FOX News finally got something correct the other day. I am not going to say they got something “right,” but everything is “right” at FOX.
They fired Glenn Beck. or maybe not. Check this out provided to me by JMB. Thanks for the update. We might still have Glenn Beck to kick around.
New Update: The common thinking around the news industry was that Beck was indeed fired personally by Roger Ailes, Chairman of FOX NEWS and that other FOX commentators complained that Beck was too far out and hurt them as well. Check out this article.
Joanna Brooks did an excellent job describing this here in her article.
The thing I found so strange about Beck is that I started out liking him. I went out and purchased the DVD about his conversion. My wife and I were very touched watching it, as we are both converts so we could relate to some degree. While he was on HLN, he seemed reasonable even for a conservative.
When he moved over to FOX, the trouble began. At FOX News, nothing is too outrageous for them. They are willing to slant their news toward their point of view and even to the point of editing people speeches to reinforce their own messages. They are behind the birther movement, the Obama as socialist theory and are definitely in the Republican camp. Of course, to be even handed, MSNBC is not shy about their left of center leaning slant on the news.
But back to Beck, As Joanna points out, Beck has been the prophet of doom this past two years or so, ranting against anything not in line with his own twisted thinking. Attacks on George Soros as a kid in the Holocaust, Reform Rabbis, anyone or anything Islamic, and on and on. His viewership dropped, his advertisers fled and in the TV world, those are the ingredients for cancellation. The most disturbing part is that he is a favorite of Mormons, both because he is one and also because in the US, most Mormons are conservative and subscribe to a like point of view as Beck. The lack of “loving one’s neighbor” is inconsequential.
Well, I wish Beck well and hope he recovers from his extreme views. His radio show continues, so I doubt it.
On another note, what is with the Republicans war on the poor? As today might be the day the government comes to a standstill because both sides of the Congress and Senate cannot come to agreement on a continuation to fund the US government. Never mind a budget, but not even the continuing resolution.
Seems the Congressional Republicans, fed by the Tea Party Movement want severe cuts to the Government Spending. This is not a bad idea. The US Government, we all pretty much agree, is an overblown monster which spends more than it takes in and cannot seem to control itself. That is the fault is with US Congress, who decide how much money government departments get.
So, if cutting the budget is good, what is the problem?
Well, the Republicans want to cut out programs that help the poor, the elderly and children. Their remedy to the problem is to take away needed help from the “least of God’s children.” While not all of these people are the “deserving poor” as some might call them, many are living at or well below the poverty line especially in this economy.
The hypocrisy of it all is that these same budget cutters are doing absolutely nothing to cut the budget of the Defense Department, subsidies to Oil and Agriculture industries, corporate welfare or anything to pertaining to the richest segment of America. In fact, they are doing everything in their power to continue to return money to the richest Americans and largest Corporations at the same time these same corporations export jobs outside of the US. The finance industry is back to paying huge bonuses to its employees without fundamentally changing the way they have done business, which drove this country to the brink of depression.
I think we all agree that cuts are necessary, but why on the backs of poor folks anymore. Rich Americans and Corporations can afford to give up some of their Government Welfare, long before some of the real poor people of this country. Oil companies in particular, are making more money today in profits than any group of companies in American History. Why do they need subsidies?
Let’s be fair.
Wheat & Tares 
Actually, a serious front runner in the GOP has focused on cutting military spending.
Even a broken Wheat & Tares ought to get that right at least twice a day.
My impression was that they cancelled his show because they are planning something else for him at FoxNews. See here. I’m not sure “fired him” is even remotely close to the situation.
OK, I corrected it. Thanks. Even a broken post can be corrected twice a day!
“Actually, a serious front runner in the GOP has focused on cutting military spending.”
There are a number of people who have been reasonable in describing the right way to do this.
They just do not happen to be in control of the process!
I am sure it is a little hard to cut defense with 2 wars going on, but this is where the cuts need to come. I agree completely. get rid of corporate welfare.
I spend the day yesterday at the Capitol in the offices of several Senators and Representatives. They all realize that the budget is a BIG problem. And they are all frustrated by something for which there isn’t a very good solution.
Here is the essence of the problem, according to them:
– They are talking about whether they should cut $10 billion, or $60 billion, or whatever. While large amounts, these are really just rounding errors in the big picture.
– Even if ALL of the discretionary programs were removed, leaving just entitlements like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc., over the next 20-30 years, these will consume essentially 100% of the federal budget.
– Unfortunately, these programs that “help the poor” are the things that are going to bankrupt the country. However, cutting them is obviously going to affect people who can least afford it.
– Another solution is to raise taxes, ie “rich Americans” giving up some of “their Government Welfare”. But there’s a problem here. In 2008, the top 10% of earners in the US paid 70% of the income tax already. The top 1% of earners paid 38% of the US income tax. The bottom 50% of the country in income paid 2.7% of the income tax. So, the government is already running redistributing wealth already from the rich to the poor.
So, there’s not a good answer. The current system is broken and non-sustainable. Raising taxes even more on the people who are already essentially funding the whole thing has a fair amount of downside. And cutting benefits to people who can least afford it is not ideal either.
When I asked one of the members of the House from my state what recommendation he had for doctors like me, facing the inevitable cuts in the also broken Medicare system, his reply: “Make sure you have your food storage”
Everyone knows it is broken. No one has the answer.
#5 mh:
Potentially THREE wars, depending on how much we get dragged into Libya.
Mike S,
You hit the nail on the head. It’s a big problem with no easy solution. And the numbers they discuss are only symbolic meant to impress the “crowd.”
Even the supposed waste and fraud is a small number compared to the overall. But as someone said the other days. these small number eventually add up.
I suppose we could start with some means testing for SS and medicare. if people are well enough off that they don’t really need it, then don’t give it to them.
I am hoping I have done enough financial planning that I do not need SSI or medicare to live a reasonable life.
The system was designed to be a “pay as you go.” the trouble is they’ve added so many people to the “go” side and not as many to the “pay” side.
The real answer is to raise revenue, not by raising taxes but by increasing the tax base and the revenue base. This is done by putting more people back to work and not giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs out of the US.
“Hold on, pilgrim” (John Wayne). I have a different point of view on Beck.
I’m glad we live in a country where the free, but not objective, press exist. I suggest listening carefully to the full spectrum of news broadcasters, and then try to make sense of it. Trying to make sense out of it can be an arduous task but what choice do we have?
Beck bashing is popular among those with a lefty point of view. I agree he did a good job giving them ammo, but he also brought many things to light that would have otherwise been ignored by lefty censors in the “mainstream” media.
Bash Beck if that makes ya feel good, pilgrim, but be fair and point out his formidable list of contributions as well.
Why do the democrats keep hurting the poor by continuing programs that have been proven to either increase poverty and dependence or just don’t work? Obama promised evidence based policies yet, if they are popular among his constituency, he continues them.
Did Rand Paul propose cutting military? I would think so since his budget would cut government by much larger margin.
We must remember that when we don’t follow the principles of the gospel we are led to problems by our own cognition. What is the principle of taxation? How much is too much? How much is too little? The only thing I have found in the scriptures is the scripture that says, thou shalt not steal. Stop stealing and our problems will go away.
@Jared,
He isn’t popular among us libertarians either.
Jeff Lindsay just put out a good article that reflects my points too:
http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2011/04/do-not-feed-animals-danger-of-depending.html
#6 Mike S wrote: Everyone knows it is broken. No one has the answer.
____________________________________________
The answer is really simple: For decades our elected representatives have over taxed and over spent. The majority of American’s got what they voted for, big government, the very thing the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
No one sees a solution because there isn’t one. America, as we have known it, is finished. The only question is what can be salvaged.
It appears to me that we are going to become the first “undeveloped” country as we slide into the financial abyss we’ve created.
This shouldn’t surprise Mormons. We should have a poll at W&T and see who has prepared an adequate “storage” program.
#13: Jared
Here’s the problem with the broad brush stokes you are using. As I was told yesterday by a Congressman: The government has never started a program to hurt someone
And then he explained. For everything the government has done, it meant something to someone. Medical care for seniors who were bankrupted and sick. A social security safety net to help people who had worked hard their entire life and were now living in poverty. A program to help handicapped children. A tax break to help an oil company decide to go through the 10-year process of developing an oil field with the volatile price of oil so we’re not as dependent on the Middle East. Temporarily freezing wages in the middle of a World War to help prevent excesses. Etc.
These are all good ideas, and were all done with good intentions. But they all have downsides. When social security was set up, there were 8 workers for every beneficiary. It is now closer to 2:1.
When wages were frozen during WWII, companies tried to attract workers by offering health insurance and other benefits. It made a lot of sense at the time. But look at the mess we’re in now.
So, it’s really just a matter of scale. Washington DC is full of people who are saying we need to cut, cut, cut – but just don’t cut THIS because it’s important to me.
Who decides what is worth doing? You, me, who? And it’s not just government. I’m sure there are many in the Church who could think of a better use of $3 billion than a shopping mall.
And, in your “salvaged” country – what would YOU spend money on? Protecting your borders? Creating a safety net for the poorest? Health care? Or, if you were in charge, would you let people starve or suffer illnesses or what? Where would YOU stop spending?
How can lowering taxes further solve anything? The ones who benefit the most already have the most money. Where does that money really go?
Agreed that we need to break the cycle of having the poor dependent on government assistance. Jesus wants us to help the poor. What are you doing to help them?
Not sure I’ve heard Beck say anything of real value in the past two years. But I don’t listen anymore. The ridiculousness has drowned out what might have value.
I always like this term “mainstream” media. Everyone talks about them, but no one wants to be associated with it. It is always the “other” news organizations. In my opinion, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, Bloomberg the networks and anyone who is regularly on the TV and Radio discussing news and issues ARE the “mainstream” media. So the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Becks, Schultzes, O’Reillys are all part of the mainsteam media, whether they like it or not.
I’d be thrilled if someone could provide a list of Beck’s “contributions.” I honestly do not know of anything positive.
I would like to be practical liberal, but I can only be an ideological one. I agree that we have a social responsibility to care for the poor, and we ought to find meaningful ways to do that – but the practical ability to do so is still, and always will be, subject to the law of constraints. Until we can improve the system so that we either have a sustainable long-term solution to (spending/federal & State tax revenues) and a sustainable solution to reducing public dependence on Government aided subsistence, the ideology doesn’t work – regardless of how benevolent it may appear. Unemployment compensation is drying up, society is already over-taxed, and so we have a real-crisis. While it may seem in humane, and in the short run it may even be so a little, welfare (of all kinds) reform needs to happen immediately. In the spirit of Jack Bauer, the clock is ticking and we need to act now – and it’s time to throw a few of these ideologies out the window.
“The most disturbing part is that he is a favorite of Mormons….”
It does not help that in some markets, (mine included) Glenn Beck’s radio program is distributed by the Church via Bonneville Communications.
#14 Mike S — you’ve painted the picture well.
How can lowering taxes further solve anything? The ones who benefit the most already have the most money. Where does that money really go?
Agreed that we need to break the cycle of having the poor dependent on government assistance. Jesus wants us to help the poor. What are you doing to help them?
Lowering taxes can help by letting businesses hire employees for less (less employer/business tax). Lowering taxes can help by giving the poor more money for things they need/want, like a muffler. Lowering taxes can help by not running the wealthy people out of your state or nation (like New York learned recently as illustrated on John Stossel’s program – and admitted by the governor).
Jesus does want us to help the poor. But in all his doctrines I don’t recall him saying that we need to force others to help the poor. He wants us to do it voluntarily – like paying tithes, it’s voluntary. So should the help of the poor. If we don’t do so then we will end up like Sodom and Gomorrah (they didn’t help the poor and the earth buried the whole city for that – and other reasons).
I pay my offerings still, even though I was out of work for over a year (I intentionally left the work force to reeducate myself and pursue a different career path). I take opportunities (not as much as I should, I admit) to volunteer to help others. My wife volunteers at a place that aids the poor that need help with their infants. Not trying to puff myself up but just trying to illustrate the correct way to help, through voluntary means, not by taking from people and giving to others. We can also get rid of a lot of regulations and licensing to make it easier for people to get into professions/careers of their choice and thereby lower the cost of services.
BTW, I never really listened to Beck. Not a big fan either. I listened to one of his books that a friend insisted that I listen to. It was a bit to demeaning for me.
Mike S.
“- Another solution is to raise taxes, ie “rich Americans” giving up some of “their Government Welfare”. But there’s a problem here. In 2008, the top 10% of earners in the US paid 70% of the income tax already. The top 1% of earners paid 38% of the US income tax. The bottom 50% of the country in income paid 2.7% of the income tax. So, the government is already running redistributing wealth already from the rich to the poor.”
It is also the case that the top 1% in America earn about 20% of the wealth in the country (and that number has doubled over the past 30 years) and the top 20% own about half of the total wealth in the country (a number that has doubled). The poor and middle classes’ share of the wealth is dropping quickly.
You are also conveniently not accounting for payroll taxes, property taxes, and sales tax in your calculation of how much the poor and middle classes are paying each year. Income tax is just one (small) part of the equation.
Meanwhile GE and other behemoths are not paying any taxes at all and annually receive billions in subsidies.
I agree that this is complicated, but putting the entire weight of fixing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle classes (not saying that’s what you are doing, but Republicans certainly are), will only lead to more inequality and the widening of the gap between the rich and poor, which is really, really bad for America.
My start to a solution would be to cut defense spending drastically and end our three pointless wars.
SS could be fixed by removing the $106,000 cap on the taxable income and means test.
Nationalizing and fully funding health care would actually save the nation money in the long term and remove many of the problems with Medicare, Medicaid, and the private system.
Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and simplify the tax system to remove loopholes, unneeded subsidies, etc.
And certainly there are many discretionary spending problems that could be removed or slashed, but those make up such a small amount of the problem they should be dealt with last.
Finally, there is no need to remove the deficit completely. The nation can survive indefinitely with a deficit, the economy just needs to continue to grow at a reasonable rate, which there is no reason to believe will stop anytime in the near future.
#14 Mike S–
You make some good points and ask some good questions. I don’t have any better points, questions, or answers.
The scriptures provide a perspective that is partly gloomy: All nations will fail! War, death and destruction are on the horizon. Why, because fallen man doesn’t have the capacity to create a millennium.
With that said, we are still obligated to do the best we can with the promise that the Lord will protect, bless, and nurture His followers. And in the end, He will come and reign personally on the earth creating the promised millennial day.
Now, what I’ve said won’t sit well, even with church members. But the message of the scriptures is clear.
I think the best thing we can do collectively is to sustain, follow, pray for, and be patient with the living prophets.
The best thing we can do individually is acquire the gift of the Holy Ghost who will see us through troubled days.
The great and dreadful day of the Lord is at the door and we may be that generation who will deal with the sudden loss of the prosperity and conveniences we have taken for granted. We could suddenly find ourselves relying on our leaders and the Lord like the pioneers did when they exited Nauvoo for the Rocky Mountains.
However, there appears much to be done in the way of missionary and temple work before the worst of the last days come upon us, that gives me hope that things won’t become desperate overnight. I don’t see how we can avoid a financial depression in the near time, so I am as ready as I can be for that kind of experience. I hope each of us will diligently prepare for that likelihood.
“Lowering taxes can help by letting businesses hire employees for less (less employer/business tax). Lowering taxes can help by giving the poor more money for things they need/want, like a muffler.”
I know this is the theory. but Bush lowered taxes and we then entered the worst recession we have seen since the depression. More companies are moving jobs outside the US than creating them. So I do not see how lower taxes had that effect.
“Lowering taxes can help by not running the wealthy people out of your state or nation (like New York learned recently as illustrated on John Stossel’s program – and admitted by the governor”
You know of course, that some states actively attract people by their taxation policies. It costs lot to live in New York or California and people do it for reason other than taxes. If the state has no income tax, for example, they have a high property tax. if you have a large income, that can be a better deal for you. in the end, they get the money from taxpayers one way or another. And most people with a lot of money have about a million taxes dodges not available to the average person.
Jacob S
🙂 :). Right on!
I’m guessing I missed the “Even Crazy as Bat Crap MSNBC Gets it Right Once a Day” post when Keith Olbermann was let go.
“I’m guessing I missed the “Even Crazy as Bat Crap MSNBC Gets it Right Once a Day” post when Keith Olbermann was let go.”
I was glad he was let go. he was as crazy on the left as Beck is on the right.
I know this is the theory. but Bush lowered taxes and we then entered the worst recession we have seen since the depression. More companies are moving jobs outside the US than creating them. So I do not see how lower taxes had that effect.
You just illustrated why we need to end the fed and get government out of our finances. It wasn’t the lowering the taxes that caused the problems it was the policies of the government, the fed, and the greed of the people that caused this last recession. And it will be the cause of the next one, because we haven’t learned our lesson. The continue to give welfare to large corporations and banks and continue to print money (quantitative easing). The people continue to impoverish themselves through debt. Regulations continue to get tighter and stop people from creating new businesses.
Economics is not something we will agree on so I won’t belabor it anymore. If you want to see what I believe would help read mises dot org.
In the end, they get the money from taxpayers one way or another. And most people with a lot of money have about a million taxes dodges not available to the average person.
Yes, the core problem is the taxes themselves (and theft). Living under an ever increasing bureaucracy tends to do this. There is no rule of law when everyone is treated different. Rule of law implies that everyone is treated the same under the law, anything else is corruption.
@Jacob S,
Nationalizing and fully funding health care would actually save the nation money in the long term and remove many of the problems with Medicare, Medicaid, and the private system.
Completely not true. See http://mises.org/daily/3613/The-Real-Right-to-Medical-Care-versus-Socialized-Medicine
I probably shouldn’t have brought it up because I’m not interested in rehashing all the old health care debates, but the United States pays more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation, but a lot, all of whom have some form of single payer health insurance.
The links dueling begins: http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/
“by a lot”
#19 Jon: “Jesus does want us to help the poor. But in all his doctrines I don’t recall him saying that we need to force others to help the poor. He wants us to do it voluntarily – like paying tithes, it’s voluntary.”
Where’s the scriptural evidence that it should be voluntary?
Speaking as someone in the top tax bracket I would say that I have NO problem with the tax rate being raised to make the country solvent while continuing to supply education, medical and civic services where they are needed.
My family takes care of our basic needs. We are also able to make charitable donations and invest for our future. I have NO problem investing in the country, its operation and its future as well. That’s what taxes ARE: investments in the common welfare and the strength of the nation. Seen that way evading that responsibility according to one’s ability is shameful.
I say this NOT as a member of the top 1% of income earners or even the top 2% or 3% or, probably top 5%. We are only in the group that does a little bit better than the mid 6-figures. And yet we never miss a meal or worry unduly about whether our kids can go to college or if we’ll be able to help them should a grandkid have a special need. So, if we — with only a single family residence — can manage to see beyond our own needs — I can’t imagine how callous it is for those who make TENS of millions a year can’t see their way to take a reasonable tax increase burden to make the country solvent and able to grow to provide jobs for those who need to work.
I’m willing to accept that some people will always do better. But the number of people in this country who will never need to work because they are still living on trusts set up by virtue of their GRANDparents’ good fortune and benefiting nonetheless from income and estate tax reductions while growing numbers of our fellow citizens are in economic and emotional distress and the country gets more vulnerable is a national disgrace that no amount of statistical or theoretical dissembling or partisan political posturing can disguise.
It is a difficult situation with no easy answers.
I have spent the majority of my career working with individuals who are economically challenged. From my experience characterizing individuals who utilize government assistance as “dependent” is missing the boat.
The majority of the people whom I have worked with work much harder and in more diverse ways than those who have money. They often conduct back-breaking work for a pittance. They couldn’t survive without additional assistance. When families are unable to survive based on their hard work and environmental resources (including government programs) there is an increase in desperate behavior. As these programs continue to be cut without additional resources being provided (like higher paying jobs etc) theft and crime will increase. Desperate behavior will not increase because poor individuals are evil..but because they will do what they must to survive. And if the trend continues it could lead to revolution.
Are we as a country really willing to risk this? Hurting those most in need balanced against further taxing corporate America?
Being able to support yourself isn’t a specialized, elite skill. It’s a basic expectation of society. Or at least it ought to be.
As long as we keep paying people to not work, we won’t know how many actually can.
@Jacob S,
Yes, and did you read the link I sent you. Costs are lower in a free market. The US is not in a free market. The US medical system is under a mercantilist market. Big difference.
@Paul,
Leviticus 1:3; Mosiah 4: 24-27; Moses 4:1-4; 2 Cor. 9:7; James 1:27; Eph. 4:28; Lev. 19:9-10; Matt. 22:36-39; 1 Tim. 5:8; John 19:27; 1 Tim. 5:3-4; Gal. 6:10
@alice,
But the number of people in this country who will never need to work because they are still living on trusts set up by virtue of their GRANDparents’ good fortune and benefiting nonetheless from income and estate tax reductions
Thou shalt not covet.
@Paul,
I got you your scriptures but I guess they have automatic links put on them so it’s waiting in moderation.
Are we as a country really willing to risk this?
Two wrongs don’t make a right. We need to return to an honest monetary system and get government out of many things so the poor will end up being to help themselves. When I say that I mean that the poor tend to be fairly caring and rely on each other quite a bit.
I have lived in poor areas for the last 3 years. In one ward the people would reroof each others houses among other things. I know the poor need help but doing it through the force and violence of government is not the correct way. Prov. 6:30-31
I do care deeply for the poor but it’s the individual who must help. Having the government do it creates the attitude among the people that it’s government who should do it and then they refuse to help themselves because they see it as the government’s job.
SS could be fixed by removing the $106,000 cap on the taxable income and means test.
Amen. That would be a huge start.
Troth Everyman on April 8, 2011 at 12:13 PM — there is a study by two BYU business professors that laid out your point in detail. The one guy said that fact was the most depressing thing he had ever discovered in research. Wealth came not from intelligence, hard work, or other inherent value as much as it came from acculturation and family connections.
I guess I need to post a reply to this post, but some things are sustainable and some things are not.
I don’t understand the argument that getting rid of the fed will cure the economic ills. when the country operated under the gold standard, there were way more depressions than there have been since marriner eccles headed the fed. I guess I will do a post on marriner eccles on monday.
How to end (by phasing out) the SS and Medicare.
http://mises.org/daily/5191/How-to-Eliminate-Social-Security-and-Medicare
None of the arguments on how to fix the federal budget hold any water to me until all special interests back off and let the professionals figure out what is really needed and what is wasteful. We need to limit the military-industrial complex which builds weapons we either do not need or do not really work stop subsidizing everyone and everything and determine who is really in need.
This is tall order for glad-handing politician
mh,
A little history to show why the fed causes many problems similar to the problems in the 19th century. The 19th century recessions occurred because of monetary expansion just like we see today with the fed except at a greater pace.
http://mises.org/daily/5174/Life-with-the-Fed-Sunshine-and-Lollipops
Another reason to end the fed:
The warfare/welfare would be difficult to exist without the fed.
Source: http://mises.org/books/cartelization.pdf
Mises Institute is pretty mainstream bunch of guys. Like this quoted in Wikipedia:
“Institute scholars are often opposed to democracy, described by Institute Fellow Hans-Hermann Hoppe as “Democracy: The God That Failed”. James Ostrowski describes the system as follows:[44]
Not to be confused with a republic, a democracy is a system in which, theoretically, what the majority says goes. The reality, however, is more complex and much uglier. In a democracy, various political elites struggle for control of the state apparatus by appealing to the material interests of large voting blocks with promises of legalized graft.”
@Jeff,
I don’t get what your getting at. Please expound.
Jeff,
Good post.
Glenn Beck is nuts and he may have caused more damage than good on the cause of fiscal responsibility. Our nation is broke. We are broke because of all the entitlement programs, which consume about 60 percent of our budget. Glenn is right in terms of his analysis of the financial facts, but wrong in his delivery. He has also been ‘prophesying’ of an imminent war with Iran for about 10 years. I think the Savior said beware of false prophets.
I feel a lot like the man quoted in Joanna Brooks’s article. I turned him off about five years ago on the radio and have only watched a few excerpts of his TV show. I could only stomach about two radio programs. Every time you hear the guy, you want to take your gun out and put it to your head. Just the opposite of how you feel after conference – refreshed and renewed.
“I don’t get what your getting at. Please expound.”
They are not a mainstream organization holding some pretty extreme views on the fed. the article you pointed to was long on accusations and short on any remedy.
Glenn Beck’s show for today was scheduled to be about how Israel is being set up by a “marriage of convenience” between leftists and Islamists for attack. The show was preempted so Fox could show a special about the impended or not impending government shutdown over a few billion in cuts.
In the meanwhile, Israel and the Palestinians have been more or less continually bombarding each other for the last 36 hours (scores of attacks) since Hamas launched a guided anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus on its route to deliver children home from school yesterday.
THAT attack was in retaliation for one of two Israeli special ops strikes on Hamas. The first was against the leaders of a planned operation to kidnap Israeli civilian tourists in the Sinai over Passover. The second special ops possibility was a surface-guided missile strike against Hamas and Hizballah agents in Sudan arranging for the smuggling of hundreds of mustard gas and nerve gas shells into Gaza after Libyan rebels captured them in Benghazi and sold them for weapons they could actually hope to use to defeat the Libyan government.
Saudi Arabia has, with the cooperation of the Bahrainian government, quietly annexed Bahrain as a 14th Saudi province, granting the Bahrainian ruler status equivalent to a Saudi prince (debka.com) and is preparing to bring in Pakistani troops (Washington Post) for an inevitable confrontation with Iran because the Saudis no longer trust any American security guarantees.
In Syria, armed violence between the Sunni protesters and the Baathist Syrian government is now killing more people than is the Jewish-Palestinian shelling.
In the Hill (blog) today, Cheri Jacobus wrote
“Fiscal sanity versus the ruination of America. That seems to be where the budget debate lies.
“The Republican budget proposal to eliminate some $6 trillion in federal spending over the next decade and eliminate the deficit in 30 years is shocking — but only in the sense that the situation has become so out of hand, so insanely ridiculous, it will take at least that much and that long to right the wrongs of Washington.”
Oil an hour ago was $113 per barrel, and corn was reaching new highs, along with gold and silver. The dollar is down below 0.70 euros (about a 10% drop in 3 months) — and the markets are worrying about euro COLLAPSE.
So I think Jared is quite possibly right, and I fear we may be experiencing our Samuel-the-Lamanite-jumps-down-from-the wall-moment.
Beck is crazy.
Maybe he’s crazy like Jeremiah.
Maybe he’s crazy like Joseph Smith (at least Beck BUYS the gold instead of looks for buried treasure — right?)
Maybe being a stopped clock isn’t nearly as crazy as elites twisting dials and thinking they actually still have things under control!.
With apologies to BiV, but we may really not be “Hieing to Kobol” as “Slouching to Ammonihah”.
I stopped reading/watching/listening to mainstream organizations a long time ago (I stopped when the debate of health care happened and NPR gave two analysis, the repub and dem, where the dem position was we need big government health care and the repub was we need big government health care – just introduce it slower. I wanted a more principled approach.). So I guess I still don’t get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you have to be part of the big boys in order to compete? You have to have a large following in order to have a valid opinion?
The point of the article was to show that the government caused, at least in part, previous recessions and that the fed isn’t doing anything different from what caused the previous recessions. The point of the article wasn’t to provide solutions. They have other articles for that. Did you want me to find you one? It will basically say, end the fed, return to honest money (a free market approach – not government controlled), and not have a coercive force to manipulate the market and create monopolies.
I also don’t understand why you didn’t like the quote above. In the Federalist Papers they say the same thing about democracy, how it is different from a republic and how it didn’t work in the past and that is why they were doing a republic vs a democracy.
Firetag,
““Fiscal sanity versus the ruination of America. That seems to be where the budget debate lies.”
Or “fiscal sanity versus mere window dressing.”
If politicians would get their hands out of everyone’s else’s pockets many they could use their fingers to actually count.
I’m glad to see Glenn Beck leaving Fox News, but don’t be fooled that we won’t be hearing more from him. He ain’t done.
As for fixing this country’s ills, as long as the average CEO makes 320% more than the average paid employee, we’ll always have a major problem.
http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10801121.html
Here’s what I think we should do in terms of health care. I think that for the citizens of this nation and their families, a minimum standard of health care should be provided through taxes. For instance, free regular checkup once a year. Free regular dental cleaning once or twice a year. Provide a few items free, covered by taxes, and let people pay for the rest. I don’t like the idea of pampering people, and overdosing on medical care (we overprescribe our health care in this country). The only things that should be taken care of through taxes are very basic things that will ensure no one dies because they refused to go to the hospital while ill from pneumonia or something.
Firetag,
That’s an insult to Joseph Smith, who was not crazy.
Dan:
Since you KNOW I believe JS was a prophet or I wouldn’t be here, my point about how “crazy” Beck is is going over your head.
Saying it was a lucky guess will be cold comfort if even a fraction of Beck’s warnings come to pass.
Time reveals many false prophets when they don’t hedge their bets. But both true and false prophets get treated exactly the same way in their own times.
“I also don’t understand why you didn’t like the quote above.”
I don’t like organizations that just criticize and have no solutions. Falling back on the Founding Fathers is not a great options because the world is significantly different than they ever envisioned. We do not thrown the baby out with the bath water, but we do need practical adaptation.
ok, so if we get rid of the fed, and the gold standard was wrong, what is the other option? sorry, the market was much more free in the 19th century, there was no 40 hr workweek, child labor was legal, we ate lead in our paint, etc. unregulated capitalism is not good either. we had much less regulation and had more depressions. what are your solutions exactly?
Dan,
The problem with this country right now is that there is no integrity. No one is willing to accept the truth. Mike S alluded to it in his commentary. The problem is entitlements. The only solution to our economic woes is to make drastic cuts to entitlements – cut to less than 1 trillion a year. It is the ONLY way to balance the budget. There is just not much more we can squeeze out of the rich in taxes; and, the poor and most of the middle class don’t pay anything in taxes. We could tax them I suppose. Unless, and until, people are willing to deal with this truth, we will never solve our economic woes.
Ethesis #37:
I suspect that means testing is the more important of the two fixes, but as soon as that is proposed, the “other side” will launch attack ads that seniors will starve even though the illogic of people of “means” starving because of cuts in SS benefits ought to be self-evident.
@Jeff,
Then, like I said, you should like the Mises Institute because they do give solutions. They point out the problems and they also give solutions, you can’t give solutions if you don’t know what the problem is.
The only reason for you to not like them is because they don’t share your ideological view of the world. But don’t say they don’t give solutions because they do.
We have to know history if we don’t want to repeat it. Yes, the world is different, but in many ways the it’s the same and principles are eternal. So that’s why it’s important to understand history.
I don’t understand why you bash history every time I bring it up. Do you not like the history I point to because it differs from your own world views? This conversation is beginning to sound very familiar.
Firetag,
I was being more sarcastic than anything. I got your point. Silly internet for not passing along my sarcastic inflection. 🙂
Will,
So let me get this straight. In the United States of America, there is “no integrity?” You have no integrity, Will? Firetag has no integrity? Jon has no integrity? Hell, President Monson has no integrity? Silly absolutes like this make you look ridiculous Will.
No one in America is willing to accept the truth? You are not willing to accept the truth? Firetag is not willing to accept the truth? Jon is not willing to accept the truth? Hell, President Monson is not willing to accept the truth? Silly absolutes like this make you look ridiculous Will.
Will,
“the poor and most of the middle class don’t pay anything in taxes.”
This simply isn’t true. Moreover, it is likely that nearly every single poor and middle class person in the country last year paid more taxes than GE (and other huge corporations), which paid zero dollars.
Jacob,
Didn’t you know? GE is poor…
@mh,
ok, so if we get rid of the fed, and the gold standard was wrong, what is the other option? sorry, the market was much more free in the 19th century, there was no 40 hr workweek, child labor was legal, we ate lead in our paint, etc. unregulated capitalism is not good either.
The free market is the solution.
Remember where these things came from. The free market.
See http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=511
we had much less regulation and had more depressions.
You obviously didn’t read my previous link which I had provided for you above. The article debunked the more depressions myth.
what are your solutions exactly?
Once again. The free market.
Dan:
Hey, I have no integrity. (missing sarcastic inflection icon)
“The free market”
Just how do we get that. We do not have that today. Nor anything close to it.
Jon,
Personally, I’ll take the 34 hour socialist workweek so I can spend more time with my family, thank you very much.
Jeff,
Sure we do. Are you telling me you cannot as of this exact moment go out there and start your own business in whatever area you want?
@Jeff,
First you have to free the minds (education). Then you need to put off the oppressors (through a peaceful means). Then you can have a free market. Yes, it’s way out there, but I think we will eventually get there, with the internet it is much easier to convey ideas that aren’t popular among the mainstream.
I should always say. Although I talk extreme I would be happy in just moving in the right direction.
free the minds…ah liberal arts….
@Dan,
Go for the 34 hour work week. In a free market you can do that. Just means you’ll make less money, no biggy if you don’t mind making less money.
We don’t have a free market. Far from it.
You cannot start whatever business you want. You want to start a restaurant? Get through all the regulations (which stop some people from doing it). You want to be a lawyer? You need a license for that. BTW, if the government sees that there were too many lawyers from the previous year they will make the bar exam harder to pass (it’s called a monopoly). Let’s say you are a doctor, you want to start your own health insurance type payment plan? Think again, you have to get through a ton of regulations to do it, likely you will just decide not to do it. The list goes on and on and increases every year. In Virginia (don’t know if it passed or not) they were talking about licensing yoga instructors. In some states they license people that sell flowers.
You just want to have a business, you have to get a license first.
Nope, you can’t just go out and start any business you want.
Jon,
Money does not equal happiness. As such, I will gladly take the 34 hour workweek so I can raise my children well.
and yes, you can start whatever business you want. for your examples, you can actually do that. The thing is that you’re not even going to just start some business without planning in any case. As you note, you can start your own lawyer business, but you need a license to be taken seriously. You can start your own restaurant, but you have to have it inspected, and so on. You can be a doctor, but you need the qualifications. For the safety of the community, not everyone can be this or that, Jon. You can’t just go out and be a pilot, for instance. You need the training. I have no idea what kind of silly world you are envisioning, but my guess is that even in your silly utopia, people are going to demand a certain level of competence and qualifications from those who wish to start up businesses.
I haven’t read a comment about the real crisis we’re facing in America. Both parties have brought us to the point where our currency, the dollar, has lost its value because of the unbelievable amount of debt we’ve accumulated. The financial power houses from Asia don’t want the dollar to be the world’s reserve currency. They want to replace it, and most observers feel within a few years a basket of currencies, without the dollar, will become the reserve currency that commodities will be traded in. Seeing how we don’t manufacture much anymore, what will we have to offer the world community once the dollar is replaced?
Our government has no alternative except to keep spending and this could lead to currency collapse, just as it has in other countries.
If this should happen, what will we do?
@Dan,
Silly Dan. Of course, that isn’t a free market when you have to beg permission of your rulers in order to do something.
Of course, in a free market system people would still expect competence from their worker be it doctor, electrician, etc. The difference is, you wouldn’t need to ask permission to do things.
I have a friend that has an uncle that was the CFO of Honeywell. All he had was a high school degree. He was quite proud to be in a position so high without the “necessary” qualifications. That’s what is one of the things that is wrong with licensing. It bars people out that don’t need the stamp of approval in order to do the job correctly.
I know money doesn’t equal happiness. I walked away from an engineering job that paid $75k a year and am in the process of switching over to computer programming, it’s a big hit on the finances but I’m happy and the kids like it that I can work from home.
@Jared,
The real crisis that has befallen this country is that they have left their God and worship other gods. They do not obey the sabbath which has it’s accompanying promises of protection. We are laid bare to the harassment of the world when our iniquity is fully realized.
That is the core reason that we are in debt and the dollar is (or has or will) start it’s free fall, just like the Roman’s money that they debased.
Jon,
Riiight, we can let any old Tom Dick or Harry do whatever they want without consequence. The beautiful thing about our democratic-republic is that “our rulers” are us. 🙂
silly boy, of course he had the “necessary” qualifications. You’re not going to tell me he was simply given the CFO position without working in the company for years and had shown competence enough to be CFO….
Then it is clear you have no idea what the point is of the licensing practice. It’s not a matter of actually saying that a person is actually qualified. It’s a matter of telling a consumer that this or that individual who claims he or she is a lawyer is not lying to you, and that you can stake the reputation of the governing licensing body on it. I mean, com’on Jon, do you not study the world around you?
Better thank your local union that your current job is not demanding you work 60 hours a week…
Bullcrap.
#73 Jon–
I agree.
Love ya Dan, until next time when we get to banter again and get nowhere.
@All,
It’s been fun once again. Don’t know if any of us changed our minds on anything, but at least we had fun and got our blood pressure up (well, I didn’t)!
I didn’t either dude.
Jacob,
You are dead wrong; here is the correct information (as of 2009):
The top 1% pay 40.4 % of all taxes;
The top 3.5% pay 60.6 % of all taxes;
The top 10% pay 71.2 % of all taxes;
The bottom 46.9% pay ZERO, NOTHING, NADA, NO TAXES.
#78
Replace taxes with Federal Taxes.
Again, and I’ve made this clear before but it doesn’t seem to be sticking, the poor and middle class may or may not (depending on circumstances) pay federal income tax, but that makes up only a portion of all taxes paid. The poor and middle class are paying taxes.
Jon, you’re right–I didn’t read your links because I was monitoring this thread on my phone, and it’s hard to read on a phone.
But let me say this: I don’t know if you’re an anarcho-capitalist, but your comments about a free market strike me as similar. If everyone were righteous, just about any economic system would work, including the free market you are trying to advocate for. However, a 100% free market is a disaster when people aren’t righteous.
We have seen the Bernie Madoff’s and the like circumvent our laws now. Bernie would have a hey day without regulations. He will bilk everyone, and everyone will have no recourse because “it’s a free market.”
Capitalism needs regulations to function properly. Sure, there can be too much regulation, but those regulations are built precisely because someone was defrauding his neighbor. I’m sure a 100% free market economy will work in the Celestial Kingdom. But last time I checked, there are quite a few devils around here, and a lot of them work in the banking and oil industries. I don’t want to turn them loose any more than they are already are.
These links paint certainly tell a story:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/86438/the-big-story-our-economic-era
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/republican_policies_dont_care_about_poor_people/2011/03/28/AF5dDFHC_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein
http://jackdean.posterous.com/must-see-chart-this-is-what-class-war-looks-l
Will, what is your source for your numbers on taxes?
Oh, and one more thing Will. Are you saying that GE paid taxes last year? Where does GE fit on your table about who pays taxes?
MH
“However, a 100% free market is a disaster when people aren’t righteous.”
Isn’t the point about the difference between the CK and mortality applicable to ANY human system of economic operation?
Until we have a control group of zionic people, all our arguments about such systems’ “inherent” effectiveness are contaminated. We are simply debating WHICH way they will fail.
Ok, Jon, now that I am home, I read the Mises link. What a load of crap! How many unions existed in 1870 vs 1930? Perhaps you should read a different point of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#History
FireTag, yes I agree with you–that’s why I said any economic system would work in the CK. While our economy certainly has its foibles and room for improvement, I’m not about to support a 100% free market and return to 80 hour work weeks, depressions every 20 years, and the rich gouging the poor.
Don’t get me wrong, I think our economy is the best in the world, but I don’t want us to relax pollution standards so we start ending up with the the gray skies, lead paint, and subsequent health problems that China is experiencing. I can’t think of a country in the world that has an economy better than ours.
Will’s numbers are of course off and inaccurate because he’s only accounting for income taxes. And indeed, the top 10% income earners pay 70% of all income taxes. However, if the top 10% income earners make more than 70% of all income in this country, then numbers won’t be that far off. I do believe that the top 1% income earners make 40% of all income in the US, so if they pay 40% of all income taxes, then it seems they are taxed at an appropriate amount. Now, the poor do pay taxes, those 49% of the income earners in this country. Anytime they purchase anything taxable, they pay a tax. Anytime they buy gas, they pay a tax. Anytime they buy cigarettes, and so on, they pay a tax. Will, and his type, want everyone to think the bottom 50% of this country contribute nothing to the revenue of the state, but are instead moochers who suck from the public teat at will and at the expense of those poor top 10% who have it so rough in this country, particularly the top 1%. They have it just so unfair! They’re threatening that if the rest of the country would dare raise their tax rate, they just might go Galt. The rest of us are sitting back wondering when they will leave already…
MH,
Yeah, Thomas DiLorenzo is not the brightest star in the night sky…
@MH,
Hate to break it to you but your history shows the same history that my link supported:
That’s what the article I posted said. Due to rising wages people could work shorter hours. But for the very poor, they need to work more hours to be able to attain the standard of living they desire. No 40 hour workweek will stop this. If the company doesn’t want to pay more then the person has to find another job. Without the labor laws they wouldn’t have to bother finding a separate job and try and work out two (or more) different schedules, they could just work at the same company.
So it is the rising standard of living that causes people to need to work less. Unless they’re workaholics. As a salaried employee sometimes it was required to work more than 40 hours, e.g., if I had to travel, I considered anytime I was away from the family as work, even if I was sleeping.
People always equate anarchy to chaos. Not so. When I speak of anarchy I speak of anarchy under the Natural Laws. Just because we have a free and unfettered market doesn’t mean that people’s property rights will be impinged.
I addressed the 40 hour workweek above, it’s called competition, that’s what creates a shorter workweek. Depression every 20 years…already addressed this in the article that you were supposed to read but didn’t see http://mises.org/daily/5174/Life-with-the-Fed-Sunshine-and-Lollipops .
The rich gouging the poor – the rich are gouging the poor now, and who is causing this? The government and the federal reserve system, we living in a highly regulated market and we are being gouged like never before – remember inflation is a tax too. Remember, with all the regulations it becomes infinitely more and more difficult for the poor to start their own businesses – talk about oppression. No, in a free market it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the rich to gouge the poor. I don’t say that anarchy/free market system would be perfect but it would be leagues ahead of what we are currently living under.
Will there be gray skies in a free market and lead paint etc? Just like China? China’s market is even more regulated than ours? Does that mean more regulation equates to more pollution? Remember the ways the laws are set up currently companies take little to no fault for the pollution they would under a free market and natural law. Corporations are a creation of the state and protect people that would otherwise be thrown in jail for their misdeeds (some still are for various reasons). A regulated market leads to more pollution. Take the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In a free market there wouldn’t be much reason to drill out in the middle of deep water, the government has barred the easier to get to oil, forcing companies into deeper waters with more risk associated with that.
A fascinating article on property rights in a voluntary society called The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives by Stefan Molyneux will show that it is possible to live in a stateless society (I’ll link to the article in the next post). Yes, people must be of one mind and want to be free and want to throw off the shackles of oppression (the slavery of the state). I believe in the millennium this is how we will live. If everyone is good enough what need of the state would we have? Would not the law live within our own hearts?
As for it being possible to live with anarcho-capitalism in the current society, I would submit that it could happen. Do we not see the indolence of the people increase with the more and more laws we create? Did not elder Christofferson (I believe it was him) say no matter how many laws we create people will still cheat and lie etc? No, using natural law (and less man made laws) would create a more righteous society where people would be responsible for their own actions (this is called liberty per King Mosiah).
I know it can be difficult to see a new way of doing things. But I suppose that’s why we wait for older generations to die off before we create massive change, it happens little by little. The internet is freeing minds by giving us access to the revolutionary ideas. This will help bring in the millennium.
The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives by Stefan Molyneux
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
Jon,
stop the historical revisionism. The reason people started to work less was because of labor laws. The reason people started to get paid better was because of labor unions. Management could no longer rape their employees of their livelihoods.
ah, Somalia, God’s heaven on earth…as for the rest, dude, pass whatever you’re smoking…
Remember also, when the Israelites were very sinful (can’t think of a better word right now) and advocated for a king to keep them safe from the horrible people of the day, they were stilled warned against a king because it was far worse than what they were living under.
@Dan,
You stop the historical revisionism and stop being so narrow minded.
jon, of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but you have zero credibility with me. the ‘history’ you quote is incredibly bad. at this point, I will bow out of a conversation with you about economics.
Jon,
I am not revising any history. A “free market” uninhibited from outside (governmental) forces, is easily manipulated by the wealthy elite. This is strongly evidenced in those “free market” days of the 1800s. Without a force that protects workers, they’ll be exploited by the wealthy, as they have been time and time again. I don’t think you and your silly Austrian economists seem to realize that no wealthy person gives a damn about “natural laws.” They take what they want because they can. And they run over silly fools like you who think the system that puts them in power somehow benefits the little guy. How stupid can some people be?
MH,
Yes, you are entitled your opinion also. You also have no credibility with me since you pick and choose your ‘history’ and ignore the historical facts if they don’t suit your world view. Even your article showed that it was the free market, but you continue to ignore it since it doesn’t fit your fancy.
Dan and Will — on the other hand, the top 10% of income earners pay only about 15% of payroll taxes, and as a percent of income, rather than it being around 15% of their income, it is closer to 5%.
“ah, Somalia,” — no, more like Albania after the government collapsed due to a multilevel marketing scheme.
Attempted to post yesterday afternoon (about 5 pm PDT) from my so-called “SmartPhone” while waiting at the Car Wash. BTW, I wonder how the mexican car wash workers would sing the late Jim Croce’s “Working at the Car Wash Blues”?? All the smartness of the phone couldn’t overcome a “dumb” network. Number of posts on this thread was about ten, now it’s nearly a hundred!
Most of the anti-Beck posts amount to pathetic liberal twaddle. Especially the OP. Jeff, usually your “spot on”, but in this case, want some cheese with that whine?
I myself have found Beck tiring even though I agree with many of his points. As Will pointed out, he’s coming up short in his delivery. This is probably why he’s pissed off a great deal of sponsors for Fox. At this point, he’s probably better off to strike out on his own. Or, he’s been the conservative “flava of the day”. Meanwhile, the 800-lb gorilla of talk radio, whom I knew many moons ago when he was first getting going at KFBK here in Sacto, continues on into his 23rd year on a nationally syndicated show. Listen and learn.
Comment 93 (“narrow minded”) reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon.
Dilbert says, “I need you to be open-minded about this idea.”
Boss says, “Oh really. That’s the sort of thing people say before they describe the worst idea in the history of the world.”
I could stop there for this conversation, but for the sake of finishing the joke, Dilbert responds,
“My idea is NOT to give me a raise.”
Boss responds, “I’m hating you a little extra.”
See http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-03-09/
#34 Jon — Thanks for the references, but which of these say it must be voluntary? The only one that comes close is the Moses verse about agency, but you could always exercise your agency and choose not to pay taxes. There will be consequences, but you can choose. The others say we should share with the poor, but not how.
Even Mosiah 4 seems to support a progressive tax structure.
Dan: #95
“A “free market” uninhibited from outside (governmental) forces, is easily manipulated by the wealthy elite.”
Also true: “A government uninhibited by outside forces easily becomes part of the wealthy elite.”
If we don’t succeed in re-inhibiting our government, the solution to the problem of the poor will turn out to be to make sure they have lots of company.
Firetag,
Indeed. That’s why I fight against Republicans who make the government be easily manipulated by the wealthy elite.
Dan,
“Sure we do. Are you telling me you cannot as of this exact moment go out there and start your own business in whatever area you want?”
Sorry to be late to the party, but you are not serious I hope?
“Meanwhile, the 800-lb gorilla of talk radio, whom I knew many moons ago when he was first getting going at KFBK here in Sacto, continues on into his 23rd year on a nationally syndicated show. Listen and learn.”
This is the first time the term “800 lb Gorilla” really describes the person or entity being discussed.
I suppose where Beck went wrong is that he is a blow hard and a crazy person, but probably not a real hateful person.
The other guy is a blow hard and so hateful and powerful that even Republicans must genuflect to him when they say something wrong.
And I do appreciate being spot on most of the time, you can’t spot them all. but in this case, I think Beck out Becked himself.
Perhaps the only difference between now and the dark ages is that the people of the dark ages knew they were in bondage to the ruling elite.
Now, we still are and most just don’t know it.
Dan:
Jeff said it a little more politely than I will, but 106 applies to Democratic elites as well as Republican elites. When we “eat the rich”, as is the left’s term of art this month, may we start with the Democrats in the Senate?
I love having my appetizers with a little flavor of hypocrisy, especially when it’s served under candlelight provided by the Administration’s pet free-loading corporation, GE, and waited by your friendly Administration cronies from Goldman-Sachs.
The Democrats aren’t the innocent piano-player in the bordello.
“The Democrats aren’t the innocent piano-player in the bordello.”
Firetag, totally right on this point. the Dem have their glad-handers just like the Repubs and tea parters for that matter. In some cases, they are the same.
The ultra elites have no party affiliation only themselves.
Jeff:
Indeed, the ultra-elites like to keep people playing the partisan game to HIDE behind the smokescreen.
Firetag,
I’m not in denial over the Democrats in Congress and their lame attempts at “fitting in”. They’ve forgotten that they were supposed to be for the little guy. I can’t tell you how much I would love for there to be term limits in both the House and Senate and to reduce the amount of money one needs in order to run for office. Congress represents the top 10% income earners. They do not represent the other 90%. This is the case for Democratic representatives as well as Republican representatives. The difference is that the Democratic party’s values care more for the little guy than the Republican party’s values. As long as that is the case, I will stick with the Democratic Party. One of the most important lessons I am learning as I am teaching the New Testament this year, is how much Jesus focused on the concern and care for the poor, no matter the method or the way. Which party best represents the values Jesus found most important? For me, it is the Democratic party. As imperfect as it is.
Jeff,
I am serious. If I wanted, for instance, to open a bookstore, I am free to start a bookstore right now. Is it just as simple as that? of course not. I have to have a business plan. I have to have invested money, whether or my own, or from investors. The beauty of the current environment is that I don’t even have to have a piece of land where I build a building to house the books. I could make it an online bookstore. I could make a deal with publishers to sell their books for them. I have to create a taxable identity with the IRS and with the state, but that’s not an inhibition to the actual creation of the business. I will face competition from other bookstores who may not want me to start up. But in what way can I NOT start my own business?
@Dan,
Be for the little guy, become an anarchist. The only philosophy that is 100% for the little guy.
You’ve all earned a lecture on economics. …
Dan:
If I SAY I embrace the 14 Principles, does that get me a temple recommend?
Why does SAYING you’re for the poor and being for the rich seem better in your eyes than NOT saying you’re for the poor IF YOU’RE ACTUALLY FOR THE RICH IN EITHER CASE?
To me, your description of the Dems merely adds hypocrisy to their sins BECAUSE YOU ASSERT that they understand the principle of preference for the marginalized. Those who understand the moral law are held more accountable.
So, you really want to concentrate more power in the party that merely talks the talk? It seems to me you’re saying you support the Dems because they violate the right principles.
pretty much, Firetag. I understand that this whole democracy or democratic republic, whatever the hell we want to call what we have, is ineffective, corrupt, yadda yadda, but I’ll take the party that fits as close to what I’m looking for as I can. I’m not going to hide in some ideological corner that does nothing because it has little traction among the rest of the population just so I can remain ideologically pure. I’d prefer the Democratic party to actually stop the cowardice and stand up for its principles of caring for the little guy. But I’ll take what I’ve got.
Ironically that reminds me of a tall tale (I say tall tale only because I have no reference to this occurring except from fellow missionaries, and fellow Mormons), of President Hinckley addressing some missionaries and making a joke that the Lord works with what he’s got and not with what he wants.
It is clear that neither party is truly effective enough right now for the majority of the population as both parties get very very low ratings. If there were viable alternatives somewhere else, they would obviously get traction because there are clearly enough Americans tired of the current system. Sadly, there are no viable alternatives to the two main parties. I, for instance, have no interest in libertarian parties, because while they claim they are socially liberal, they sure tie themselves far too much with conservatives, and sometimes make themselves even further to the right of conservatives, as opposed to down the street and to the left somewhat, if you get my meaning. Problem is that while many on the right speak strongly against “big government”, few are actually willing to see a world where the elderly, the disabled, and poor children are left to fend for themselves. Something rather not compassionate about that. Thus no party really matches with what most people want. Thus we have this ugly mess.
@Dan,
So you’re saying since they talk the talk your with them. But do their fruits not matter? The fruits show that both the democratic and republican parties are the parties of war. There’s no way you can get me to vote for the party of war.
@Paul,
OK, I should have added more verses to many of the scriptures I cited. Here I’ll repeat them but make it more clear. Don’t think it will really change your opinion (nor anyone else’s), but for completeness here you go. It is nice when people do change their opinions, if I gave a good argument for my case. I really liked it when I changed my in-laws opinion and my mom’s about war, blessed be the day that they now renounce war and proclaim peace. Likewise, I urge you to renounce violence and proclaim peace.
Here you go (I’ll leave out the references since they already exist above, I’m writing them in order which I gave above):
Notice the context. He’s talking to the individual and says we will be judged on our own merits and let us, therefore, be good to all men. No mention of the government but the individual in the faith of Christ.
People must take care of their own first.
Jesus didn’t say, “Behold, my mother take her to the state and have them watch over her. You should visit her occasionally while they take charge of her.”
Where does it say that the state must love its servant as itself? No, this is an individual mandate. We are not judged in the collective, we are judged individually.
continued…
Where does it say that you should take your food to a central location by point of gun to give to others? No, the individual is responsible, voluntarily, to give to others (the poor).
This goes well with Proverbs 6:30-31
Even if a person is in dire hunger it is still not good that that person steals, or takes away from another person through an involuntary transaction, even if the majority of people agree that the person needs food and tell the other group of people that they are going to take food from them to give to the poor man, it is still theft and not approved of the Lord. It must be voluntary and the people must be willing to do it on their own (of course, they can create voluntary groups to get it done, as we’ll find in a scripture later on).
The individual is responsible for kind acts. No, one else, we will be judged on our own actions, not on those of others.
How can it be any clearer? A man must do good works of his own volition, any other way just creates hypocrites.
Again, how can it be any clearer? Man must have his agency. But Lucifer tries to take it away. He lies by saying he can save all but it is not true, just the opposite. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Is that not what they say when they want to force people to help the poor? Don’t the fruits of this show the reality of their position? People living in perpetual poverty, communities built by the government having to be bulldozed because of the crime and neglect of the buildings, a continual decline in the standard of living for all, except for the ruling elite, of course. This only creates hypocrites and an indolent people.
See comments inside the quotation above.
Notice the pattern of God? He only asks for voluntary sacrifices from His people. Do we not try and emulate His ways in all things?
First, Is there some reason some comments have to be longer than the original post.
@Jeff,
People ask me to expound and I expound. I tried to keep it short and simple but Paul wanted more, so I expounded on it. Did you want me to come on as guest poster or something? Ha, just kidding, I prefer the comments section. 🙂
Jon, you’ve done a great job of demonstrating personal responsibility. And I agreee with you.
But the only example you cite of NO government support for the poor (or using government as a support for the poor) is the verse from Moses about Satan’s plan.
I agree that we are personally responsible to do all we can. And I agree that we should voluntarily use of our surplus to assist the poor in a variety of ways (fast offerings, direct service, contributions to non-LDS charities, etc).
But that does not preclude government’s involvement in the cause. There are plenty of nations around the world that have less poverty anbd more government support of social programs. I believe it is misguided to suggest that those (democratically elected) governments are somehow follow Satan’s plan in offering a safety net for the poor.
@Paul,
Well, I figured I probably wouldn’t be able to persuade you but, at least – I hope – you will, or maybe not you but people that have the same beliefs as you – stop calling people that don’t believe in socialism as the cure greedy, selfish, and non-caring. I find it very offensive that people do that when the foundation of the belief of personal responsibility, not to steal, and charity are instrumental in the belief system, and by far, is not based on greed, etc. I hope you have a greater respect for my viewpoint after all the work I put into writing and researching this information.
Jon, I never called you or anyone else who opposes government involvement in caring for the poor greedy. There is a legitimate debate about the best way to help the poor, and that debate is healthy.
The truth that we all agree on is that the Savior has charged us all to help the poor if we are able. In the end, each of us must make his own determination about what his surplus is. In some jursidictions, that surplus will be after more taxes than others. I don’t believe there’s an inherent evil in the fact that governments engage in the care for the poor (especially since in the United States, it’s my government, and I participate in the process of electing those who govern).
I hope that you (or perhaps not you, but others who hold your position) will stop calling those who believe it is appropriate for a duly elected government to participate in the care of the poor followers of the adversary’s plan. It offends me that people do that when the foundation of the plan of happiness is personal choice which I exercise every time I enter the voting booth, and since the retaining of a remission of our sins depends on how we as a people care for the poor and needy among us.
@Paul,
I understand your position but I can’t back down and say that when government does things it is individual choose. It is not. For those that choose not to are punished, even unto death. You have no choice how much you give either, you have no way of opting out. This is not choice, this force. This is the use of violence against individuals to pursue what you want.
I advocate love, using the government to do things is the advocation of violence.
I do think you care for the poor but I think your method is inherently flawed, you say that you have a choice at the voting booth, but what of the 49% of the people that are not with you? What choice do they have? They have none, you may say, well they can leave to a different country, what choice is that? Maybe if it were only at the city level, maybe then I would believe you but when it is at the state and federal levels, it’s not true. I have no voice when it is that centralized. It’s impractical to move from a country, a bit more practical to move from a state, but easily practical to move from a city. That’s the only true vote a person has, to move their feet some other place, as the governor of NY found out when he tried to raise taxes.
So make it local or your argument about voting holds no water.
Jon,
utterly ridiculous. Someone who avoids paying taxes, for instance, is not killed. Can you see why I make fun of your ideology, Jon?
@Dan,
Yes, usually you’ll be fined, you don’t pay, you go to jail, you try and protect your property, if they don’t get you alive, you get shot and die. So, yes, even unto death.
wow dude, you’ve got one hell of a pessimistic view on life. Maybe you should consider those Mises guys are not giving you the best fruit…
@Dan,
But it’s the truth, should I bury my head in the sand?
Jon,
You and I clearly don’t see the role of government (of the people, by the people, for the people) in the same way. You can continue to hate government and all they do. You can continue to fear them. You can continue to elect people who claim they hate government, too, if you choose.
I don’t think your view is practical. But I also don’t think it is sinful. It is your choice.
It does surprise me that you would consider every government that provides aid to the poor and needy as overly tyranical and evil, bound to Satan’s plan. I find that view morally offensive and doctrinally flawed.
But I’m done with this conversation.
@Paul,
For the record I didn’t say that every government that provides for the poor as tyrannical. I said very localized, it wouldn’t be as bad.
For the record, you never did present your doctrine that proved it was OK to steal and use violence against some people in order to use their money for the governments purposes.
I like rule of law. That’s why I’m all for anarcho-capitalism. It’s the only form of government that can have a pure form of rule of law, where everyone is treated equally under the law.
The left and the right run against each other. Beck and Hannity try to get ratings and money. Politicians say whatever they want, even if it is 180 degrees from where they were before.
Perfect example for today: Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling. He wants it with no strings attached.
Here is Obama a few years ago from an article today:
It would be really funny if it wasn’t so sad
Mike S.
They’ll say anything and remember nothing/
Jeff:
You should have done a little more research on your latest update. The notion that the other commentators on FOX thought Beck made them look bad seems easily refutable. The commentator that matters at FOX is Bill O’Reilly, right? He’s the one that dominates the network’s ratings and has for a decade. He’s the one who gets invited on The View, Letterman, and Stewart, and whom even the President can’t ignore for an interview.
Here’s O’Reilly’s latest column, which paints Beck in a far more favorable light than his critics:
http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=31711
If you know anything about the Baltimore Sun entertainment critic whose article you linked, you would also know that O’Reilly has all but called him a liar on the air on more than one occasion. Let’s just say he’s not a trusted source on the internal thinking at FOX.
O’Reilly is putting his “time-slot” where his mouth is. Beck’s show on the forces gathering against Israel preempted at 5PM last Friday for the shutdown non-event is now scheduled to run at 8PM and 11PM this Friday while Bill takes the night off. It will now be seen by millions more people in prime time than would have watched at 5PM.
Be careful what you wish for. The last time people started saying Beck was finished, he put a quarter of a million people on the National Mall.
Firetag,
Glenn Beck did not turn out 250,000 people…the best guess is about 90,000 or so. On the other hand, Jon Stewart’s rally drew in about 210,000 people.
Dan:
In your dreams, Dan! 😀
I live in Washington, remember?
I know you can’t shut down the key end-of-line Washington Metro stations with long lines waiting to get into the station with 90,000 people. The lines waiting to get into the Metro at Shady Grove were two hours long from family observation before Metro gave up and let everyone end for free. That was duplicated on the red blue and orange lines — all of the major lines of the system. How many rush hour riders do you think Metro handles every day.
For those who don’t live in DC, it’s easy to go look at the pictures from the day, look where the crowds stopped and then use the following methods to make your own estimate:
Look up the dimensions of the Reflecting Pool on wiki.
Use the google earth to look at the size of the reflecting pool compared to the crowd.
Scroll to the east and compare the size of the crowd coverage to Redskins Stadium and its parking lots, where the ‘Skins regularly play to 80,000 fans plus thousands of staff on Sundays.
“Best guess” does not mean most favorable to Democratic propaganda. More retroactive history from the left. 😀
Fietag,
Now do you think for a minute that I would consider Bill O’Reilly a reliable source for anything?
“Glenn Beck did not turn out 250,000 people”
Does it really matter the size of the crowd? You can find a 1/4 of a million folks to do just about anything like audition for American Idol.
Is this any different?
Jeff:
I would think you could certainty consider O’Reilly a reliable source about the opinions of Bill O’Reilly, couldn’t you? What commentator at FOX trumps him, so what commentators at FOX do you mean when you report that the commentators at FOX wanted Beck out?
To make it worse for you, last night O’Reilly admitted he now recognized that there were powerful elements on the left that really wanted to see the US spend itself into collapse in order to remake the economic system into one controlled by the government, not by the private sector.
Now all he has to do is figure out that Islamists working against the West (a point he already made that led to the bruhaha on The View months ago) are willing to engage in a marriage of convenience with such revolutionaries, and Beck’s “wacky conspiracy theory” has gone prime-time.
You may not consider O’Reilly a reliable source for anything, but millions do.
And apparently, according to Dan’s figures (since I don’t know) you can’t get 1/4 million people to go to the National Mall for a Jon Stewart counter-rally (let alone for the Al Sharpton-led effort that was supposed to drown out Beck’s rally on 8/28.
“but millions do.”
And millions voted in George W. Bush. That doesn’t prove anything. :0)
You CAN fit 1/4 million in the mall, but its quality, not quantity we are after…
Firetag,
It is not impossible to get a quarter of a million people to the National Mall. Obama’s inauguration apparently had 1.2 some odd million. The Million Man March had apx 800,000. Not sure how many Martin Luther King had, but it was definitely far greater than Beck’s rally. I didn’t just pull that 90,000 number out of a hat. That was the analysis of photos from the rally. It’s an approximate number. However, the margin of error is not great enough to include a quarter of a million. 🙂
Dan:
I know where you got the number, and also know it was laughed to death by the rest of the media immediately thereafter.
I don’t have that short a memory yet, Dan. I laid out how people can see for themselves in 136. You just provided another method. Go see the pictures of the MLK rally, and see how many MILES have to be covered by that rally if you believe 90,000 is a reasonable midrange estimate for the Beck rally.
As Beck would say, do your own homework.
Jeff:
As O’Reilly would say, I’ll give YOU the last word.
Firetag,
Dude! scientific study!
and here is a beautiful graph that shows the difference between Beck’s rally and Stewart’s rally. No doubt at all which was bigger. 🙂
Dan:
I told you the CBS study you cited had already been debunked. The Christian Science Monitor is an example here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0830/Glenn-Beck-rally-attendance-calculating-how-many-really-showed-up
More importantly, the Monitor article points out that your “scientific study”, far from being anything like a mid-range “best” estimate, is actually the LOWEST of the low-balls. It claims an uncertainty of 10%, when, as the Monitor article points out, estimates of a single event by observers using different photometric methods ROUTINELY differ by more than a factor of two.
Let’s move to your graph in detail. Since you provide no scale, I will:
“The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was designed by Henry Bacon, constructed in 1922 and 1923, following the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial. It is approximately 2,029 feet (618 m) long (over a third of a mile) and 167 feet (51 m) wide.”
The “gap” in the u-shaped area you show for the Beck rally is the Reflecting Pool. No one is standing there because it’s 18 inches deep and more in water. The area you show is then approximately six times the size of FedExField, and at least three times of the size of the whole 80,000 seat stadium complex, even making generous allowances for the parking area. (if anyone wants to make their own estimate, wiki FedExField and link to the google map and play ’til your heart’s content). And the area you show ignores the Monitor’s note that the area of the Beck rally was crowded well back under the trees bordering the mall and extended well beyond what your graphic shows toward the Washington Monument itself.
Now look at the Stewart portion of the graph. Again, the crowd is portrayed as occupying a U-shaped area — except that there is no water on that end of the National Mall. The vacated area is all grass. Why? Because the picture doesn’t show what’s immediately north and south of the picture. (At the Beck end of the mall, it’s again water: the Tidal Basin to the south and a small pond/lake adjacent to the Potomac to the north.
What’s immediately to the north and south of the Stewart rally ARE ALL OF THE SMITHSONIAN MUSEUMS WHICH WERE STILL OPEN TO TOURISTS.
How many of the Smithsonian tourists did CBS assign to the Stewart Rally, Dan, and how do they estimate that to 10% accuracy from photos? Where was the subway disruption for the Stewart rally?
Does the CBS claim remotely check with external tests that you are perfectly capable of making?
Ironically, the Monitor article comes with a “related article” with the Headline “Beck Rally: Warning to Obama and Dems?”
Because the left believed what it wanted to believe, it lost the House and has no one to blame but itself.
Firetag,
hmmm, looks like I’ve touched a nerve…a secret Glenn Beck fan, eh? 😉
dude, I don’t know what you know of the word “debunked” but the Christian Science Monitor link you provide does not “debunk” the AirPhotosLive.com survey. The CSM even links to one of the guys who estimated the Beck crowd and he doesn’t debunk his own work. The only thing the CSM link does is discuss the problematic nature of crowd estimation. Maybe you should stop watching Glenn Beck, Firetag… 😉
Allowing an author to defend his own work is fair journalism, and that’s what the CSM does.
It is also fair journalism — and elementary science — to point out that a lowest estimate from all of the contemporary estimates of the time should not be blithely peddled as a “best estimate” when YOU admit that crowd estimates are problematic, especially when external checks from other observations (like the subway disruption) and the implausibility of the study’s claimed uncertainty estimates can easily be performed.
When I quoted a quarter of a million, I was being mid-range from estimates that went up to a half million, and was actually about what the National Park Service “unofficially” told MSNBC.
A cut-and-paste compilation of contemporary media reports is still available here:
http://politisite.com/2010/08/28/glenn-beck-restoring-honor-rally-crowd-estimates/
Oh, and I would stop watching Beck, but then I’d have to wait weeks for the MSM to catch up with what he’s already reported.
See, for example, Tom Friedman’s NYT report this morning about how we should be prepared for the mid-East “democracy” movements to spiral into civil wars and widespread disruption, or today’s Washington Post editorial about how the spreading unrest and rise in oil prices has already gotten Iran out of the sanctions box and openly resume accelerating its bomb program.
Firetag,
It’s fair journalism, no doubt. But it’s not “debunking.” Like I said, I don’t think you know what that word means.
And as far as Glenn Beck being some prophet of Middle East events, that’s truly laughable. You must have forgotten that Glenn Beck supported Mubarak against the freedom loving Egyptian people. He notes a very interesting mindset of the American conservative. Freedom is only for those who support Israel. Everyone else, y’all get dictators! Trust me, Firetag, you don’t want to be supporting Glenn Beck. The man is a lunatic, and it is an embarrassment to the legacy of the United States of America that 3 million people have viewed his show at any one time.
Debunk? Doesn’t that mean get out of the top bed?
I do know what “statistical outlier” means and how you require special validation before you believe it. As in “the CBS study is a statistical outlier”.
As for your slam that Beck supported Mubarak, you again ignore your previous charge that I watch too much Beck.
I repeatedly heard Beck say that we should never have been in bed with this guy. He said that the people likely to benefit from the uproar in Egypt weren’t going to be the secular democrats, but the organized Muslim Brotherhood who are no more interested in human rights or democracy than the theocrats of Iran or the terrorists of Hamas.
A position that only lunatics like the NYT editorial staff and opinion writers (see that Tom Friedman report from this morning again) are now reduced to adopting.
By the way, exactly WHAT in your link to Glenn’s “Sleeping with Dictators” do you claim to disagree with? Did you actually read it, or just assume it must be supportive of Mubarak against democrats because someone TOLD you that’s what it said?
The sin isn’t supporting Stalin against Hitler. The sin is getting yourself into a position where you HAVE to choose between Stalin and Hitler. We got into bed with Mubarak to keep the 1973 war (which started with the Egyptian attack on Israel and ended with the entrapment of the entire Egyptian 3rd army in the Sinai) from becoming a potential world war as the Russians threatened military intervention. Buying peace so that the present generation of Egyptians might actually live to grow up and protest seemed like a very good idea at the time.
Perhaps DOE can invent a time machine so we can see how that alternative of not buying peace might have worked out.
Firetag,
as the CBS analysis is the only one that I saw actually analyzed the photos, that’s the one I’m going with. To debunk that one, another that estimates, say, 250,000 must prove how the CBS analysis was so off. Nothing in the CSM piece you link to proves that. So it didn’t “debunk” the CBS analysis. It wasn’t a statistical outlier. It was the only one that actually attempted to really calculate. All the others are mere suppositions and assumptions due more to ideological bent than anything scientific. Thus those ones are the outliers, no matter how many voices they are (most of which are owned by Murdoch, thus frustrating the whole “many” examples).
As for Glenn Beck, gah, I can’t believe you’re making me actually read his crap…
No actual analyst of the Middle East thinks this is accurate except those on the hard right, and they don’t have factual evidence to back this claim up.
Of course Beck hasn’t actually analyzed the recent revolution in Egypt or he would have learned that it wasn’t driven AT ALL by Islamists. In fact, it took the Muslim Brotherhood by surprise.
It’s funny though, Firetag, how you have to take it upon yourself to fill in the gaps in Beck’s understanding of the Middle East. He doesn’t talk anywhere there at all about the reasons we’ve supported Mubarak. Hell, it seems you don’t even know. Mubarak was not the president of Egypt in 1973. Hell, he wasn’t even Vice President until 1975. Beck blames Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson for Egypt. Are you going to defend that?
And his reply:
As you do, he also is highly ignorant of Egyptian history. 40 years ago was 1971. Mubarak did not come to be president until 1981 after the assassination of Anwar El-Sadat by Muslim Brotherhood thugs for Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel (which, I might add, was brokered by one of those “interventionist” Democrats, Jimmy Carter).
Conservatives view the world in a certain way, best put by a Nobel Prize winning Secretary of State who said, of a different country:
so much for free agency…
It should be noted, Firetag, that as much as how the Egyptians decide things is as important to Americans as how Americans decide things is to Egyptians. Because we get involved in the world so much, maybe we ought to give Egyptians and Iranians and Iraqis and Libyans a say in how we elect our leaders, because after all, the issues are much too important for the American voters to be left to decide for themselves, particularly when it affects so many people around the world who never got a voice or a say in the matter.
Yes, we should let those countries do as they will, let the people do as they will. No more interventions, it’s not our choice. Every time we intervene it seems it comes out worse.
Corbett’s view is interesting on all these going ons. He’s the premier conspiratorial guy out there. Don’t know how much truth is in what he talks about but interesting none-the-less.
http://www.corbettreport.com/
Dan:
I’m so glad to hear that Murdoch purchased ABC News, MSNBC, and the Washington Post. Was the national park service sold today as part of Obama’s budget 2.0 today? Perhaps we can get some decent news in Washington now. (The Examiner never has the late hockey scores!) And I’m really glad to hear of the NYT’s conversion to the hard right; perhaps Friedman’s article is another thing you might look at.
Perhaps it’s better to say that the CBS work is the only one that supported your biases.
“As for Glenn Beck, gah, I can’t believe you’re making me actually read his crap…”
Yes, how unfair of me to ask you to actually have read your own citation in order to protect yourself from making statements like Beck supported Mubarak when the point of the whole piece was that we have to get beyond the choice of lesser evils.
Perhaps I’ll have to ask you to read it twice, since you still miss the point. We’ve been playing-off evil regimes against each other in Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East since the end of WW1.
You got me on one thing though. I should have said “Egypt” when I said Mubarak, but the switch came when the Egyptian military (which has been one continuous regime, even today, since before the 1967 War) found that Soviet weapons and training were outclassed by the Israelis. The switch was engineered by arch-fiends Nixon and Kissenger. Jimmy C. just got the photo-op.
As for your suggestion that other nations vote on America’s leaders, I kind of suspect there would soon be no voting at all anywhere. The problem is usually how to get them to be able to vote for their own leaders more than once.
Firetag,
My bias is solely for accurate facts. None of the other estimates on Beck’s gathering were based on facts, but on estimates from individuals who had a say in the matter. That’s all I’m going to say on the matter. I’ve actually been trying to keep this whole part of the discussion light hearted, and sadly I am not doing well in conveying that over the internet. I really don’t give a damn how big each rally was.
As for Egypt…
Dude, chilax. When I said, “gah, I can’t believe you’re making me actually read his crap” I thought you could catch the humor in my comment. After all, I was the one who linked to his website…ugh, now I have to clean my keyboard…certainly remove the link from my browser history…
Not sure what Beck’s point was though. He’s criticizing that we’ve been playing off dictators for a long time, yet he is agreeing that we need to support the dictator when the people are rising up against him through no external pressure, and not because of religious fundamentalism…He’s a blowhard dude, and should not be taken seriously by anyone. If you actually take him seriously, then you’ve lost credibility in my eyes.