« Indianapolis Mayor Robbed in Detroit | Main | A closer look at our new government overlords »

The American Right to Be Rich

I don't know who first started the phrase 'there's two kinds of people ...', but it really gets on my nerves. It's oversimplifying things, and what's worse, it encourages people to generalize and broadbrush. And then these people are surprised when groups take such behavior further and begin acting like mobs, often racist and xenophobic in their mood.

Imagine that.

I start with that obnoxious twaddle, because it reflects a rather nasty sort of groupthink. And as happens all too often, that kind of mob mentality plays out in politics. It is the bane of democracy, when an emotional swell carries the people to a mad decision. And in the current climate, it's that recurring poison of class warfare and hatred of success in others. In recent weeks we have seen public attacks of a most unreasonable vituperance against executives of public corporations, banks, and a wide range of successful individuals. While the targeting has been selective - no one seems to ask why it is reasonable to challenge AIG executives for receiving bonuses that they can prove they earned, while ignoring, say, the millions of dollars paid to Freddie Mac and Fannie executives. No one seems to consider it just a tad hypocritical for wealthy politicians like Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid to complain about the wealth of people who actually worked for their money.

And then there is our President, Barack Obama. Obama made $22 million dollars writing books, and somehow believes that qualifies him to tell the rest of us that we're greedy. Madness is when people start telling us that this is an appropriate moral position, especially when the man telling us how bad it is to be rich, takes such pains to protect his own wealth and make sure his own comforts are provided. I wonder if he's tweaked the thermometer at the White House down to the levels he told the rest of us to set, yet? Not likely.

Let's be clear - the problem is not that Obama is rich, it's that the President of the United States thinks its only OK for some people to be rich, and on that point he is not only wrong, but walking down a morally corrupt path. And he leads a mob of self-righteous morons, who neither comprehend nor care about the moral iniquity of their hatred.

I have a right to be rich. I am not rich, so far as money is concerned, but if I ever become rich, no one has the right to deny me my wealth. You have that same right, to have and hold what is your own, the same as every man. It has been played down as a mean source of motivation to say so, but the American Revolution was fought, in part, to protect wealth from being stolen by men who did nothing to earn it. 'No taxation without representation', at its heart, is defense of individual wealth. To pretend that our nation's forefathers fought and died for the right to create progressive tax rates, set a maximum wage, or for politicians to harass honest individuals simply for personal success is to lie, and there's no denying it.

That is not to say that I should be miserly, or count it a virtue if I am cold to the needs of others. But virtue comes from choice, just as does evil. What you choose to do defines you, and your worth comes from your deliberate effort. Someone who claims another person should pay his debt is of no account, and so too a man who pays for his dreams with the work and wealth of other people compelled to pay against their will is a thief. It is necessary for government to levy taxes to pay for those needs to which the public has agreed, and to meet those responsibilities specified in the Constitution, but it is theft to take money for advancing a personal agenda and the special interests of one party. If it was even marginally valid to argue morally against the cost of the war in Iraq, then it is many times more imperative to stand against crippling our children's future in order to give ACORN and the AFL-CIO a stranglehold on industry and the election system. And for government to even hint that someone is morally wrong for financial success is so foul in spirit that it beggars the imagination to come up with strong enough condemnation.

I started by condemning the stratification of whole demographics, and now I return to it. While there are legitimate means of studying group dynamics and cultural mores at work influencing behavior and social interactions, it must be understood that every person is an individual, and their personal condition is the result of both environment and choice; to deny one force is to invalidate the conclusion of your analysis before it starts. Polarization of wealth-hate is in like fashion an exercise of fascism, because the government is commonly brought to bear on a targeted class through no offense of their character. In practice such actions are no different from racially-based or religious persecution, and history offers an appalling record on how deep and vicious such pogroms can become.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35211.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The American Right to Be Rich:

» Jo's Cafe linked with This N’ That

» Maggie's Farm linked with Tuesday afternoon links

Comments (61)

I agree though.The... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

I agree though.

There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't understand the libe... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I don't understand the liberal mindset of punishing accomplishment. For those of us who work hard and have for a long time, we want and deserve to have more money to show for the years of sacrifice and training. ww

You start by discussing the... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

You start by discussing the phrase "there are two kinds of people." You say:

"It's oversimplifying things, and what's worse, it encourages people to generalize and broadbrush [sic]."

And then all of the sudden you're talking about impending fascism and pogroms ?!!! based of some vague perception (just a feeling I guess) that Obama told "the rest of us that we're greedy."

MORE than that, i fail to u... (Below threshold)
ShyAsrai:

MORE than that, i fail to understand how liberals don't recognize hypocrisy.

hypocrisy used to be the worst of social social crimes. used to be, hypocrites worked hard to conceal hypocrisy - even so far as to murder 'informants'.

It's not about accomplishme... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

It's not about accomplishment, WW - it's about fairness. You can't be 'unfair' - and if that means Joe Six-Pack lives in a trailer and Joe Lowenbrau lives in a decent house, then in all fairness Joe Lowenbrau needs to have sufficient assets removed so he lives in a trailer. Doesn't matter if Joe Six-Pack is pumping gas at Dynoco, while Joe Lowenbrau owns three franchised Dynoco stations - fairness is the criteria here, and it's unfair for one to live better than another.

Same thing with medical care - If Jane Uninsured doesn't have it, then a sufficient standard of care must be established... but if Jackie Foresight has the possibility of BETTER care, that care must be scaled back so she gets the same as Jane Uninsured.

Anything else is unfair.

And it's now MUCH more important that everything be 'fair'. It's the dawning of the Age of Fairness, after all. (Like the Age of Aquarius, but with soap, short hair, and missing the psychedelic paint...)

There's two kinds of people... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

There's two kinds of people. Those who make sense and those who sound like Adrian Browne.

There are two kinds of peop... (Below threshold)

There are two kinds of people in the world...those that believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those that don't.

Guess what...God/Nature did... (Below threshold)
mag:

Guess what...God/Nature did not make things fair. Are all people beautiful, are all people brillant, do all people have the same talent? And some people have more money than others. And it is theirs ..not you, not me, not the government has the right to butt in and tell them what to do with it.
Sometimes some people get the short end of the stick. If one thing life is, it is unfair.
If you think otherwise you are not dealing with reality.

"... the President of th... (Below threshold)

"... the President of the United States thinks its only OK for some people to be rich, and on that point he is not only wrong..."

No, Obama's point (I presume) is that it's ok to be rich if you become rich the right way, and I think everybody would agree with this broad principle, disagreement is over the definition of the 'right' way. I should not be allowed to become rich by robbing old ladies, selling illegal drugs or running a ponzi scheme. Should those who became rich creating this mess stay rich? (and yes, I know Obama is excluding many from his criticism, I'm not defending his specific argument, just the broad point).

.. the American Revolution was fought, in part, to protect wealth from being stolen by men who did nothing to earn it

It's nice that you qualified that, as you could also make the argument that the Revolution was fought to allow the colonists to decide for themselves what is right and what isn't. They fought to give us the right to do to each other just what we're doing.

Sturm: "They fought to g... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Sturm: "They fought to give us the right ..."

No, that is completely wrong. Rights are recognized, not "given" by any human.

Typical liberal blunder and blubber. And you are no more right in the claim that you have to become rich the "right" way, especially that one person has the authority to dictate what is "right" and punish legal and ethical behavior just because he wants to trump the Constitution with his own will.

This is not Rome, we have no Ceasar here.

s strum - "No, Obama's ... (Below threshold)
marc:

s strum - "No, Obama's point (I presume) is that it's ok to be rich if you become rich the right way,

So... was obama and a few other dems that headed the list as receiving the most financial "gifts" from those in the financial sector, THEN giving them legislative favors doing it the "right way?"

"So...was obama and a fe... (Below threshold)
Bow Before Me Obama:

"So...was obama and a few other dems that headed the list as recieving the most financial "gifts" from those in the financial sector,THEN giving them legislative favors doing it the right way?"

Yes, if Your a serious leftist that cares about the little guy.

DJ, the bail-outs were born... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

DJ, the bail-outs were born in the board room, the labor contracts were born on the golf course*. Senator Coburn (R-OK), expanding on the story of Paulsen "begging" over the phone, revealed that Treasury Sec. Paulsen, in person of course, got down ON HIS KNEES. (I think Rep. Sullivan and Sen. Inhofe might have been in the room, too. There were several witnesses.)

Nixon, Kirkland, recession...

PS. Who remembers the gov't (Nixon)requiring its okay for McDonald's Inc. to institute a nickels price increase for a Quarter-pounder in their own restaraunts. Then assigning shelf space for imported electronics in every retailer carrying more than 3 brands? Tricky Dick again.

My point? Republicrats.

PPS: DJ, per some philosophy you are jumping at:
google video: "The Century Of the Self". Another great BBC documentary.

DJ: calling me a l... (Below threshold)

DJ:

calling me a liberal because I don't agree with you is pretty lame. typical for you, but lame.

so you want to quibble with my wording, fine, substitute 'they fought for us to be able to exercise the right', happy now?

and are you really arguing that anything and everything is fair when it comes to someone making money? If you are, that's sad, if you're not, then you've accepted the premise that society gets to determine what is and what isn't an appropriate means of getting rich and you're just p****d off because you don't like what the current crowd is doing.

and finally, you ranting that Obama's actions are unconstitutional doesn't make it so (any more than your screaming that everything Bush did was constitutional), come back when you have someone more credentialed than Rush Limbaugh backing you up, and with Obama (at least for now) being backed by a majority of the country, it sort of makes you part of the lunatic fringe.

Marc: I'm not defending the specifics of what Obama is doing, I'm just making the point that we all agree that some ways of making money ought not be respected.

bryanD - "PS. Who remem... (Below threshold)
marc:

bryanD - "PS. Who remembers the gov't (Nixon)requiring its okay for McDonald's Inc."

Remind me again who it was that imposed import car quotas, not to mention that asshats oil and natural gas price controls.

DJ Drummond: Obama made ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

DJ Drummond: Obama made $22 million dollars writing books .

My reckoning is that Obama has earned a lot less in royalties, considerably less than a quarter of that.

Steve, not only are you cha... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Steve, not only are you channeling your inner hippy, the dope has clearly damaged your memory. I am no ditto-head, as anyone with long experience here can tell you.

Pretending I am "ranting" and "screaming", in addition to your humorous and as-usual erroneous claims regarding my message and support, is just one more sad warning to the kids of today that while some people may find lead paint chips tasty, a steady diet of such things results in permanent brain damage, as Steve so pathetically demonstrates here.

Mr. Crickmore, you seem to ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Mr. Crickmore, you seem to have forgotten Mr. Obama's advance for his books.

I think the issue is being ... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

I think the issue is being looked at wrong here. During a serious recession or even a depression there are plenty of new opportunities to make money. For example home foreclosures in the Flint, Michigan area have driven the price down of $75,000 homes to just $3,500 -$7,500 average.

If anyone wants to become a real estate millionaire, then just buy a string of these cheap homes and hand them over to a property management company which charges about $60 a month per house to collect rent and make repairs on the properties. Certainly controlling property in your neighborhood is easier than these long distance deals, but if the price is right, then why turn down good money?

The fact of the matter is even the Kennedy family became very wealthy during bad economic times.

Bush or not, Obama or not, new millionaires and even billionaires will be made during this recession. New opportunities always open up in bad times.

I like to have girlfriends, cars, motorbikes. And there's always opportunities to earn money to have these things if a guy looks for it.

Sturm: "They fough... (Below threshold)
Sturm: "They fought to give us the right ..."
No, that is completely wrong. Rights are recognized, not "given" by any human.

Exactly so. Steve better should have phrased it as "they fought to prevent others from taking away our rights."

This is the main difference between the conservative view and the liberal view: liberals think that it's the government job to hand out rights, but conservatives think that the purpose of government is to guarantee rights we already possess. This is why the language of the Bill of Rights is "The right to (whatever) shall not be abridged." The assumption is that the right exists prior to the social contract.

This is liberalism's single biggest misunderstanding and probably gives rise to most of its other errors.

DJ, surprised you waited tw... (Below threshold)

DJ, surprised you waited two whole comments before starting with the paint chip jokes. I'll stand by my position: unless you believe that the way in which someone has money is irrelevant, that pimping is just as good as being a plumber which is just as good as selling mortgages to people who can't pay them back, then the only difference between you and the liberals is simply what each of you consider ill-gotten gains.

OM: given that a right one doesn't get to exercise is darn near useless, I could also have phrased it as "they fought to give us back our right'. but you're wrong about liberalism: they (DJ: note the 'they') don't think rights are given by government, they believe just as strongly that rights belong to the people; they disagree about what those rights are (they believe in the right to housing, conservatives don't, they believe women have the (god-given) right to an abortion, some on the right don't, while the right believes they have the individual right to guns while the left doesn't).

DJ Drummond, I'll grant you... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

DJ Drummond, I'll grant you after review, and the latest book bonanza, including half million dollar advance signing by Obama, he has now made at least half of the 22 million you quoted, already through his books.

The bigger problem is that the the bankers or banksters became rich from fraudalent dealings/ or 'liar loans'( that they knew could never be repaid)... or at the very least, sharp practices. I think most were knowingly guilty of fraud.

Now they wish to maintain their same salaries on corporate welfare without proper public Congressional scrutiny of what went wrong/ what unlawful actions they took or having to open up their bank balance sheets. No wonder the public is upset.

You're barking late, Steve,... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

You're barking late, Steve, and proving my point. "Banksters", eh? First off, there's that broad brush I mention right from the start. NO chance that most bankers are innocent, honest people, no possibility that - as is usually the case - a few crooks hurt a lot of people including their own business. Maybe 5% of Enron's people were corrupt or lazy, but all the honest employees lost their savings and jobs.

I sense from your comment that you oppose the bailout? So do I, actually, because that was not the action needed, and we are now finding out that President "Pitchfork" pretty much extorted the banks into giving in. But not a word of complaint from you about the GOVERNMENT spending all that tax money, or criticism of Obama tossing out money with such lousy oversight that his own party is starting to complain --- no, for you its' the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil bankers.

Sheesh, you're stupid!

No, that is comple... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
No, that is completely wrong. Rights are recognized, not "given" by any human.

And for a third opinion... Rights, once "recognized", must be won and defended on the battlefield. Only after they are secured for all can they be "given" to anyone.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

There are three kinds of ma... (Below threshold)
Roy Lofquist Author Profile Page:

There are three kinds of mathematicians. Those who can add and those who can't.

Nice try, Steve, but I've s... (Below threshold)

Nice try, Steve, but I've seen too much liberal rhetoric to the contrary. For example, you should read what progressives such as Wilson and Roosevelt (Teddy) wrote about private property, namely, that it only exists only insofar as the state deigns to permit it. This is radically different than what the founders of the country thought, and, I daresay, fought and died for.

MORE than that, i fail t... (Below threshold)
Sea:

MORE than that, i fail to understand how liberals don't recognize hypocrisy.

hypocrisy used to be the worst of social social crimes. used to be, hypocrites worked hard to conceal hypocrisy - even so far as to murder 'informants'.

It's not that liberals are more prone to being hyporcritical than republicans. As a republican you are probably more likely to notice(and point out) hypocracy in democrats.

After a republican gives a speech do you enjoy reflecting on what you liked about it? After a democrat gives a speech do you enjoy taking it a part piece by piece looking for inconsistancies? If you answered yes to both of these questions, than it is no suprise that you think democrats are any more hypocritical than republicans.

Of course the reverse applies equally to democrats. Democrats are more likely to notice hypocracy in republicans.

<a href="http://pajamasmedi... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bill Whittle has a new piece up aimed at the rich. If you're familiar with his old site - we'll, he's doing it again...

So maybe how you make your ... (Below threshold)
Steve C:

So maybe how you make your money does matter in the sense that making it illegally probably should be in a different class. However, is it actually anyone's intent to compare drug dealing or other forms of illegal activity with being the CEO of a bank or other public company.

I think in a rhetoric class, they called that reductio ad absurdo or some such thing. In any event, it's a pretty absurd argument.

Back to the point, many people in the current progressive movement do believe that government should redistribute money to ensure better, fairer outcomes of income distribution. My sense is that the President is one of those people. For those of you that agree, what limits would you place on the ability to redistribute and how would you justify them? Personally, I'm OK with an unequal sharing of the burden of government, but when you move simply to redistribute, that is a bridge too far.

I don't know who first s... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I don't know who first started the phrase 'there's two kinds of people ...', but it really gets on my nerves. It's oversimplifying things, and what's worse, it encourages people to generalize and broadbrush.

Not to mention grammatically incorrect. "There ARE two kinds of people..."

"...while ignoring, say,... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"...while ignoring, say, the millions of dollars paid to Freddie Mac and Fannie executives."

I think part of the reason the public hasn't displayed so much outrage over the bonuses to Fannie/Freddie execs is that many have had time to think and realize that the initial reactions to the AIG execs was knee-jerk and comprised of way too emotion rather than logic. They were mad, no, they were "outraged", because it was just "way too much money", it was "tax payer's money" and well, "they couldn't possibly have earned it". All of this before even knowing how much the individual bonuses were, what these people did for the company or even whether they had anything at all to do with AIG's problems.

Congress fed them buzzwords: Greed, fatcats, millions, etc. and they ate it up.

One must wonder how much of that money was indeed "taxpayer's money" and how much was fresh off the presses. And speaking of "taxpayer's money", how many taxpayers happily trotted down to the post office each week and mailed off those taxes of their own free will? What? None you say? Many of those "outraged" at the government giving that money to the corporations don't even pay taxes. So basically, they're angry at what the government did with "rich folk's" money.

"...many people in the current progressive movement do believe that government should redistribute money to ensure better, fairer outcomes of income distribution."

They wanted that money. That money should have gone to them. I know this because I hear enough of it at the office:

"If they hadn't given that to those greedy bastards, I would have gotten a bigger refund." ~This from the unwed mother of three with no more than a GED who got $4,500 from her tax filing and payed $0 into the tax fund. Not only that, but she was angry because she felt she should have gotten $6,500 saying, "That's not right. It's my money. There has to be a mistake in my taxes."

Who's greedy?

"I'm struggling to buy groceries and these people get some of MY money? 90% ain't enough. They should take it all!" ~This from another unwed mother of two who also pays $0 to the tax fund. Incidentally, I've rarely seen this woman wear the same outfit twice, including shoes.

Who's greedy?

That's just a couple examples. I sit close to the break room. I hear it all day long. These are people getting free insurance, 401K, paid holidays, paid personal days, flexible hours, stock options, free coaching and counseling for an opportunity for advancement, bonuses, etc.

All I can say is it's a good thing I'm not doing performance reviews for some of these people. They're antagonistic, lazy, show up late and leave early, spend a lot of time surfing the internet, talking on their cell phones and texting.

And complaining in the break room.

I would enjoy nothing more than to march straight across the aisle to the break room and give them all a piece of my mind. But in the interest of peace and harmony, I mind my own business and do my job as a temp - earning a lot less than they do, getting no paid holidays, no insurance, no paid personal days, stock options, bonuses, etc.

You can't curry envy as a r... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

You can't curry envy as a rallying tool in one case and curse it in another. Its a monster you can't selectively feed.

Instead of seeing the AIG b... (Below threshold)
Bob:

Instead of seeing the AIG bonuses as a consequence of Congress' action in spending hundreds of billions of dollars to "bail out" failing companies and banks, the public saw them as "greed," based on the rhetoric of the Democrats and certain Republicans like John McCain. Once AIG (or anyone else) accepts government "help," the next step will be government control - such as trying to retroactively take away the bonuses with a 90% tax. Whatever Bush's intent, the effect of the bailouts was to insert the government into banking and business so that any type of government control will be considered acceptable - like the President or Treasury Secretary firing CEOs or replacing board members.

Bill WhittleA messag... (Below threshold)
maggie:
"You can't curry envy as... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"You can't curry envy as a rallying tool in one case and curse it in another. Its a monster you can't selectively feed."

Got that right - because the crowd you've got helling for heads one day will be demanding yours the next.

That should have been 'yell... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

That should have been 'yelling' for heads. Dang...

DJ: I am neither attacking ... (Below threshold)

DJ: I am neither attacking nor defending bankers nor am I supporting or criticizing the actions taken against them in the string, I am simply asking you the question whether you are objecting to Obama in the abstract (it is ok no matter how one accumulates money) or in the particular (going after Wall Street and not others you feel were as or more responsible for the mess)... or perhaps you're just objecting because your support for Bush leads you to object to everything Obama does, even for doing something that Bush would have done himself?

My guess is a combination of the last two. Am I close?

And again, with the name calling? That is your way of winning an argument?

Sturm, you earned every bit... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Sturm, you earned every bit of the derision you have received. As for your assumptions, you are - as usual - completely wrong.

Obama's theme is clearly one of class warfare. He has made a point of attacking heads of companies for derision and insults, even when - as in the case of AIG - he later made statements which implicitly admitted he had blundered in his original attacks, maligning people for acts they were not guilty of committing, and attacking the people who are working hardest to address the problems.

As to his particulars, he is plainly a fascist. When campaigning last year, Obama himself observed that government powers must be used carefully and whole programs should be cut to save money. In actual practice, Obama has tripled the federal debt - at the very least - while instituting massive control across the board. The actions are unnecessary, represent an alarming trend in central control and socialist practices, and have nothing to do with any president in the past 60 years. Pretending that Bush would have copied such moves or even tolerated them is simply more self-delusion on your part.

We do have two types of peo... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

We do have two types of people those with ambition and those without. That is why we have multiple classes of people in transition. You can be born rich and become poor. You can be born poor become rich and all other points in between. The beauty of this country is that it has always been that way.
Example you can be former slave born in the 1880s and become the first Black Female Millionaire at the Time that Democratic president imposed segregation in the in government and military. Life is not fair it is hard and we need people to realize that. You need to earn what you have. No one is going to give it to you. If they do give to you there will be all types of string in order to control you. These people need class warfare in order to achieve their goals, which is permanent power. Marxism was not about classless society it goals was to bring nobility back to power of the good old days.
In the Europe you had three types of people Nobles, peasant and merchants. Nobles were born to wealth and power. Merchants normally were also born into trade and had little power and some modest wealth and the peasants who were really slaves with most of their property in some way controlled by the nobles.
Overtime merchants and industrialist started to gain power and peasants started to receive wages that were outside of government control and now there was the ability of people to amass wealth and power, who were not born to it. The nobles hated this because work was 4 letter word and they could not believe that workers could start to own things. Workers could start to send their children to good schools and even some nobles had to marry (good forbid) this commoners and Americans to keep them out of debt.
This is the world of Marx, his intent of Socialism was to stop commoner from being independent of the the ruling class.
Socialist want control because they feel it is their birth right. They are smarter than the masses and they must control what the masses get. They will appeal to the common man but will always seek ways to keep power invested in small people with the promise of the reward of the socialist utopia.
The Socialist Utopia, it is lie, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the only end goal. To achieve that end Marxist must destroy anything that allows for independence. The NAZI party and Marx agreed on public education, Gun control, labor unions, abolishment of capitalism, progressive tax systems, high property taxes and inheritance tax. Which is why, all large Scale attempts at Socialist Utopias became Socialist Totalitarian Regimes in which millions if not billions of people died.

DJ: what assumptions have I... (Below threshold)

DJ: what assumptions have I made? I simply asked you a question, and for some reason that only you know, you don't want to answer it.

And you also want to ignore that Bush did some of the same things that you're alleging Obama is now doing: Bush was the one who forced out AIG's CEO, he was the one who took effective ownership of AIG, Fannie and Freddie without getting shareholder approval, he was the one who forced banks to take bailout money that Obama is now not letting them repay, and going further back, it was the Bush Justice Department that trampled the rights of corporate defendants (Enron, KPMG) and Ted Stevens, it was Bush who stood by while spending spiraled out of control, and it was Bush on whose watch we added over $1 trillion to our nation's deficit.

You do not live on this pla... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

You do not live on this planet, Mr. Sturm. No one who does would agree with your last comment.

and your last comment shows... (Below threshold)

and your last comment shows just how brown your nose has gotten from kissing Bush's rear end. There ain't no opinion in that paragraph, every single point is factual and you you want to dispute them because they don't agree with your narrative.

headline today: a federal judge criticized the government's handling of the Ted Stevens corruption trial , saying ""In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case". Whose Justice Department did this DJ? (hint: it wasn't Obama)

need I continue?

Sturmee's trying to change ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Sturmee's trying to change the subject, and still obsessed with BDS, I see.

"DJ: what assumptions ha... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"DJ: what assumptions have I made?"

It's not so much an assumption as asking a question loaded with hyperbole and implication - "...and are you really arguing that anything and everything is fair when it comes to someone making money?" or "...unless you believe that the way in which someone has money is irrelevant,..." and then responding to the possibility that it's true. Three times.

If DJ had said that everyone should eat chocolate becaue it tastes good and can trigger endorphans, would you respond with, "Are you really arguing that people with a severe allergy to chocolate should eat it? Because if you are, 'that's sad.'"

Some questions shouldn't even be dignified with an answer.

To pretend that our nati... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

To pretend that our nation's forefathers fought and died for the right to create progressive tax rates, set a maximum wage, or for politicians to harass honest individuals simply for personal success is to lie, and there's no denying it.

Nobody asserts that they fought for progressive taxation. There are better reasons to advocate for progressive taxation than the founding fathers' limited grasp of economics as the 'science' is currently understood. Yelling "Freedom!" and brandishing a Cliff's Notes copy of Atlas Shrugged and/or The Road to Serfdom might constitute a thoughtful argument in certain circles, but happily not within the Obama administration.

HELLO!We are in th... (Below threshold)
Dickie Flatts:

HELLO!

We are in this mess because of greedy consumers who weren't happy with a 1,500 sf home, they wanted 2,400 sf. Some weren't happy with 2,200 sf, they wanted 3,500 sf. Still other weren't happy with 3,500 sf and they needed 5,000 sf.

We are in this mess because of greedy bankers and executive on Wall St. who weren't happy sitting back and making money of the interest paid on good loans. They had to some up with crap loans to sell, and then package those into even more lucrative ... and risky ... investment vehicles.

Yes, greedy people put us in this mess.

DJ: contrary to your delusi... (Below threshold)

DJ: contrary to your delusions (where anyone who criticizes your position is suffering from BDS), I am not changing the subject, I am challenging the legitimacy of your post when (1) you too believe that some ways of getting rich don't deserve to be respected and (2) Bush did much of the same type of thing that Obama is now doing. It's fine if you want to rant about what is and is not considered 'fair' and whether Obama should be going after Fannie and Freddie execs with the same enthusiasm he's shown in going after AIG execs, but that is simply an argument over the specifics and not over the broad policy that you claim is wrong... and that is what you hate, the implicit assertion that you ain't so different from Obama and the explicit allegation that you're just a hypocrite.

'Sturm' must be Euro for 'l... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

'Sturm' must be Euro for 'liar':

"anyone who criticizes your position is suffering from BDS"

Lie #1. Your BDS comes from your habit of constantly bringing up W whenever you get flustered. Pretty much every comment, that;


"I am not changing the subject"

Ah, but you are. I note President Obama's actions in the context of socialism, and you tried to pretend W had it in for Stevens. That's changing the subject boyo, even if you are very poor at doing it smoothly;

"1) you too believe that some ways of getting rich don't deserve to be respected"

Another lie. You strongly implied that most rich people are crooks. When I called you out on it, you lied and tried to suggest I was saying the same thing;

"2) Bush did much of the same type of thing that Obama is now doing"

Waddaya know, another Sturm lie. Bush let the economy slide to a 1 trillion dollar debt over 8 years, O-boy did that much in just one bill and four weeks. His announced programs have collectively set the nation on course for at least a 3 trillion dollar debt under even generous economic conditions. Bush never publicly engaged in class warfare or made threats against whole industries. BDS is a terrible thing, folks;

"the implicit assertion that you ain't so different from Obama and the explicit allegation that you're just a hypocrite."

Sturmee, you're a bad liar and a worse analyst. It's impossible to even take you seriously.

When somebody uses the pref... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

When somebody uses the prefix "Euro" derisively, you know it's safe to stop paying attention to them.

(Ad hominems can be funny, useful, and poignant, DJ, but "Euro" makes you come off as an ignoramus who wouldn't enjoy himself in Barcelona or Prague.)

Or to put it another way, H... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Or to put it another way, Hyperbolist thinks its fine to be derisive as long as only he is allowed the privilege.

As for Prague and Barcelona, I rather like and admire the Czech spirit but of late Spanish honor has become a thing of the past. Barcelona would seem a sad anachoronism, therefore.

"Bush did much of the sa... (Below threshold)

"Bush did much of the same type of thing that Obama is now doing... Waddaya know, another Sturm lie"

DJ: what part of the words SAME TYPE are you having trouble comprehending? SAME TYPE does not mean the EXACT SAME as something or someone else, it means SOMETHING SIMILAR. So it is not a lie to say Bush did something similar to Obama when Bush ran up another trillion dollars of debts.

"you too believe that some ways of getting rich don't deserve to be respected... Another lie... You strongly implied that most rich people are crooks"

So just to make it clear, you believe that it doesn't matter how someone comes into money, EVERY way someone gets rich ought to be respected?

And you fool, show me - and your readers - in this post or anywhere else where I have implied, suggested or inferred that most rich people are crooks. AND JUST IN CASE YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING OR UNDERSTANDING THIS, I AM WRITING IT IN CAPS: I DO NOT BELIEVE MOST RICH PEOPLE ARE CROOKS.

Got anything else you want to pull out of your make believe world to criticize me about?

Max must be polish for "mor... (Below threshold)
914:

Max must be polish for "moron."

No, DJ, I didn't suggest th... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

No, DJ, I didn't suggest that you stop being derisive. I implied that you should try being derisive such that you don't come across as uncultured.

Spain is great, by the way. Takes some collective will to suffer a terrorist attack and still not cave in to them by adopting a reactionary and fruitless foreign policy that amounts to a war on an abstract concept. Also, Moorish architecture is gorgeous.

Well, you're definitely rig... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Well, you're definitely right about the architecture, Hyperbolist.

Sad to say I am too old to enjoy the wines, Spain has some fine labels as well.

"Takes some collective w... (Below threshold)
Greenbow:

"Takes some collective will to suffer a terrorist attack and still not cave in to them by adopting a reactionary and fruitless foreign policy that amounts to a war on an abstract concept."

No more than a woman being raped is showing great willpower by not fighting back against her attacker. After all, she doesn't want to hurt him, make him mad, right? So she should be praised! She might have hurt the attacker!

Spain rolled over, bare ass in the air, quivering that another attack might come if they didn't. "Oh, yes, we'll withdraw! No help for the WoT! We'll do what you want!" Took a lot of courage to do that, didn't it... and guess what! They didn't get hit again! Good on them for letting AlQuada screw them!

I dread the day when I may ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I dread the day when I may have to foreswear the vino, DJ. Next time I crack open a nice rioja, I'll certainly have a glass in your honour.

Steve Sturm: Desperate, De... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Steve Sturm: Desperate, Delusional, Debunked.

Sucks for you, boyo.

do you guys think the stimu... (Below threshold)
John:

do you guys think the stimulus may help in the long term? Maybe, but that's likely to come at the expense of deficit and inflation. We have been through several downturns before (see, for instance,

http://www.recessioninfocenter.com

so, maybe we should just accept that it's part of the economic cycle

John: can you rephrase that... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

John: can you rephrase that last sentence in a way that can be put on a form letter sent to every person who loses their job because of he crappy economy? I'll give it a shot:

"Sorry, boy-o, but 'tis the season for tough luck. Too bad about those student loans, but hey, at least you can sell the house at a $50,000 loss and buy out the least on your Chrysler for $5,000. Have a food stamp!"

Poor, poor DJ, must have go... (Below threshold)
max:

Poor, poor DJ, must have got his widdle feewings hurt.

Not at all max, but I do te... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Not at all max, but I do tend to step on rhetorical cockroaches like yourself.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy