Top 20 Pithy Political Passages

1. Amanda - June 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am

Great quotes! I’m glad some people feel the same as me about politics!

2. fishing4monkeys - June 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am

Some really good quotes here…

3. rushfan - June 20th, 2008 at 7:19 am

I love it! Thomas Sowell and Dave Barry on the same list!
Great quotes.

4. rushfan - June 20th, 2008 at 7:22 am

On the subject of taxes, here’s a gem from Bill Clinton:

“I must be the only person in America that every time — I pay the maximum tax rates — every time I sign that tax form, I smile. I think they ought to audit me and everyone in my income group every year, because if I make a mistake, I actually think they can make some real money out of me.”

5. Denashi - June 20th, 2008 at 7:23 am

Awesome quotes!

6. JT - June 20th, 2008 at 7:26 am

Very nice list of quotes. Number 14 made me LOL.

7. joe legge - June 20th, 2008 at 7:27 am

what the hell? there’s an election in USA? are you sure?

8. green - June 20th, 2008 at 7:27 am

Good list! These were new to me… personal favorites are number 7 and 19.

9. Rocknopera - June 20th, 2008 at 7:30 am

This is exactly why I vote libertarian

10. green - June 20th, 2008 at 7:33 am

Rock- I vote for libertarian ideals, but I don’t see any great candidates this term- anyone I am missing?

11. Kreachure - June 20th, 2008 at 7:37 am

Great quotes, there have been many of these ‘pithy’ quotes throughout the idiosyncrasy of politics.

Oh and I hope the intro was a joke, and you don’t REALLY think that the election of the Prime Minister of New Zealand is more important than the elections for the next president of the United States…

or am I the only dum-dum who didn’t get that it’s indeed a joke?

12. Randall - June 20th, 2008 at 7:44 am

Brilliant list, with my favorites, Orwell and Mencken and Thomas Jefferson… wonderful. Especially great is number 12: “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” The Orwell quote, though, *is* taken somewhat out of context—this wasn’t Orwell’s actual view of the future–it was said by the character he created, O’Brien, who is speaking as a loyal tool of the State.

Though, admittedly, sadly…. it may nevertheless be accurate.

13. phil - June 20th, 2008 at 7:48 am

ha ha your a dum dum nananana

14. Kreachure - June 20th, 2008 at 8:00 am

Okay, so it is a joke, obviously.

Sorry about that. I usually don’t ‘get’ jokes as unfunny as this one.

BURN!

15. Mom424 - June 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am

Excellent list! How about

Aristophanes; “Under every rock lies a politician.”

Pierre Trudeau; “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”

Sir John A. MacDonald; “Anybody may support me when I am right. What I want is someone that will support me when I am wrong.”

Lester B. Pearson; “A great gulf, however, has been opened between man’s material advance and his social and moral progress, a gulf in which he may one day be lost if it is not closed or narrowed.”

(Sorry, had to squeak in the Canadian content, I wonder if Jamie can get some of our tax dollars because of it?)

16. Mom424 - June 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am

For those of you interested and too young to know Lester B. Pearson was a famous Canadian Prime Minister. With a minority government (means he had to actually convince the majority of the house, his accomplishments were not a shoe in) he instituted universal health care, canada pension plan (for all working canadians), student loans, and a bunch of other good stuff.

And oh yeah, he was a decorated soldier in WWII, and He won the Nobel Peace Prize. Here’s a quote from the great Wiki

“for his role in defusing the Suez Crisis through the United Nations, Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The selection committee claimed that Pearson had “saved the world.” The United Nations Emergency Force was Pearson’s creation, and he is considered the father of the modern concept of peacekeeping.”

17. PeteFloyd - June 20th, 2008 at 8:43 am

Why is the president of New Zealand a vitally important thing? Is that a country somewhere?

18. mregan - June 20th, 2008 at 8:50 am

I have always loved Auguste Ledru-Rollin in Paris, 1848: “There go the people. I must follow them, I am their leader!”

19. Csimmons - June 20th, 2008 at 8:55 am

Great list, can’t believe these people feel the same way about politics as me! and why is the the prime minister of New Zealand important? does he help control the number of kiwi’s or something?

20. Tempyra - June 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am

I like #11

It likely that the next prime minister of NZ will be a woman, correct? (I’m not too sure of the state of NZ politics at the moment) Helen Clark and the Labour Party are still the preferred choice?

21. Phil - June 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am

Yeah one day, but after the current bloke.

22. romerozombie - June 20th, 2008 at 9:26 am

God, why is politics so needlessly complicated? I hate this planet.

23. God - June 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am

Ask someone that cares.

24. Barack Obama - June 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am

1: Vote for me this November.

2. And if I do not win, JFrater can we borrow your Prime Minister for say, oh just 4 years or so?

3. We tried to borrow a monkey for the last 8 years and the zoo was all out. All they had left was a George Bush. The cost? Well, roughly, about a trillion dollar war, thousands of lives, our economy, being liked by most countries, and the souls of republicans. Yes sir, we got swindled.

So no more Bushes for this country. We’re settling for at least a mentally challenged rented monkey this time around or no dice.

25. Vera Lynn - June 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am

Great list with some fab quotes.
Mom I like the additions you included.

26. Blogball - June 20th, 2008 at 9:56 am

I forgot who said this and looked it up. Turns out it’s another Churchill quote.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”
Winston Churchill

My favorite is # 8

27. copperdragon - June 20th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Here are a few:

Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. - Charles De Gaulle

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation. - J.F. Clarke

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. - Khrushchev

All free governments are managed by the combined wisdom and folly of the people. - James Garfield

28. rushfan - June 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am

“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” - Khrushchev

That’s awesome, reminds me of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska that cost $320 million.

29. alexlwe - June 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am

1984 was a great book.

30. Steelman - June 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Barack,

Gee, last time democrats had the Presidency and Congress we got the Jimmy Carter years. Do we really want to have that again??

31. JayArr - June 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am

I began using the term ‘Indepublocrat’ in college back in 1987 for one of my research papers… sometimes I wish I could start a real party that would take the ‘blood sucking scavengers’ out of politics.

I’m sorry, did I say that out loud?

32. Rocknopera - June 20th, 2008 at 11:38 am

Green,

Bob Barr is not my first choice (I’m still a Ron Paul guy), but I believe in his policies much more than I believe in McCain’s or Obama’s.

Republicans have failed us recently, and the Democrat’s ideals don’t work.

33. Randall - June 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Steelman:

Gee, last time the REPUBLICANS had the Presidency and Congress, we HAD THE MOST TERRIBLE YEARS SINCE RICHARD NIXON–namely George W. Bush and his willing cohorts in the then-Republican controlled congress.

Do you really think you can scare everybody away from Obama by raising the spectre of Jimmy Carter? It won’t work, trust me.

34. rushfan - June 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Why do you think Ron Paul didn’t gather a bigger following? Here in Texas there are Ron Paul bumper stickers and t-shirts everywhere. His supporters are super motivated. And he has some original ideas. Do you think it’s because people who might have liked him were already on the Obama bandwagon?

35. rushfan - June 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am

Can you stay stagflation?

36. Clantargh - June 20th, 2008 at 11:52 am

not sure who said it but…

The opposite of progress is congress

37. Randall - June 20th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Clantargh:

First time I heard that was when I was a kid, and Nipsey Russell recited one of his poems on “To Tell the Truth” (so I imagine he originated it):

“Pro is the opposite of Con, as we have all seen…
But if Progress means ‘move forward,’
what does CONgress mean?”

But you may not even know who Nipsey Russell was… google him, I guess. I’m not even sure if he’s still alive. (black comic from the 60s and 70s known for always speaking in verse).

38. Randall - June 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Steelman, rushfan, and other assorted kids here:

A) stagflation and the other miserable economic aspects of the 70s did NOT, regardless of conservative myth, originate with Jimmy Carter. His presidency certainly didn’t help matters and did little to fix it–but then neither, really, did the presidency of Ronald Reagan at first. At any rate, the economic woes of the 70s had their basis in the Viet Nam War… similarly to today’s situation vis a vis Iraq, the war had been a sharp drain on the economy and had stifled and dampened the economic situation at home. Remember, this was in the day of a much smaller American economy–the Dow Jones at the time was, I believe, in the low four figures. Nixon’s administration did little to address the situation, being A) encumbered by Nixon’s paranoia over being divested of the presidency by his democratic opponents and B) some bad economic decisions. The situation worsened under Gerald Ford, who also did little of a practical nature to address the problem. Carter simply continued the spiral.

The real problem was that the country overall, along with the Fed, did not understand nor know how to cope with the situation. The idea that was repeated over and over again was to try to legislate the country out of the problem–not simply with taxes but with various programs and “inflation czars” and whatnot–none of which worked (and this mistake was repeated by Nixon, Ford AND Carter, so you can’t lay it simply at the feet of the Democrats) I remember, when I was a boy, Gerald Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” program–there were even buttons that said “WIN” on them, and you were supposed to wear them to show your support and enthusiasm, and it was hoped that alone would literally do something to bring the country out of the economic doldrums. Unbelievable, but true.

Of course none of these schemes ever worked. NOTHING changed until, really, 1979, when Paul Volcker, in the Fed, finally came in and decided to drastically lower interest rates. THAT spurred growth, but it took time, and for the first few years of the Reagan admin, we were in a deep recession… in fact it’s likely that Reagan would have been chucked out of office in 1984–I remember this distinctly–but luckily for him, things finally began to pick up in 1983, slowly, and along with Reagan’s rhetoric and skill at communication, this helped him to reelection in 84.

So let’s just keep historical truth straight, okay? Carter wasn’t to blame for the 70s, he was merely an enabler. The country, the Fed, and the political parties have long since learned from those mistakes… but unfortunately for us, new ones are constantly being invented, such as the recent Energy Loophole which allowed for all this unbridled speculation in the first place, which has brought us gas prices which have DOUBLED in only 2 years. And that, folks, is the fault of Republicans this time.

39. MPW - June 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Great list, I had a feeling it would be based on politics.

Gore Vidal’s quote was my favorite.

Nipsey Russell is dead, he died in 2005 of Cancer I believe.

40. Cthulhu - June 20th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Here are a few:

“Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.”
-Otto von Bismarck

“In politics stupidity is not a handicap.
-Napoleon

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
-Thomas Paine

41. dave4248 - June 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

You forgot a good one,.. it’s from Milton Friedman…I think.

“Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth….socialism is the even distribution of poverty.”

42. ohrmets - June 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Not bad, but you forgot what is perhaps the most famous tax-related quip in history!

“Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” - Ben Franklin

43. jfrater - June 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Kreachure: it is a joke - and a funny one at that! Laugh damn you! Oh - and for what it is worth, the NZ election is more important to me than the US ones because obviously it has more impact on my life - but I realize it is insignificant to the majority of readers here

44. jfrater - June 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Tempyra: it is unlikely that Helen Clark and the Labour party will win the next election - the latest poll has them at 31% and National at 52% - with a margin like that, National could govern alone just like the old FPP days. National are promising a referendum on whether to keep MMP too.

45. jfrater - June 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Guys - thanks for the extra ones you have come up with - some are brilliant indeed.

46. Kevin - June 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Yay for quoting Harry Browne (R.I.P.). I’d never heard that line of his before, though.

47. Kreachure - June 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

“LOL.”

Happy?

48. charlie - June 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

good time to ponder after reading all these quotes. pretty much we have learned nothing in the last 7000 thousand years if you are a creationist and millions if you are a evolutionist. we still can’t learn how to govern ourselves. even after having some of the greatest minds of the last 250 years being quoted here.

49. kiwiboi - June 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

the economic woes of the 70s had their basis in the Viet Nam War

Randall - remember, though, that the 1970’s stagflation was not just a US phenomenon. But, more to the point, you are ignoring what is probably the most significant factor in all of this..the oil shock of the early 1970’s. The underlying cause being, of course, US policy in the Middle East (the consequence of the Arab-Israeli conflict); specifically, Arab nations waking up to the leverage that their oil could give them in world (ostensibly US) affairs.

50. Crimanon - June 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Very nice! Why can’t we think like that any more?

51. Spart - June 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

JFrater

Sir Robert Muldoon (New Zealand Prime Minister 1975 -1984) came out with some of my favourite quotes from any politician working hard on relationships with his near neighbours.

“New Zealand was colonised initially by those Australians who had the initiative to escape”

“New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia do us a both a favour by raising the IQ of both countries.”

52. Spart - June 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

#11 Kreachure

Very obviuosly a dum dum

53. jfrater - June 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

spart: yes - that last one is indeed a very well known quote - and still funny after all these years

54. CK2005 - June 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Great list again, I like number 12 especially. G.W. makes me even more ashamed of it right now.

55. rhyno - June 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

24 Barack Obama: If it’s a retarded monkey you’re looking for to run your country, then Helen’s your man!

Just to clear up the ‘man’ comment, see this pic of Helen Clark

Now tell me that she didn’t used to be a man once.

56. goof_ball - June 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

cool list =)

57. MPW - June 20th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Slow day. Huh?

I guess I’ll comment again, very good list. Some very awesome quotes. Why can’t I think of sayings as great as these?

58. Mortivore - June 20th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

These are freakin amazing. I’m not gonna lie, JFrater, this site has to be my one true love. Sad, I know, but there it is. Well, this and beer. Mmm… Beer.

59. Tomo - June 20th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Jamie, Jamie, Jamie…

How naive of you to think that the NZ elections will have more of an impact on your life than the US elections. The US elections will have an impact on the whole world for the worse if the republicans stay in the office.

Go President Obama!

60. Tomo - June 20th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Oh and as for the quotes. Churchill was the master linguist.

61. big ski - June 20th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

machiavelli is the man ,all other king makers sux.voltaire proves just cause the french caint fight dont mean there stupid.tacitus stating hard facts.churchill with his limey genius.lastly americans have the most cool quotes on this list.20 quotes is not enough you need 50

62. Black Missile - June 20th, 2008 at 11:48 pm

Wow. Great list. Hard to comment more. A bit inebriated. Difficult to find the right keys.

HM Sorry im wasted.

63. Randall - June 21st, 2008 at 8:34 am

Kiwiboi:

“…remember, though, that the 1970’s stagflation was not just a US phenomenon.”

True, but this is no surprise, kiwi… the world economy was tied closely to the American economy. That what happened here rippled throughout the world is easy to understand.

“…But, more to the point, you are ignoring what is probably the most significant factor in all of this..the oil shock of the early 1970’s.”

Very true, but I didn’t *ignore it,* because it really only related indirectly to what’s called STAGflation. Of course it had a very direct relation to INflation, but stagflation was the phenomenon of a stagnant economy coupled with ceaseless inflation… in other words, the oil crisis helped to bring on the inflation of the 70s, and fed it–but what also contributed to, and in essence drove, stagflation were the aforementioned bad economic policies of three successive presidential administrations (four if you include the tail end of Johnson’s) and a torpor-ridden Fed. Remember that today’s steep oil prices have outstripped, in compared dollars, the situation in the 70s.

64. The Great Ju-Ju - June 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Funny. The comments on this site tend to trend left, with lots of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Yet here we have political quotes that most U.S. Republicans would agree with. Bush cut taxes. This bolstered the economy until the Housing Bubble popped and the Mortgage Debacle kicked in (not his fault - we have free markets here, people are allowed to be stupid and others are allowed to take advantage of that stupidity, even to the extent of being stupid). Would that my Republican Party stick to its principles in congress. Woe are we.

65. Yarr - June 21st, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Randall,

Several months ago, I spoke completely out of turn and have felt badly ever since. I did apologize, but felt all credibility I might have had was lost, so I stopped talking.
I’m back now though.

66. Yarr - June 21st, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Sorry, my conne

67. Yarr - June 21st, 2008 at 11:08 pm

ction failed.

68. Yarr - June 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 am

Ok, I’m back.
Sorry, that screwed me up.

Randall, this isn’t aimed at you, I just wanted to apologize again for being a drunken douche before.

But I do have stuff to say to the commenters on this site.

Anyway…

Hey, guess what!
For all you kids out there, all of our current problems are NOT (only) Bush’s fault. Read some books. There are THREE branches of U.S. Government. Not one. We don’t have a king. Grow up. Know how things work…

All of you Obama fans out there should take a look at quote #2:
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” - Winston Churchill

Your candidate, despite his constituancy being on the threshold of a recession, wants to RAISE TAXES!!!

Yep.

So, for the uninformed out there, what the government is supposed to do, basic economics states, is that when times are good, and the economy is growing, the Govt should raise taxes to reduce the spending power of the public… to prevent inflation. HOWEVER, when times are not so good, and recession looms, Govt should LOWER taxes to put more money into the hands of consumers to spur growth.

Obama hasn’t a clue.

Gotta make it more FAIR!!!

Tax the rich! That will make your life better!

Only, the rich didn’t get rich because they’re stupid. The rich are rich because they know how the system works. You would too if you weren’t hugging trees and writing athiestic treatises on how the gay dudes you don’t even know ought to be allowed to get married because religious people suck.

Here’s the news. When you impose a tax on the captains if industry, they don’t pay it. YOU DO!
Tax the oil giants, they’ll just pass it on to the consumer. John G. C.E.O. will not be thinking about you while he’s eating lobster out of the snatch of some $20,000 an hour whore. But you WILL pay $12 a gallon for gas and you will still blame Big Oil and the government… only to be given platitudes on TV about how they feel your pain.
Oh yeah- it’s Iran’s fault.

Barry can’t help you. It’s unfortunate, beacuse he seems like a really nice guy (like Carter. Shudder.) But, you can take heart because Angelina and Brad’s twins are on the way. And everyone feels better when a celebrity shits out another kid. Especially when Oprah (Billionaire) Winfrey is coming on next. (They DON’T feel your pain, even when they look at the camera and tell you that they do.)

Guess what?

As long as there have been people on this planet, there have been rich ones and there have been poor ones. The question that has never been answered is, what to do about the poor ones.

Here’s a clue. Stop depending on the government to solve your problems. Get a job. Work your ass off. Save money instead of spending it. Get out of debt. Become a real human being. If you are so worried about the poor, EMPOWER YOURSELF TO HELP THEM. For those that have kids, make those fuckers go outside to play. When they get fat, kick yourself in the face for being a bad parent. Then make the fat little bastards run. You should be ashamed of yourselves that McDonalds is being scrutinized by the Government. For God’s sake, nobody goes to McDonalds for the health food! GROW THE FUCK UP!!!

Yeah, that was a ramble, but hopefully it was some conversation fodder.

69. Crimanon - June 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 am

Holy hell Yarr, You sound like me after reading the newspaper!

70. MPW - June 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 am

Yarr: nice rant, and really good points

71. Doghouse Riley - June 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 am

“Giving power and money to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” PJ O’Rourke

Yarr - well said

72. Yarr - June 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am

Here’s another clue for you all…

Socialized Healthcare.

Those two words should have you on your knees praying.

It will be hell.

Just look at how spectacularly your government has accomplished the tasks of balancing a budget, securing funds for your retirement (Social Security is bankrupt), national defense (open borders), education and so many other things.

Now you want them to administer your healthcare?

What bright young mind is going to subject him/herself to thirteen years and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of education to become a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE?

As it is now, it is illegal for hospitals to turn away anyone who needs help. If you are sick or injured, they HAVE TO HELP YOU! They just don’t have to do the cosmetic stuff to cover scars. And they will send you a bill. And if you don’t pay it the government foots it anyway. That’s how it is now.

Why do you think that UPS and FEDEX, despite the fact that they cost more, kick the ass of the US Post Office in every way (except price)? It is because UPS and FEDEX are competing for your business- finding ways to improve productivity and increase competitive advantage. They want your business so they work really hard to get and keep it. The Post Office, on the other hand, doesn’t care whether you use them or not. Their employees have no incentives given to them to make lines move faster. They get paid the same no matter how many packages ship. They don’t care whether you buy insurance. They don’t care if you even show up. In fact, they’d probably just as soon you didn’t.

And you want the same powers that run the Post Office, the Social Security office, and the IRS to administer your health care? No competitive advantage incentives to improve research? Quality of care? When they don’t care whether or not you even show up?

“Take a number and we’ll get to you eventually, but we won’t hurry. We’re no longer in the business of really trying.”

-The slogan that will replace the Hippocratic Oath in 2010.

73. CRSN - June 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 am

i’m sure i’ve seen it before somewhere, and numerous poeple would have said it anyway, but, The only honest down to earth politician, is a dead politician, because only 6 foot under is hell, and thats what they put us through.

74. rushfan - June 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 am

Yarr ~ I think Randall has met his match. You do a great job of saying what a lot of us are thinking. Great job!

75. Hobolad - June 23rd, 2008 at 6:11 am

I love how people follow little soundbites as if they’re more than just quotable quotes- like the Churchill one up there.

If the poor had equal opportunity to “empower” themselves, then there’d be no excuses. As it is, they don’t- nowhere near.

Socialised healthcare in the UK isn’t at all bad- though the Tory papers like to paint it as a failure. Just another Thatcherite excuse to sell the country to the highest bidder.

76. kiwiboi - June 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 am

the world economy was tied closely to the American economy. That what happened here rippled throughout the world is easy to understand.

Randall - I was making the point, in part, that it is not entirely fair to lay the blame for the 1970’s stagflation at the doorstep of political parties and the Fed. As you say, stagflation has 2 aspects to it; though the VietNam war was, indeed, the precursor to the US inflationary boom, it is easy to forget that much of this inflation was also consumer-driven in the US (post WWII prosperity etc) - though it could be argued that the monetary authorities could have forseen where this was leading, to an extent. Nixon, though, did try by utilising (admittedly dubious) artificial fiscal techniques. Similarly, other nations that weren’t involved in VietNam also exhibited some of the same symptoms (UK, for example, where unionism etc. contributed to the cost-driven aspects of inflation).

the oil crisis helped to bring on the inflation of the 70s, and fed it–but what also contributed to, and in essence drove, stagflation were the aforementioned bad economic policies of three successive presidential administrations

I think the impact of oil is very underestimated in your analysis. notwithstanding the fact that oil is at inflation-adjusted highs at the moment, the attached chart illustrates why this is of “lesser” importance now, in my view, than it was in the 1970’s.

http://www.inflationdata.com/i....._Chart.htm

Firstly, it you asked someone in 1970 what his (inflation-adjusted) prediction was for oil prices in 1980, you only need to look at the pre-1970’s data to see that he would bet dollars to donuts on a level of around $20 or so. Ask the same guy anytime after 1980 and - having gone through the 1970’s shock - he would be nowhere near as confident in providing an answer. That is, to some extent, why I have a measure of sympathy for the Fed; even today, economists argue about what (if any) actions should have been taken during the 1970’s, and when.

What is also important looking back at the 1970’s, is the understanding that higher oil meant that the cost of running your 1960’s/1970’s V6/V8 gas-guzzler, or transporting your food, or operating processing machinery etc. was a real shock and it really hurt - there was little in the way of alternative fuels, little availability for driving small fuel-efficient vehicles etc. that there is today, and little in the way of energy-efficient thinking - all of which is also wholly understandable.

Bottom line..I wouldn’t class the 1970’s oil shock as “only related indirectly” to the stagflation; it was the notable feature.

77. Randall - June 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 am

Yarr:

Firstly, I don’t remember the exchange you’re referring to anyway, so as far as I’m concerned, we’re square.

Secondly, after reading your comments, I’m forced to the conclusion that you get all your thoughts from back issues of the National Review, circa… oh… let’s say 1988. I bet I could dig out all my old copies and find that 90% of your speech is condensed out of there. So howzabout updating your rhetoric a little?

Thirdly, let’s address your points:

A) “current problems are not all Geo. Bush’s fault” - fair enough, and I’ve said this all along, that Bush had a lot of help — but 90% of it, you see, came from the Right. If you would like a laundry list of the corrupt, shitty, low-down, illegal, unethical and unconstitutional deeds committed by, abetted by, endorsed by and otherwise propagated by those on the Right and their various corporate overlords/collaborators, I’d be only too happy to oblige you. For now I wanna keep this short and just nail you on your distortions and excesses.

B) “Raise taxes”…. woooooooooo… is that all you got? Scare tactics? Yup, let’s scare the American people about terrorism. And let’s scare ‘em about taxes. The Republican line is: “Barack won’t protect you and he’ll raise your taxes, and in the night terrorists will come and blow up your house and you won’t have a job in the morning anyway because taxes will be so high that your employer will have to lay you off. You don’t want *that* now, do you? So go out and vote Republican like a good little robot, so we can go on with 4 or 8 more years of bilking you and lying to you and fucking with your civil rights and the system overall. Trust us… you’ll be safe!” — it’d be funny if it wasn’t so sick and evil.

NOTE, Yarr, that Churchill’s quote is about a government trying to “tax a nation into prosperity”–it is not a broad, all-encompassing indictment of taxation itself. Taxation is a necessity, one that keeps a government functioning–and a government, in turn, is (or is supposed to be) the cohesive, organized machine that serves the will and the needs of the people. The constant, unending argument that the right wing spits out is anti-tax; however, this is and always has been somewhat disingenuous (at times, such as now, more disingenuous than others) since presumably no one would argue that we should have *no taxes at all*–because without some means to pay for it, the country would be left defenseless and with no means of maintaining vital infrastructure.

And yet we are continually bullied by the Republican party line that taxation is a great evil. *Excessive* taxation is, yes, a vexing and self-defeating prospect–I should know, being from New York… but taxation itself is the basic engine by which government finds the resources to perform its functions. The argument is really where the functions should begin and end. And oftentimes this argument speaks directly to fairness and evenness in the social/economic situation of the country.

I think you would find that very few of your fellow Americans are in favor of further tax breaks for big oil, therefore.

As for income tax–let’s remember that there was a time when the top bracket in this country was 90%. Unfair and excessive, I agree. It’s far more reasonable and fair now (if I recall correctly, the top bracket is currently 35%). Though we must also remember that when the top bracket was higher, there were innumerable loopholes built into the tax system which allowed for the wealthy to offset the astronomical bracket. Closing the loopholes meant bringing the bracket down. A fairer system by far. But let’s also remember that the purpose of a graduated income tax IS to build fairness into the very idea of taxation itself–because sales tax and property tax impact most heavily on the working class and middle class, a graduated income tax redresses this by impacting most heavily on the wealthier classes. Yes, it is about fairness. Would you care for an “unfair” tax system? One of the things that lends stability and normalcy to our American society is that we do not allow for the kinds of economic excesses, from either the right OR the left, that plague many other countries. Our “fair” system may not always be all that “fair” at all, and it may be half-broken half the time… but we do not suffer either the corrupt and nasty “redistribution of wealth” that many socialist states have practiced over time, nor do we suffer the corrupt and nasty oligarchical “you can’t touch me” system that prevails in many countries of the world where there is a VAST gulf between rich and poor–where there is extreme and horrid poverty coupled with vast and unbridled wealth. America has, on and off, for the last oh… 80 years or so, tried to hit things more squarely in the middle. And it is that very approach that has kept this country politically and economically stable, even at a time (during the Great Depression) when other countries were spiraling dangerously towards socialist and/or fascist tyranny. (And some went down that path, as we know).

So let’s stop railing against fairness, shall we? We are and always have been an egalitarian country where we consider it unseemly for people to have obscene wealth when there is poverty right next door. Whether we do something about it is another question. Grown-ups would admit that it is far better to keep addressing it, to keep things ever fair, then to go the way of other nations who just cut the poor loose in space and trust that they’ll stay in line and not revolt.

You said, “Only, the rich didn’t get rich because they’re stupid. The rich are rich because they know how the system works.”

You are naive, Yarr… in the extreme. What’s your background, I wonder? Are you middle class? Nouveau riche perhaps? Or just some working schlub who buys into all this BS? I wonder.

Because clearly what you don’t know is that the rich are also rich because they often GAME the system, Yarr. They don’t just “know” it, and how it works–they game it. Wealth is power, and power, in turn, can allow for corruption. Or are you in favor of a thousand Enrons popping up all over? Are you in favor of the kind of gaming of the system we’ve seen in recent years by speculators, artificially driving up the price of oil, way past its already burgeoning cost? These are only a couple examples–there are dozens of others.

You then said, “Here’s a clue. Stop depending on the government to solve your problems. Get a job. Work your ass off. Save money instead of spending it. Get out of debt. Become a real human being.”

This is so offensively stupid and clueless I don’t know where to begin. And I wish I had the time just now to address it.

And I wonder even more what sort of background you come from Yarr. What kind of world you live in where you honestly believe it is as simple as all that. You need some serious experience of life and reality to bring you down to earth and even the nonsense out of your system.

78. rushfan - June 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 am

Hobolad: “Socialised healthcare in the UK isn’t at all bad- though the Tory papers like to paint it as a failure.”

I’d be interested to know more. What I’ve heard here in America is that the wait for surgery is very long there and rich people pay for private healthcare instead of what the government offers? How is that fair?

79. Randall - June 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 am

kiwiboi:

I have so very little time just now, I’m sorry… I can only hit and run on your comment.

I feel this argument is in part semantical. I do not downplay the impact of oil prices in the 70s. But note that, according to your chart, the high point is reached just prior to 1980. Yet the real “oil crisis” began and had its most significant impact years earlier, around 1972-1974. That’s when there were severe shortages at the gas pump and gas rose precipitously—now admittedly, I was just a kid then, 7-9 years old. But I was old enough to know that Nixon was in the White House when it began and hit hard. And then came the talk of inflation, which became the absolute key and major issue of Gerald Ford’s presidency. Perhaps I was just a precocious kid (true probably) but I distinctly remember how all this went down, and how inflation was an issue that of course went hand in hand with oil prices–but that STAGFLATION was a separate issue that seemed related more to government/monetary policy. And unless I’m mistaken, your chart speaks to that, in a way. Oil prices peaked years later. The economy, in the meantime, had been in stagnancy and inflation. Oil a major factor? Sure. But bad fiscal policy surely had a lot to do with *how long* the crisis lasted as well, and how slow we were to react.

You also said: “…there was little in the way of alternative fuels,”

Well we still don’t have really adequate choices in alternative fuels, do we? What’s really changed? When energy costs came down in the 80s and 90s, the focus on these went away again. But prior to that, nuclear power was the primary alternative–what brought *that* to a halt was Three Mile Island and rising environmental awareness. You could argue, then, that at the time (before Three Mile Island) we had a growing nuclear power alternative, which today is viewed with suspicion and recalcitrance–but nevertheless *at the time* was a real alternative.

“little availability for driving small fuel-efficient vehicles etc.”

Yes and no. Clearly the alternatives were there–the Japanese for instance very quickly and efficiently stepped in to take advantage of the gap that American car makers had failed to cover. Remember that fuel mileage standards may not have been high at the time, but it wasn’t hard, in due course, to find vehicles that got far better gas mileage–as long as you were willing to forego the V8 engine. But consider the far worse truth–that in all those years, fuel mileage standards have not increased all that much at all. Today we should be routinely driving cars that get 50mpg. But the average is far lower. If anything, that impacts even more, today, on us.

80. STLMO - June 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 am

Ulysses S. Grant:

“I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”

81. Shadow - June 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm

“Just look at how spectacularly your government” - Yarr

Yarr - While I agree, somewhat, with your point on this; I don’t believe it is right for you to rail against a country you obviously do not live in. However, before I go spouting off at you - I will ask, nicely - if you’ve ever lived here before, and if so then for how long?

82. mallenv - June 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm

randall is a typical liberal who knows only so much as to be dangerous. Like Reagan said, it is not that they are ignorant, it is what they know that is wrong. I’ll bet Randall thinks, like every other liberal I know, that the civil rights act of 1964 in the US came about because of the liberals, or the Democrats at the least. That could not be further from the truth. The Dems tried to bury it in committee, then Kennedy forced it out, the Dems tried to fillibuster, the Republicans ended that. The votes were? Republicans 80% FOR, Dems 61% for. The only opposition was from Democrats. Look it up, fact. I know your feelings are hurt, but that won’t wash. Lincoln was a Republican.
Almost everything the liberals are claiming as their accomplishments are untruths. We can go on and on. You can look them up yourself and save me the time, but then you will still argue that you think the right way or some other heinous BS. Liberals are nothing more than children that are against their parents better judgement based on true and tried experience.

As an example, one liberal woman I know brought her son up liberally, said he could do whatever he wanted to. So he didn’t work, except for delivering pizzas when he felt like it and the wrecked her car. He could not work for anyone, said he didn’t like taking orders. He is now successful as his own boss tiling, but has others under him that have to take orders from him, and he is pissed when they don’t. But if everyone thought they had to be their own boss like him, nothing would work. He lived with mom until 23, no school, didn’t like that either. She was fine with that.

Another “success” story I can tell are my own nephews and nieces. None of them work. They all take government handouts, all married, have kids. They all think they are entitled to it all. They go to school, will never pay it back. All their own decision, not hardship. Leeches.

83. Yarr - June 23rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Shadow: I live in Houston. Always have. My government, your government… It was an open letter to those who think somehow that the government has the answers. I for one, don’t. I was not even railing at the government itself, just pointing out some of the more unpleasant examples of its inefficiency. Then to let one with that track record be in charge of the medical system. Hey, I know the medical system sucks and needs to be better. I just cannot imagine how a bunch of Washington bureaucrats are going to make it better. Remove the incentives to excel, and the medical profession will stop excelling. Sad, but true.

84. Yarr - June 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Randall:
“This is so offensively stupid and clueless I don’t know where to begin. And I wish I had the time just now to address it.

And I wonder even more what sort of background you come from Yarr. What kind of world you live in where you honestly believe it is as simple as all that. You need some serious experience of life and reality to bring you down to earth and even the nonsense out of your system.”

So, I’ll tell you a little about myself.

I grew up in a lower middle-class neighborhood. My folks did the best they could, but a series of layoffs and deaths in the family caused some pretty bleak days. We went 2 months without power one summer. Houston gets over 100 degrees through most of July and August. We didn’t have a phone for most of the time I was in high school. When I was a senior, we lost our house to the tax man.

I started mowing lawns when I was 11. When I was 15 our neighborhood grocery store let me bag groceries on the weekends for tips. I walked or rode the bus to school until my junior year, when I got a girlfriend who had a car.

I started working at Radio Shack during the day and then worked at a bar during the evening. My senior year of high school was spent working 2 jobs from 3pm to 3AM and then going to class at 7. I got a part time gig working at a sporting goods store assembling bicycles. I quit Radio Shack, but kept the bar job. My friends went off to college. I started working at Oshman’s Sporting Goods full time.
Much of the money I made went to my folks to keep the lights on and to keep gas in their car. I didn’t have a car until I was 21. I got deeply into debt during this time as well, as like most young Americans; I had no idea how to manage credit.

So time went by and I was 24. I managed to get on with a local branch of a marketing company. It was a part-time gig. I was only allowed to work 20 hours a week, but I saw the potential for eventual advancement, so I usually put in 10 or 12 more for free, just to gain experience and exposure. It paid off, and I became the project manager for a major client. Shortly after that, I applied for a position with and was hired by that client. For the first time in my life I began earning a decent salary. That was 5 years ago. I still work for them. I’m 32, and these last five years have been the only time in my working life that I haven’t had to have at least 2 jobs.

After landing the big-income job, I dedicated myself to getting out of debt. I also went back to school (I went on and off through the years.) and finished my degree. (Out of pocket, by the way.) I paid off a little more than $20,000 of debt in a year and a half. The only debt I have now is my mortgage, and I am on track to have it be paid off in 10 years, if not sooner.

Coming as I have from the ‘wrong side of the tracks’, as it were, I have always been sympathetic to the plight of the less fortunate, as I myself was. I donate *a lot* to charity. When Katrina hit, I even gave up my apartment to some refugees. Who, I’m happy to say, didn’t destroy it.

So, that’s the long, sad story of Yarr. I made it out. I rose up. I live well below my means and because of that, I have money. If I can do it, anybody can. (I mean able-bodied people with a desire.)

So, if that’s so offensive, go ahead and find the time to explain how. However, I think you’re offended by my “become a real human being” statement. That comes from studying Japanese literature and the ways of the samurai. One who does not strive for excellence in everything is incomplete, and they are not ‘real’ until they do. They may fail, but they have to try. This is why I have such a chip on my shoulder about the professionally unemployed and why I feel somewhat violent towards those who enable them and make excuses for them.

Finally, you can call me whatever you want, but naïve or stupid or clueless I am not. And I never said it was simple. It’s harder than hell. But it is possible.

85. mallenv - June 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I will second Yarrs post. I am a “minority” from a lower income family. I worked all my life, starting with paper routes and mowing lawns. I worked my way thru college, when I was the only one on the dorm floor working (probably even paying for it all), still made it out in 4 years, and paid it all off myself. Since then, I have lived below my means also, and I am not bad off. I have no inheritance coming. Everything was worked for. When someone suggests that I am a “minority” I am pissed. I am and always will value myself as 100% a countryman of where I live now. Where my ancestors originally came from makes no difference to me.

86. Yarr - June 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Hobolad:

I didn’t say that the poor should empower themselves. I said that if YOU feel so bad for them, that YOU should empower yourself to help them.

87. dr. Hannibal Lecter - June 24th, 2008 at 3:01 am

Heh, these quotes remind me of a classic “Yes, Minister” and the sequel of course, “Yes, Prime Minister”. Those guys really knew how to present politics in it’s purest form.

Here are some of their quotes:

—
Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.

—
Sir Humphrey Appleby: It is necessary to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back?

—
[talking on the phone about the arrangements for an international conference]
Bernard Woolley: Have the countries in alphabetical order? Oh no, we can’t do that, we’d put Iraq next to Iran.

—
[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you’ve said you can’t say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there’s a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it’s wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

88. dr. Hannibal Lecter - June 24th, 2008 at 3:18 am

@Yarr, #84:

I know how that kind of struggle feels, so kudos for succeeding in your life!

89. Randall - June 24th, 2008 at 7:59 am

Yarr:

Well I hate to say this, but there is little in your story that indicates to me that it was all that bad for you. Clearly you think you had to overcome some adversities, but aside from the bad luck your family suffered when you were younger, (for which I’m sympathetic, of course–there were also many deaths in my own family when I was young) I see nothing oh-so-horrible in what you went through. You describe your background/neighborhood as lower-middle-class; there are far worse things to be in this country and particularly in this world. But you know, I mowed lawns when I was a kid too, and a had a job and so on, when I was a teen. And good for you, you went back and completed your higher education. And you’ve expressed some understanding and sympathy for those with lower-incomes and in poorer circumstances. But nevertheless there remains a smugness and blind near-self-righteousness in your attitude, which still trickles through. And it’s particularly interesting, the more balanced and reasoned rhetorical tone you took in your latest post as opposed to the earlier one (#68) which was sprinkled with propagandistic vitriol and invective, almost slogan-like at times in its cliched tirade—as I said, like you were regurgitating 20 year old conservative talking points. You asked what was offensive about what you said. There it is in a nutshell. I’ll explain.

To begin with, it shouldn’t take me or anyone else to point out to you that just because you made some small success in life, that doesn’t mean that everyone else can do it. But it’s apparent that you’re convinced that this is so. Which simply says to me, again, that you really have little experience of life. And yet you feel you can speak with heavy authority that *anyone* can make it if they just try. Well depends on what you mean and who you mean, of course–but in general this is simply naive. You came out of a not-so-bad background, with some bad luck, sure–(but many have a few bad breaks in their past) and you worked and you’ve made a decent living for yourself. Naturally, this is formula I’d recommend to anyone in your position as well–I certainly believe in hard work and perseverance, but it’s a silly and naive distortion to believe that that will always get you through and that life evens out all fair and square in the end, if you just work hard. Rubbish. And here, from the earlier, more cant-like stuff you were spouting, one can detect where you’ve gone wrong.

Having come up from some small adversities, you’ve got yourself in a typical middle class position where you don’t just see hard work as a virtue, but rather as a dogma. And because of this, you blindly trust that “the rich” are just people who for the most part worked that much harder and got that much farther. True, to some extent. I know quite a few wealthy–and I mean *really* wealthy–people. Some got there partly via inheritance, it’s true. But for the most part they worked their asses off–and also had some good luck and avoided suffering bad luck. Some, though, did some unsavory (though by no means illegal) things to further themselves and keep what they have. To each his own we might say. But these are *people,* and some are good people, others not. But bad people, in positions of power and wealth, can do a lot of damage, doing a lot of self-serving things that do harm to others and make life much harder for them. This is amplified when people are no longer simply “people” but are elements of corporations and conglomerates–self-sustaining and self-serving entities which naturally can’t be trusted to act “human” in any sense - yet nevertheless have an impact on us all.

I am, of course, a capitalist. Or rather, I believe in a free market system. But I am not so naive to believe that wealth and power are always all good, and need no special looking after. And I know that as in all human affairs, those with power and wealth also need brakes on their behavior–as we all do–for instance, I don’t steal because there are moral and civil laws against it. When someone can game the system to get away with stealing–if they’re able to bribe the right person, for instance, or frame someone else, or hide the evidence, etc., we know that there are people so inclined who *will* steal (and murder, etc.) as long as they have that advantage. So it is with the wealthy and with corporations and businesses as it is with people. The only difference being that it’s often very hard to catch “a corporation” at underhanded doings–they are not people, they are “things,” entities–and the nastiness is done by little cells within them, and the harm is not always seen right away, and even when detected is hard to follow and correct. And this very impunity is what makes them feel free to do the things they do. An Enron happens because people within the corporation feel that the corporation can get away with it. They feel they can hide their behavior and bury the evidence.

It’s equally naive to think that an Enron is a glaring exception. Particularly when a presidential administration works in collusion with those who would gladly take advantage of loopholes and lowered guards to engage in unethical, even illegal practices.

I find it interesting that you admit being from Texas, Yarr. This is further confirmation for a small prejudice of my own in regards to the state, but since that’s entirely irrational and mean-spirited of me, we’ll say no more about it.

You have a gigantic conviction that because you worked your way up out of fairly average adversity, than anyone can do the same. There’s the main offense. It’s naive and denies reality. The second offense is in the separate tones you use; your original tone was, as I said, full of propagandistic invective. Your second more reasonable and balanced. This indicates to me that you’re capable of thinking things out and *being* more reasonable–but you resist this, and would rather give in to the nonsense and the glaring generalizations based on nothing but your own limited experience.

90. Randall - June 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am

mallenv:

Be careful who you try to dissect in anonymous situations. You know nothing about me, so I’d suggest you back off the attempts at pigeonholing me or my beliefs. I am in fact a former conservative republican, and was until the mid 90s.

“randall is a typical liberal who knows only so much as to be dangerous.”

Cute, but wrong. You can trust that I know much more than you think.

“Like Reagan said, it is not that they are ignorant, it is what they know that is wrong.”

Don’t quote Reagan to me. I was devoted to him as a president, and an avid College Republican during his first term and the early part of his second. From then on I stayed with the party and the ideology for another ten years. Gradually my eyes opened to the lies, distortions and errors–and betrayals–that had gone on on the Right.

“I’ll bet Randall thinks, like every other liberal I know, that the civil rights act of 1964 in the US came about because of the liberals, or the Democrats at the least.”

I suggest you keep a better hold on your money. I know my history very well, Mallenv.

“Look it up, fact. I know your feelings are hurt, but that won’t wash.”

Watch the smug self-assurance. As I’ve pointed out, you know nothing about me and the more you therefore continue to flap your mouth, the more the fool you look.

“Lincoln was a Republican.”

Yup, as was Grant and Harding and Coolidge and Nixon and George W. Bush. Pride before a fall, Mallenv.

That you conveniently ignore that the Republican party today entirely ignores the plight of blacks is telling. Your little history lesson not only falls into redundancy, it is irrelevant. The parties were extremely different in the 1950s and 60s; in those days there were such things as conservative democrats, and they were a huge branch of the party–a commanding branch–many of them southern and racist. The Republican party, on the other hand, was populated by liberal Republicans, a group which no longer exists, in essence–and it was they who in large part helped to deliver the Civil Rights Act.

My own parents, like *many* northeasterners, were liberal Republicans. Back in those days the party commanded or partly commanded states like Vermont, New York, etc. But it was not the Republican party of today, rife with religious bigots and extremist social conservatives.

“Almost everything the liberals are claiming as their accomplishments are untruths.”

This statement is pure rubbish, and unsupported hyperbole. The blindness of it is sickening.

“As an example, one liberal woman I know brought her son up liberally…”

Anecdotal testimony makes for poor evidence of a broad-ranging point.

Moreover, the point at hand here is not reviving some age-old argument about liberalism. (Though the fact remains that in actuality–and this is historical, Mallenv–the Johnson agenda of the 60s was never given a chance. Johnson himself squandered the capital of it on Viet Nam, and the rest of its strength died with Bobby Kennedy. There was a total of sixteen years between the commencement of the Johnson administration and the commencement of Reagan’s, when the last of the old legacy was jettisoned and abandoned. Even less time between the implementation of many policies and the period when they were scrapped. At the time I believed scrapping them was the right thing to do–and even now maybe it’s true that it was. History will yet make a judgement on that) Rather, the point at hand is whether the way of doing things that we’ve seen from the Bush administration has done good or terrible harm to our society and country. And we know that a great majority in this country feels that it has done great harm–and we can see much of the harm simply by lifting our heads and looking around. Trying to divert the issue to past battles over liberalism and Carter, and invoking Ronald Reagan, will not work.

But go on with it. I trust that come November you’ll have time to ponder on your errors and gain some humility and wisdom.

91. JwJwBean - June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am

Jumping in for just a second to say I had great laughs at the quotes.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

I just hope the debate stays civil.

92. Yarr - June 24th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Randall:

“You have a gigantic conviction that because you worked your way up out of fairly average adversity, than anyone can do the same. There’s the main offense. It’s naive and denies reality.”

I think, sir, that you and I simply look at the world in different ways.

ANYONE, with the possible exception of the sick, injured, or otherwise physically or mentally incapable, can ATTEMPT to better their lot in life. Whether this is getting a second job, excercising more, reading a book or newspaper to gain knowledge, or simply drinking water instead of soft drinks.

I am not so naive as to believe that everyone can or will be successful. But you seem to be saying that just because the attempt could possibly end in failure, that my suggestion that people give it a shot is, in your own words, “a silly and naive distortion to believe that that will always get you through and that life evens out all fair and square in the end, if you just work hard. Rubbish.”

So what’s the alternative?

Don’t even try? Live off the government? Blame the rich?
Blame other countries? Blame the weather? Blame your parents?

I’m sorry, Randall. I just cannot subscribe to this.

As for my different tones, well, sometimes I’m pissed, and sometimes I’m not. Yesterday I wasn’t. Today I’m not. Tomorrow I might be. It’s not a literary device. It’s emotion.

93. Yarr - June 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Furthermore, when I’m making blanket statements on an online forum, I think we can safely assume that the people that are reading it are not eating their shoe leather to keep from starving in an alley somewhere.

When I suggest that you are capable of living an informed and empowered life, it is because there is a good 90% chance that you are. You might not realize it, or you might not believe it, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

And, I didn’t give an account of the hard-knock life to garner any sympathy. I did it because you asked. You asked after you practically accused me of being some out-of-touch elitist that was demanding something out of others that I was unwilling to do myself.

94. Yarr - June 24th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Furthermore, when I’m making blanket statements on an online forum, I think we can safely assume that the people that are reading it are not eating their shoe leather to keep from starving in an alley somewhere.

When I suggest that you are capable of living an informed and empowered life, it is because there is a good 90% chance that you are. You might not realize it, or you might not believe it, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

And, I didn’t give an account of the hard-knock life to garner any sympathy. I did it because you asked. You asked after you practically accused me of being some out-of-touch elitist that was demanding something out of others that I was unwilling to do myself.

Why won’t this comment post?

95. Yarr - June 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Oh. Sorry.

96. Randall - June 25th, 2008 at 6:05 am

Yarr:

There’s some weird, intermittent delay on this site in posting comments. When it happens I refresh the page, but even that doesn’t work sometimes, and you’ve got to shut the page and then open it again.

Now…

“I think, sir, that you and I simply look at the world in different ways.”

Clearly.

“ANYONE, with the possible exception of the sick, injured, or otherwise physically or mentally incapable, can ATTEMPT to better their lot in life.”

You’re playing with the obvious today I see.

Naturally I agree with this. But you see, Yarr… you’re missing the point entirely. Or… no, that’s not quite it. It’s not that you’re *missing* the point. It’s that you’re skipping over it, ignoring it.

The point, Yarr, is what happens, what do you do, when the system is gamed to *obstruct* your attempt at improving your lot in life? What do you do when someone somewhere else is fucking things up so that you’re now facing MORE obstacles than you had to face a year ago?

The answer is, you realize that no one political ideology is ever *always* right, and won’t carry you through. And you realize that the system needs constant adjusting and maintenance and oversight to keep it as fair and even as we can keep it. So you do something about it. When the country swings too far to the left, we pull it back towards the right. When it swings too far to the right, we pull it back to the left.

“But you seem to be saying that just because the attempt could possibly end in failure, that my suggestion that people give it a shot is, in your own words, “a silly and naive distortion…”

Naturally that is NOT what I was saying. Come now. Now, yeah, some of what you’ve said sounds like one of those ridiculous motivational speakers who sell a bill of goods to the naive and unimaginative, that all you need to turn your life completely around is to “think positively” or some other soft-headed rubbish. Granted, positive thinking is important. And granted, making an attempt against the odds is important.

But this isn’t what our original discussion was about, anyway.

So you ask what the alternative is. And then you pretend that the only possible alternative is to sit there and do nothing, or blame someone. Again, rubbish.

The alternative is to take a stand against the greed and poor ethics of others. To be ever vigilant against inequities and injustice.

YOU stick your head in the sand and say “you can do it all yourself!” and while sometimes true, this philosophy ignores the fact that we live in a society and under a political system—both of which can sometimes be good, but also can sometimes be bad. Worse still is to keep your head stuck in that sand, believing naively that all anyone need do is TRY, and they can have a shot at success. But don’t rock the boat–don’t ask that corporations be monitored better, that the environment be protected, that justice be served at all times. Don’t ask that wealth be taxed, when those making the wealth have been getting away with murder. Don’t say that the government has SOME responsibility in ensuring fairness and assistance in our society, because that’s weak and counter-productive!

Nonsense. These are all the failed, polarized ideas of a byegone age. We’ve *learned* that socialism doesn’t work, Yarr. We got that lesson. We’ve also learned that laissez faire capitalism doesn’t work either. Pretending there’s no middle ground is silly and shortsighted. The middle ground is vast. And that’s where all the tweaking needs to be done.

97. goatmissile - June 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am

Ya big silly. New Zealand is a part of the Indonesian archipelago. Just of the coast of North Dakota.

98. Yarr - June 25th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Randall:

See, the problem is, I know that the system is fucked. I know that there are many things in our country and our world that should and could be improved. The issue I have is not with those who want to change the world, but with those who will sit quietly by and *hope* that someone out there will get around to doing it.
In my original post, I said that GW is not solely responsible for our woes. I am about as far away from a Bush fan as you can possibly get, and I don’t agree with alot of what he and his administration has done.

BUT, there is a whole lot of Bush-bashing going on because of the results of people’s own decisions.

When people bought way too much house on an adjustable rate mortgage in an inflated market that then corrected…

People running up thousands of dollars in credit card debt and then not being willing or able to pay…

This is not the government’s fault. It’s not the government’s responsibility to fix.

But you hear people (I do anyway) talk about how a Democrat will fix all of this.

No he won’t. It’s not his job! He might say he will, but he won’t.

And Randall, you keep talking about the corruption of the right. Do you truly believe that the left doesn’t have their own pack of hungry wolves to feed that are just waiting for the day they take over? Corruption, ineptitude, greed, and, well, all the 7 deadly sins, reside on BOTH sides of the aisle. Not just one.

Another thing- The collapse of ENRON was because of criminal (read: illegal) activity. It was douchebag corruption that was technically legal. They stole money and cooked the books to hide it. Enron is a good example of corruption, but by using them as an example for why there needs to be a fairer tax system, it doesn’t work. They didn’t ‘not pay enough taxes’ they, quite illegally, stole a lot of money.

I have to go. A little more later. I’m not done yet, though.

99. Yarr - June 25th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

NOT technically legal. Enron I mean. Got to go.

100. Randall - June 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Yarr:

“The issue I have is not with those who want to change the world, but with those who will sit quietly by and *hope* that someone out there will get around to doing it.”

Well and good, Yarr, but that’s not what you were railing against in your *original* post. Your original post was full of old-hat conservative propaganda talking points against “making things fair” and “raising taxes,” ad nauseum.

I agree, people who sit on their ass and do nothing deserve what they get. But YOU were bad-mouthing people who DO want to even things out again and change things for the good (at least in their eyes). So let’s quit with this irrelevant stuff and get back to the real topic here.

“…there is a whole lot of Bush-bashing going on because of the results of people’s own decisions.”

Fine, this is true. But A) not all Bush-bashing is traceable back to problems that people brought upon themselves, and you know this to be so. In fact, much of it isn’t. B) It’s great and all to point out how people bring shit upon themselves… but what about the inscrupulous people and systems that prey on other people and allow them to be preyed upon?

“This is not the government’s fault.”

In fact, Yarr, it can be. Government’s role in this context is that of oversight. When it is shirking that role, and even acting in collusion with those who prey on consumers, etc., then government IS partly responsible.

“It’s not the government’s responsibility to fix.”

If government has played a role in a debacle, then yes, it is very much partly government’s responsibility to help make it right.

“But you hear people (I do anyway) talk about how a Democrat will fix all of this.”

No, you’re oversimplifying what people are saying. People are saying that it’s time for the country to change course, to renounce a political philosophy and a party that has not only failed this country but has done it actual harm, terrible harm. It’s time to turn to a different philosophy and party, not in some pie-in-the-sky belief that it’ll make it all better, but simply as a practical means of moving the ship away from the rocks and getting back out to sea.

People are fed up and angry, Yarr. You hear it as dreaminess. It’s anything but.

“And Randall, you keep talking about the corruption of the right. Do you truly believe that the left doesn’t have their own pack of hungry wolves to feed that are just waiting for the day they take over? Corruption, ineptitude, greed, and, well, all the 7 deadly sins, reside on BOTH sides of the aisle. Not just one.”

No shit Yarr, do ya think? I have friends who play the game–and high up–in political circles. I know what goes on. But what then? Because both sides are corrupt you stick with ONE and not the other? Where’s the sense in that?

Your stance has no logic in it. What are you telling me then? That the corruption of the right is to be overlooked?

The corruption we’re talking about is at hand NOW. It needs addressing NOW. The corruption of another party is in the future and needs addressing THEN.

“Enron is a good example of corruption, but by using them as an example for why there needs to be a fairer tax system, it doesn’t work. They didn’t ‘not pay enough taxes’ they, quite illegally, stole a lot of money.”

You’re being disingenuous. It isn’t that Enron and the multitude of scandals like it are about taxation–it’s that they are A) symptomatic of a large problem related to the activities and philosophy of conservatives, and B) are both caused by and spurred on by that philosophy, which spurns oversight and the act of bringing pressure upon those who step over the bounds.

This election isn’t about taxes, Yarr. It’s about bringing balance back into the picture.

101. Yarr - June 27th, 2008 at 6:09 am

Ok, then back to my original posts…

Barack has *promised* to raise taxes. Pelosi and Reid want to do the same. In a soft economy. This is stupid.
This is obviously not designed to help a flailing economy, but to punish. However, bad fiscal policy is bad, regardless of the intent.

This issue carries A LOT of weight with me.

All 3 want to socialize healthcare. Not only will the system go to shit, but *somebody* has to pay for it. Uh. Me? You? No thanks.

Nobody (on either side) seems to want to do anything to slow the flood of illegal immigrants, but the Dems want to just ‘legalize’ them with no real solution to the problem. Words like ‘racism’ are thrown around when this issue is discussed. This is again, stupid.
Amnesty is a slap in the face of anyone and everyone who did it legally and who went through hell to come here for a better life.
This is the modern slavery. Human trafficking and forced prostitution are rampant. Illegals are exploited, robbed, raped, and killed by their own countrymen. (Who themselves, would be eligible for the amnesty.)

Look at it like this:

If a pipe burst and water began to flood your home, there isn’t anything ‘evil’ or inherently wrong with the water. But the damage it causes is real. So you call a couple plumbers. The first says, “Well, fuck it. Let’s just call it a pool.”
You say, “But it’s destroyed my carpet and soaking into the walls.”
He says,”Look buddy, water is good. You need it to survive. It does a lot for you, and I don’t like your attitude. Just accept it, and try to see it differently. Besides, the ‘damage’ is done. Just let the water be.”

I would not hire this man.

The illustration above is over-simplified, but it is actually very close to the left’s suggested ’solution’ to the immigration problem. I will not vote for this.

B.O. said that his ‘uncle’ was one of the American G.I.s that liberated Auschwitz. Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets. B.O. is a liar. Why did he need to lie about that?
Oh, sorry- He ‘misspoke’. He and his wife seem to do a lot of that. What else is he lying about? Again, not voting for the guy.

For the record, I think McCain is a choad. Liberals loved him for being the ‘good’ Republican. Conservatives hated him for being a Liberal with an ‘R’ next to his name. Now for some reason, Liberals hate him, and Conservatives consider him the lesser of two evils, but only slightly less.

In this cycle, I will probably vote Libertarian, if only to give strength to a third party. What I won’t do, is compromise my principles because I don’t like what some Washington scum has done in my name. This government is supposed to be run by us. We. The. People. Right now, and for the forseable future, it is run by them. I am not in favor of giving them more power, which is what (historically) comes from Liberal leadership.

102. Yarr - June 27th, 2008 at 6:24 am

BTW-
I only addressed 3 issues. This is for brevity. There are a LOT more things I disagree with Liberal policymakers about. Not because I am a ‘robot’ Republican, but because their ’solutions’ are intrusive, expensive, and oftentimes, flat-out dumb.

Anyway…

Got to go work now.

103. Randall - June 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am

Yarr:

I’m really short on time myself…. but COME ON.

Is this all you got?

Obama’s uncle liberated BUCHENWALD, Yarr. Anybody could slip up and make such a mistake, and anyway, when I listen to the original quote, it isn’t all that clear what he said–he mentions Auschwitz, but goes on to say that his uncle was one of those who liberated “the concentration camps”—Jesus Christ–his uncle DID liberate A concentration camp. So get off it. Anybody can mispeak, especially when giving speech after goddamned speech, and when we associate ALL concentration camps as being the same anyway. Can you even TELL me where Buchenwald is without looking it up?

Get off it. You’re being ridiculous. And again–when I hear shit like this from someone like you—I begin to suspect the REAL reason you are being so absurdly hard on Obama–because the crap you bring up about him is flimsy in the extreme.

So, Yarr–have a problem, perhaps, with seeing a black man in the white house? Down deep maybe? So far down that you maybe can’t even admit it to yourself?

The tax bullshit won’t wash–nobody’s going to weep for the oil companies, Yarr–why are you? And again–return to the point I made a long time ago–if you fear taxation so much, then explain to me why you don’t simply advocate doing away with taxation ENTIRELY?

Now, in point of fact, I ALSO am concerned that big oil could simply pass on the cost to the consumer if they were more stringently taxed; but A) recent evidence about the unethical and robber-baron activities of speculators linked to the administration’s support of the “energy loophole” of a few years ago indicates that all this may be a moot point and B) one ought to be able to assume that none of this will go down as simply as all that.

You want to go on protecting those who rape the system and take advantage of the rest of us, go ahead. Again, you’ll find yourself far in the minority, pal.

Your concern for illegal immigrants being harmed and otherwise taken advantage of by their fellows is touching, Yarr, but I don’t buy it for a second. Again, yes–it DOES sound like out and out racism. These illegals that you’re so concerned for come here out of a deep-seated need that one would think you’d kind of understand, given your touted story of rising from adversity–see, you HAD that capability in a country like this one–whereas THEY DON’T. So naturally they try to come here. Easy enough to understand.

BUT unlike when a lot of people’s ancestors came here, it’s far more difficult to get into this country than it used to be. FAR more. YOU face the choice—a better life for yourself or your family, or waiting patiently for the US to allow you in–if it EVER does–(and as we know, the odds are that it wouldn’t, given the rules as they stand).

These people also come here and get jobs that Americans *for the most part* aren’t willing to do–which isn’t just some wild claim but is established FACT. I live in upstate New York, and every year there’s a contingent of Guatamalans along with other nationalities who are brought up here to work the fields, picking various vegetable and fruit crops. There’s no great swelling of native New Yorkers who want to do this work. I don’t care if these people are legal or not; probably they are legal, but if they weren’t it wouldn’t bother me in the least. They’re getting money to take home and help their families, and our farmers are getting their crops harvested. Works all around.

As for your remarks about power vis a vis the “Liberal leadership”—you’re being either disingenuous or naive in the extreme–or both. Politics IS power–and regardless if it Right, Left, Libertarian or Blue-Green-Purple Party, it would be the same. We live in a VAST, unwieldy mega-nation, which is what we accepted when we went for the ol’ Manifest Destiny argument some 150 years ago. I, personally, would be happier in a democratic city-state, but I ain’t gonna get that wish. That’s not the world we live in. You don’t like the downsides of representative democracy in the circumstances we have it? Well, keep trying to tweak the system to make it fair–or go elsewhere, if