can all save your breath because I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen. The Dems will appear to be more moderate and centrist for a short while after the election. They will then become complacent and begin to act like the arrogant twits they are and start pushing their far left agenda on America.

    They will run Hillary in 2008 because she is too powerful for anyone else in the party to steal the nomination from. She will lose to Mitt Romney in a landslide and the American people will be fed up with the Democrats after two years of them and the GOP will regain control of at least 1 house. Any of you sorry sons o’ bitches doubt it can just wait until 2008 when I have a big shit eating grin on my face and I say “who’s da man?”

  • Martin Lav

    First you have to wipe the shit off your face you have on it because of election 2006!
    Romney will never be voted in because he is a Mormon. This country is way to religiously sensitive right now and will be wary of a guy that has to wear funny underwear.
    Sorry, maybe you should make that a shit sandwich.

  • Arch Conservative

    If Romney is running against Hillary he wins going away. End of story.

    Also……..can someone please explain the appeal of Obama? He’s a one term senator with no experience to be president. What has he done? He’s basically a nobody. And he’s got big goofy ears. Every time I see him I think he looks like he belongs with the kids in the Fat Albert gang. Hey hey hey……….it’s baraaaack obaaaaaama

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    “Like many of the rising Democrat leaders, Rangel is a member of the Progressive Caucus which represents the agenda of the Democratic Socialist Alliance in Congress. The DSA is part of the Socialist International and advocates policies which include redistribution of property, nationalization of business, “massive redistribution of income”, unilateral disarmament, the surrender of US legal sovereignty to the United Nations and massive expansion of a comprehensive welfare state.”

    This is name-calling, and is not based on the truth. The DSA is not even mentioned on the Progressive Caucus’s long list of links on its web site. If you Google the two organizations together, you get a grand total of 7 results, some of which seem to be from gun-nut wingnut rightist blogs and listservs. Can Dave offer more convincing evidence for this alleged connection?

    The “Progressive Promise” on the Caucus’s site sounds benign and in fact admirable to me – and it mentions few if any of the ‘dangerous’ ideas Dave lists. Sign me up. Maybe I’m just naive, but you need to offer proof if you’re going to throw around that kind of rhetoric. It verges on McCarthyism.

    I can’t claim to always agree with Charlie Rangel, but I am sure glad he’s around. His fabulously raspy voice and New-Yawk accent have enlivened many a TV interview. He’s articulate enough and reasonable enough that even nasty Bill O’Reilly likes having him as a guest. So Dave’s attacks do not ring true to me.

    And PS, I’m glad Dave is around, too. But uncritically repeating the rhetoric of extremists in order to ‘prove’ that other people are a different kind of extremist is offensive, unworthy of Dave and unworthy of this site.

  • Martin Lav

    “we can expect to see almost immediate movement to reverse the Bush tax cuts, a rapid pullout in Iraq leading to full-scale civil war, a middle east policy hostile to Israel and appeasing to terrorists, massive increases in spending on social programs and local pork projects, an attempt to create an expensive and inefficient national healthcare system and interminable, pointless hearings and investigations into the past activities of the Bush administration.”

    All very good ideas sounds like to me Dave.
    Hopefully this will start soon.

  • Dave Murrow

    REGARDING LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY.

    We conservatives are unhappy that we’ve lost our power. AND we are unhappy that there was not more progress in putting through what we consider to be solid, valuable agendas in several areas. Making the tax cuts permanent, enforcing border security, and privatizing social security are among them.

    However, there is a specific change in thinking which could add enormous weight, force, and effectiveness to these and other conservative arguments – even now while out of power. This change in thinking relates to a rewording of the famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence which names the inalienable rights as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. In truth, the inalienable rights, as explained by John Locke are “Life, Liberty, and Property”. Most people have no problem with the idea of respect for life and liberty. But what needs to be clearly understood is that the individual ownership of property and respect for the individual ownership of property is absolutely necessary in order to sustain life and liberty. In short, without property rights there can be no human survival. At least there can be no human survival of any significant quality.

    Illegal immigration is an egregious violation of our property and those who keep us from protectiing our property are engaging in a SERIOUS violation of our rights. We do have the right to protect our property. And even though there are those who want to take that right away from us, We must to continue fight to preservce that right.

    The same applies to Tax cuts. Any person who produces material goods or provides valuable services and gets paid money for doing so has the absolute right to keep that money and spend it any way he considers to be best for himself and the ones he loves. Any one who tells him otherwise is engaging in a violation of his right to protect his property.

    Regarding privatization of social security – if you don’t like it, don’t choose it. You will have a choice. Continue to do it the “old way”. But those who want to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY and invest THEIR OWN MONEY in a way they consider to be best – those people have the ABSOLUTE right to do so. It IS THEIR MONEY. It is a violation of that person’s right of property if you try to tell him otherwise or try to force him to do otherwise.

    That has teeth. Bring up the idea of RIGHTS. It’s powerful. Almost impossible to argue against. That’s what the Dems have been doing for the past 50 years. We all know that sometimes it’s obnoxiously absurd. But the whole idea of rights as used by the Dems has created positive change, when used in a rational manner.

    HOWEVER, that whole idea of rights works two ways. The Republicans can also use it, and, at this point, it has become an absolute necessity in order to argue more effectively and change the hearts and minds of the American People. The primary inalienable right that the conservatives need to vigilantly and tirelessly fight for is the right of property. It’s a valid argument and it will win.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    This is name-calling, and is not based on the truth. The DSA is not even mentioned on the Progressive Caucus’s long list of links on its web site.

    The PC publicly distanced itself with the DSA in 1999, although they had a link to it on their site as recently as last year – I saw it. Prior to that time the PC was officially sponsored by the DSA. John Conyers was also on the board of the DSA as mentioned in the article. I believe his term ended two years ago, which is also when he stopped hosting the PC website as a sub-section of his congressional website.

    If you Google the two organizations together, you get a grand total of 7 results,

    You must be using a different google than I am. I get 153,000 links, many of which are unrelated, but hundreds of them are clearly about the links between the DSA and the PC, and many of them are not right-wing in orientation.

    some of which seem to be from gun-nut wingnut rightist blogs and listservs. Can Dave offer more convincing evidence for this alleged connection?

    Better than my eyewitness experience with them going back more than a decade?

    Or will the Wikipedia entry for the PC do? Here’s a quote “The CPC has long maintained cordial ties with the Democratic Socialists of America, which hosted its website during the 1990s.” If you don’t like Wikipedia, similar information can be found on Answers.com.

    The connection between the two is well established even if they’ve been trying to play it down for the last few years. Remember, the DSA is among the most moderate socialist groups in the US and unlike some of the others they’re willing to work with mainstream politicians.

    The DSA (not surprisingly) does not release its official membership list, but the connections to the PC are well established, and any PC member is certainly sympathetic to the DSA if not an official member, and some are known members.

    The “Progressive Promise” on the Caucus’s site sounds benign and in fact admirable to me – and it mentions few if any of the ‘dangerous’ ideas Dave lists. Sign me up. Maybe I’m just naive, but you need to offer proof if you’re going to throw around that kind of rhetoric. It verges on McCarthyism.

    McCarthy wasn’t entirely nuts. His methods were off, but the basic principle that there was a threat from communism and socialism was absolutely sound. Expansion and subversion of capitalist societies is one of the cornerstones of socialism.

    I can’t claim to always agree with Charlie Rangel, but I am sure glad he’s around. His fabulously raspy voice and New-Yawk accent have enlivened many a TV interview. He’s articulate enough and reasonable enough that even nasty Bill O’Reilly likes having him as a guest. So Dave’s attacks do not ring true to me.

    Mussolini was an entertaining speaker too. Always good for a laugh.

    And PS, I’m glad Dave is around, too. But uncritically repeating the rhetoric of extremists in order to ‘prove’ that other people are a different kind of extremist is offensive, unworthy of Dave and unworthy of this site.

    A valid criticism, except that the rhetoric originated with me, nothing is repeated from any extremist website and the basic criticisms are absolutely true.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave, you might as well calm down. It’s true the ineffectual and rather crap old guard of the Democrats are ‘in charge,’ but it doesn’t matter.

    Unless they’ve only been ineffectual because they’ve been out of power.

    They’ve been so busy getting a bunch of southern or wherever “blue dogs” in, who are farther to the right then tonnes of Republicans, that the Democrats as a party are now as diffuse, even ludicrously fractured and visionless as the GOP as a party.

    This is the only thing that comforts me when I see the sad state of the GOP. At least the Dems are as screwed up as the GOP is, and as they drift farther to the right it’s possible that the southern religious social conservatives will go back to the party that spawned them.

    How the hell do you people stand this unrepresentative shit?

    I deal with it by writing on blogs.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave, i am suffering from the worst hangover i’ve had in quite a while. unfortunately, i had to read this, and my head hurt even more.

    when did you go all crazy and shit?

    -or-

    when did you decide to start judging shit before you had any shit to judge?

    you’re unhappy with bush’s gop. you’ve said so countless times.

    so why don’t you give the dems a chance? you’re too busy predicting the apocolypse and hell on earth type shit to even notice that YOU DON’T HAVE A FUCKING POINT BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING FOR YOU TO TALK ABOUT! it’s fucking november. wait til january or february to start making bets.

    and get off socialism for a fucking minute. it’s tired.

  • Joey

    #10 — November 10, 2006 @ 09:57AM — Maurice

    Hey Maurice, thanks so much for pointing out my spelling error. Perhaps you’d like to volunteer to be my editor?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Clubstyle, neither you nor the site you quote from without giving a link, seem to understand the nature of signing statements. They exist to provide guidelines to the executive branch in enforcing and implementing the laws which the president signs. They aren’t some weird, alterantive veto. That the president chooses to comment ont he constitutionality of some of the laws doesn’t mean they won’t be implemented, it just means that he’s on record when they get challenged – admittedly quite possibly by his AG.

    Dave

  • Martin Lav

    zingzing,

    I have to defend Dave on this one.
    He is consistently paranoid about the democrats and links them to socialism all the time. Just go back and read his writings. He begged unhappy Republicans not to punish their party by voting Democrat. He begged them to vote independent to send a “true” message.
    He predicted in a wet dream of his that there would soon be home-grown terrorists if the democrats were elected.
    It is not surprising to me that he is taking his stepping up his paranoid rhetoric.

  • zingzing

    i just worry that dave’s rationality has permanantly gone the way of the republican.

    hey dave: SOCIALISM!

    you scared?

    dave: FREE HEALTHCARE!

    boo! hahaha.

    dave: WELLFARE!

    augh! whew. i think i peed a little bit. ish. gotta go change my shorts.

    dave: SOCIAL! ISM!

    lalala.

  • ClubStyle_DJ

    oh my bad thought i couldn’t put links in BC…but here ya go:
    Boston.com

    If BC doesn’t let this fly google : bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws
    this may be one of (your opinion) socialist papers but read up.

    [Clubstyle_DJ: You are welcome to put links into comments but please follow BC protocol and make them active. If you don’t yet know how, there is a very clear explanation on htmlcodetutorial.com. Thanks. Comments Editor]

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    so why don’t you give the dems a chance?

    Two reasons.

    First, every time they’ve had a chance they’ve done harm to the nation.

    Second, they openly advocate policies which are destructive to our basic rights and fiscally insane.

    The Republicans have been bad, but for the most part they did not intend to do harm. The democrats both intend to do harm and have done it before. Why on earth should they be given any slack?

    you’re too busy predicting the apocolypse and hell on earth type shit to even notice that YOU DON’T HAVE A FUCKING POINT BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING FOR YOU TO TALK ABOUT! it’s fucking november. wait til january or february to start making bets.

    I’m sure that I’ll have more substantive things to bitch about then, but I thought I’d lay out the groundwork now.

    and get off socialism for a fucking minute. it’s tired.

    It certainly is. It’s tired and disastrous for every country it’s been tried in. So why are the democrats still pushing it?

    Dave

  • W.I.N.

    A valid criticism, except that the rhetoric originated with me, nothing is repeated from any extremist website and the basic criticisms are absolutely true.

    That’s a laugh !

    Dave … you exhibit all the characteristic traits of a sociopathic personality. We have included you in the list of ” The Most Dangerous Men In America. ” You should hook up with Pat Robertson, the two of you would make a great couple.

  • zingzing

    dave: “First, every time they’ve [dems] had a chance they’ve done harm to the nation.”

    not exactly true, now is that? come on, dave.

    dave: “Second, they openly advocate policies which are destructive to our basic rights and fiscally insane.”

    oh fuck! who are you talking about?! there’s a little time frame called THE LAST SIX YEARS that you should look into. jesus christ.

    dave: “The Republicans have been bad, but for the most part they did not intend to do harm.”

    innocent, moronic republicans…

    “The democrats both intend to do harm and have done it before. Why on earth should they be given any slack?”

    yes! THE DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA!!!! fuck off. what the hell are you talking about? “intend to do harm…” give us a break, dave. you should give them a little slack because YOU FUCKING HAVE NO CHOICE. they are here for at least two years. give them a chance to do something right. when bush got reelected, i gave him a chance. so give the dems a chance. let them fuck up before you declare they’ve fucked up. otherwise, you just sound like a tool.

    dave: “I’m sure that I’ll have more substantive things to bitch about then, but I thought I’d lay out the groundwork now.”

    thanks, dave. you’re building a real highway here. no one gives a fuck. like i said, you just end up looking like a raving lunatic. which you usually are not. you really should wait before declaring failure. “mission accomplished?” ring a bell?

    dave: “[socialism is] tired and disastrous for every country it’s been tried in. So why are the democrats still pushing it?”

    certain amounts of socialism work just fine. i don’t think the dems are trying to nationalize all industry. do you?

    socialism is a grand experiment that has never quite been perfected. kind of like capitalism.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    oh fuck! who are you talking about?

    I’m talking about the party which brought us segregation, Jim Crow laws, the welfare state, the massive spending of Roosevelt and Johnson, the disaster that was Jimmy Carter and Truman and his loyalty oaths and anti-communist purges. I’ll give Clinton a break. He was ineffectual but he was the best of a bad lot.

    ! there’s a little time frame called THE LAST SIX YEARS that you should look into. jesus christ.

    The fact that the Republicans have done badly does nothing to excuse past Democrat administrations. Does the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer mean that John Wayne Gacy was innocent? Try some logic.

    dave: “The Republicans have been bad, but for the most part they did not intend to do harm.”

    innocent, moronic republicans…

    Actually, plenty of them are far from innocent. They’ve got their share of evil fuckheads. But the PARTY as a whole is not evil and does not has as basic principles ideas of government which are dangerous.

    yes! THE DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA!!!! fuck off. what the hell are you talking about?

    I never said they hate America. I think that they do the evil which they do with the best of intentions. They just don’t realize that what they see as good for the country is inherently destructive.

    “intend to do harm…” give us a break, dave. you should give them a little slack because YOU FUCKING HAVE NO CHOICE. they are here for at least two years. give them a chance to do something right. when bush got reelected, i gave him a chance. so give the dems a chance. let them fuck up before you declare they’ve fucked up. otherwise, you just sound like a tool.

    As you said, I have no choice but to give them yet another chance. But I sure don’t have to like it or be optimistic about it. You’re like the guy who tells the rape victim to just lie back and enjoy it.

    certain amounts of socialism work just fine. i don’t think the dems are trying to nationalize all industry. do you?

    As I mentioned in the article there are some approaches to socialism which work just fine. When socialism is an organizational system adopted by a private group it seems to work great for as long as they can sustain it. When it is imposed on people by force by a government it is invariably disastrous for the people it is imposed on.

    socialism is a grand experiment that has never quite been perfected. kind of like capitalism.

    Yes, but capitalism is natural to human nature and works reasonably well when implemented imperfectly. The same cannot be said of socialism.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    “You’re like the guy who tells the rape victim to just lie back and enjoy it.”

    wow.

    you mean THE RAPIST?!

    lovely, dave.

    as for your “try some logic” statement, i was saying (quite logically) that you described the republicans perfectly with this: “they openly advocate policies which are destructive to our basic rights and fiscally insane.”

    so what are you railing against? the party that DIDN’T start this war? the party that DIDN’T spend us into the poorhouse? the party that DIDN’T piss on the constitution? damn it, dave.

  • zingzing

    and for the record, i’m more like the nurse who says, “this won’t hurt a bit.” and then it doesn’t really, unless you’re a crybaby.

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    Me win election.

    Me come out of closet now.

    Me want all your money.

    Me eat your children.

    ~Raw.

    Me no take guns, though. Me need ’em now. Me like second amendment.

    At the moment.

    Me Liberal with a vendetta.

    You scared.

    Good.

    Me know where you live.

    ~

    Me Shark.

    Me put on red bandana, Che t-shirt, sneek up behind gated community,

    go BOO!

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    Look! Over there! OSAMA BIN…

    …oh. wait.

    No.

    Never mind.

    It only Nancy Pelosi with subpoena.

    ~Sleep tight.

  • zingzing

    awwwguh!

    damn it, shark!

    i’m shocked!

    (and awed!)

    you are fearsome and worthy of my fear, i cringe and poop my shorts! (i feel slightly better…)

    wait til dave sees this. he’s going to FREAK!

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    re: “…you wake up the next morning in an alley with your wallet missing, your pants down around your ankles, blood in your urine, and you’re walking kind of funny.”

    Writing instructor in prison always say, “Write about what you know.”

    You good, Dave.

    Me admire.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    To clarify, re #44:
    If you put quotes around the two orgs’ names, in order to get exact matches [“Progressive Caucus” “Democratic Socialist Alliance”], then Google only comes up with 7 hits, and even those 7 are not all exact.

    But hey, even if some members of Congress are or were socialists, or more accurately, not ideologically pure capitalists, so what? In our democracy, dissenting voices are, or ought to be, encouraged, no? Putting the “dangerous subversive” [and even better, “international socialists”!!] tag on anyone who doesn’t share your views on free-market capitalism, who might support the progressive income tax and would like to see some sort of universal healthcare, is definitely fighting ugly.

    But at least you’re a private citizen obnoxiously expressing an overwrought opinion. If you were part of the government, I might accuse you of trying to suppress dissent, as the Bushies almost certainly have done during the last five years, as when they equated a win for Democrats as “a win for the terrorists” during the campaign. Real sweet stuff. Glad it didn’t work this time.

    Ever since the [shudder] Reagan years, the definitions of Left, Right, and Center have shifted enormously, so much so that a person some Dems see as a moderate or conservative, such as either or both of the Clintons, can be called an ultraliberal by some, and few bother to dispute it.

    So I guess this makes me an international socialist and a dangerous subversive. Wow, I feel so important now.

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    re: “…George W. Bush – who has never vetoed a single bill – has the power through that veto to stop the disaster which is coming our way.”

    Dave, you meet my friend — Iraq?

    ~Dave, Iraq.

    ~Iraq, Dave.

    Me think you need learn meaning of “disaster”.

    You crybaby hyperbole like French schoolgirl with imaginary tutu on fire.

    Me like.

    You hot!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Shark, I think I find your bizarre stereotype of an oriental accent more than a little offensive. But it’s good to know you’ve learned to love guns and think I live in a gated community. I’ll tell the Westlake police to keep an eye out for your VW Van.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    if that’s “oriental,” i’m “a basket of soap bubbles.”

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You’re like the guy who tells the rape victim to just lie back and enjoy it.”

    wow.

    you mean THE RAPIST?!

    Actually, I was thinking of the misguided advice of a lot of left-leaning social workers who were famous for suggesting that response to rapists in community outreach in the 1980s.

    as for your “try some logic” statement, i was saying (quite logically) that you described the republicans perfectly with this: “they openly advocate policies which are destructive to our basic rights and fiscally insane.”

    Except that these things are not matters of policy or platform with the GOP, while they are with the democrats. Though I do appreciate their honesty in telling us they’re going to screw us before they do it.

    so what are you railing against? the party that DIDN’T start this war? the party that DIDN’T spend us into the poorhouse? the party that DIDN’T piss on the constitution? damn it, dave.

    We’re hardly spent into the poorhouse, and last I checked Iraq and the UN started this war and we just stepped in and made it into a hot war rather than a paper war. As for the constitution, it appears to be some sort of pissing contest. IMO the dems are winning despite recent efforts of the GOP to catch up.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Zing, what kind of accent and/or speaking style was it supposed to be? Retarded socialist speak?

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Go easy on sharky, dave.

    He got into the koolaid again.

    zing was supposed to watch him, but he had to go change his shorts.

  • John Q. Public

    Not even a week after the election results, and
    Dave here shows that instead of fixing problems, the GOP and their more rabid mouthpieces instead choose to attack, lie and insult.

    Someone earlier made the point well, if any Democrat had used fascist as much as Dave likes to throw out socialist, they would have been derided as a moonbat or worse.

    Wakeup and smell the reality cooking. The voters spoke, and it was against this very kind of rhetoric that a large portion of them turned out against.

    The stockholders in America held their vote of confidence in the Republican management team, and said managers were thrown out emphatically.

    It appears rather than do as he has talked about, reform the Republicans from inside the party, Dave instead will go the Limbaugh route, thus destroying any shred of credibility concerning objective observations, or even the desire to actually work towards solutions together.

    Instead we see the monkey house reaction of just saying to hell with the actuality of a situation, just fling poo.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    If you put quotes around the two orgs’ names, in order to get exact matches [“Progressive Caucus” “Democratic Socialist Alliance”], then Google only comes up with 7 hits, and even those 7 are not all exact.

    I think the problem here is that there’s some confusion in the minds of many as to whether they’re the Democratic Socialist Alliance or the Democratic Socialists of America. Try just searching for “progressive caucus” and DSA and you get 900 hits which are pretty much all on topic.

    But hey, even if some members of Congress are or were socialists, or more accurately, not ideologically pure capitalists, so what? In our democracy, dissenting voices are, or ought to be, encouraged, no? Putting the “dangerous subversive” [and even better, “international socialists”!!] tag on anyone who doesn’t share your views on free-market capitalism, who might support the progressive income tax and would like to see some sort of universal healthcare, is definitely fighting ugly.

    The good fight has to be fought. When there are people in positions of power who have openly advocated policies which will destroy the nation, isn’t it the responsibility of every citizen to expose and resist them?

    But at least you’re a private citizen obnoxiously expressing an overwrought opinion.

    For now. I’m working on it.

    If you were part of the government, I might accuse you of trying to suppress dissent,

    If I were part of the government I would NEVER suppress dissent. I have no problem with legiislators or anyone else expressing any theory or beliefs they like – and they have some crazy ones. My objection starts at the point where they try to implement those ideas as policy. Then I have to speak up because that’s the weapon our system allows me to fight them with.

    as the Bushies almost certainly have done during the last five years, as when they equated a win for Democrats as “a win for the terrorists” during the campaign. Real sweet stuff. Glad it didn’t work this time.

    So you want to suppress Republican opinions, but not democrat ones? There’s where we differ. I think both groups and anyone else should be allowed to say whatever they want.

    Ever since the [shudder] Reagan years, the definitions of Left, Right, and Center have shifted enormously, so much so that a person some Dems see as a moderate or conservative, such as either or both of the Clintons, can be called an ultraliberal by some, and few bother to dispute it.

    I dispute it on a regular basis, and I can certainly tell the difference between the right and the left politically, even if those differences have little to do with how our political parties break down.

    Dave

    So I guess this makes me an international socialist and a dangerous subversive. Wow, I feel so important now.

  • John Q. Public

    Dave makes the comment, “The good fight has to be fought. When there are people in positions of power who have openly advocated policies which will destroy the nation, isn’t it the responsibility of every citizen to expose and resist them?”

    And you are referring to many citizens over the last 5 years in speaking out against the Bush administration, correct?

    No, instead you are pre-emptively attempting to justify your beginning of propaganda and spin against people who have not even stepped into their new offices yet.

    So much for a fair shake, you remain blindly partisan and wrapped up in hate, rather than looking for answers.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Not even a week after the election results, and Dave here shows that instead of fixing problems, the GOP and their more rabid mouthpieces instead choose to attack, lie and insult.

    I am in no way associated with the main hierarchy of the GOP, nor am I their mouthpiece. The official line from the GOP is a Chamberlinian ‘bipartisanship’.

    And do point out to me what in this article is a lie. I’ll admit to attacking and being somewhat insulting.

    Someone earlier made the point well, if any Democrat had used fascist as much as Dave likes to throw out socialist, they would have been derided as a moonbat or worse.

    But isn’t socialism good? Hell, even I don’t think ‘socialist’ is a swearword on the scale of ‘fascist’. In this case socialist is merely accurate and it’s not a perjorative unless you agree with me that statist socialism is dangerous. Do you?

    The stockholders in America held their vote of confidence in the Republican management team, and said managers were thrown out emphatically.

    If you read the article a good third of it is about how that decision was made. The rest is about the consequences of that decision.

    It appears rather than do as he has talked about, reform the Republicans from inside the party, Dave instead will go the Limbaugh route, thus destroying any shred of credibility concerning objective observations, or even the desire to actually work towards solutions together.

    Are you familiar with the African story of the old woman and the snake?

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    And you are referring to many citizens over the last 5 years in speaking out against the Bush administration, correct?

    Not specifically, but the same principle certainly applies to them if they are convinced that the Bush administration was up to no good.

    No, instead you are pre-emptively attempting to justify your beginning of propaganda and spin against people who have not even stepped into their new offices yet.

    It’s legitimate to do this because the people in question have a track record and a stated agenda. If Bush had come into office laying out in advance all of his missteps I would have opposed him at that point too.

    So much for a fair shake, you remain blindly partisan and wrapped up in hate, rather than looking for answers.

    I’m only partisan to truth and freedom. People who oppose those things don’t deserve a fair shake.

    Dave

  • John Q. Public

    I am aware of the African story, how apropos that you, a snake, should quote it.

    I’ll not waste my time bandying words with you, just for the satisfaction of seeing that as time passes, you will be proven as wrong as you have been about your Iraq predictions, among others.

    I merely state that instead of even taking a few days to rethink what happened on Tuesday, you have shown your true colors of pure partisanship.

  • zingzing

    dave: “Except that these things [“openly advocate policies which are destructive to our basic rights and fiscally insane”] are not matters of policy or platform with the GOP, while they are with the democrats.”

    mmhmm. “not matters of policy.” so, and i beg you to answer truthfully, who have we been dealing with for the past six years? i could have sworn that republicans held control over the white house and the congress… so, are you saying that it doesn’t matter what they actually DO, as long as they never say they did so as a party?

    and if you can quote “destroy american’s basic rights” and “put us trillions in debt” from this supposed “democratic platform,” i’ll take you out to lunch at your favorite place. dinner even. with dessert! coffees! we could drink a bottle of wine!

    also, i wouldn’t presume that shark’s “accent” was “oriental.” retarded, maybe. but socialist? get off the fucking socialists! damn…

  • Peter J

    Dave,
    You always write a good article but you sure confuse the shit out of me.
    First, before you go all judge-mental on me let me say I’m moderate conservative. I like my rights and my guns all just fine, thank you and goddam anyone who tries to fuck with them. NOW

    What is the scariest thing in the whole world?
    Mother-fucking bible slingin witch hunting apocolypse promoting, little boy dick diddlin, lovers of some kind of god I’ve never met, christians. Bush is one. If that prick were left in power with his little crew of ass-holes we may have all wound up tied to a stake, burned, hung, de-capitated and thed killed.
    Doesn’t that shit give you even the tiniest tingle up your spine? Their worse than fuckin devil worshippers.

    It wasn’t the war that made up my mind, even though I don’t agree with the manner we were sucked in. Bush lies, not little lies like he got a blow-job but lies that killed a lot of people just because he thinks that “god” of his talks to him. It’s a noble war with a noble cause but it could have been carried out much more efficiently had he engaged his generals instead of trying to be a “war president” all on his own.

    Iraq needs to be turned around, I don’t mean pulled out, I mean developing a strategy. We have a royal fuckin mess now and if Bushs’ new boy isn’t up to the job at least now we have other options. As it was Bush was high on his horse, now that he’s been knocked off and his ego’s taken a dent(he found out he’s human, not a messenger from god) he has to do things someone elses way.

    Besides all that, I have to admit I got a nut seein his face after eating all that crow.
    Peter

  • Les Slater

    Dave is ranting about some members of a particular capitalist party, the Democratic Party.

    The Republicans lost control of Congress. The war and the economy were issues but also the scandals.

    Those who have very much invested in the capitalist system do not need the lunatic right, at least not at this point. These nuts were just a tool to elect a party that these very rich were confortable with doing their bidding.

    The Democrats will have to serve them…. and they will.

    The idea that this has anything to do with socialism is nuts.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    So I’m right, Dave did enlist Rush Limbaugh’s help with this article.

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    Oriental is rug.

    You mean “asian”, yes?

    =======

    Dear Dave,

    Me write Pelosi lady.

    Ask her to make new law:

    tax you everytime you say word “socialist”.

    You go broke faster than Dick Cheney run to hide in Montana.

    Two years: hell and me.

    ha.

    Me like democracy.

  • Baronius

    Dave, I love the article, but I disagree with a good bit of it.

    First of all, hasn’t Bush used the veto once?

    As for the Great Angry Repudiation, I don’t quite buy it. Since 1994, the House and Senate have been about 48-52 percent for each party. The presidential elections have been in the same range, both in popular and electoral votes. A few thousand votes in either direction would have put Gore in the White House or Allen back in the Senate. We’re still very close to parity.

    The Democrats and the press are certainly reading this last election as a referendum, and it was. It was a lot of things. It was an endorsement of Trent Lott. It was a time for Republicans to rally in support of the war and re-elect Lieberman. It was a failed opportunity to elect blacks to the Ohio and Pennsylvania governorships. It was also (it’s worth repeating) a vicious Republican beating.

    Will the Democrats provide two years of Hell? If the Republicans have been taking notes, they should know every method of obstruction in the book. Walking out of the House Ethics Committee, blocking cloture votes, the Gang of Fourteen, et cetera. But if the Senate Republicans were capable of working together, they would have been doing the work they got fired for neglecting.

    It seems like half the Senate (both parties) is planning a 2008 presidential run. That could cause more Hell than the partisanship or the screwy Democratic ideas.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    Dave:

    The latest comments from prominent Democrats suggest that they’re considering encouraging Bush to escalate the war substantially, which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. The military seems to be swinging towards the idea of a massive escalation to back up the Iraqis in their desire to exterminate every terrorist or insurgent and to hell with the collateral damage. Not a bad idea.

    I take it you haven’t read all the pentagon reports plainly stating that U.S. forces are already negating the war effort with excessive force and collateral damage. Never mind the Pentagon reports plainly stating our military action in Iraq has created..not destroyed a breeding ground for terrorists.

    The minimum wage issue is a total joke. I’m sure they’ll raise it and no one will care because it’s utterly meaningless.

    Not to the millions of workers worker at minimum wage. Or to the 10s of millions working near minimum wage. Maybe it’s meaningless to you in your fortified Texas compound. Maybe.

    Raising the minimum wage won’t do it, but rolling back the tax cuts and raising taxes certainly will.

    Get real. They might roll back some taxes for incomes over 200k. They will not roll back all the taxes. And they certainly will not roll back all taxes, never mind raising them.

    On the connection between the Progressive Caucus and the Democratic Socialist Alliance:
    The connection between the two is well established even if they’ve been trying to play it down for the last few years. Remember, the DSA is among the most moderate socialist groups in the US and unlike some of the others they’re willing to work with mainstream politicians.

    Or will the Wikipedia entry for the PC do? Here’s a quote “The CPC has long maintained cordial ties with the Democratic Socialists of America, which hosted its website during the 1990s.” If you don’t like Wikipedia, similar information can be found on Answers.com.

    The PC publicly distanced itself with the DSA in 1999, although they had a link to it on their site as recently as last year – I saw it. Prior to that time the PC was officially sponsored by the DSA.

    Ok so basically.. a ?”moderate”/”dangerous”? socialist group is going to destroy America because a congressman who may become Chairman of the Means and Ways committee may or may not use the position to try and bring legislation, which may be representative of the organization which was cited several years ago on the website of an organization of which he is a member and whose views he may share and whose website citation has since been terminated and any political ties “distanced,” to the floor of the senate where it may be approved and which may be passed by congress and may not be vetoed by the president.

    Ummm who’s making up conspiracy theories now?

    The Republicans have been bad, but for the most part they did not intend to do harm. The democrats both intend to do harm and have done it before. Why on earth should they be given any slack?

    Ok so what exactly is the difference between “bad” and passing legislation that does harm? And yeah I’m pissing my pants about democrats like Nancy Pelosi that actually want to destroy America too.

    I’m talking about the party which brought us segregation, Jim Crow laws, the welfare state, the massive spending of Roosevelt and Johnson, the disaster that was Jimmy Carter and Truman and his loyalty oaths and anti-communist purges. I’ll give Clinton a break. He was ineffectual but he was the best of a bad lot.

    HOLY FUCK. Today’s democrats have almost nothing to do with democrats 30 years ago, never mind democrats 80 years ago. If you want to glean anothing from your narrow snapshots of history take it as a positive trends culminating in the mediocre Clinton.

    As I mentioned in the article there are some approaches to socialism which work just fine. When socialism is an organizational system adopted by a private group it seems to work great for as long as they can sustain it. When it is imposed on people by force by a government it is invariably disastrous for the people it is imposed on.

    Ok I thought government was of for and by the people or something like that..government socialism is self imposed, just like any other socialism.

    Pelosi may personally be the least dangerous of the group, but she’s a socialist true believer and no supporter of tax fairness, constitutional rights or free enterprise. Like a lot of the leftist elite she would like to redistribute wealth, knowing that she can afford it. The problem is that those of us in the middle class don’t have the same kind of extra income lying around.

    Stop fucking kidding yourself. You are not middle class. You make 200k a year. You live in a fortified compound in a rich outer suburb of a metropolitan area and you have no more important issues on hand than preventing the disruption of your suburban paradise by a road which would cost many orders of magnitude more to build in through the city on which you and your neighbors are reliant for your wealth.

    Furthermore, “Like a lot of the leftist elite she would like to redistribute wealth, knowing that she can afford it” basically means Pelosi is the most kindhearted self sacrificing person in the whole world. Put it this way: she has the most to lose.

    And stop fucking around with the idea of wealth redistrubtion. If when you say “The problem is that those of us in the middle class don’t have the same kind of extra income lying around” you mean “Those of us with incomes between 100k and 300k who will have to pay 1-3k more in taxes each year because of tax rollbacks” then you’ve given an accurate description. The idea of wealth distribution is that “people who can afford it” – like you and Pelosi – forfeit a small fraction of your income to those of us in the real middle class (incomes between 30k and 100k) and the lower class. If you define middle class as 200k upper crust people like yourself then the whole concept becomes jumbled and I guess that just makes me dirt poor.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    mmhmm. “not matters of policy.” so, and i beg you to answer truthfully,

    Always.

    who have we been dealing with for the past six years? i could have sworn that republicans held control over the white house and the congress… so, are you saying that it doesn’t matter what they actually DO, as long as they never say they did so as a party?

    No, it certainly matters what they do, and they’ve done both good and bad. But they didn’t say IN ADVANCE all the bad things they were going to do, so at the start of that period I couldn’t light into them. The Demos have said it in advance, so they’re fair game. I do appreciate their honesty though.

    and if you can quote “destroy american’s basic rights” and “put us trillions in debt” from this supposed “democratic platform,” i’ll take you out to lunch at your favorite place. dinner even. with dessert! coffees! we could drink a bottle of wine!

    Obviously those are my interpretations of their policies. I can certainly find national healthcare, redistribution of wealth, raising taxes and huge amounts of pork spending in their past statements and actions. That’s what I did in the article.

    also, i wouldn’t presume that shark’s “accent” was “oriental.” retarded, maybe. but socialist? get off the fucking socialists! damn…

    I’m thinking now that maybe he had a lobotomy and it changed his grammatical patterns.

    Dave

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    On a more personal note, I have to say Dave, this is by far your worst article. Even worse the one you wrote a couple weeks ago with false factual information cited and horrific misrepresenations. And much worse than the one you wrote a month ago about some kind of paranoid delusional dream in which you – a white rich guy from texas – lead a band of militiamen in revolution against the largest military in the world. And that’s saying something.

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    All years Blogcritics — Me REAL Shark!

    Liberal Predator. Swim fast. Type not so good.

    Illegal Alien. So to speak.

    Me no debate you no more.

    Weds morn — me only need type hahahahaha.

    Oh.

    That … and

    BOO!

    Blood in water.

    Me eat you.

    Me tax you.

    Me take guns.

    Me force daughters to carry condoms, learn you family come from trees.

    Me quit act human now liberal democrat aminals in charge. Speak free.

    For once.

    You find accent “more than a little offensive.”

    You funny human, Dave. You also same boy know “a lot of left-leaning social workers in community outreach in the 1980s” who tell women rape victims to “sit back and enjoy it.”

    You wife, Dave: she no happy burn bra woman?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    What is the scariest thing in the whole world?
    Mother-fucking bible slingin witch hunting apocolypse promoting, little boy dick diddlin, lovers of some kind of god I’ve never met, christians.

    Ok, you may have a point there. I’m not sure they’re worse than socialists, but they’re pretty damned awful. The difference is that I’m not a little boy so they aren’t going to screw me. The socialists do want to screw me.

    Bush is one.

    Highly debatable in all but the most technical sense.

    If that prick were left in power with his little crew of ass-holes we may have all wound up tied to a stake, burned, hung, de-capitated and thed killed.
    Doesn’t that shit give you even the tiniest tingle up your spine? Their worse than fuckin devil worshippers.

    I have no problem at all with devil worshippers. And I’m still not convinced that Bush and his crew are as bad as you make them out to be.

    It’s a noble war with a noble cause but it could have been carried out much more efficiently had he engaged his generals instead of trying to be a “war president” all on his own.

    True enough. But this is a mistake, not a crime. And it’s not a lie, just bad judgment.

    Iraq needs to be turned around, I don’t mean pulled out, I mean developing a strategy. We have a royal fuckin mess now and if Bushs’ new boy isn’t up to the job at least now we have other options. As it was Bush was high on his horse, now that he’s been knocked off and his ego’s taken a dent(he found out he’s human, not a messenger from god) he has to do things someone elses way.

    You think the democrats have a plan? I doubt it. I hope that Bush will go to the generals and let them sort the situation out and give them a blank check to do it.

    Besides all that, I have to admit I got a nut seein his face after eating all that crow.

    I thought he handled it all remarkably well.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    You say “…I’ll admit to attacking and being somewhat insulting.”

    Me wanna know:

    you admit being paranoid,

    close to nervous breakdown,

    reading “Turner Diaries” in outhouse in Texas?

    Me sense you go crazy.

  • zingzing

    wait, so you can judge the dems by their past, but not the republicans? why?

  • Martin Lav

    “When there are people in positions of power who have openly advocated policies which will destroy the nation, isn’t it the responsibility of every citizen to expose and resist them?”

    It is for this reason that I advocate your removal from blogcritics.

    You are a danger to this nation by spewing your hatred of democrats, painting them as socialist and calling people to arms and terrorists acts.

  • http://www.pearlsbee4swine.blogspot.com jayson

    Clavos:”You had one good point:

    Down with government!

    Absolutely, my dear Clavos! Let us live by the rule of your automatic rifles! By all means!
    I’m glad the humans have finally evolved into angels and government is no longer needed. Somewhere James Madison is smiling.

    There’s a link between the conniving democratic socialists and Charlie Rangel; ergo, the Democratic Congress is a bunch of pinko communist-socialists (let’s not split hairs; the two terms have no meaning save for evil totalitarians who will take your hard-earned-inherited property.) It’s basic training in public speaking and writing that if you want to convince anybody else of your position, you must engage them respectfully,not misrepresenting their arguments. Once again? To whom could this article possibly be addressed???

    Somewhat entertaining, this thread, but aren’t you guys starting to wonder, like I, why bother to try to dialogue with this guy? He insists on playing the shockjock with outlandish frames and selective and/or ambiguous “facts.” That is also his style of dropping in on other articles. We have plenty of Rush Limbaughs who do this better. Leave him to his boosterism and those who have the misfortune to alight on his pages will soon see that this is nothing but a pep rally, hardly a discussion area for any democracy worthy of the name. There’s no style left for his comments section but parody or satire. BC needs to create a new humor section just to house his “articles.”

  • Martin Lav

    Davey says:

    “I’m not a little boy so they aren’t going to screw me, but you wake up the next morning in an alley with your wallet missing, your pants down around your ankles, blood in your urine, and you’re walking kind of funny.”

    “Wow, I feel so important now.”

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    “me: as the Bushies almost certainly have done during the last five years, as when they equated a win for Democrats as “a win for the terrorists” during the campaign. Real sweet stuff. Glad it didn’t work this time.”

    “DN: So you want to suppress Republican opinions, but not democrat ones? There’s where we differ. I think both groups and anyone else should be allowed to say whatever they want.”

    That’s a cheap shot, and you are capable of avoiding those, usually. Certainly I approve of everyone’s free speech. But the Bush government has, not at all subtly, implied that dissenters to their horrendous foreign policy are unpatriotic, or appeasers, or in league with terrorists. I object to that very strongly, and I suspect you do too, although you sure are persistent in giving Bush and the Republicans lots of free passes.

    And as for your “absolutely true,” “eyewitness” assertions that the Progressive Caucus is in league with the DSA, I would think Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and all those other loudmouths would talk about this all the time if it were so ironclad. Tying Congressmen to Evil Socialism would seem to be a very potent political weapon. But the Google search you cite with 989 hits, 8 of the first 10 are what I would call fringe/conspiracy web sites [e.g. dicoverthenetworks.org], talking about the dark plots of us evil lefties. They have a single-minded agenda, and they are pretty funny-scary.

    And just one further clarification: Although my comments on here may make me look like a traditional liberal, I have managed to irritate most of my friends who really are traditional liberals by debunking the left’s stupid political rhetoric, which can be almost as bad as the right’s. I’ve developed a pretty severe allergy to most politicians and political slogans. There’s not one viable candidate I could support wholeheartedly for 2008 as of now: McCain has revealed his nasty hawk side, Clinton would divide the country disastrously [not her intention, but it would still happen; she has won over upstate Republican skeptics in NY, but she might not ever even get the chance nationally], Romney is a scary smiling religious extremist, Edwards is too green, Biden too tired. It’s depressing.

  • Arch Conservative

    Romney is a scary smiling religious extremist

    Yeah handyguy you certainly can’t go two feet in Boston these days without bumping into a Joseph Smith statue or a Mormon church now that Romney’s been gov for the last 4 years! I mean it’s like Boston has become Salt Lake City east thanks to that religious nut!

    You obviously know nothing about Mitt Romney and label him an extremist for no other reason than that he’s a Mormon. That’s ok though. The ignorant, ie you and people like you, are going to be a momentary speed bump on Mitt Romney’s road to the white house in 2008.

    Oh and Nalle, I was going to compliment your great article and back you up here but since you called Romney a reactionary moron you can kiss my ass too!

  • Brent

    You know, I always thought profanity betrayed ignorance. Now I know it to be true.

    Way to go, guys.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “You can all save your breath because I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen.”

    Coming from the man who predicted that The Repubs would hold the Senate and the House. You need to start picking sports teams so I can better the other way

    “This is name-calling, and is not based on the truth.”

    This must be your first Nalle article.

    “Shark, I think I find your bizarre stereotype of an oriental accent more than a little offensive.”

    That seems fair because many find your stereotype of a political thinker offensive. However, just using “me” instead of “I” isn’t oriental (people are still using that?). It’s Bizzaro/dumb guy speak. It’s not like he called himself a Riberal. Do you think David Sedaris’ “Me Talk Pretty Now” is about Chinese people?

  • zingzing

    “Oh and Nalle, I was going to compliment your great article and back you up here but since you called Romney a reactionary moron you can kiss my ass too!”

    stop doing dave favors, bing.

  • MCH

    Shark;

    There’s a difference between a gated community and a fortified compound.

  • Clavos

    This is fun, watching all the lefties getting all apoplectic…

    Lighten up, guys. You won!

  • zingzing

    no, no, no… you guys lost, remember?

  • Arch Conservative

    Nobody wants to offer me a reason why everyone is making such a big deal out of Obama even though he’s a nobody with no real accomplishments?

  • Clavos

    Not me. Everyone I voted for got elected…oh, except the Reform Party guy for governor.

    Truth.

  • Arch Conservative

    I just found a website of popular songs remixed with excerpts of the Howard Dean “I have a scream speech.” My favorite is the Ozzy Osbourne Crazy Train remix…..Ahh that brings back happy memories.

    I look forward to the 2008 election when the GOP plays the Hillary Clinton “well I guess I could have stayed home and baked cookies clip” all the time.

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: Decisions made in anger can often get you into a great deal of trouble.

    Funny, I’ve been thinking the exact same thing reading your comments over the past few days.

    I mean, Bush has established the power to detain people who are a threat to the government and hold them indefinitely without trial. Now there is a not insignificant chance that that power will be passed on to a Democratic president who would be unchecked by an opposition party in the Congress.

    And you are already on record talking about “cleaning your guns”.

    If you really believe what you purport to believe, your survival instincts leave something to be desired.

    If nothing else, your comments are providing much fodder for a little trip through the archives to dredge up some of the things you were saying to the losers of the last couple of elections.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Martin, I don’t normally waste time responding to you, but here’s one just to keep you going.

    You are a danger to this nation by spewing your hatred of democrats, painting them as socialist and calling people to arms and terrorists acts.

    I know you don’t actually read the articles you respond to. But if you have you’d have noticed that I single out only 4 democrats out of the millions in this country for criticism, and I also didn’t make one mention of taking up arms or committing terrorist acts. That stuff is all in your head.

    There are plenty of democrats who are fine and well-intentioned people, including my parents. I’ll even go so far as to say that I suspect that the people mentioned in this article have good intentions, though I think they are tragically misguided.

    Their good intentions and delusional view of the import of the policies they advocate does not mean we shouldn’t be wary and keep an eye on them and see what we can do to check their exercise of power. That’s just common sense.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    wait, so you can judge the dems by their past, but not the republicans? why?

    Never said that. With this administration to go on, the next time the GOP wants my vote for a new administration they’re going to have to work extra hard to convince me they aren’t going to be a mixture of psychotic and incompetent.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    ergo, the Democratic Congress is a bunch of pinko communist-socialists (let’s not split hairs; the two terms have no meaning save for evil totalitarians who will take your hard-earned-inherited property.)

    Nice misrepresentation. This is explicitly what I did NOT say in the article. I singled out 4 people who will be in positions of power and are vulnerable to specific criticisms on their past behavior and associations. One of them isn’t even a socialist, he’s just a big porkmeister. I even said things about the party in general and about some of their newly elected members which specifically excludes them from my critique.

    The socialists in the House number about 55 at this time. That’s just under a quarter of the Democrats. Obviously they don’t control the party. It just happens that they are in positions of particular significance.

    I find it particularly interesting that in an article where I devote one paragraph to socialism and the socialist associations of these politicians, and TEN paragraphs to their specific past actions, almost all of the responses have been about the socialist connections. What does that say about the people who have been most incensed by this article?

    For that matter, where are the people who want to express their outrage at my characterization of David Obey who will be overseeing the budget process as a king of pork? Is no one concerned that we are going to have a milk subsidy pimp determining how the government spends its money for the next two years?

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    First of all, hasn’t Bush used the veto once?

    True. He vetoed the embryonic stem cell bill in September. So he does at least know where the form is.

    As for the Great Angry Repudiation, I don’t quite buy it. Since 1994, the House and Senate have been about 48-52 percent for each party. The presidential elections have been in the same range, both in popular and electoral votes. A few thousand votes in either direction would have put Gore in the White House or Allen back in the Senate. We’re still very close to parity.

    True enough, and as I mention in my closing section, that’s one of our main sources of hope assuming we can’t count on Bush for a veto.

    The Democrats and the press are certainly reading this last election as a referendum, and it was. It was a lot of things. It was an endorsement of Trent Lott. It was a time for Republicans to rally in support of the war and re-elect Lieberman. It was a failed opportunity to elect blacks to the Ohio and Pennsylvania governorships. It was also (it’s worth repeating) a vicious Republican beating.

    All true. I was very sorry to see the various african american candidates the GOP had run for office get defeated. I was hoping that the efforts to reestablish the GOP as the party for minority voters would be successful.

    Will the Democrats provide two years of Hell? If the Republicans have been taking notes, they should know every method of obstruction in the book. Walking out of the House Ethics Committee, blocking cloture votes, the Gang of Fourteen, et cetera. But if the Senate Republicans were capable of working together, they would have been doing the work they got fired for neglecting.

    This might be the impetus they need to figure out how to work together.

    The problem is that there’s a good third of the Republicans in elected office who ought to be ridden out of DC on a rail just on principle.

    It seems like half the Senate (both parties) is planning a 2008 presidential run. That could cause more Hell than the partisanship or the screwy Democratic ideas.

    At the very least it will be entertaining. Maybe they’re all banking on the ‘anyone is better than Romney’ vote.

    Dave

  • Martin Lav

    Dave,
    I guess it’s because just like the Republicans who were voted out of office and Rumsfeld who was fired, you won’t concede defeat ever, so your superiority complex brings out the worst in people, so no matter who many pork projects Obey will purportedly cut, he can’t come close to the amount of money that the Republicans and more importantly BushCo’s. War Machine has spent.

    And thank you for going low enough beneath yourself to address me for once.

    Martin

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I take it you haven’t read all the pentagon reports plainly stating that U.S. forces are already negating the war effort with excessive force and collateral damage. Never mind the Pentagon reports plainly stating our military action in Iraq has created..not destroyed a breeding ground for terrorists.

    Not sure what pentagon reports you’re referring to. The various assessments you seem to be citing originate in CIA reports which I have seen, but not reports from the Pentagon.

    Not to the millions of workers worker at minimum wage. Or to the 10s of millions working near minimum wage. Maybe it’s meaningless to you in your fortified Texas compound. Maybe.

    Perhaps you should do some research on how many workers are actually working at the minimum wage. You might be surprised at what you find. The reason the minimum wage is meaningless is that virtually no one is paid at or near the minimum wage. The REAL market set minimum wage is over $7 an hour. Raising it to that level as they are considering is just acknowledging reality and won’t have a negative impact on jobs or cause overall wage inflation.

    Get real. They might roll back some taxes for incomes over 200k. They will not roll back all the taxes. And they certainly will not roll back all taxes, never mind raising them.

    What part of ‘massive income redistribution’ do you not understand?

    But I agree they won’t take us back to the rapacious taxes of the Clinton era instantly, but that’s their long-term goal.

    Ok I thought government was of for and by the people or something like that..government socialism is self imposed, just like any other socialism.

    There’s a huge difference between getting together with your neighbors and forming a wholesale purchasing collective and telling people they have to give up their property to the state or face imprisonment. Both are socialism, but I like the first and am not so fond of the second.

    Stop fucking kidding yourself. You are not middle class. You make 200k a year.

    I do? News to me. Our gross family income with two working parents is considerably less than that.

    You live in a fortified compound in a rich outer suburb of a metropolitan area

    No, I live in a house in the country with an electric gate and a barbed-wire fence (cattle fence, not security fence). It’s safer than some places one could live, and it keeps most of the cows out. The average home price in my neighborhood is around $250K. People move out here because you can get a decent home with some land at 30-40% less than it would cost in a suburb in West Austin, and the commute is under half an hour.

    and you have no more important issues on hand than preventing the disruption of your suburban paradise by a road which would cost many orders of magnitude more to build in through the city on which you and your neighbors are reliant for your wealth.

    You really ought to read up on the Trans Texas Corridor. It couldn’t be built through a city regardless of the cost. And I’m not reliant on the city of Austin for my ‘wealth’. The kind of work I do I could do anywhere.

    The idea of wealth distribution is that “people who can afford it” – like you and Pelosi – forfeit a small fraction of your income to those of us in the real middle class (incomes between 30k and 100k) and the lower class. If you define middle class as 200k upper crust people like yourself then the whole concept becomes jumbled and I guess that just makes me dirt poor.

    Bad news for you. Based on individual income I’m in that same $30-$70K a year range as you are. And my concern isn’t about people like Pelosi, it’s about people like us bearing the brunt of the income redistribution as has always been the case in the past.

    On a more personal note, I have to say Dave, this is by far your worst article.

    I’ll take that as a compliment coming from you. It served its purpose. I got the tension of the election out of my system and I think I caused some people to think about some things they might not have given much thought to otherwise. Plus it generated a nice thread of enraged comments.

    Dave

  • Martin Lav

    “Plus it generated a nice thread of enraged comments.”

    Your ultimate goal, correct?

    ” Raising it to that level as they are considering is just acknowledging reality and won’t have a negative impact on jobs or cause overall wage inflation.”

    Then why are the Republicans so adamantly against raising it?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    “Plus it generated a nice thread of enraged comments.”

    Your ultimate goal, correct?

    Certainly one of them. In the context of the Democratic victory I’m with Mencken in my need to ‘comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable’.

    ” Raising it to that level as they are considering is just acknowledging reality and won’t have a negative impact on jobs or cause overall wage inflation.”

    Then why are the Republicans so adamantly against raising it?

    I can only speculate. They may want to keep the minimum wage low in the hopes that at some point in the future we may be able to attract more low wage jobs to the country or being back some of the industries which were sent overseas. Frankly that seems idiotic. My next answer would be that it’s force of habit. Causing wage inflation might have been an issue 20 years ago, but with the minimum wage lagging so far behind inflation that’s not the case anymore.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    re: “…I got the tension of the election out of my system…”

    Good.

    Socialists planning on eating you and your children prefer tender meat.

    No tension, no tough.

    =======

    re: “…I think I caused some people to think about some things they might not have given much thought to otherwise.”

    True.

    First thing Weds. morning,

    we all think:

    “Dave Nalle, Bush, Cheney, Rummy– they all gonna shit. Feel like Saddam in spider hole.”

    ========

    re: “..Plus it generated a nice thread of enraged comments.”

    Sorry, Mr. Nalle.

    We no rage now.

    We Happy Liberals.

    We type “hahahaha” while you try to delete old article called “No One Died In Iraq Today.”

    We still type “hahahaha”.

    We get good night sleep first time in 6 years.

    We hear “Happy Days are Here Again.”

    You hear socialists’ heartbeats thumping beneath floorboards.

    You enjoy enraged comments — while we draw up supoenas.

    We show you “tension” later.

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    You tension gone?

    Today, Shark masturbate, swim, eat, fuck, smoke, drink, read, play, fly kite, make jokes, laugh, watch cartoons, and nap lots.

    Today, Dave Nalle post 5,000,000 frantic garrulous comments in own thread wherein he release tension like Kate Moss give birth to siamese elephants.

    Shark in Heaven.

    Dave relaxing in “Two Years of Hell”

    You be fine.

    Dave.

    You Keep Modem hot.

  • Lumpy

    Wow. What a post. Never have I seem the loonies so enraged. I think u gored a couple of their sacred cows here.

    And what’s the deal with shark is he over medicated or under medicated? I can’t tell.

  • BriMan

    Dave-
    You are in denial as deep as the moron in the Whitehouse is.

    It really makes me smile to read your diatribes preemptively blaming the Dems for profligate spending for instance. I mean Bush has been so frugal and responsible with our money!!

    I see you are still championing regressive taxation – even though you deny your taste for it. When the very rich pay a smaller % of income tax than the poor or middle class it would be considered regressive. That you are concerned about tax increases w/o naming who will be paying more taxes suggests to me that you enjoy sensationalist rhetoric versus real perspective. When millionaires pay 25% income tax like me (all of my money coming from real work and none from dividends)then life will only be a bit fairer. That you and Bush are willing to value money made from dividends over that of money made from hard work says a lot about your character.

    It is also quite entertaining to hear you talk about $37 million in pork after the $200+ million bridge to nowhere and Hastert’s new freeway next to his property and so on & on. That you do not even feign to be equally appalled at the galling behavior that we know of and instead exclaim outrage at the perceived hell to come says to me that you are far from a mature and reliable source of editorial.

    You have the nerve to talk about basic individual liberty after backing the crowd that gave us warrant-less wiretaps and eliminated habeas corpus.

    Bush and the lapdogs who follow him are the biggest threat to my family and way of life that I know of. I have nothing to fear from terrorists that arent state-sponsored. You mention ‘dictator’ as if Bush never uttered the word in regards to himself in a favorable light.

    Pull your head out Dave. Quit while you still have a minute semblance of humanity.

  • Clavos

    Happy veterans Day, MCH.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    “It’s the four elephants of the Apocalypse!” – Ned Flanders

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It really makes me smile to read your diatribes preemptively blaming the Dems for profligate spending for instance. I mean Bush has been so frugal and responsible with our money!!

    I need to figure out a way to look up the technical name for this form of pseudo argument you and others seem to resort to when you have no real ground to stand on. It’s kind of like the classic Red Herring argument, but a more limited use of the technique.

    Bush is bad
    Therefore those who oppose Bush cannot be bad

    Ah, I found it on nizkor.org. It’s a fallacious argument called the ‘False Dilemma’

    I see you are still championing regressive taxation – even though you deny your taste for it. When the very rich pay a smaller % of income tax than the poor or middle class it would be considered regressive.

    When anywhere in this article or thread did I endorse regressive taxation? I’m in favor of equitable taxation. Any system where people pay an equal percentage with a flat amount of income exempted will work fine for me.

    Right now the top 20% in income pays 84% of the tax and earns about 48% of the income. That’s inequitable.

    That you are concerned about tax increases w/o naming who will be paying more taxes suggests to me that you enjoy sensationalist rhetoric versus real perspective.

    What basis do you have for that conclusion? Certainly not anything I’ve written.

    When millionaires pay 25% income tax like me (all of my money coming from real work and none from dividends)then life will only be a bit fairer.

    So you are proposing LOWERING the level of taxation on the wealthy? That seems regressive to me.

    That you and Bush are willing to value money made from dividends over that of money made from hard work says a lot about your character.

    Do you just make this stuff up? Dividend income is taxed as income under the current system. It is not taxed as capital gains or under a separate system. Seems like the right way to handle it to me.

    It is also quite entertaining to hear you talk about $37 million in pork after the $200+ million bridge to nowhere and Hastert’s new freeway next to his property and so on & on.

    Again, this is the ‘False Dilemma’ argument. Hastert’s porkery does not excuse Obey’s similar behavior. If one is bad then the other is bad.

    That you do not even feign to be equally appalled at the galling behavior that we know of and instead exclaim outrage at the perceived hell to come says to me that you are far from a mature and reliable source of editorial.

    I’ve written previously about pork at great length. I’ve got an entire article from the last budget writing period about pork that could be cut and the deficit eliminated. That included some discussion of the bridge to nowhere and other Republican pork projects.

    But again, you’re engaging in fallacious argument. The fact that I’m not going after past excesses in this particular article – which is on another topic – doesn’t invalidate the concerns which I raise here.

    You have the nerve to talk about basic individual liberty after backing the crowd that gave us warrant-less wiretaps and eliminated habeas corpus.

    Again, flawed logic. Supporting the administration on one issue does not mean that I support them on another unrelated issue. Bush has done both good things and bad things. It’s entirely possible to accept the good and reject the bad.

    For example, you probably support Charles Rangel in his belief in National Healthcare. Does that mean you also support reparations for the descendents of slaves and a mandatory draft for everyone age 18 to 20?

    Bush and the lapdogs who follow him are the biggest threat to my family and way of life that I know of. I have nothing to fear from terrorists that arent state-sponsored. You mention ‘dictator’ as if Bush never uttered the word in regards to himself in a favorable light.

    If you think terrorists aren’t a threat to you then you’re sadly deluded. As for your last sentence, it just makes no sense.

    Dave

    Pull your head out Dave. Quit while you still have a minute semblance of humanity.

  • STM

    Come on, enlighten me, you good folks … what does GOP stand for.

    I thought perhaps Government of the People (for the people and all that bloody stuff), but then I thought, no, even Americans couldn’t be THAT hokey.

    Please explain.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    STM, I was always taught that it stood for “Grand Old Party”, however lately if it stands for anything at all I’d say “Grumpy old Partisons”

    Jet

  • BriMan

    “Right now the top 20% in income pays 84% of the tax and earns about 48% of the income. That’s inequitable.”

    The top 2% also own 90% of America’s assets – you are screaming about the inequity there, are you?

  • STM

    Thanks Jet old boy … consider me enlightened!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It stands for ‘Grand Old Party’. I wish the dems had a similarly convenient nickname. Perhaps the POJ for Party of Jackson (or Jackass if u prefer).

    Dave

  • BriMan

    Dave-
    Since you claim to be an author, you think you would know the difference between an argument and an observation. I have observed your method of discourse and find it flawed and unbalanced.

    I point out that you only discuss Dem pork and ignore Rep pork and you come back with “if one is bad the other is bad too”. Wow – Dave. You reached that conclusion all by your little pointy-headed self, did you?

    You are telling me the reader that I should be concerned about the next two years because of some sudden change in pork spending habits among other past issues…? What the hell are you saying Dave? Politicians equal pork and your lop-sided argument is incoherent and meaningless as far as reasoning goes. Your article lacks sufficient criteria for me to determine that you disdain pork spending regardless of party affiliation. In fact, your article has the exact same flaw throughout every single point you attempt to make.

    And then you expect me to sift through the lop-sided reasoning and come to the conclusion that even though you are talking about individual liberty and have your concerns about how the Dems might handle things to the detriment of your concerns, you dont really support Shrub there either even though you didnt say so!!!!!!!

    You are too much of a schizo-writer for me to keep going with you. You make a few nitwits feel good with your incoherent babble. I cant turn off certain parts of my brain just to get along with your pseudo-explanations after-the-fact.

  • BriMan

    No Dave – terrorists arent a threat to me except the state sponsored kind.

    What are you afraid of Dave?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The top 2% also own 90% of America’s assets – you are screaming about the inequity there, are you?

    You just pick these numbers out of a hat, right?

    According to the census bureau the top quintile only owns 67% of all assets, so it’s impossible for your figure to be anywhere near correct.

    Dave

  • STM

    Dave, you ain’t keen on them high-falutin’ lefty types old boy are ya?

    But anything’s gotta be better than a party led astray by a bloke with a 10-gallon hat and a two-pint head.

    My personal view, from the outside, of course, is that everything old is new again and you need an entirely new political system – possibly one that has a King or Queen as its head of state.

    Bring some core values back to ruling!! Why tell people what to do when you can order them? Great opportunities for the common man, too. Under that system, do the right thing and you never know where it’ll take you. Knighthoods, even, and titles.

    Imagine it: Sir Dave Nalle, Baron of the Biro and Marquis of Austin, perhaps? Nice ring to it, that.

  • STM

    And BTW, it’s Remebrance Day here (November 11) and all over the British Commonwealth today. Is it also Veterans’ Day in America?

    Please enlighten me further.

  • BriMan

    “Even more stark is the concentration of wealth. Leaving
    aside home and auto ownership, the top 1 percent of wealth
    holders now owns just under 50 percent of all capital available
    for economic investment. A mere 0.2 percent at the
    very top made more money on stock and bond sales in the
    most recent study than everyone else in America. (This is a
    nationwide estimate: median African American financial
    wealth is a mere 3 percent of white financial wealth.)”
    Tikkun 1/2005

    In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the latest income tax data. The top group’s share of corporate wealth has grown by half since 1991, when it was 38.7 percent.
    NYTimes 1/26/06

    America’s 112 million families had combined wealth of $50.3 trillion in 2004. When those families are ranked by the size of their wealth, however, the top 1% alone held $16.8 trillion in wealth, more than a third of the United States’ total wealth and more than the $15.3 trillion held by 90% of U.S. families. The top 1% had average wealth of $15 million per family in contrast to the $22,800 average wealth of the least wealthy 50% of families or the $313,500 in wealth for families ranked between 50% and 90%.
    Economic Policy Institute 5/17/06

    The number I had is for wealth controlled not owned. Mistake in phrasing.

    Clearly your number does not jibe with the above three sources.

    Nothing that I read suggests that current taxation is anything other than regressive – you are playing with the numbers to suit your worldview.
    The history of tax levels in recent American history plays this out.

  • Clavos

    STM #128:

    Yes, it’s Veterans Day here in the USA.

    The reason it’s today, which you probably know, is that the WWII Armistice was signed on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

    BTW, are you a vet? And if so, were you in Nam?

    Us Yanks really admired your guys who fought with us–good mates, to a man.

    And you had those really cool hats!

  • STM

    No, not a veteran old boy, although I have worn the shiny boots (and once had a sergeant tread on them and scuff them after I’d spent four hours polishing them) as an Army cadet and been marched up and down hills and shouted at and wondered why the f.ck I bothered. My great claim to military fame is that I once fired two magazines of a Bren gun into a target …. while a guy was trying to change it.

    My father was in the British Army, however, and served with Americans in the British Army of the Rhine in Germany.

    Yes, you are right about the slouch hats. They are pretty cool looking. They date back to the Boer War and are virtually unchanged from that time. They are a bugger to straighten out though if you sit on them for a long period of time.

    I left you a reply, BTW, about the meaning of fair dinkum in that other post.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    No Dave – terrorists arent a threat to me except the state sponsored kind.

    So is it that you live on a different planet, are already dead, or do you have some other magical way of avoiding random death from terrorism. Do share. We could all use some of your juju.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Your original statement:

    The top 2% also own 90% of America’s assets

    aside home and auto ownership,

    Are homes no longer assets? Last I checked they were the single largest source of stored real wealth in the nation.

    If you are selective about how you define wealth it becomes much easier to get the results you want.

    The same flaw applies to the other new figures you cite.

    In addition, none of them contradicts my figure or substantiates your earlier figure that 90% of the wealth is controlled by the top 2%.

    The top 1% controlling 50% or 57% of the wealth does not mean that the top 20% could not still control my 67% and it does not mean that the top 2% necessarily controls 90%. And your last quote puts it around 34% for the top 1%. They’re all using different criteria to define wealth.

    The number I had is for wealth controlled not owned. Mistake in phrasing.

    Can you define the difference between wealth controlled and wealth owned and real assets?

    Clearly your number does not jibe with the above three sources.

    True, but then neither does your original number, and mine was for total assets including real estate which is the number one asset people put their money into. Not including that is like making everyone but the most wealthy play with one hand tied behind their backs.

    And once again, your logic is fallacious. The wealth of the top 1% does not come at the expense of the other 99%. The rich who make their money from investments don’t go around stealing it out of the pockets of the rest of us. Their investment income comes as a result of the profits of corporations or just from straight interest paid on other financial instruments. There’s no exploitation of the lower classes involved.

    What do you think would happen to that wealth if – for example – half of them died? It wouldn’t be divided between the rest of the population, it would be picked up by other people in the capital class. Which BTW is a class which anyone can become part of through hard work and good money management.

    This old argument has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Maybe you need to see if you can put together your own article on why forced redistribution of wealth would be good for the country. I look forward to it.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    DATE: POST ELECTION – DAY FOUR (Nov. 11)
    PLACE: NALLE COMPOUND (aka. The TIM McVEIGH MEMORIAL RANCH)
    TIME: Four A.M.(!)

    DAVE still types at computer.

    Pauses to listen to socialist heartbeat under floorboard of mansion.

    Hears wife masturbating in next room.

    Briefly wonders what economic impact her lonliness and isolation might have on his tax return for 07.

    Returns to keyboard.

    Googles economic data to convince Shark [et al] not to eat him.

    (Readers continue to see explcit signs of impending nervous breakdown.)

    Hears Texas coyote howl in distance — or it could be voice of deep-seated fear of Socialist “redistribution” of wealth kicking about in his Id like a partial-birth zygote after too much coffee.

    Finally signs off to clean his guns for the umteenth time since Wednesday morning.

    —- [to be continued]

  • SHARK

    Dave Nalle on richest 2% of Americans:

    “…What do you think would happen… if – for example – half of them died?”

    Shark has orgasm.

  • STM

    Cleans ceiling … wonders why eyesight is failing rapidly

  • STM

    Nalle, that is, not Shark

  • troll

    a change in tax law will hardly address the problem of economic inequality for a society wherein half the population ‘owns’ about 3% of the assets

    but talking taxes – if you want a tax that is ‘fair’ then tax annual change in net worth rather than income

    …what to look for is a tax structure in which each ‘class’ funds the government in proportion to its % of national assets held

    question – how far off this mark of fairness is the present income tax – ?

    things’ll be different of course – come the revolution (in awareness) when we the people realize that a massively unequal and divisive distribution of resources at home and around the world will lead to no good

  • STM

    Troll: I had an argument with Dave about this once, the basis of my view being that the standard of living in Australia was better overall (based on personal observations of both countries and a number of recent international surveys) because there was a much fairer distribution of wealth.

    I don’t know what the figures are, but I do know this: the rich are less rich here and the poor are less poor. Of course, Dave took this to mean that I was saying Australia was better in every way than the US. It’s not.

    However, this fairer distribution of wealth is largely – but not exclusively, of course – the result of the tax system.

    In my view, for instance, the fact that I have to pay a higher levy than some at the end of the year for Medicare, our universal free system of healthcare (which can be augmented with reasonably priced private health insurance that enables you to have private rooms, choice of doctor, etc) is to me part of what being Australian is all about: a fair go for everyone. I don’t hold to the idea that everyone is responsible for their own situation in life, that kind of thinking leading to a permanent underclass.

    Paying the extra tax and the levy is not something I consider an impost and I can make my feelings quite clear on this at the ballot box (we vote for it, therefore it is not something inflicted on us by a government that seeks to over-govern us).

    Until recently, nearly all Australians not earning salaries worked under awards, which have been thrashed out in state and federal arbitration courts over the past 100 years. They set out workplace rights and conditions (including the right to strike), good minimum wages, overtime rates (time and a half, double time and double time and a half), such things as 17 per cent and 25 per cent night and weekend loadings, minimum four weeks a year holidays (plus another week or so of public holidays such as the Queen’s Birthday, Anzac Day, Australia Day, Easter, Christmas, etc), and a 17 per cent loading on your holiday pay.

    The current government is very right wing and has recently removed many of these entrenched rights by bringing them under a federal umbrella and handed power back to the employers in an economy that was among the best performing in the world prior to the changes.

    It has created such a groundswell of unrest, even among some employers, that it is likely to be the undoing of the government at the next election if the opposition can get its act together.

    The reason? It doesn’t fit with what most of us regard as a fair go for everyone. The majority of Australians don’t want to earn huge wages if it means others have to earn less than they did or to work purely at the whim of an unscrupulous employer.

    It is also the reason most of us didn’t complain when the government banned most guns a few years back after a series of dreadful mass killings. Most of us don’t belong to gun and rural lobbies. And guess what? The incidence of gun crime is now almost negligable.

    You have had your opportunity this past week to let the administration in the US know exactly where it stands, and nothing anyone says can change that.

    It is democracy at work. All the bleating can’t change the fact that it is the will of the people, and a fair bit of good will at that.

  • RedTard

    “but talking taxes – if you want a tax that is ‘fair’ then tax annual change in net worth rather than income”

    Difficult to do. A more realistic approach is to tax property. That used to account fund up to 75% of government spending, that’s now down to 20% or less.

  • troll

    STM – to discuss Australia I need to look into how net worth breaks out by ‘class’ in your nation…I’ll get back to ya

    but I question whether government should try to affect distribution of wealth fundamentally – imo this needs to be addressed at the level of production relations through a reinterpretation of the value of labor

  • http://www.pearlsbee4swine.blogspot.com jayson

    While I in principle don’t think Dave merits responses, I will respond to his accusation of misrepresentation above.

    Yes, I was being hyperbolic. No, it is not far off the mark for this opinion piece and its sensationalist logic. You write:
    In partcicular, four of the most powerful positions in the House of Representatives are going into the hands of four of the most partisan and socialistic.

    “to extreme and dangerous views”–Hilarious! AS if you have anything against “extreme and dangerous views!!!” As if many of your readers see you otherwise?

    This whole commentary’s implicit claim is that hell will fall on America because extreme, dangerous socialists parading as harmless DEmocrats or liberals, have the keys to power.
    Not only is that tabloidesque speculation, it is based on question-begging. YOu never ever define what you mean by “socialist,” deliberately leaving your readers to fill in the ambiguous sign with whatever they want. Rarely does anyone need to define it. Why? Because it is meaningless in public discourse (non-academic) other than being synonymous with evil state-owned society, homogeneity of thought and life. Of course that’s all part of your strategy to suck people into defending socialism, thereby agreeing to your outlandish implication that socialism is nigh in the U.S. Congress. The larger assumptions about this Democratic Congress as going to the “socialists” get a free pass from critical-logical scrutiny here if one is not careful.

    This is a simple but sadly oft-effective trick at poisoning an opposition by association.
    Don’t define “socialism” (but even if you do, you can do it creatively enough to fit your villification desires/psychoses). But use some vague characteristics associated with it in popular culture, as Orwellian all-powerful state that owns everything and squashes the “free” market. Before the Cold War, in the 30s and 40s many advocates used to do the same thing with “fascist” and some continue to do it with Nazi. Nazis banned trade unions and strikes. Republicans are for that too, so they’re neo-Nazis. It’s equally ridiculous when zealous ideologues in the other direction fixate on the Nazi’s appropriation of “socialist” though they exterminated many socialists and communists. One could isolate other aspects of Nazism (knee-jerk nationalist fervor: “You are criticizing the Reich?! Why do you hate your country? YOu are socialist/communist scum. Die like the vermin you are!”). And racial and ethnic fears. The analogy is false and figurative, accusing the opponent of sharing some (negative!) qualities you associate with the term.

    This comment above hit the Nalle on the head, but of course he didn’t get it: “”certain amounts of socialism work just fine. i don’t think the dems are trying to nationalize all industry. do you?”

    Not really a misrepresentation at all, Dave. Thanks for propagating citizenship and public discourse as an episode of the Geraldo Riviera Show.

  • Peter J

    Dave, Dave,
    I understand your wanting to expand your thread but your doing it at the cost of your credibility.
    You know I don’t like to dig at anybody unless they’re just stupid, obnoxious to an extreme, so this is not a dig, just a reminder of some things that you’re contradicting yourself on.

    Most important; bush. a month ago you wanted to fry his balls in butter, now your like his old bud. What happened? did he send the ss out to threaten you? PLEASE, don’t defend this asswipe now. We’ve finally done what’s needed doing, removed his infallible power, he’s no longer the “dictator” he thought himself to be.

    on the minimum wage, I’m aware that Texas is a bit more progressive than some other states and naturally the pay scale reflects that. Plus you have more than your share of illegals working FOR the minimum under the table which doesn’t reflect in your figures. But, here in orlando, a major tourist hell, most jobs that are available fall into two categories, cold call sales; good pay if you can sell,which takes a certain “type” personality which most people are not endowed with (thank God) or a minimum wage job in the “industry”.
    You can work a middle manager position which pays a bit more (salaried) but you’ll work unlimited hours and be the whipping post for third level managers who are getting a new ass hole from VPs or CEO’s. The market is ruthless and definitely not for the timid. This is not how life should be. All the charts and figures in the world cannot hide the fact that things are really fucked up in the market place if you happen to be in it.

    The only real escape is to be your own boss. This is great if you have capital to start out with (either family or someone died leaving you a hundred k) or you have no other responsibilities than yourself. You can’t take those kind of chances with a family depending on you.

    I know you’re smarter than you sound in some of your articles, try losing all the “figures” which can be swayed either way and mostly have no basis in reality. It makes you sound like a heartless prick.You’re not, right?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    In my view, for instance, the fact that I have to pay a higher levy than some at the end of the year for Medicare, our universal free system of healthcare (which can be augmented with reasonably priced private health insurance that enables you to have private rooms, choice of doctor, etc) is to me part of what being Australian is all about: a fair go for everyone. I don’t hold to the idea that everyone is responsible for their own situation in life, that kind of thinking leading to a permanent underclass.

    Hear hear Stan! You don’t have to be a commie or think like one to have a good life, and imitating the American market system is as dumb as one can get. Life would be much funner here if we had more of the older socialistic features that we used to in Israel!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    a change in tax law will hardly address the problem of economic inequality for a society wherein half the population ‘owns’ about 3% of the assets

    That would not accurately describe the US. In the US the lower half of the population owns about 20% of the assets. Not great, but a reasonable distribution of assets.

    but talking taxes – if you want a tax that is ‘fair’ then tax annual change in net worth rather than income

    That could only be implemented in a practical way through a national sales tax like the ‘fair tax’, which I’m not necessarily against.

    …what to look for is a tax structure in which each ‘class’ funds the government in proportion to its % of national assets held

    To do that we would have to decrease taxes on the rich and increase them on the middle class in comparison to the current system.

    Based on Census Bureau and House Joint Economic Committee figures, here’s a comparison of the percentage of assets controlled vs. percentage of taxes paid by quintile:

    Assets Share of Taxes
    Bottom Quint 2.2% 1%
    2nd Quintile 7.9% 4%
    Middle Quint 13.0% 11%
    4th Quintile 22.8% 21%
    Top Quintile 54.2% 63%

    question – how far off this mark of fairness is the present income tax – ?

    So to answer your question based on the data above, the top quintile is overtaxed by about 16% and the other quintiles are correspondingly undertaxed, which I suspect is why this particular comparison is rarely made.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    YOu never ever define what you mean by “socialist,” deliberately leaving your readers to fill in the ambiguous sign with whatever they want.

    Incorrect. I draw directly from the DSA website to provide a functional definition of socialism as follows:

    advocates policies which include redistribution of property, nationalization of business, “massive redistribution of income”, unilateral disarmament, the surrender of US legal sovereignty to the United Nations and massive expansion of a comprehensive welfare state.

    That seems perfectly clear and pretty comprehensive.

    Rarely does anyone need to define it. Why? Because it is meaningless in public discourse (non-academic) other than being synonymous with evil state-owned society, homogeneity of thought and life.

    Which is exactly why rather than relying on an abstract philosophical definition I provided a specific functional definition of how these particular people define socialism in terms of policy.

    Of course that’s all part of your strategy to suck people into defending socialism,

    Why would I want to have people do that? I want them to recoil in horror and disavow this particular form of socialism. Pretty much the opposite reaction from what you suggest.

    thereby agreeing to your outlandish implication that socialism is nigh in the U.S. Congress.

    Can you honestly say that I am incorrect when I claim that people who have openly stated support for the principles of socialism which I’ve described in the article are about to assume several of the top positions of power in our Congress?

    Whether they act on those principles is certainly subject to discussion, but the fact that they believe in them is indisputible.

    (silly hypothesizing deleted)

    You need to work more on reading articles and actually responding to them and differentiating the content of the article from the fictional construct of it which develops in your imagination.

    This comment above hit the Nalle on the head, but of course he didn’t get it: “”certain amounts of socialism work just fine. i don’t think the dems are trying to nationalize all industry. do you?”

    Of course they’re not going to try to nationalize all industry, but some of them would probably like to. Actual nationalization of industry really only comes in the later phases of the degeneration of statist socialism into dictatorship. What I would expect to see is an expansion of coercive regulation of industry. Promotion of the idea of fairness in the workplace and oppressive regulation of certain industries in comparison to others as part of an effort at social engineering.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Most important; bush. a month ago you wanted to fry his balls in butter, now your like his old bud. What happened? did he send the ss out to threaten you? PLEASE, don’t defend this asswipe now. We’ve finally done what’s needed doing, removed his infallible power, he’s no longer the “dictator” he thought himself to be.

    Where in this article did I say ONE word in defense of Bush? I believe I called him “spineless, weak and needlessly devious” – does that sound like being his buddy to you? Attacking those who oppose Bush on their own flaws and defending Bush are not at all the same thing.

    on the minimum wage, I’m aware that Texas is a bit more progressive than some other states and naturally the pay scale reflects that.

    True, but I’ve also looked at nationwide figures, and aside from a couple of isolated areas the same trend of almost no one earning at or near the minimum wage holds true.

    Plus you have more than your share of illegals working FOR the minimum under the table which doesn’t reflect in your figures.

    Actually in Texas illegals largely earn well over the minimum wage. Look at my article archive for some documentation on this.

    But, here in orlando, a major tourist hell, most jobs that are available fall into two categories, cold call sales; good pay if you can sell,which takes a certain “type” personality which most people are not endowed with (thank God) or a minimum wage job in the “industry”.

    Have you actually checked to see what these ‘minimum wage’ jobs are paying? I actually did that here in the Austin area and discovered that entry level jobs in the most menial areas were starting at over $7 an hour.

    You can work a middle manager position which pays a bit more (salaried) but you’ll work unlimited hours and be the whipping post for third level managers who are getting a new ass hole from VPs or CEO’s. The market is ruthless and definitely not for the timid. This is not how life should be.

    It’s not? It’s how it’s always been. Most work is grueling and you either accomodate yourself to it or find a way to rise out of it. Check into some labor history sometime. The only reason we think things are hard now is that we’re spoiled and have forgotten the conditions of the past.

    All the charts and figures in the world cannot hide the fact that things are really fucked up in the market place if you happen to be in it.

    I think this is a matter of perspective. How fucked up is your life when you have more living space, more free cash, and more luxuries than someone in a similar job 50 years ago?

    The only real escape is to be your own boss. This is great if you have capital to start out with (either family or someone died leaving you a hundred k) or you have no other responsibilities than yourself. You can’t take those kind of chances with a family depending on you.

    I did. I transitioned from a salaried job to self-employment over a period of about 10 years without borrowing a single cent. I know lots of other people who have done the same thing. Entrepreneurship is exploding around the nation – a lot of it off the tax rolls.

    I know you’re smarter than you sound in some of your articles, try losing all the “figures” which can be swayed either way and mostly have no basis in reality. It makes you sound like a heartless prick.You’re not, right?

    I’m heartless in the sense that objectivity is heartless. The way I see it when dealing with government policy and trying to understand the forces at work in the economy and society you’ve got to be objective in order to identify problems reliably. Once you’ve done that then you can address the problems with some compassion.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    SATURDAY AFTERNOON IN AMERICA

    Average American male:

    watch football
    work in yard
    fix up house
    shop for tools
    tune big American automobile
    bang lovely American wife
    etc.

    ======

    Professor Dave Nalle:

    counts blessings (aka tax breaks)
    quickly Googles GNP of Australia
    scans Libertarian web sites for “objective data”
    masturbates to photo of Ayn Rand
    posts 2,374 messages defending his view that the sky is falling
    continues delusion that he is well-adjusted objective, reality-based humanoid

    ======

    Shark:

    types “hehehe”
    prays to Heathen Puppet on Liberal Left God for a 2008 victory for Hillary and her running mate, Jesse Jackson

  • http://www.prisonplanet.com Bruce

    Pelosi is not the speaker yet.
    Yet the media reports it.
    Pelosi has to be voted in.

    If they don’t impeach Bush then they lost all credibility with the American people.

    Germany is certainly doing well with Rumsfeld.

  • Arch Conservative

    If they don’t impeach Bush then they lost all credibility with the American people.

    That implies that the American people ever had some credibility int he Democrats to lose and there fore is a false statement.

  • Les Slater

    Shark 147

    “masturbates to photo of Ayn Rand”

    Back in the late 50s I bought a book called Ulysses by James Joyce. I did not make much headway so bought another book called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It was an easy read and I was impressed.

    Over the next couple years or so I read all her books and read the Objectivist Newsletter. I met a girl who had done likewise. We got married, voted for Barry Goldwater and cheered on Ronanal Regan.

    I remember thinking some of the things Dave seems to now. Ah, it was fun… but I had to grow up sooner or later.

  • troll

    Dave – where are you getting your numbers on the distribution of net worth and assets – ?

    …they don’t come close to what is reported in Fed studies where the reported % of assets owned by the bottom 50% of the population was 5.8% in ’04 – (when debt owed on assets was figured in the picture was more grim with the lower 50% of the population controlling about 2.5% of the nations net worth)

    in terms of income see

    JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
    RESEARCH REPORT #109-36
    May 2006 –

    where it is reported re: 2003 taxes…

    the bottom half of income earners who filed taxes paid 3.46% of the total federal income tax
    next 25% paid 12.66%
    next 15% paid 18.04%
    next 5% paid 11.48%
    next 4% paid 20.09%
    top 1% paid 34.27%

    which actually seems pretty equitable given the existing division of net worth…’if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’

    I don’t see how a sales tax will necessarily tax the growth of wealth which in fairness is what should be taxed

    and still…all this talk about fair taxation doesn’t address the underlying problem of economic inequality and the degree to which government should be involved in ‘leveling the playing field’ or protecting the rich from those who would do so

  • MCH

    Re #115;

    Happy Veteran’s Day to you too, Clavos. I sent you a note several hours ago today on one of your posts, before reading 115 above.

    And Happy Veteran’s Day also to fellow BCers Nancy, RedTard, Andy Marsh and (the memory of) the late Jim Carruthers; and any other vet I may have forgotten.

  • Lumpy

    Ah now troll’s on the right track with his talk of protecting the rich from wealth redistributors..

    What amazes me is all this whining about the poor when our poor in america live like kings compared to even the middle class in most of the world.

    We’ve gotten soft and weak and greedy. Try living 8 to a room in a shack in mumbai sometime you fat western whiners.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Wow Dave, you really will lie and cheat and say just about anything to get attention and feel important on here. Unfortunately for you, I have a good memory. Let’s all take a closer look at some key Nalle moments.

    July 26, 2006, Bush Arrogantly Halves IRS Auditors For Wealthiest Few After Congress Says “No” To His Cuts:

    Comment #70 Dave Nalle:

    And Peti, you’re right. On income we’re in the top 2% not the top 1%. I forgot that that the threshold had risen from $150K to $300K some years back. Net worth is an entirely separate issue which can’t really be compared to income.

    But I’ll tell you this. With both my wife and I working and grossing over $150,000

    This thread, Comment # 108:

    PETI: “Stop fucking kidding yourself. You are not middle class. You make 200k a year.”

    I do? News to me. Our gross family income with two working parents is considerably less than that.

    Bad news for you. Based on individual income I’m in that same $30-$70K a year range as you are.

    I guess biz has been bad lately huh? Or maybe you’re just a liar.

    This thread, Comment #108 Dave Nalle (if this point bores you skip onto some of the more interesting later points):

    PETI:”Get real. They might roll back some taxes for incomes over 200k. They will not roll back all the taxes. And they certainly will not roll back all taxes, never mind raising them.”

    What part of ‘massive income redistribution’ do you not understand?

    What part don’t you understand. The fundamental principle of all socialism, marxism, and wealth redistribution is to redistribute it from the PROPERTY owner to the LABORER. As Marx puts it, the laborer has become alienated by his labor because he is 1. alienated from the product of his labor (he does not own the product) 2. alienated from his work activity (he doesnt like it) and 3. he is alienated from the rest of humanity because humanity becomes divided into the LABORER and the OWNER. Wealth redistribution seeks to rectify this, albeit in an imperfect way. In practice this means taking money from the corporations and large business owners and giving it to the laborers. The small business owner is unaffected because he was never alienated and was alienating nobody and is already in the ideal state. Since in America virtually everybody not in the top 2% is alienated, wealth is redistributed from the top 2% (approx incomes over 200k) to the bottom 98%.

    When these websites declare they want to “redistribute wealth” 98% of Americans should be happy, because 98% of Americans will benefit. Kerry said it, and dems have been saying it for a long time, they only want to raise taxes on the rich.. ie the top 1 or 2%.. ie incomes over 200k. Stop trying to scare everyone into thinking dems are trying to tax them.

    This thread Comment #108 Dave Nalle:

    PETI: “Not to the millions of workers worker at minimum wage. Or to the 10s of millions working near minimum wage. Maybe it’s meaningless to you in your fortified Texas compound. Maybe.”

    Perhaps you should do some research on how many workers are actually working at the minimum wage. You might be surprised at what you find. The reason the minimum wage is meaningless is that virtually no one is paid at or near the minimum wage. The REAL market set minimum wage is over $7 an hour. Raising it to that level as they are considering is just acknowledging reality and won’t have a negative impact on jobs or cause overall wage inflation.

    Don’t lecture me on research. You’re the one that wrote the article full of flat out made up statistics a couple weeks ago (more on that later). I have done the research and have seen many estimates ranging from 1-3 million. I know people working minimum wage (not federal but still pretty damn low). The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that 2,003,000 people worked minimum wage in 2004. You in fact knew this, as you cited that very page yourself in a previous article. My statement stands..millions work at minimum wage.

    Ok Ive done a quick survey of ALL THE TIMES DAVE NALLE HAS BEEN LIEING/WRONG I can remember off the top of my head.

    In “Will the Big Lie Win in 2006:

    Dave: So what I’m pointing out here, as should have been obvious, is that the five-year period from 2001 to 2005 showed a dramatic improvement in personal savings compared to previous five year periods.

    LIES. Americans saved 456.5 billion in total 2001-2005. They saved 1050.6 billion total in 1996-2000. They saved 1473 billion total in 1991-1995. I have to go back to 1967-1971 to find a period with less savings than 2001-2005. Of course the savings rate was over 9% higher then than it is today, and the difference is accounted for by population. If I adjust for population, Americans saved less in 2001-2005 than any other 5 year period since data collection began.

    Dave: while too many are certainly uninsured, the actual percentage of the population without insurance has remained stable for decades at about 16%

    LIES. Under Clinton the percent uninsured dropped from 15.3% to 14.2% from ’93 to ’00, while under Bush it has increased from 14.2% to 15.9%. That’s an increase of 1.7%. Dave may think “ahh shucks it’s all about 16%” but the fact is, that 1.7% increase in uninsurance rate represents 5 million people in the U.S.

    Dave: the percentage of the population covered by private insurance has been steadily increasing, up about 5% over the last 20 years.

    LIES. In 1987 the percentage of the U.S. with private insurance was 75.5%. It dropped to 70.2% under Bush Sr in 1993. It peaked again at 71.9% under Clinton. And then it precipitously fell to 67.7% in 2005 under Bush, again, despite tax cuts. The percent of the population with private insurance has decreased 7.8% from 1987 to 2005 almost entirely in the Bush Sr and Bush Jr years.

    Dave: Rather than many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, savings and investing rates are rising for the first sustained period since 1982, suggesting that more Americans than ever before have excess income.

    LIES. 2001 – 2003 when collective savings rose from 132 billion to 175 billion – a relatively small increase especially considering Americans paid 236 billion less in taxes in 2003 than 2001.

    This two year increase in response to tax cuts has ended. The savings rate is currently in the most precipitous drop since the index began in 1952. For the first time since data collection began the savings rate is negative. As of 2005 the net collective savings rate was NEGATIVE 34 billion. This is a decrease of 209 BILLION since 2003. That is by far the most dramatic decrease in collective net savings since data collection began.

    I dont know about you all but Dave’s definition of “sustained increase” is a little different than mine.

    September 14: Dave Nalle predicts a Chafee victory over Whitehouse in Rhode Island in his article “Interview: Carl Sheeler, Democratic Candidate For Senate In Rhode Island.”

    WRONG. Whitehouse handily won Rhode Island..obviously.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Dave may be a mediocre writer folks, one of the better ones on BC, but his disregard for truth and his talent for spin, render him devoid of any credibility. We’re all better off not reading Dave Nalle, except for amusement or for the mental challenge in picking apart his disgusting misrepresentations, miscalculations and straight up LIES .

  • troll

    Lumpy – I’m in favor of government getting out of the way allowing production relations to get worked out through ‘the market’ (read class conflict) both nationally and internationally

    the fact that people in the US live so much better than most in the world is not a source of pride nor does it bode well for the future

  • Les Slater

    troll 156

    Not too many steps from being a communist.

  • troll

    Les – if I knew what that meant that’s what I’d be I guess…(which is why I asked you about your stock ownership yesterday)

  • Les Slater

    troll – I own no stocks or bonds directly or indirectly.

  • troll

    (so I can read you without thinking ‘hypocrite’ – unlike many self proclaimed communists these days)

  • Les Slater

    troll,

    You may have noticed in my writings that my economic status is middle class, at times I may have fit upper middle class status. My professional career has been electronic engineer / consultant.

    I have also worked in fairly hard labor, very low pay, jobs, up to a year at a time. I always had the option during those times to move on and increase my salary by a factor of five to ten. And of course, ultimately, I always did.

    I am not often at the point of production but grew up in a working class family and have many friends that are workers, some very class concious.

    Politically, the middle class has NOTHING to offer, they gravitate to the right in times of crisis and sometimes toward the working class during upsurges, never independent.

    I’ll throw my lot with the working class any day.

  • DazeyMai

    Congratulations Dave…You once responded to me that inciting debate and argument was your job. Welll, you certainly did a hell of a job of that with this article. But, why use George Bush’s fear tactics to acoomplish that? Obviously, George Bush is America’s greatest fear!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Actually, Shark. I’m not a big fan of Ayn Rand and the objectivist delusion.

    And, in fact, I’ve been fixing up the house and working in the yard this morning, and I’m about to go out to shop for tools – well, kitchen cabinet fixtures anyway.

    And I never think that the sky is falling. I leave that kind of thinking to the left. I prefer to deal in more pragmatic coin.

    Dave

  • jayson

    You cite the DS website, but you’ve applied their definition to these others.
    Further, you fail to acknowledge that you’ve implicated the entire Congress and the entire country in this ridiculous conspiracy about socialists. Get ready for two years of hell.

    Very few modern democracies have not borrowed insights from socialist thought, insights which are far from being shown to be the shipwreck you paint them to be. Some rE-distribution is vital to any democracy that wishes to provide equal opportunity to its future generations. Your typical scare tactics suggest only the extreme–tyrannical big govt and regulations. False dilemma.

  • Clavos

    -tyrannical big govt and regulations

    Haven’t we had that ever since the sixties?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    PETI, I’m flattered by the obsession, but we’ve been over most of this before on threads where the topics were relevant. If you feel dissatisfied, why not write an article of your own. It could be all about my lying and cheating. I’m sure that will be popular.

    But I’ll help you out with some of your burning concerns so you don’t get too frantic.

    First off, there’s the problem of your mathematical skills.

    You see, my wife nets more before taxes than I do. So when I say that our family income is just over $150K and that I earn $70K or less (right around $70K as it turns out) that means she earns a bit over $80K, which puts us just over $150K together.

    I did earn more briefly a few years ago when I was teaching college and running my business at the same time, but the stress was too much so I settled for slightly less money so I could focus on the business.

    I guess biz has been bad lately huh?

    The business is pretty stable, actually.

    Or maybe you’re just a liar.

    Or maybe you can’t do math or maybe you’re a chauvinist who thinks a woman can’t earn more than her husband.

    BTW, your application to be my accountant is rejected.

    And yes, I will skip over the high-school level explanation of Marxism because as you suggested, it’s boring.

    When these websites declare they want to “redistribute wealth” 98% of Americans should be happy, because 98% of Americans will benefit.

    An attractive theory, but the reality is that the redistribution will inevitably hit not just the top 2%, but the top two quintiles, because that’s the way it’s most practical to structure taxes by setting numerical cutoffs for the tax brackets. This is more true now than ever before as the investor class has moved up somewhat in income.

    I’d like to see a system which does what you describe, but I fear it might be like the British system from the 1970s which taxed the top bracket at 90% and was economically disastrous.

    The unfortunate reality is that previous tax increases, like those under Clinton, have always raised taxes on more than just the top few earners. Clinton’s tax increase was probably the kind of thing you’d want, where he just added new brackets at the top, but hi increased taxes on incomes as low as $89,500 – which is way below your top 2%.

    Don’t lecture me on research.

    Why not, you demonstrate decisively here that you’re not very good at it.

    You’re the one that wrote the article full of flat out made up statistics a couple weeks ago (more on that later).

    I’ll just say ‘bullshit’ here, because we’ve been over that ground before.

    I have done the research and have seen many estimates ranging from 1-3 million. I know people working minimum wage (not federal but still pretty damn low). The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that 2,003,000 people worked minimum wage in 2004. You in fact knew this, as you cited that very page yourself in a previous article. My statement stands..millions work at minimum wage.

    Wrong. The BLS figure you cite is for people working “at or below minimum wage”, which means that it includes people exempted from minimum wage, and in fact the single largest group included in that figure are waiters and waitresses. Take them and the other smaller groups who are exempted from minimum wage out and the amount you’re left with is under a million. And it’s right to take them out because their primary income comes from tips not wages.

    Regarding my ‘lies’ about personal savings. I based my comments on BEA data found on this page. Do a chart for 1992 to 2000 and you see a steady decline in personal savings rate, which dropped significantly almost every year. Then in 2001-2003 it turned around and increased. You can confirm that data on the web page. My original comments in the article referred to that 3 year period of increase. So if there’s a lie, take it up with the BEA.

    As for your insurance coverage argument, we’ve also already been over that. I think that numbers within a point or so of variation from 16% are similar, you don’t. That’s an opinion, not a lie.

    And yes, OMG I made a mistake in reading a table on private insurance coverage, and I wasn’t right about Chafee winning his election. I’ll turn my ‘Mr. Perfect’ T-Shirt in at the office.

    Well, that’s enough time wasted debating trivia. Perhaps you’d like to make some positive contribution to the discussion at hand?

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    troll – I own no stocks or bonds directly or indirectly.

    So Les, you describe yourself as ‘middle income’, yet you have no stocks or other investments. Why not? Increasingly large numbers of people in your income category are investing. What’s holding you back? Just curious – don’t answer if it’s something creepy and personal.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    I have invested, usually stock options or 401 type things. I have always cashed out stock options when I could. I have had decent amount of money in savings, one point at 8%. When I was working for low wage I would draw down on those.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Regarding my ‘lies’ about personal savings. I based my comments on BEA data found on this page. Do a chart for 1992 to 2000 and you see a steady decline in personal savings rate, which dropped significantly almost every year. Then in 2001-2003 it turned around and increased. You can confirm that data on the web page. My original comments in the article referred to that 3 year period of increase. So if there’s a lie, take it up with the BEA.

    Yes but the fact remains is you intentionally left off the last two years of data because they would destroy the positive results you were looking for. If anything it was the last two years you should be writing about. Ignoring them was dishonest.

    You see, my wife nets more before taxes than I do. So when I say that our family income is just over $150K and that I earn $70K or less (right around $70K as it turns out) that means she earns a bit over $80K, which puts us just over $150K together.

    Which puts you decidedly OUT of the middle class, contrary to your previous statements.

    As for your insurance coverage argument, we’ve also already been over that. I think that numbers within a point or so of variation from 16% are similar, you don’t. That’s an opinion, not a lie.

    How bout leaving the rounding to the rest of us next time? As a matter of principle, rounding off an over 4.5 million people increase in uninsured under Bush to zero is devious and unnecessary unless your trying to hide something.

    It’s not just trivial manipulation and interpretation. You took recent trends of increased inunsurance, record low savings, and decreasing retirement plan holdership and spun them as the EXACT OPPOSITE. That amounts to one BIG FAT LIE. And it makes you a liar and a biased uncredible author. Forgive the ranting but the facade needs to stop. You’re a rich guy who’s afraid democrats might steal a small fraction of your money so Jet can get reasonable medical treatment and kids I know can go to college w/o taking out 30K+ in loans.

  • Clavos

    Which puts you decidedly OUT of the middle class, contrary to your previous statements.

    When I was in school, the middle class was considered to be bipartite; with a”lower” middle class consisting primarily of blue and pink collar workers, and an “upper” middle class consisting of professionals and business people of middle management rank and above.

    In today’s business world, there are literally tens of thousands of middle managers making $70-90K a year.

    A family income of $150K a year, offers a comfortable lifestyle, but is a long way from financial independence; you can’t just stop working and go play golf the rest of your your life, you have to keep the paychecks rolling in.

    That, to me, (the necessity to keep working) is the very definition of middle class, whatever the “official” definitions might be.

    In short, if you must work to feed, clothe, and house yourself and family, you’re not rich.

  • Clavos

    You’re a rich guy who’s afraid democrats might steal a small fraction of your money so Jet can get reasonable medical treatment and kids I know can go to college w/o taking out 30K+ in loans.

    Cheap shot, debate-wise.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    That it is Clavos, but it’s also the truth.

  • Clavos

    Truth doesn’t legitimize tackiness.

    I worked (full time) my way through college, got no help from my parents, who couldn’t afford it, graduated with considerable student loan debt, as did my wife. It took several years to pay it off; too bad.

    Medical care, yes.

    Pay for your own college; I’m not going to; I’ll move back to Mexico if it comes to that.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    I didn’t say me. I said people I know. And that was certainly the less important of my two points. Going to college isnt exactly a “god given right,” although deserving kids should be able to go.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    I didn’t say truth legitimized tackiness. I said it’s the truth. I said it was cheap. But I said it anyways. You can insist I shouldn’t have said it all you want. But I said it. And it’s true.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    You may not have heard Clavos, but the price of college has grown between 2 and 10 times the rate of inflation. That pretty much renders anything you did 30+ odd years ago irrelevant and equivalent to “I walked ten miles to school uphill both ways.”

  • gazelle

    its time the oil cowboys were leashed,
    and civilised socialists made the world safe from them. best

  • Clavos

    Except, peti, that I know exactly what it costs since I’m paying for a kid to go as we speak.

    And it’s Wellesley, so it isn’t cheap.

    I repeat, if you’re not related to me, I’m not paying for you.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Ok so the fundamental acknowledgement is education was affordable to the individual 30 years ago..you reaped the benefits of a low cost education system..and are luvin not having to pay for a low cost education system today, cause what do you care, thanks to those benefits you reaped, you can pay for your kids college. How hypocritical. You wouldnt be where you are today if someone unrelated to you hadn’t paved the way.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    And stop saying “you.” Obviously my college bills are already payed.

  • Clavos

    It was a generic “you”, BTW.

    And yes, the young lady at Wellesley is being obligated to pay for more than half of her costs.

    She has some scholarship offsets and is borrowing as well — both her parents and I felt she should be responsible to the point of some sacrifice. it builds character. Old fashioned, I know.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Not really, typical school financial aid packages hold the parents responsible for less than 1/4 the cost of education.

  • Clavos

    Ok so the fundamental acknowledgement is education was affordable to the individual 30 years ago

    Did you not see the part I wrote about graduating with substantial debt and taking years to pay it off? My wife and I were married several years before it was paid off.

    My brother in law finished med school with nearly $70K in debt 30+ years ago.

    And BTW, I know more than one kid going to UF or FSU, and paying for it themselves — today!

    And yes, I know UF and FSU, as state schools, are partially tax funded, as was my school, but what you wrote to Dave:

    You’re a rich guy who’s afraid democrats might steal a small fraction of your money[…] kids I know can go to college w/o taking out 30K+ in loans. was a cheap shot, because Dave is already paying the taxes that help to support state schools in Texas.

    I see no reason why he (or I) should have to have our taxes increased to the point a college education is free. Not only do I not want to pay (and won’t) that level of taxation for that purpose, I don’t think it’s a good thing for the kids to have everything handed to them; it gives ’em a wrong idea of what the real world is like.

    You wouldnt be where you are today if someone unrelated to you hadn’t paved the way.

    Say whaat??

  • Clavos

    Not really, typical school financial aid packages hold the parents responsible for less than 1/4 the cost of education.

    Don’t be obtuse; she’s being held responsible BY US for more than half the family’s responsibility.

    Here’s MY cheap shot (payback’s a bitch):

    college bills are already payed.

    Money not well spent, obviously, since you can’t spell. It’s “paid.”

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Yes but the fact remains is you intentionally left off the last two years of data because they would destroy the positive results you were looking for. If anything it was the last two years you should be writing about. Ignoring them was dishonest.

    How do you know what my intentions were? And I didn’t leave off two years of data. I linked to the full data in question. The fact is that in 2004 the rate of savings was the same as it was in 2004, so it wasn’t a decline, so the only year we’re talking about is 2005 when there was an anomalous drop. One down year doesn’t make a trend or negate one.

    I didn’t need to go looking for positive results. I could have ignored savings rates alltogether. The Pelosi statement I was rebutting didn’t mention them and I had more than enough to prove her wrong without that one item.

    Which puts you decidedly OUT of the middle class, contrary to your previous statements.

    Like hell. As Clavos sagely pointed out to you earlier, the Middle Class is not defined by a set amount of income, it’s a matter of lifestyle. It ends at the point where you no longer HAVE to work in order to take care of your family and obligations. I haven’t reached that point and neither has anyone else earning under $200,000 a year for a family of four.

    It’s not just trivial manipulation and interpretation. You took recent trends of increased inunsurance, record low savings, and decreasing retirement plan holdership and spun them as the EXACT OPPOSITE. That amounts to one BIG FAT LIE. And it makes you a liar and a biased uncredible author.

    Someone is a liar, and I’m afraid it’s you. Your anger and bias are so all-consuming that you can’t even discuss this topic rationally. In the section you’re so obsessed with I discuss 6 different specific economic indicators. You disagree with my interpretation of two of them and I made an error in reading one of them. The other three you don’t even dispute, yet your conclusion is that I’m lying. It’s a personal insult and it also insults my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone who’s reading this tripe.

    Forgive the ranting but the facade needs to stop. You’re a rich guy who’s afraid democrats might steal a small fraction of your money so Jet can get reasonable medical treatment and kids I know can go to college w/o taking out 30K+ in loans.

    I’ve previously written in favor of a sensible national health plan, so that straw man goes nowhere for you. I think everyone should be covered by health insurance. I just don’t think the government should be running the program or forcing it on those who can afford private insurance.

    And I’m hardly a ‘rich guy’ by any sensible measure. I have two kids who are going to be going to college – one of them quite soon. That alone makes my income a hell of a lot less sumptuous if I’m going to do anything to help them out.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Clavos mentioned how much he paid for college 30 years ago. I just looked up what I paid when I was in college at the same time at a small liberal arts school, and in contemporary dollars it would be $25K a year in 2006 dollars. So while tuitions have outstripped inflation it hasn’t been by such a huge amount. I believe my alma mater now runs about $32K a year.

    But here’s the shocker. I converted the first full time job I had out of college into 2006 dollars and my salary comes out to $47,000. That suggests that starting wages really haven’t kept up with inflation, or else I was grossly overpaid in my first job – probably a bit of both.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave 185

    “the Middle Class is not defined by a set amount of income, it’s a matter of lifestyle. It ends at the point where you no longer HAVE to work in order to take care of your family and obligations. I haven’t reached that point and neither has anyone else earning under $200,000 a year for a family of four.”

    This is essentially true. One quip I would have is the implication that the income someone gets when what they rake in is substatially over $200K be termed earnings.

    You already stated that by definition they do not work. Any income they get is from other people’s labor and is not EARNED by them.

    It is those that do not work that contro the government.

  • troll

    imo the author is not a liar per se (although only his confessor knows his heart) – as this article and numerous others evidence he is a proven purveyor of purulent polemics and a piss poor prognosticator

    …a hard working thoroughly entertaining BC character and master troll

    honor him

  • troll

    Les – so the middle class would be defined by ownership as those who pocket both earned and unearned income – ?

  • Les Slater

    troll 189

    Correct.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    That seems like a good definition for the modern era, but the unearned income bit might be less characteristic of the middle class if you went back a few years.

    It seems to me that historically the middle class would be those who worked to earn income, but earned it as salary rather than hourly wages or from a management or supervisory position rather than as subordinate labor. The one additional group which falls in the middle class is the skilled master of a trade, who may not necessarily supervise others, but who earns such a high hourly wage that he can’t be considered working class.

    Don’t want to leave Plumbers out of the middle class.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Now here’s the big question. Having defined the middle class, are their interests best served by political policies which are pro-corporate or pro-labor?

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Nice alliteration, troll!

    Though, to agree with it I would have to change purulent to probative…

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Dave: that’s not a big question at all, it’s simply shallow. You seem to be stuck in some tired old 20th century mindset. The interests of everybody, working, middle or upper class, are best served by political policies which seek to care for everybody’s interests…

  • http://www.pearlsbee4swine.blogspot.com jayson

    “Having defined the middle class, are their interests best served by political policies which are pro-corporate or pro-labor?”
    Typical simplistic false dilemma. Either-or reaction (not thought) of ideologues.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Call me Mr. Trite, CR. But I think the question is legitimate. Not being in the US you may not quite grasp the context of it. We have one party here which is generally pro-business and one which is generally pro-labor – or so they would have us believe. Both claim to be best for the middle class. Which one is telling the truth?

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave 191

    I think you pose good questions, also in 192.

    The issue of compensation, or which class one belongs to is not simple. For sake of discussion here I simplified it.

    Your relation to the economy is essentially a social relationship.

    Your plumber is skilled through training of some sort. Finding a good plumber that is not booked for a while may be difficult. It is a matter of supply and demand. If there were more trained plumbers they may not be able to get the wage, salary or fees that they may be accustomed to.

    Trade organizations, unions, licensing also effect this relationship.

    Both current political parties in the U.S. operate in the interests of capital.

    The so-called pro-labor policies are reflections of the capitalist’s class’s need to maintain some semblance of labor peace.

    Les

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    “You wouldnt be where you are today if someone unrelated to you hadn’t paved the way.”

    Say whaat??

    Drop the Big Man woopass cowboy attitude. Nobody accomplishes anything solely by themselves anymore. The only way to do that is to go become some kind of hunter gatherer…but then who would teach you what was edible? It’s called civil society Clavos, and like it or not everything you, or anybody else, accomplishes is made possible by people unrelated to you paving the way.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    My turn troll. Dave Nalle is..

    A petty pretending prognositicator pandering the petulent propaganda of pig-headed and pernicious politics with the purpose of propagating personal phobias. In short, a perilous pervador of peons who portending possible problems as provable precipitates his prolific pissy pastime with pussing pornographic penmanship.

  • troll

    I don’t know about all that peti…

    but I sure would like to know how he came up with 20% in #144

    (ps – did anyone mention paranoid – ?)

  • Clavos

    It’s called civil society Clavos, and like it or not everything you, or anybody else, accomplishes is made possible by people unrelated to you paving the way.

    Uh huh. Save it, peti. Peddle that “we’re all in this together” crap to your college pals, I’ve been working for a living since the seventies.

    In my adult life, far from “paving the way” for me, most of the people who have crossed my path have been looking for an advantage or a way to best me; and that’s NOT a unique set of experiences, that’s life.

    You have only to look, really look, at the vast majority of our elected officials to see it.

  • mike

    2 more years of Bush in office is the real horror.

  • http://www.pearlsbee4swine.blogspot.com jayson

    Call me Mr. Trite, CR. But I think the question is legitimate. Not being in the US you may not quite grasp the context of it. We have one party here which is generally pro-business and one which is generally pro-labor – or so they would have us believe.

    This is a joke, right?

  • Lumpy

    isn’t the thing which makes our society unique the fact that it doesn’t have to be ‘civil’? it’s based on everyine acting on self interest and ultimately cancelling each other out. I like the ide of a society where people are not punished for being human and wanting to compete and advance themselves and ‘win’ the game of life.

  • Baronius

    Dave, I’m usually the last guy to complain about a false dichotomy, but business versus labor? I didn’t realize there were any Republicans left who thought of the party as pro-business. The policies that help businesses help their employees, and vice versa. (I dunno; maybe that’s what you meant.)

    What are some examples of pro-business and pro-labor policies? I hope you’re not counting minimum wage laws and protectionism as pro-labor, because they’re just stupid. The only laws I can think of are the ones that apply directly to labor negotiations and arbitration.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    The policies that help business DO NOT help their employees. A business that makes more money is not going to waste its increased profits paying its employees more if the employees are willing to work for less. Businesses will pay employees the minimum that keeps them well fed and content and no more. Excess profits get passed on to ownership, CEOs, and expansion.

    Just take a look at history for a minute. When certain governments called up military and private combat forces to supress strikes against child labor and 14+ hour work days and dirt cheap pay that was pro-business. But it sure as hell didnt do much for the employees. If history shows us anything, it shows us that unchecked capitalism abuses the working man. The collective powers of business (corporations) need to be combatted with the collective powers of the workers (unions).

  • STM

    Baronius wrote: “The policies that help businesses help their employees, and vice versa.”

    You can’t be serious with that one old boy … hundreds of years of employers ripping off their workers to make an extra buck on top of already outrageous profits puts the squelch on that theory … starting from the mills of northern England and going through today to such things as paltry mimimum wages in the US – among of the worst in the western world, and even more so when you actually compare it to the gross domestic product and the cost of living in the US.

    A classic example is companies like Amex siting their call and information centres in India to save money on the lousy wages they already paid to call-centre workers in America. Do you think that “good-business decision” was good for workers in the US and elsewhere outside the third world? How many dinner-time calls from people with bad accents pretending their names are Brooke Smith or Mike Hunt can a customer take before they up and move their business elsewhere?

    Was that good for anyone? Looks good on the balance sheet for now, but has cost people jobs and will ultimately cost Amex business.

    It’s not like they can’t afford to pay local wages, either. Their profits are obscene. Workers need to be protected from the whims of employers, many of whom think good business is only about the bottom line. I don’t agree, and nor do plenty of others, as quality counts for something too – and a good and competent workforce means a happy ship producing or providing a quality product.

  • Clavos

    Hi Mate,

    Their profits are obscene.

    As a good capitalist, I don’t think profits are ever obscene (unless they’re from illegal practices), but that’s not my point…

    I worked a lotta years in the travel business (not Amex).

    One of Amex’s little known sources of profit has to do with the traveler’s checks.

    The life of traveler’s checks is much longer than most people realize. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that a surprising number of people keep a check folded away in their wallet for emergency money, sometimes carrying it around for years, without ever cashing it in.

    As long ago as the seventies I was told by somebody in their organization in a position to know, that the “float” of cash Amex had continuously from just the traveler’s checks (or cheques, if you prefer), was well in excess of a Billion USDs, even back then, and that the average uncashed life of the checks was several weeks.

    You can just imagine the amount of interest they are collecting making short term business loans with that money…

  • STM

    I don’t doubt it mate. My point is simply this, Clav: when profits come at the expense of good and loyal employees and long-time customers, that’s obscene.

  • BriMan

    Dave-
    Back to #125 & 128

    I gave you a number that says the top 1% owns 57.5% of assets. Since this is a logarithmic function, it stands to reason that the second percentile would own something less than 57.5% but they dont own all of the remaining 42.5%. It would be reasonable to assume that they could own say 30% which is almost half of what the top 1% own.

    Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the top 2% own 87.5% of America’s total assets – that is combined wealth…houses, cars, silver teacups, the works. This from the Economic Policy Institute May 2006

    This is much closer to my original number than your original number. Combined wealth would also include controlled wealth – wealth that one has influence over but does not directly own like corporate wealth.

    Your assumptions are crap Dave. I know it is disturbing to be constantly reminded that your worldview is myopic and prejudicial – so why dont you take a nice long sabbatical. Do some reading, take a nap or two, get a little introspective (not too much though – your id couldnt handle it) and come back in a couple of months with some fresh BS.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The policies that help business DO NOT help their employees. A business that makes more money is not going to waste its increased profits paying its employees more if the employees are willing to work for less. Businesses will pay employees the minimum that keeps them well fed and content and no more. Excess profits get passed on to ownership, CEOs, and expansion.

    Unexpectedly I find myself in absolute agreement with PETI here. That’s the way business works. David Ricardo laid it out 200 years ago in the Iron Law of Wages and the Iron Law of Rents, and the basic principles have not changed.

    Where I suspect I differ is that I don’t see this as a negative. It’s the way businesses should work. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to maintain efficiency and financial profitability. IMO a well run business will provide services and support to their workers to create an appealing workplace so that worker efficiency will be high and workers will remain loyal. There’s nothing wrong with investing in your workers so long as the returns justify the investment. The Japanese have demonstrated that this works, and some progressive corporations here in the US have done the same – even gone overboard in the case of Google.

    My point being that even when profit is the goal, making a profit is not incompatible with treating workers decently.

    Just take a look at history for a minute. When certain governments called up military and private combat forces to supress strikes against child labor and 14+ hour work days and dirt cheap pay that was pro-business. But it sure as hell didnt do much for the employees.

    When this happened in the US, the same president who called up the military to put down the strikes stepped in to negotiate new contracts which raised wages, cut hours and kept profits at a reasonable level.

    If history shows us anything, it shows us that unchecked capitalism abuses the working man. The collective powers of business (corporations) need to be combatted with the collective powers of the workers (unions).

    You make the mistaken assumption here that unions are somehow better than capitalist businesses. What the history of unions shows us is that they behave exactly like corporations when given the opportunity. Big businesses control commodities to maximize profits. Labor is a commodity. Unions try to control and monopolize it to gain power, just like businesses. And just like businesses, big unions become abusive of their power, exploiting their members, seeking to profit excessively, overpaying executives, trying to gain political power, etc.

    Not that any of this is a bad thing, but don’t try to convinve me that unions are all flowers and sunshine and patting the workers on the head. They’ve moved way beyond that and become what they once fought.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    What are some examples of pro-business and pro-labor policies? I hope you’re not counting minimum wage laws and protectionism as pro-labor, because they’re just stupid. The only laws I can think of are the ones that apply directly to labor negotiations and arbitration.

    Well, capital vs. labor is the way the confrontation has traditionally been defined. I’m not sure it’s really accurate today either. It seems to me that big labor is now indistinguishable from big business, so that raises the issue of just who the left – and in this case I don’t consider them the same as the democrats – actually wants to represent. The disenfranchised? The poor? Temporary workers at WalMart? College professors?

    None of those seem like a sufficient constituency to support a political movement or party, plus a great many of them don’t even vote.

    Maybe we’re really looking at a struggle between two groups of capitalists, one which wants to make money without the interference of government and one which wants to make money with the assistance of government. That last certainly describes a lot of the wealthy democrats I’ve encountered – who seem to be overwhelmingly real estate developers – and it explains why entrepreneurs gravitate to the GOP.

    Dave

  • BriMan

    Dave-
    “The Japanese have demonstrated that this works”.

    The Japanese do not have a shareholder-based system that works like America’s. The Japanese system has been propped up by American trade policy which was formulated under Cold War conditions and led to contrary free market trade regulations. Our gov’t has always pushed pure capitalist dogma to the side so they could hold Japan up as a shining example of American imperial beneficence. Read some history books on Asia and try to understand the context surrounding Japan’s success.

    Furthermore, these export-profit driven market approaches have led Japan to unbelievable levels of inflation – they are hardly an example of a successful capitalist model. Just like S. Korea, Taiwan and now China – their “success” comes from America’s willingness to put up with unbalanced trade conditions. Now – they own so many American dollars, we cant say boo to correct it.

    This is a much bigger national security issue that some terrorist in Whereeverstan.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I don’t doubt it mate. My point is simply this, Clav: when profits come at the expense of good and loyal employees and long-time customers, that’s obscene.

    In the marketplace the failure to treat long-time customers decently ought to be rewarded by loss of business, and I think that in the longterm that’s certainly true.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Re: Japan.

    I wasn’t talking about overall Japanese business or economic policy, just how they make more effort to get involved in workers lives and develop worker loyalty, a much more limited area in which they’ve had some success.

    Dave

  • Lumpy

    It’s interesting. Despite all the abuse heaped on this article in the last couple of days i’ve encountered virtually the same analysis from respected experts like christopher hitchens and thomas sowell. Looks like dave here is not alone in his concerns.

  • Clavos

    Lumpy, re #216:

    Got links?

    Please?

  • Kai

    Hm, it seems that what you describe as “socialist” or worse is common policy in most other countries of the NATO and OECD. Are you aware that the “Socialist International”, as scary as it might sound to american ears, is anti comunist and its leaders have been part of most NATO/OECD countries about 50% of the last 50 years? The acusations you raise above against these 3 politicians would not raise any attention in Europe. The position in this blog seems very far away from the positions in most other parts of the western world.

  • http://www.diablog.us Davd Nalle

    Kai, let me take it down to a gradeschool level for you.

    If all the other kids at school jump off a cliff are you going to do it too?

    Or in this case, if all the other nations in the world decide to destroy themselves with socialist policies, does that mean that America should too?

    The position in this blog seems very far away from the positions in most other parts of the western world.

    Thankfully, that’s still the case in America.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The Sowell article Lumpy referred to actually predates the election. It’s on the National Review website. I swear I hadn’t read his article before writing mine. It reads like a combination of the article above and the one I wrote just before the election about not voting Democrat out of spite. He throws in one additional person I hadn’t noticed – maybe even more horrifying than what I brought up. Dennis Kucinich is in line to be head of the Subcommittee on National Security. Good grief!

    I’m not sure what Hitchens has written or said on the subject.

    Dave

  • STM

    Dave Nalle said: “Kai … Let me take it down to a gradeschool level for you … Or in this case, if all the other nations in the world decide to destroy themselves with socialist policies, does that mean that America should too?”

    Kai, don’t be offended by what might at first seem like a patronising air. Dave just comes across as one of that dying breed – the classic example of the one-eyed, ignorant, arrogant American despised by the rest of the world and who still believes Americans have more rights than anyone else in just about any other country in the world and because of that, Americans can tell everybody else what’s right and what’s wrong.

    (Just the other day he told me that the US political system is better than mine because it comes from God/nature where the will of the people is expressed in the election of government that is there to protect their will … or some such bullsh.t that left me scratching my head about why I’ve even bothered voting in my own country for the past 35 years. After a quick vomit about the God/nature bit, I realised he probably doesn’t know anywhere near as much about the rest of the world as he purports to).

    He also doesn’t see that wanting to have some “socialist” (or humane) polices – like universal health care and a decent unionised industrial relations system that genuinely protects the rights of employees in the bargaining process with employers and coroprations and contains the right to strike – can actually be a right, rather than an impost (particularly when you’ve voted for such things at the ballot box).

    But then again, that’s his right and by his own admission Dave doesn’t think many of us non-Americans really have many rights.

    He makes his informed judgment from Austin, Texas, that bastion of forward thinking and progressive thought and the site of a wonderful university, but a place many unenlightened people believe requires the possession of a two-pint head as the prerequisite for the wearing of a 10-gallon hat.

    It might also appear that Dave likes to put shit on anyone who doesn’t hold the same opinions he does. Of course, his greatest opinion always seems to be the over-inflated one he has of himself. And of course, that’s just how it seems at first glance. I might be wrong about that: you’d have to ask the rest of the posters what they think.

    He also believes that a 200-year-old Amendment to the Constitution, worded almost identically to that contained in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (which still forms part of US law and along with the Magna Carta and the Habeus Corpus Act of 1679 – George Bush’s favourite piece of olde Englishe legislation – also inspired the basis of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights) allowing citizens to bear arms for the express purpose of keeping a standing militia still applies to all and sundry in 2006, even though the United States has the world’s highest rate of gun homicide and the world’s largest professional, standing army.

    Fair enough. He has told me that citizens in the US need the 2nd Amendment today even more than they did 200 years ago. I don’t quite know why, but there you go … it’s his right to believe whatever he believes.

    At first, honestly, I just thought he was being a complete f.ckwit. Now I realise he is just expressing views diametrically opposed to most of mine because our two respective democratic systems allow us to engage in such things without fear or favour, but thankfully with an ocean between us.

    And if I’d been so inclined, that democratic process and the right to free speech also would allow me to think Dave was being a dead-set, fair-dinkum dickhead a fair bit of the time.

    Yet all of these differences become nothing when you realise that he has a fondness for crispy-skin duck.

  • MCH

    “It might also appear that Dave likes to put shit on anyone who doesn’t hold the same opinions he does. Of course, his greatest opinion always seems to be the over-inflated one he has of himself. And of course, that’s just how it seems at first glance. I might be wrong about that: you’d have to ask the rest of the posters what they think.”

    Dittos.

  • Lumpy

    I think that’s the right Sowell article. Hitchens referenced his article this morning on the Laura Ingraham show, but I have no idea where it appeared. Apparently charles krauthammer also has a piece out on the socialist leanings of the incoming house leaders.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Oh, at the risk of being accused of being a tool echoing Karl Rove’s talking points (as transmitted by Fox News, natch), Nancy Pelosi’s idea of cleaning up the culture of corruption is to support unindicted Abscam suspect/snitch John Murtha. Sweet.

    STM (comment 221)- I appreciate the earnestness of your argument, but you seriously need an editor. You lost me in the verbose verbiage, m’kay? You could have pretty well summed up the whole content of your argument in less than 2 dozen words, something like, “Dave Nalle is a big doo-doo head, cause if he wasn’t, he’d be a good liberal – like all honest and intelligent people.”

    You see how much more concise that is?

    Y’all brother Blogcritics can consider this my contribution to the recent writer’s group “Cut that shit out” storyline of Sussman’s.

  • capt_geary

    dave, your article is very good but George W. Bush, spineless and weak? i don’t think so.

    da dems got serious problems now. if they fulfill their campaign promises, we are all screwed. they are either pooping their pants, wondering how to get out of this mess…or are completely out of touch with reality and really don’t understand the looming danger.

    and liberal media…hmmm…the liberal looney tunes owe them alot. i’m watching CNN now and the show’s titled “Coming Home”, before the election it was “Broken Government”. their liberal, anti-war agenda is so obvious. boycott them…many already are, if their ratings are an indication.

    in the meantime, the terrorists grow stronger…we grow weaker

  • STM

    Al Barger said: “I appreciate the earnestness of your argument, but you seriously need an editor. You lost me in the verbose verbiage, m’kay? You could have pretty well summed up the whole content of your argument in less than 2 dozen words, something like, “Dave Nalle is a big doo-doo head, cause if he wasn’t, he’d be a good liberal – like all honest and intelligent people.”

    Sorry old boy … speaking the Queen’s Englishe … we are nothing if not pompous and verbose. You must get used to all our styles here now Al as it’s become an international site.

    Some of it was personally directed at Dave (he knows which bits) so that might have been a problem but it’s also probably the real reason we lost the War of Independence … spent so much talking about it and trying to understand what we were writing to each other there was no time for anything else.

  • STM

    Said Al, again: “You see how much more concise that is?”

    True, but verbosity and bullshit deserves verbosity and bullshit.

    I must try to acquaint myself with American nuances, however, as the whole thing’s supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, rather than earnest.

    Dang … Dave’s gettin’ to me.

  • Clavos

    I must try to acquaint myself with American nuances, however, as the whole thing’s supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, rather than earnest.

    Yeah, mate, you might want to work on that a bit. I took it seriously, too, but I’m kind of dense at recognizing satire unless you hit me over the head with a sledgehammer.

  • STM

    Wasn’t REALLY satire, just a little tongue-in-cheek shot at Dave. He didn’t get my one last week about America needing a Queen and a common-law constitution, either.

    Like Winston Churchill said, we are one people separated by the barrier of a common language.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Well now STM, I’m just a dumb Kentuckian, so I apologize. It’s just sometimes you have to dumb it down for us out here in Borat’s America.

  • STM

    Al: I did read your piece. Borat’s down here visiting this week (Australia), and I’ve been listening to him being interviewed on radio and I have to say, although I’ve been a fan for a few years, I was pissing myself listening to him this morning. How’s this for an exchange.

    Interviewer: Do you have any children.

    Borat: Yes, three … Bilak, Milak and Hooey Lewis

    Interviewer: I can’t believe you’ve got a kid named Bilak.

    Good stuff. I love Cohen’s British gangsta, Ali G, too.

    Why is Dave so quiet??

  • SHARK

    STM: “…Dave just comes across as one of that dying breed – the classic example of the one-eyed, ignorant, arrogant American despised by the rest of the world and who still believes Americans have more rights than anyone else in just about any other country in the world and because of that, Americans can tell everybody else what’s right and what’s wrong.”

    Didn’t take the Aussie long to figure it out. heh.

    =========

    Um, you forgot “HYPOCRITE”…

    NALLE: “I never think that the sky is falling. I leave that kind of thinking to the left.”

    NALLE: “When they’ve [Democrats] had two years to do their worst, and you’re looking around at the ruins of your life… remember that we have only ourselves to blame.”

    =========

    re: “socialists” and “pro-labor”

    Dave, the early 20th century called; it wants its scary terminology back.

    =========

    Dear Al Barger,

    As you know:

    all news is marketing — and all limp defenses of Nalle are simply limp attempts at marketing.

    Oh, and yeah, we read yer “article” on Borat.

    ==========

    Gotta run.

    I promised I’d have Nalle’s article called “NO ONE DIED IN IRAQ TODAY” bronzed for PETI.

    Shhhhh…

    It’s an early xmas present.

  • S.T.M

    Shark, true to your name, you’ve been watching, circling, waiting … and you’ve delivered the big bite in one awful, splintered moment.

    Classic. Nalle must be missing a few body parts.

    Next time old boy, go for the head, even if what’s in it is hard to swallow.

  • SHARK

    Dear Dave,

    re. Comment #166 — Enjoyed the personal anecdotes about the wife.

    New topic:

    What is she wearing?

    I mean… right now?

    Thanks in advance,
    Socialist Who Also Covets Neighbor’s Stuff

  • troll

    Dave is off consulting with Tink for his new article: Nobody (who is anybody) Went Hungry in America Today

    STM – I have not found numbers for the division of wealth in Australia…I did find a thorough presentation on kiwi society – The Net Worth of New Zelanders – by their Retirement Commission which paints a picture of basic economic inequality similar to that existing in the US

    I suspect that Australia is not essentially different…

    assuming that this skewed distribution is common to developed capitalist societies I still maintain that there is little their governments can do to affect this inequality fundamentally through tax policy and subsidy

    in a sense what such policies accomplish is keeping a lid on the desperation of the poor and helping to prevent open rebellion

    so when you happily pay your feel good taxes your owner class thanks you

    (Shark – biblically speaking that would be coveting your neighbor’s ass wouldn’t it – ?)

  • S.T.M

    Troll said: “I did find a thorough presentation on kiwi society – The Net Worth of New Zelanders – by their Retirement Commission which paints a picture of basic economic inequality similar to that existing in the US. I suspect that Australia is not essentially different…”

    I don’t know a lot about NZ, although I suspect you are on the money, but not totally.

    It’s my observation that the extremes of poverty and wealth on a grand scale are not quite the same.

    There is a somewhat fairer distribution of wealth. Not much fairer, but fairer (generous labour laws until recently have been a key factor in this) – although much of it will likely be down to the fact that both countries are much smaller than the US, which means more people in need are less likely to fall through the cracks.

  • Martin Lav

    “What is she wearing?”

    Judging by Dave’s math, I’d say the pants.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Since people seem to be missing me I’ll make a brief response to the last half-intelligent, though misconceived thing posted here about 30 posts ago.

    (Just the other day he told me that the US political system is better than mine because it comes from God/nature where the will of the people is expressed in the election of government that is there to protect their will … or some such bullsh.t that left me scratching my head about why I’ve even bothered voting in my own country for the past 35 years. After a quick vomit about the God/nature bit, I realised he probably doesn’t know anywhere near as much about the rest of the world as he purports to).

    You might want to consider that you misunderstood me. First off, I have a very good idea how the rest of the world is and the choices they’ve made in their governments. Unlike most Americans, I have lived outside the US for a substantial portion of my life – years at a time and in dozens of countries. So don’t asusme I’m some uninformed hick.

    I did not say that our government comes from god/nature, but that our rights do. So do your rights. The question is whether your government exists to serve those rights or in spite of them.

    He also doesn’t see that wanting to have some “socialist” (or humane) polices

    Socialism is not humane. It is inherently inhumane. It is the use of the force of government to coerce people into aping humane behavior.

    – like universal health care and a decent unionised industrial relations system that genuinely protects the rights of employees in the bargaining process with employers and coroprations and contains the right to strike – can actually be a right, rather than an impost (particularly when you’ve voted for such things at the ballot box).

    When did I ever say that unions were bad? I even cited unions as an example of the good kind of small-scale socialism which is desirable in principle. As for the rest, you can vote for anything, STM. You can even vote your basic rights away bit by bit to the government.

    But then again, that’s his right and by his own admission Dave doesn’t think many of us non-Americans really have many rights.

    No, STM. All human beings have the same intrinsic rights to life, liberty and property. The question is how many of those your government lets you enjoy and to what extent. Or more to the point, whether the primary goal of your government is to protect those rights or to choose which ones it allows you to exercise and what limitations it puts on them.

    There’s an ongoing progression in government towards incresing limitations of basic rights. The US is farther along that path than I’d like. Australia is a couple of steps farther. Most European countries are a bit farther than that.

    He makes his informed judgment from Austin, Texas, that bastion of forward thinking and progressive thought and the site of a wonderful university, but a place many unenlightened people believe requires the possession of a two-pint head as the prerequisite for the wearing of a 10-gallon hat.

    Actually, cowboy culture is basically banned from Austin. Culturally the dominant mindset in Austin is indistinguishable from what you’d find in left-leaning bastions like San Francisco or Sidney.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Dave, your irrationality is showing. You’ve been channeling Redtard, Arch, and JOM again, haven’t you? Joey #6, you said it, man: taking back the bill of rights is in no way vengence, & even prosecuting & hanging Bush & Cheney would not go far enough to be considered vengence. That criminal neocon crew that have had their jackboots on the neck of America for the last 6 years deserve far worse than to just lose an election. Fortunately for them, they won’t get it.

  • Les Slater

    Dave #238

    “No, STM. All human beings have the same intrinsic rights to life, liberty and property.”

    Property? Where did you get that from? God?

  • D’oh

    interesting that Dave quotes Locke rather than the Declaration, the difference being between “pursuit of happiness” and “property”

    just wanted to quote him here when he says “All human beings have the same intrinsic rights”

    now, for those who believe that all people have the same intrinsic rights, as Dave has said, might want to take a look at this Administration’s view , as outlined by the Justice Department

    from Australia news sources you get this…

    THE US Government today argued that Guantanamo prisoners had no constitutional right to challenge their detention before US federal judges, and the lawsuits by hundreds of detainees must be dismissed.

    In papers filed with a US appeals court in Washington, Justice Department attorneys gave their most detailed argument yet that the cases must be dismissed because of the tough anti-terrorism law signed by President George W. Bush last month.

    Lawyers for the prisoners have argued the new law does not give the US Government the power to arrest suspects overseas and imprison them indefinitely without any charges and without allowing them to challenge their detention in US court.

    Houston news sources on the same topic are here

    the Houston article has new revelations about what the Justice Department of this Administration thinks about the “intrinsic rights” of any foreign born person are

    these legal opinions and court motions are NOT from any Democrats, but from AG Gonzalez and the White House, showing that for all the protestations of “hell” , it is the Administration that is undercutting those “intrinsic rights” right this very moment, while any potential harm to be done by those who aren’t even sworn in yet is merely chicken little fare

  • MCH

    “while any potential harm to be done by those who aren’t even sworn in yet is merely chicken little fare”

    D’oh;
    Please keep in mind the poster is writing from deep inside his FORTIFIED COMPOUND…

  • MCH

    “You see, my wife nets more before taxes than I do. So when I say that our family income is just over $150K and that I earn $70K or less (right around $70K as it turns out) that means she earns a bit over $80K, which puts us just over $150K together.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Wow…now doesn’t THAT explain a lot. I can’t help but think that Nalle’s incessant braggadocios and phoney machismo here on BC is a form of compensating for the fact that his wife is the bread-winner in the family.

  • Martin Lav

    “Why is Dave so quiet??”

    His wife is making him take out the trash and he lost his crib notes.

  • Les Slater

    Let’s cut the personal shit.

  • Lumpy

    Seems to me that if he’s earning DOUBLE the national median income by himself he doesn’t exacly live off his wife. How much do you make, MCH?

    It seems to me like he’s getting a hell of a lot of abuse here merely for pointing out something obvious and of genuine concern with a couple of inflammatory sentences thrown in.

    Some of the critics are obviously defensive about being socialists, but the rest of you ought to know better, especially the true democrats who ought to be outraged by the DNC’s electora. Bait and switch tactics where u vote for moderates and put extremists in the highest positions of power as a result.

  • Clavos

    Les & Lumpy,

    Well said.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    So how’s the weather in Mexico Clavos? How’s the spanish coming?

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    D’oh what don’t you get? The white house is not violating any “intrinsic human rights.” That’s just a liberal political tactic. You can’t violate a prisoner’s rights unless he’s actually human. How slow are you?

  • Pleasexcusethestrawmanery

    I can’t argue with peoples real positions so i’ll just make up what they said and make a sarcastic comment.

  • Clavos

    peti #248:

    I was born there. I spoke Spanish before English.

    And it’s not as cold as Boston, peti.

  • Peter J

    You guys are brutal.

  • S.T.M

    Dave Nalle said: “San Francisco or Sidney.”

    At least I know how to spell Ostin

  • S.T.M

    And Dave, by your own admission to me you have never lived here or visited here. If you did, you’d know that Australia has a lengthy written constitition based on both the British and US models but also allows for continuing evolution under common law. Indeed, I have as many rights as you do, perhaps more, bar one – the right to bear arms.

    Most of us made an informed choice on that one and supported a government that decided to ban most weapons except those used by farmers after a series of mass killings, including the world’s worst to date (Martin Bryant’s rampage at Port Arthur, Tasmania).

    We (well, not me personally) voted John Howard back in to office with an increased majority at the following election.

    I would like you to tell me what rights you have that I don’t apart from that one, bearing in mind that a common-law constitution is based both on written and unwritten law and that much of the basis of common law here is based on the same common law that evolved in the US as a result of British common law. In other words, judges here will sometimes go back a few hundred years or more to look at decisions, articles and Acts under British common law, exactly the way they do in the US. The writ and Act of Habeus Corpus is a classic example, as is the English Bill of Rights.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Pleasexcusethestrawmanery, I suggest you take a look at the many serious comments I posted on this article and others. Forgive the one sarcastic comment intended to point out the only plausable, however disgusting, “solution” to the inconsistency D’oh pointed out.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    I don’t think you got it Clavos..

    earlier you said you would move to Mexico if you were forced to pay for anyone’s education who was unrelated to you. As you have been paying for the education of tens of millions of unrelated (at least if we’re talking about immediate family ties) I just assumed you had packed your bags for Mexico already…

  • Clavos

    Let’s put this back in context, shall we peti?

    You said to Dave:

    You’re a rich guy who’s afraid democrats might steal a small fraction of your money… [so]kids I know can go to college w/o taking out 30K+ in loans.

    To which I replied:

    I worked (full time) my way through college, got no help from my parents, who couldn’t afford it, graduated with considerable student loan debt, as did my wife. It took several years to pay it off; too bad.

    Pay for your own college; I’m not going to; I’ll move back to Mexico if it comes to that.

    And:

    I see no reason why he (or I) should have to have our taxes increased to the point a college education is free. Not only do I not want to pay (and won’t) that level of taxation for that purpose, I don’t think it’s a good thing for the kids to have everything handed to them; it gives ’em a wrong idea of what the real world is like.

    So far, My taxes haven’t been raised; the Dems don’t actually get the power to do so until January, so I’m still here, joven.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Well did you move to Mexico when taxes were raised to pay for subsidized college loans? To pay for public schools? And what do you think PUBLIC UNIVESITIES ARE? Why do you think they cost so much less? Did you move when your state raised taxes to pay for the increased cost of funding state universities?

  • Clavos

    peti, it’s obvious you didn’t read my previous comments in this thread, which is ironic, since they were addressed to you.

    Do you remember my mentioning UF and FSU? And what I said about them?

    And actually, I’ve been moving back and forth most of my life, usually for reasons involving money. It’s why I keep my dual citizenship.

    My original point was that I don’t think the taxpayers should pay 100% of the costs of a college education for everyone. If students have to take out substantial below market student loans, tough. Tens of thousands of college students have had to for generations now, and I think that’s a good thing.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    At least I know how to spell Ostin

    Right, it’s spelled the same way as Ostralia.

    And Dave, by your own admission to me you have never lived here or visited here. If you did, you’d know that Australia has a lengthy written constitition based on both the British and US models but also allows for continuing evolution under common law. Indeed, I have as many rights as you do, perhaps more, bar one – the right to bear arms.

    Actually, I know all of that even without having lived or visited there. I know you think I dissed Australia at some point, but I don’t believe I did over any issue except for gun ownership.

    Most of us made an informed choice on that one and supported a government that decided to ban most weapons except those used by farmers after a series of mass killings, including the world’s worst to date (Martin Bryant’s rampage at Port Arthur, Tasmania).

    A classic example of how a frightened populace can give up basic rights and empower government when they value the illusion of safety more than freedom and would prefer that others take responsibility for their safety. As always, the fault there lies with the people for giving up their rights more than the government for taking them.

    I would like you to tell me what rights you have that I don’t apart from that one,

    Well, I have the right to speak out against my government and it’s officials, which you don’t as of 2005 when sedition was made a crime again in the Anti-Terrorism bill. Even our ridiculous Patriot Act didn’t got that far.

    But yes, Australia and the US are pretty similar in their level of civil rights. Much too low in both cases, but better than a lot of the rest of the world.

    Dave

  • STM

    “Well, I have the right to speak out against my government and it’s officials, which you don’t as of 2005 when sedition was made a crime again in the Anti-Terrorism bill. Even our ridiculous Patriot Act didn’t got that far.”

    No-one is taking any notice of the sedition laws, though, which actually always existed but were ignored and defunct. It was simply included into the anti-terror bill. No-one will be arrested for criticising the government. Such a notion is nonsense. We do it all the time, just like you only we use more public cursing. This being a country largely made up of Irish immigrants and political; prisoners, no government has had much luck on the three or four occasions in the 20th century it has tried to prosecute for sedition.

    Like I say, and you know this to be a fact, a common-law constitition also allows for the inclusion of “unwritten laws” and social mores to count.

    Which means the Government knows that it could never prosecute anyone under these laws without being howled down because we don’t like it. They tried to prosecute some would-be terrorists and failed.

    Nor would the courts be likely to convict in any case as judges were and lawyers were among the major critics.

  • MCH

    Clavos;
    You didn’t use the GI Bill?

  • STM

    The paradox: while the government was introducing these laws, everyone was criticising them for doing so.

    I won’t be arrested in Australia for describing the Prime Minister as a f.ckwit and his policies as a crock, whether it’s in public or private.

  • Clavos

    MCH,

    The GI Bill in the sixties paid all of $130 a month (while school was in session), for a specified total of months, which I don’t remember. That was it — No tuition, which is why I also had to work full time and borrow. I didn’t use all the allotment because I got my degree in three years.

    I understand it’s a lot more now…

  • MCH

    Clavos;
    I never used it, didn’t go to college (got my degree on table #7 at the local pool hall). But a few of the guys I served with did. Just wrote a story on a B17 bomber pilot who earned his Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin on the GI Bill after WW2.

  • SHARK

    If this thread were a horse, we’d be *shooting it in the head by now.

    xxoo,
    Shark [looking forward to more, NEW oohhhh-soooo-scary posts from Dave “Stephen King” Nalle]

    *the socialists want yer guns, btw

  • Bliffle

    Poor Dave seems to have slipped a cog and reverted to 1950s rhetoric. Including a rant against Big Labor. Big Labor? Oughta be called Tiny Labor with only 10million memebers and no power.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Bliff, you think 10 million people can’t swing a few elections? And it doesn’t matter how large the unions are for those who are in bondage to them. Plus that membership is heavily concentrated in a few states – not coincidentally some of the states which have lagged behind in the general economic recovery.

    As for my original post, Pelosi is already proving my point with her attempts to muscle socialist-leaning chairmen into committees in place of more senior and more qualified people. I don’t aspire to being a prophet, but I can sure read which way the wind is blowing.

    Dave

  • Bliffle

    Was Dave frightened by Movietone newsreels of John L. Lewis calling the coal miners out on strike? Does the horrible memory of those bushy eyebrows still terrorize after all these years?

    Bondage!?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You know, 10 million union members out of a workforce of 160 million is still about 6%. That isn’t much worse than it was when Lewis was calling the shots for the UMW. The highest union membership has ever been is about 7% of the workforce.

    And unions can certainly make a huge difference politically in the areas where they are concentrated.

    And BTW, I’m all for unions and workers collectives and other methods of labor organization. I’m just not in favor of institutionalized unions which put the interests of union bosses and professional labor organizers and pet politicians above the interests of their members. For a union to be legitimate it ought to be run by its members and be responsive to them.

    Dave

%d bloggers like this: