Brad has isolated either a mental disease or is on one of the trails of psychopathology.

They are not exactly the same.

For those who are interested, in the modern era in our western civilization, the footprints leading to the source of this sickology.

It is not a pretty picture, and there is no way out if it in terms of elections.

Prepare for the next civilization?

correction: "For those who are interested, in the modern era in our western civilization, there are footprints leading to the source of this sickology."

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Gotta keep tabs on these incredibly damaging people.

The Rush, Brietbart, O'Reilly audience are less a political faction at heart, and more-so a religious cult. There is no reasoning with them or converting them with facts. A politician and the Democratic party is better off to just write them off (all 26% of them) and try to expand their base or reach (and educate) independents that lean toward their position.

Mark Crispin Miller got it exactly right when he named this movement that Rush is so fundamental to a projective movement. Rush and his ilk project onto others EXACTLY what they do. This tape is a beautiful example of that.

As Mike Stark is doing here, we need to challenge them, without making war, out loud. We need to do it again and again and again. They really fall apart pretty quickly when confronted by someone who knows their shit and can't be bullied. Rush didn't here but I'm guessing he cut Stark off. Watch O'Reilly or Hannity with Al Sharpton sometime. Sharpton is so much smarter, so much funnier, and has so much more personal integrity and power that they can't bully him. So they become much more normal and even friendly.

Bullies are weird, frightened, unaware people.

Rush Limbaugh= Dr. Joseph Goebbels..Why can't we call what the right wing does what it is? Propaganda.

Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels ( /ˈɡɜrbəlz/[2] German: [ˈɡœbəls]; 29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945) was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. As one of Adolf Hitler's closest associates and most devout followers, he was known for his zealous oratory and anti-Semitism. He played a hand in the Kristallnacht attack on the German Jews, which many historians consider to be the beginning of the Final Solution, leading towards the Holocaust.

Not money but the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Overwhelming Evil exists today right in front of our faces, 24/7 but you wouldn’t know IT by listening to the broadcast news media. According to the people who control my public broadcast airwaves the most important news they have to offer is about daily live of Sarah Palin and Anthony’s Weiner.

GOD forbide we talk about the 50 MILLION Americans struggling below the poverty level or do an investigative report on the Corporate Crime Wave that gripped this nation during Bush/Cheney… Ohhh Noooo, we have to have a steady stream of celebrity worship news and mind numbing commentary by the same silver spoon, pundits day after day. I tell you the truth _____ I’m actually STARVED for REAL NEWS. WE’VE GOT HUGE PROBLEMS TO SOLVE, right?

I guess it hurts so bad because I’m old enough to remember a time when News anchors didn’t salivate over the sex scandal stories or celebrity fluff reports. How this Anthony Weiner thing became news is exactly what’s wrong with this nation full of shameless hypocrites. Why is this news… because Andrew Brietbart says so??? COME ON!

Frankly, I don’t care what my leaders do in their free time as long as they do good on the job. I’m not in Anthony Weiner’s district but the man is one of a precious few in Congress that actually fights for my Progressive belief system.
We’ve lost so many to the Brietbart already… Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN… but I’m not going to lose my Weiner to these Conservative wackos and their low grade thought processes.

We Progressives, Democrats and Liberals need to get together on this one. Not only do many on the Left NOT fight back but all of the sudden we got all these prudes on the Left who’ve been badmouthing Rep. Weiner. Hey, I’d like to know what they did to Ed Shultz while he suspended. Did Comcast sent him to re-education camp or something? See jinnbad.blogspot.com for the WHOLE story.

Two related items...

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
–Mahatma Gandhi

Also...[Paraphrased]

Solomon Asch, with experiments originally carried out in the 1950s and well-replicated since, highlighted a phenomenon now known as "conformity". In the classic experiment, a subject sees a puzzle like the one shown in diagram and is asked: Which of the lines A, B, and C is the same size as the line X?

The subject is seated alongside a number of other people looking at the diagram - seemingly other subjects but actually confederates of the experimenter. The other "subjects" in the experiment, one after the other, say that line C seems to be the same size as X. The real subject is seated next-to-last. How many people, placed in this situation, would say "C" - giving an obviously incorrect answer but one that agrees with the unanimous answer of the other subjects? What do you think the percentage would be?

Three-quarters of the subjects in Asch's experiment gave a "conforming" answer at least once. A third of the subjects conformed more than half the time.

Get it so far? People tend to defer to what the herd thinks.

But here's the good news:

Adding a single dissenter - just one other person who gives the correct answer, or even an incorrect answer that's different from the group's incorrect answer - reduces conformity very sharply, down to 5-10%.

Why is this important? Well, it means that one person who publicly speaks the truth can sway a group of people away from group-think.

If a group of people is leaning towards believing the government's version of events, a single person who speaks the truth can help snap the group out of its trance.

Source
http://www.opednews.com/...0?show=votes#allcomments

DL, are you sure that Rush cut Stark off? I have listened to Rush for years (since '88) and can count on one hand the times I have heard him cut somebody off.

Anyway...taxes...

You must separate, "marginal tax rate" from "effective tax rate" from "tax credits."

In fact, the ARRA did indeed provide "tax credits" but nothing I have read indicates that "marginal tax rates were lowered" Most, if not all, of these credits expired in the tax year or within a few years (AMT excluded). The Wiki gives an excellent analysis with references (some of the links broke for me). So, Rush was correct in what "he" was saying. Stark was correct about what "he" was saying. They were talking about different things. Sam is correct about what "he" said.

Tax rates:
Sam starts running a victory lap while talking about 70% tax rates to support Starks point. Sam is correct about "marginal tax rates." But, the "effective tax rate" during Reagan is pretty close to where it was in 2007 (it was a little lower by maybe a percent or so depending on which Reagan years you compare). Throwing out a whopping 70% number makes great theater but distorts reality. Sam almost recovers when he states that "effective tax rates" are lower now than in the last 60 years. I do not have the numbers for "now" but Sam may be correct since they were lower in 2007 as stated above. Unfortunately, Sam did not give any perspective on "how much lower" which paints a different picture. The "effective tax rates" have remained pretty constant from '79 to '07 (the data I found did not cover '08 through '10). They have varied ~ +/- 1% I calculate my own "effective tax rate" every year and it varies very little.

Sam is correct, "marginal tax rates" are lower now than they were under Reagan. Rush knows this too. His audience knows this as well.

The key point about taxes that was missed by both sides is that "effective tax rate" has changed very little since Reagan.

Investment in infrastructure is important. I agree with the general point of Stark. Here in the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS, lots of money is being spent on infrastructure. I see it all around me with lots of new roads, improvements at intersections. I do not know if these are being paid for by ARRA, but I will assume (here) that they are. Thanks Obama. Thanks Rick Perry!

Unfortunately, after the oxycontin jab, the conversation deteriorated on both sides.

OK, let me give my perspective on taxes.

I do not have a problem with the current "effective tax rate" but I do not believe it should go any higher. The current tax code is mess and should be jettisoned and rewritten from scratch. It is ridiculously complicated now. I am in favor of something along the lines of a flat tax with threshold where the lowest wage earners pay no taxes. Eliminate all the tax breaks (mortgage, sales tax...all the Sched A stuff, etc.). If you earn $100K, write a check for $20K. Capital gains should, however, be figured differently because of the risk involved.

Davey Crockett,
I am not sure Limbaugh cut him off. Or didn't cut him off. I didn't hear Stark speak anymore after Rush's prolonged obnoxious dismissal of him. That seemed odd and unlike the rest of the conversation where it seemed Stark had no problem standing up to him. So I assumed Rush cut him off. Don't know for sure. If the converstion went on, I sure would've liked to have heard it.

On a personal note, I have to tell you that if you have listened to Rush for years(unless you're doing it as some sort of sociological study of pathology) your credibililty goes way down with me. Rush is a fountain of ignorance and ill will.

I read one of his books years ago. It was very interesting. Almost every chapter would start off with something that resembled common sense. It surprised me that I agreed with so much of what he was saying. Then invariably he would take the thread of reality that I recognized and spin it into something beyond recognition, I guess to suit his own needs.

I checked source after source and claim after claim. He is unusually full to the very tip top of shit.

And he DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN HE IS WRONG which is quite a lot. If he's a primary source for you, it makes me wonder how connected you are to reality. Again, unless you listen to him for reasons other than discerning reality through Limbaugh "facts".

My understanding is that, claims from Limbaugh(and his supporters)not withstanding, it is difficult to get on air with him with a differing point of view. That they screen their calls pretty carefully. Doesn't Rush at the beginning of this clip call the caller "Jeff?" This made me wonder if Stark felt he had to give a false name to get on.

Rush is like a lot of bullies. He doesn't like to talk to someone with an opposing opinion who really knows their stuff and is not easily intimidated.

And like so many other bullies currently on the airways these days his main argument often comes down to schoolyard taunts. Basically saying, "Nyah, nyahah, nyah, nyah. Yooouuuu arrrre stooooopid!" So informative, elevating, and humane. Not.

As for taxes, I say let's raise 'em. A lot. Especially for the people who can afford it. Are we in this together as one nation, or not? Do we believe in community, or not? Do we believe in responding to a disastrous economy with some innovation, or are we gonna be forced to kiss the same syphilitic pig with a different wig again?(nothing against syphilitic pigs)(and here's a picture of my penis saying hello to a syphilitic pig that I put on my facebook page.)(sending a copy to Breitbart.)

David,

I do listen to Rush and like him.

I would hope that my credibility on this blog would be based on the content of my posts, not to whom I listen.

Equality 7-2521 believes in community. He does a lot of volunteer work as does his wife.

Yes, we need innovation. I doubt it will come out of a bureaucracy (e.g., the fed). For example... Will the government free us from fossil fuels (if indeed that is the right thing to do)? The government might make investments in research that 'may' result in some good ideas. But in the end, it is the entrepreneur, motivated in part by capitalism, will make the breakthroughs--the innovations.

I believe are taxed about right. We need to reduce spending.

The 'pig' metaphor went right over my head. Sorry. Seems a little off color.

Davey,
I hope I will continue to evaluate your comments by their merit as I have tried to do so far. I'm just saying that if someone is using as a regular reliable source, Rush Limbaugh, a compulsive non-truth teller, it's a warning flag to me.

You seem to have a brain. I do not think Rush Limbaugh is worthy of you, as a person who seems to have a capacity for independent thought and evaluation.

My pig with a sexually transmitted disease comments are, in part, my response to what seems to me an obscene absurdity with all the recent condemnation of Weiner and again listening to Andrew Breitbart as an initiator of the national conversation. Seems off color and over your head? Good. Exactly. Now you're feeling some of what I am.

Don't know what your equality with a number reference is about. Is that Limbaugh's number code?

David,

Read the book, Anthem, and you will get the "Equality" reference. Or simply Sparknote it. A little bit obscure...sorry...but I was playing off the "we."

Look, I am a conservative and I am reading this blog which I would say is liberal. Most of what Brad posts I do not agree with, but I continue to read because my mind just might get changed (or perhaps I am a masochist LOL). I used to be against abortion. The left has finally convinced me to flip on that issue.

The point is that I listen to all sides and form my own opinion.

If Brad's post of the RL exchange was to make fun of him, demonize, spread hate, then I suppose the majority of readers of this blog are happy about that. Fine. I have no desire to defend Rush. And I have no investment in hate.

I offered my comments, really to address the issue of taxes, to discuss the topic thoughtfully and substantively. Please read my post again.

On that topic, you said that we should raise taxes a lot. How much? If the Fed articulated a specific goal (like the Interstate Highway system back in the '50s) and said, OK, we need everybody to pony up so we can get this one big project done...I would pitch in...a lot of my conservative buds would pitch in as well. But that is not going to happen. Once the bureaucrats get their hands on a pile of money, all of the interest groups come in to get their piece in exchange for votes (both sides of the aisle)!! A lot of the money gets wasted, or perhaps better to say spent on things that should be handled by the private sector and philanthropists--but for sure, some is wasted. Bureaucrats are not bad people, they are your neighbor...my neighbor, etc. But when they are spending our money, they do not feel compelled to be efficient, to spend the money wisely...not like you and I are when we are shopping for a new guitar.

I paid 26% of my income to the fed in 2009 which is probably the highest in the last ten years (or more). For those of you who like math: I wrote a check to the IRS for Y dollars. My income was X dollars. Y was 26% of X.

So David, should it have been the 70% that Sam spoke about? Why not 100% and let the government provide for me...each according to his ability, each according to his need.

How much of your earned income do you want to give to the government?

(Please note, I've been down for the count for several days, and likely will be for several more as I fight to get over this cold, so if I've missed earlier parts of the conversation, please forgive me.)

Davey Crocket @ 11 said:

Yes, we need innovation. I doubt it will come out of a bureaucracy (e.g., the fed). For example... Will the government free us from fossil fuels (if indeed that is the right thing to do)?

Of course. They are likely the only ones who can do that. As with the billions they spend each year to assure that oil companies continue to produce oil at below-market prices, so they must invest in renewable energy since they are the only entity with enough money to make such technologies cheap enough for everyone --- either through subsidies for R&D or massive purchases, say, converting federal fleet to electric cars or powering the military by solar.

The government might make investments in research that 'may' result in some good ideas. But in the end, it is the entrepreneur, motivated in part by capitalism, will make the breakthroughs--the innovations.

Nice bumper sticker thought, but in contradiction to history. Had it not been for massive government investment for years, for example, there would be no Internet. Similarly, there would be no space program and all the technology that has come from it (satellite television, cell phones, etc.)

Then, of course, there are the huge items (Hoover Damn, Federal Highway system, roads and bridges, etc etc) that would never happen at all, and the millions of jobs that go with them, had not government (we, the people, pooling our dollars) taken the initiative to make them happen. There is no easy profit to be made from the Hoover Damn or the Federal Highway System or a bridge over your favorite river.

Same, of course, is true about health care, where most of the great advances come vis a vis government investment into R&D which is done without the need to assure "profit".

Whatever knee-jerk Rush-ism you may wish to repeat about "innovation" and "profit motive" etc. is largely propaganda overlooking basic facts of our economic system. While innovation can later be profitized, much of the initial investment into development sees far more bang for the buck when profit is not the bottom line motivator.

That's why, for example, health care offers much more bang for the buck when its government run or non-profit, where administrative costs are a MUCH lower percentage of what money actually gets spent on. More money for health care, less on administrative costs/profit taking.

It's well and good to say "government is wasteful". Surely, it is in many cases. Just as in the private sector (ever notice how they are able to keep down-sizing yet somehow increase profits as they do?) But where "profit" MUST increase in the private sector, that is not the case in the public-sector, so more money can go to production, innovation, etc.

Do I believe that government should run everything? Absolutely not. I'm a capitalist. But the system we currently have --- which Rush, and apparently, you support --- is not capitalism. It's corporatism. Where corporations make their own rules, using and abusing government resources to limit innovation and competition by buying their way into the removal of regulation that would ensure such competition (and, with it, innovation).

I believe are taxed about right. We need to reduce spending.

Why?

(P.S. Anybody who claims to be both a "conservative" and in favor of big government intervention between a woman and her doctor is not a "conservative" at all. So, glad you came around to the truly conservative, small government way of thinking on the issue of abortion.)

Davey Crocket,

I hope we'll continue our discussion of these various matters. They're large and intertwined and it'll be interesting to converse with a thoughtful conservative. I'm more in the anarchist/socialist/luddite school of thought.

I'm going to defer for the moment, however, as I am having a back spasm day and it's much more comfortable to not be sitting at the computer.

Two little things.--

One of the few good things about having no income is that I don't have to pay ANY taxes. This obviously poses some problems as a sustainable long term strategy but it IS my current situation. When I DID have income it wasn't the concept of taxes per se that bothered me but the way our government chooses to spend so much of it I things that I think are completely for shit.

2. I read a nice quote recently. Something to the effect of climate change being the most definitive evidence of the failure of the free market and capitalism as we've been doing it.

Davey Crockett,

"I have listened to Rush for years (since '88)"

That says it all. I

knew Davey Crockett, and you are no Davey Crockett!

Dredd,

Making Davey Crocket into another "them" because he listens to Rush Limbaugh, I don't think helps. Just because there are a lot of Limbaugh fans who don't seem interested in thinking for themselves, doesn't mean they all are. If Crocket has shown independence/fluidity of thought by changing his mind on something as culturally loaded as women's reproductive rights, I'm of the opinion that that should count at LEAST as much as listening to Limbaugh.

Brad,

I forgive you (you missed my comment about infrastructure...I will get to that in a minute).

I will address your comments in order...

There are some subsidies to oil that should be eliminated. There are other benefits to the oil industry that are simply due to the tax code. As I said in my post, the tax code needs to be scrapped and rewritten to be much simpler. The oil companies should (and can) stand on their own. I am a firm believer in market forces and thus believe that the fed should stay out of the way except in the case of a national emergency.

Regarding electric cars and solar for the military. I have not researched electric cars for the US fleet, but I do know that Nellis AFB is powered 25% with solar. A side note on solar and electric vehicles--both have a long long way to go to compete with gasoline. Gas (oil) is a truly amazing energy source. Nothing comes close except for nuclear. Now with Japan, nuclear is toast, so we will rely on fossil fuels for a long time to come. I would love to harness the 200+ watts/m^2 (avg) that the sun gives us, and perhaps we will get there someday. There are lots of private entities trying to make this happen. There is a government funded project that is trying to figure out how to make highways out of solar cells. The stupidest damn thing I have seen since the idea to beam power from geosynchronous satellites, but I guess some bozo wrote a proposal and a bureaucrat wrote the check.

Bumper sticker...
Brad, this is where I forgive you. I mentioned the interstate highway system and you missed it...championed by a Republican!! Infrastructure is something the government does quite well. The internet came from ARPANET which I think came out of DARPA--the military. However, the internet would be a mere novelty without Gates and Intel. Did the internet spawn from Europe? 100+ years of the worlds innovations came from USA where capitalism was set free. Radio, TV, vacuum tubes, transistor, integrated circuits,... Sure the fed had a role. Sarnoff drove to work on a road built by the government.

Re healthcare...the government does pour money into medical research. I would have to research this to know if it makes/made a difference.

Brad, you (and others) insist that I do not have a brain and am simply repeating Rush. Is this a defense mechanism?

On healthcare...there is a lot I would like to say about that but better left for later. For now I will say that Medicare is terribly inefficient--I know this FIRST hand Brad as I am the beneficiary of wasted Medicare dollars.

The government has created corporatism through handouts. I am against it. Is tying my brain to Rush a debate tactic? But government regulation does not always make things better. Sarbanes-Oxley created a huge burden on industry and I really question whether it solved anything.

Reduce spending...The one thing I never see in government is a layoff. Layoffs are purifying and they provide motivation. The government is not run as a meritocracy. There is no measure of success or failure.

The government should get out of the resource business except for infrastructure and rules to play by. That way, companies would not abuse them.

Regarding your post and mine, we are probably not too far apart...at least there appears to be some common ground. I have more faith in capitalism and the private sector than you, but we agree that both have a role.

Wow, what a great way to end Saturday night!!

Davey:

Medicare may have its inefficiencies, yet it still spends more efficiently than private insurance companies, so I'm missing your point. Your comments about tax policy and marginal rates are misguided as well unless you are willing to admit that tax policies over the last 30 years have resulted in a massive transfer of wealth to the ultrarich. Since our economy is demand based, that outcome is incredibly damaging to the US. So, do you think this is an important factor to consider or not?

LMK,

I do not know what you mean about "misguided." Are you disputing my assertion about "effective tax rates" ? Or was the "misguided" comment addressing my assertion that the tax code should be scrapped and rewritten to be much simpler...?

My admission to anything is moot. If you can point me to data supporting the massive transfer of wealth, I would love to see it.

Medicare was borne out of good intentions I suppose. The unintended consequence as it is practiced today is that doctors now focus on throughput because of medicare reimbursement rates. They pad their bills knowing that medicare (and insurance companies for that matter) pay only a percentage on some procedures. Quality of care goes down as a result.

Back to transfer of wealth...demand based...
Interesting point. I think you are saying that with money in the hands of so few, the demand for goods and services would be proportionally low. If the poor have no money, they cannot buy goods and services. This is a complex issue in a global economy since most of the crap we buy comes from China (sans services of course)...precious little is manufactured here--that may take the teeth out of your argument, but let me ponder.

note to Davey Crocket,

Not everybody here thinks you don't have a brain.

The merit(or lack of merit)of your arguments IS what(and I believe this is true of others here)interests me.

Demonization is something that occurs on all sides in varying degrees. I try to make some noise of objection wherever I see it.

The fact that precious little is manufactured here is part of the issue. And has much to do with merger mania, leveraged buyouts and the overall behavior of Wall St in general.

When profit taking is balanced with re-investment, middle class jobs are created, more people work, more people buy, more demand is generated.

However, when law and policy favor profit over investment, jobs are either shuttled completely or shifted to cheaper markets.

There is an effective argument for minimal regulatory oversight. But I have come to believe we have passed that point and are now operating on insufficient oversight with tax policy that heavily favors profit extraction over re-investment. In other words, an economy out of balance. Vulture capital funds like Bain capital perform leveraged buyouts of indebted businesses and strip them of assets resulting in the closing of factories, layoff of middle class employees and the extraction of profit.

This is not a signpopst of a healthy economy. And Bain Capital (plus hundreds others like it) has been doing this since the late 80's.

http://downwithtyranny.b...-job-creator-or-job.html

When you say, show me the data regarding transfer of wealth, this is so well documented I can't believe you can ask that question and be taken seriously.

From the conservative leaning entry at Wikipedia (by conservative, the entry avoids discussion of the % of increase in net worth by quintile)

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ile:MeanNetWorth2007.png

This graph is pretty clear, however, on the slowdown of all but the top 10% of wealth holders, how gains have favored the top 10% by a significant margin since 2001. This data is direct from the federal reserve too.

So if you honestly think that tax policy and economic policy has NOT favored the extremely wealthy for the past decade plus, that can only be because you have not been exposed to numbers such as these.

Even more telling is the debt load carried by American families this day, compared to 2 decades ago. Again, here's the real numbers:

http://www.census.gov/co.../2011/tables/11s1172.pdf

The only thing that's trickled down to the middle class after 3+ decades of trickle down economics is debt load.

Which brings to mind the obnoxious James Carvile's ever more prescient statement...

"It's the economy stupid"

America's middle class has been systematically rendered weaker and weaker over the last 3+ decades. Ultimately, failures in oversight and weakened regulatory framework of the Finance, Insurance and real Estate sectors brought us to the real estate bubble of 2007 which extracted 23 trillion dollars out of the American economy. Almost the entire brunt of this horrific number has been borne by what's left of America's middle class.

And now, after 10's of millions have been rendered unemployed, and unemployable, there's a sudden demand for austerity measures which will destroy the very modest social safety net that America put in place to right the many social ills left over from the Great Depression as well as the clear inequalities that Jim Crow attitudes forced on minorities throughout America. We did these things because people were literally dying in the streets. And it was ugly.

We had no problem affording this modest social safety net before the great recession, why is the focus now on stripping the poorest and most disadvantaged among us of even this meager backstop? Why is this when the focus should be on jobs. It's the economy stupid. And the republican congress has done nothing to alleviate the massive unemployment issue America faces.

They're treating this unemployment problem, which causes government revenue problems, as a permanent condition, and that is just very bad government policy.

And the most tragic thing about this policy is that it's being pushed on us by a very small handful of very wealthy people who fund a large number of think tanks, advocacy groups and policy papers. To whit.. http://thedemocraticdail...frankenstein-lab-oregon/

Rush Limbaugh is wrong about MANY things. Not least of which is his whole hearted support of a tax and regulatory policy that is no longer in balance with an economy that should serve the whole nation rather than a few.

Congress has done a lot about jobs but it's mainly cutting them under the guise of fiscal responsibility. How many evil government jobs are going to be lost? Then at the state level even more cuts and more lost jobs.

End the oil wars. End the subsidies for petroleum exploration, production, refining, distribution and retail. End foreign aid to countries that export oil. End all military foreign aid. End the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders. End the prohibition on marijuana. Oh yeah, raise the taxes on corporations and the rich.

That should about do it.

Dan in Pa:

"The fact that precious little is manufactured here is part of the issue." Bingo.

"When profit taking is balanced with re-investment, middle class jobs are created, more people work, more people buy, more demand is generated." Agree. Growth of a company requires continuous reinvestment==healthy company.

"There is an effective argument for minimal regulatory oversight." Agree. I want to be confident in the banking system (for example) and regulations for clean water and clean air are of great value to sustainability.

"Bain Capital":
Here is where we part. I read the link you provided. Along with abortion, the left has finally convinced me that Darwin was right. Bad business models must fail. There is no reason to throw good money after bad. Yes, people are temporary casualties (perhaps permanent in some cases) but a profitless company has no future...the sooner it is dissolved, the sooner the healing can begin. Every worker must continue to evolve, improve skills, better themselves so that they can maintain marketability. If you propose a socialistic/communistic approach where everyone is always employed then we must agree to disagree...that is fine.

"Transfer of wealth":
Thank you for providing the Wiki article. But, it does not address "transfer" of wealth. If there were indeed a "transfer" then would not one graph go up while the other goes down? Am I missing something? The word "transfer" does not appear in the article. Clearly the graph and article show that the wealthy are getting richer (I accept Wiki though I did not source these data) but "transfer" implies a closed system with zero sum. Please explain.

"Favoring the wealthy":
These data do not tell me the "why" the wealth increased for the top. You say it is due to tax policy. Is it possible that at least some of those on that graph, worked hard, created companies, took them public and made lots of money? Is that remotely possible? Or are you saying that the fed came in and said, "hey you rich people, have a couple of million bucks...check is in the mail." Dell computer of Austin, Texas has created a boat load of millionaires. They did it on their own. If the tax code gave them an edge here or there, it is in the margins...would have little effect on the graph IMHO.

"Debt load":
I do not take issue with these data. But whose fault is it that people bury themselves in debt? In most cases, it is their own fault. My wife and I decided to get debt free in 1987. I bought a small piece of land, built a log cabin with my own hands and lived on very little income while I put myself through school. No AC, no heating. I have been debt free ever since. I have no sympathy for those who cannot control their buying habits. I practice what I preach.

"America's middle class has been systematically rendered weaker and weaker over the last 3+ decades."

Look, you must think global. China woke up and that has had a big impact on us. You cannot change that fact but we must adjust...retool. Retooling requires education. On average, I think education in the US is pretty poor (that is my instinct based on anecdotal evidence). Thus I chose to homeschool my only son. He, BTW, blew a big hole in the SAT and along with his academic record, will be attending engineering school in the Fall. Today, my niece told me that she quit teaching after the Spring semester--too much government regulation is her reason.

"James Carvile": Actually, I love listening to this guy. Now and then he says something that makes sense. And...I enjoy his delivery.

"And the republican congress": We have a Republican House, Democratic Senate, and Democratic President...since about six months ago. Prior to that we had a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President. Their focus was a healthcare bill that none of them read and none of them understood.

"handful of very wealthy people": Here is a link to the top 25 wealthiest in congress. Half are R and half are D.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

"Rush": Look we are not discussing Rush anymore. ARGH! I like Rush and agree with him a lot of the time but if we spend our time on personalities, we will never find common ground.

"Congress": Both sides of the aisle have failed in my view. Power corrupts. There is too much money in DC for it not to corrupt at some level. That is why I am in so much in favor of decentralization. If we give our healthcare to the fed, our education to the fed, you realize that your life will be controlled by very few. They will have so much power and money that you will be helpless. If they are pure in heart who lead, then we will all be a happy family. Such will not happen.

David,

"note to Davey Crocket"

Thanks!!

Hey, are you the youtube guy picking a guitar?

I have played for years but am in stagnation mode right now...not sure how I will get out of it...probably should spend more time on the guitar vs. this blog!!!

Davey Crocket,
Well, I'm the youtube guy named David Lasagna picking a guitar, I'm a little embarrassed to say. That was from somebody's little hand held phonepod or something at a get together in Vermont.

If you want to get guitar inspired/blown away google Tommy Emmanuel playing Guitar Boogie and/or Amazing Grace.

Off topic but such a great Weiner comment I gotta throw it in. From TPM comments.---

Democrats are willing to eat their own, while Republicans celebrate their corruption.

Rep. Weiner is being pilloried for "lying" about the Tweets. Of course, we can never trust him or what he says ever again. This is a line that just can't be crossed, no matter what he does after. No, he's done for because he's a liar.

If memory serves, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. And, of course, nothing he said or did had any effect after that. He was finished as a follower of Jesus and never heard from again. Because that's what happens to liars, right?

Hilarious tongue in cheek from my sister on that Weiner comment--

Sorry but this is the one area in which the repugs believe in the separation of church and state.

David,

Whoa, Tommy is great...never heard of him before...thanks. I will never achieve anything close to this but I am gonna go play my guitar right now!!

Regarding Peter...I am happy to frame my arguments in terms of Biblical teaching...an area in which I am quite familiar.

...to the guitar!!!!

For some more great guitar work, I present, Carlos Vamos. His work has graced the the video's of NASA, National Geographic and many other worthwhile pubs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwm-vxGgFf4

Re Vamos:

How does he get the volume with tapping? Impressive!

Dan-in-Pa,
Wow, that's an interesting technique! Cool!

Davey,
At least some of that volumn is probably electronics. He's got a pickup in there.

Whadaya know, we hijacked a thread with great guitar players.

Davey Crocket @ 18

Again, I'm late in my response here. Being sick, with necessity to stand down, is driving me nuts. So, better late than never (maybe)...You said...

There are some subsidies to oil that should be eliminated. There are other benefits to the oil industry that are simply due to the tax code. As I said in my post, the tax code needs to be scrapped and rewritten to be much simpler.

Simplifying is fine. Flattening is not, since flat tax is an unfair and regressive tax. (Short support of that point: Sales tax on a gallon of milk is the same for a poor family as it is for a rich family, but a far greater percentage of the poor person's income. Extrapolate.)

Also, as to one of your responses to someone else above, I don't think you truly understand how many tax breaks rich folks (and corporations) get over the not-rich. Go look up the tax rate that hedge fund managers pay as just one example, and then get back to me.

Oil companies get huge benefits/handouts from the tax payer which artificially lowers the cost of oil, all the while alternate energy sources are shut out from the same government welfare. While the oil companies now love to say "Government shouldn't pick winners and losers", fact is they already do by determing that oil companies will be the winners. In the meantime the people who are paying the true price for that oil in both blood and treasure are getting screwed since cleaner, greener, greater employment is being shut out by the fossil fuel industry which has purchased the entire "debate" and all of the legislation and legislators that go with it.

The oil companies should (and can) stand on their own. I am a firm believer in market forces and thus believe that the fed should stay out of the way except in the case of a national emergency.

When it comes to a mature industry like oil, I concur. Good luck getting government to allow them to stand on their own however. Check the Wikileaks cables as to why we're really in Libya now for example. The costs to the tax payer are endless. We've got to break the habit before it breaks us (more than it already has).

Regarding electric cars and solar for the military. I have not researched electric cars for the US fleet, but I do know that Nellis AFB is powered 25% with solar.

Right. The DoD gets it in re: both global warming and energy independence. The Navy, in particular, has been doing great work in converting over to renewables. They are spending loads of money to do so because they realize that it's ultimately cost beneficial and a national security imperative on a number of levels.

In the meantime, your friend Rush is out and out lying to millions of Americans each and every day about it. His latest (which we quoted in last Thursday's Green News Report): "The last year has demonstrated that global warming is a hoax". That is, of course, an out and out lie, told to millions over our own public airwaves, thanks to the largesse of the U.S. Government (shamelessly) allowing him to tell that lie over and over over those airwaves.

Rush doesn't exist without absurd government "generosity". He does not exist with a level playing field and real competition in the radio business.

A side note on solar and electric vehicles--both have a long long way to go to compete with gasoline.

Not really. Not by the time you factor out the subsidies to the oil companies and factor in the same type of government support for R&D that the oil companies have enjoyed for decades. I'm too far under the weather to go get links for ya now, but the costs have declined radically for solar and will be (or already are) cheaper than fossil fuels when the playing field is level.

Had not the electric car been killed after the Bush Regime gutted California's environmental laws, we'd have had almost 20 years of the very popular electric cars manufactured for CA back in the 90's (the EV1). That 20 generations of battery improvements and competition from other manufacturers, all started because of government mandates to increase the CAFE standards in CA would have made an extraordinary difference as to where we are today, had it not been killed by the federal government (a federal government, Bush's, that pretended they favored local control, even as they used big governement to gut local control in this case, and many others.)

Gas (oil) is a truly amazing energy source.

Yes. And amazingly dirty and amazingly expensive and amazingly dangerous.

Nothing comes close except for nuclear.

Just not true. The costs of nuclear are even more insane and, btw, also do not happen without enormous government expense (as supported by both Democrats and those fake "small government" "conservatives" like Rush Limbaugh and friends.)

Now with Japan, nuclear is toast, so we will rely on fossil fuels for a long time to come.

You've just much a huge leap, skipping over all forms of renewable energy, jumping from gasoline (and fossil fuels) to nukes, with nothing else in between. Strawman argument. Not to mention, nuclear is hardly toast, as the US government (including the Obama administration) continues to support it and provide enormous incentives for future development.

I would love to harness the 200+ watts/m^2 (avg) that the sun gives us, and perhaps we will get there someday. There are lots of private entities trying to make this happen. There is a government funded project that is trying to figure out how to make highways out of solar cells. The stupidest damn thing I have seen since the idea to beam power from geosynchronous satellites, but I guess some bozo wrote a proposal and a bureaucrat wrote the check.

Rather than tear you a new one for that, I'll just encourage you to go read up on it instead. Your smart enough to have educated yourself more before dropping the turd you just launched in the graf above. Here's just one easy recent example (Solar tunnel from Paris to Amsterdam to power 4,000 trains a year. And it's tiny!) for you to start with. But, beyond that, please go to school.

Bumper sticker...
Brad, this is where I forgive you. I mentioned the interstate highway system and you missed it...championed by a Republican!!

Didn't miss it at all. That's why I built the reference in to my reply to you. And yes, championed by the same Republican who warned about the Military/Industrial complex that has now broken us as we've become slaves to it. A Republican who would be called a terrorist loving commie by the standards of today's Republican party, btw. (Just as Reagan would. Just as Nixon would.) A Republican who was to the left of most things supported by the Obama Administration, sadly.

Infrastructure is something the government does quite well. The internet came from ARPANET which I think came out of DARPA--the military. However, the internet would be a mere novelty without Gates and Intel.

Wrong, as to both Gates and Intel. Gates was absurdly late to the Internet game, and Intel, while it didn't have anything directly to do with the Internet, gained quite a bit from government funding, research, contracts, etc.

Yes, while I didn't invent it, I was there in the early days of the Internet (before the WWW) and saw precisely how it developed. Had it not been for the government infrastructure, I can't imagine that it would have ever come about. At least not as it did. Remember to thank Big Government for that one, or you're only kidding yourself.

Did the internet spawn from Europe?

It was spawned by U.S. government dollars creating the backbone and supporting it for at least a decade or two before the private sector came into it at all.

100+ years of the worlds innovations came from USA where capitalism was set free. Radio, TV, vacuum tubes, transistor, integrated circuits,... Sure the fed had a role. Sarnoff drove to work on a road built by the government.

Not sure what your point is there. Yes, the USA has brought many innovations to the world (as have many other countries), but most of the greatest leaps have been spawned, in no small part, with help of the federal government. And, in particular, at times of great economic woes (such as the Great Depression), the Government has been the only one with the capital to re-spur the economy by putting people back to work. (See Hoover Dam, etc.)

Re healthcare...the government does pour money into medical research. I would have to research this to know if it makes/made a difference.

Of course, "it makes a difference". The Government puts HUGE $$ into development of all kinds of pharmaceuticals that the private sector ends up profiting from (as they should). But to imagine that it is done without government help is to ignore reality. Or, to listen to Rush, who pretends as though the government has nothing to do with it.

Brad, you (and others) insist that I do not have a brain and am simply repeating Rush. Is this a defense mechanism?

I can't speak for others, but I have done no such thing.

On healthcare...there is a lot I would like to say about that but better left for later. For now I will say that Medicare is terribly inefficient--I know this FIRST hand Brad as I am the beneficiary of wasted Medicare dollars.

I believe LMK made the point that I tried to make previously. Even with the waste (as their is waste in any system), Medicare is still more effecient than the private sector due to the lower cost of administration and the obsene profit motive (profiting off of human sickness) removed.

The government has created corporatism through handouts. I am against it. Is tying my brain to Rush a debate tactic?

I don't know where I did that. But, in any case, corporatism is not beeing "created through handouts", it's been created through handins. Through corporate corruption of our electoral/political system through the absurd notion that corporations are people, and have the right to be anywhere near our system of government. And by the equally insane notion that the government is here to serve the corporations rather than the people who are the government.

But government regulation does not always make things better. Sarbanes-Oxley created a huge burden on industry and I really question whether it solved anything.

I didn't say that government regulation always make things better. Strawman argument.

Reduce spending...The one thing I never see in government is a layoff. Layoffs are purifying and they provide motivation. The government is not run as a meritocracy. There is no measure of success or failure.

What does "Reduce spending" have to do with either meritocracies or even the health of the economy (jobs, jobs, jobs)?

Any successful family or person or company invests money now to profit later. Unless you are born with tens of thousands of dollars (or live in a more enlightened country), you get student loans to go to school. Are you saying that students should not go to college unless they are independently wealthy? Or do you agree with the common sense notion that one must invest if they wish to profit and, as a student going to school or a corporation who wishes to expand their operation or a government investing in it's people, money is borrowed now, to be paid back with interest later. That's how it works. For families, for people, for companies, for governments. So not even sure what point you're trying to make with your "Reduce spending" nonsense. And certainly not during a recession.

The government should get out of the resource business except for infrastructure and rules to play by. That way, companies would not abuse them.

Again, don't know what you mean there.

Regarding your post and mine, we are probably not too far apart...at least there appears to be some common ground. I have more faith in capitalism and the private sector than you, but we agree that both have a role.

Actually, I don't believe you have any idea how much "faith" I have in either. But for be willing to participate in the conversation (even though you ducked the questions I gave you in the previous thread), I thank you.

Brad,

Your's was a long post and I want to address your points but I have some deadlines bearing down on me.

I will address the internet question because I can do it briefly. See this link from which I will quote: http://www.nethistory.info/index.html
"There might have been an Internet without personal computers, but it would have been uninteresting, and probably confined to the research community and computer scientists."
Gates and Grove were prime movers in the evolution. You MUST connect the dots to understand how it all fits together. BTW, my statement in this blog was from my own intelligence. Only today did I discover the "history" website and found the quote that was so similar to my own.

And in terms of your own experience with the early internet. You were not alone. I used ARPANET while in grad school in the 80's.

Hey Brad,

I have done a bunch of analysis/research on solar. It is a long way from where it needs to be. BUT, it is an interesting bet. Today I invested $50K in two solar companies. It is a long-term gamble but after I applied my uber-analytical skills to the issue, I think it is a reasonable gamble.

You should be happy...but if you are right...I will not share my profits with you. If you are wrong...I will not ask you to pony up. But I will pay LT cap gains on my profit...hopefully...at 15%. That is my motivation. If you want me to pay 70% then maybe it was a mistake.

Do you libs see how this works?

Just one objection Brad: it isn't just "the Right" warping reality on the airwaves. Nancy Pelosi, while the Democrats controlled both houses and the WH, shelved the bill that would have re-instituted The Fairness Doctrine Reagan shelved, creating the Rush Limbaughs of the airwaves.

And just recently, like in the past week, two Republican congressmen met with the FCC chairman to confirm he would kill it dead instead of keeping it on ice. Genochoski, Obama's appointee and a $500,000 campaign Bundler. He happily agreed.

Now, where were we....oh yeah, those bad old Republican right-wingers...carry on.....

Thanks for your thoughts, Farang.

You may not be familiar with our coverage of media reform issues over the years, but we've been exceedingly critical of Democrats for their failure to take action on these issues. From Clinton's signing of the Telecommunications Act, to the Democrats' lack of interest in rolling it back, to Obama's broken promises on working to reform media ownership.

That said, it is, in fact, the Rightwing corporatist ownership of the media that is suffocating this country and our public airwaves with lies. Even as the Democrats have been pathetic in doing a damn thing about it.

Now, where were we...Oh, yeah, Rush is lying to millions of Americans each day over our public airwaves...hoaxing them into voting against their best interests and destroying the country in the bargain...carry on...