Via slayerdaddy, the transcript to CNN’s “Reliable Sources” (May 14), from which we learn from Mistress Arianna herself that many mainstream Democratic Party members have abandoned both the Party and the progressive movement (represented by the leftosphere)—most especially, Hillary Clinton, who Arianna insists cannot win the Democratic nomination for President:
KURTZ: All right. Arianna, day after day you and your fellow liberal bloggers are openly dissing Hillary Clinton. Just this morning, you write on HuffingtonPost.com that she’s a phony, and you criticize her relentless unabashed pandering. I’m wondering whether your real problem with her is that she’s not liberal enough for you.
HUFFINGTON: No, you know what, it’s not really about left and right and liberal and conservative. It’s about inauthenticity. She’s so inauthentic. And the zeitgeist has moved on. You know, what worked for Bill Clinton in ‘92 and ‘96 is not going to work for Hillary in 2008.
And the main thing that we’re talking about is what the American people are looking for. They’re looking for somebody who stands for something. And at this very moment, when so much is imploding, Hillary Clinton is there helping pass the bills on flag burning and having fundraisers with Rupert Murdoch. What does she stand for? It’s not just the blogosphere, Howie.
KURTZ: You say in the very column that one of our problems is—one of your problems with her is that she doesn’t oppose the war in Iraq. So if she did oppose the war in Iraq, then you’d say she was authentic?
HUFFINGTON: No, it’s over. Opposing the war in Iraq right now will not make any difference. The fact that she stood by and supported the war and went on about how charming George Bush is last week shows that she’s not really connected with the deep, deep discontent in the American public, which goes way beyond liberals. Many people in the red states, millions of them, are discontented and angry.
KURTZ: OK, well, John, go ahead.
PODHORETZ: Look, interesting position that I’m now defending Hillary Clinton, a left-wing politician, who actually governed in ways that Arianna Huffington would like and she’s attacking her.
But she has an 80 percent approval rating among Democrats. She is—she is 25 to 30 points higher than any comparable Democrat. In polls of Democratic primary voters in 2008, the liberal blogosphere is out of touch with the Democratic Party and probably with the country at large.
And the notion that, because they scream very loudly and speak intemperately, they represent a body of opinion that is actually going to derail her candidacy is, I think, short-sighted and a little delusional.
HUFFINGTON: Well, John, you’re going to be surprised, because it’s not at all delusional. The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is not in touch with the Democratic base and they are the people who vote in Democratic primaries. And she has basically been abandoned, not just by the bloggers, but by people like Molly Ivins and “The Washington Post” today and by major Democratic contributors who are shopping around. And watch out for Al Gore.
I always watch out for Al Gore, Arianna—ever since that unfortunate day when I witnessed him jam his tongue down Tipper’s throat on live TV (just a few short years after Tipper told me I needed warning labels on my music, too. Oh, the irony!).
I am haunted to this day, in fact.
But what is interesting here is that, if the poll numbers Podhoretz cites are correct, Arianna is saying that it doesn’t matter what rank and file Democrats want—the party is controlled by the base by way of the primaries.
Or, in other words, the few—the “authentic” Democrat (interesting that she takes on the language of identity politics, no?)—will decide for the rest who is worthy of carrying the Democratic flag into the next Presidential battle.
An elitist attitude, to be sure, but is it really a surprise that this is where the Democratic Party finds itself? If Huffington is right, not only is the control progressives exert over the Democratic party a good thing, but it is more than that: it expresses what the Party is (authenticity goes to ontology), and it presumes to cast out all those lesser beings who would follow a politician for pragmatic reasons (inauthentic).
In short, Huffington is attempting to use the identity politics paradigm for the purposes of describing political factions. Which doesn’t work, ordinarily, because there is nothing “essential” about being a Democrat, nor does sharing a political label demand a leap of faith into the metaphysical (as is the case with religious identity politics).
But ideologues like Huffington come close; in fact, she seems to want progressivism to take on the characteristics of an essentialist trait in order to make the claim that those Democrats who don’t hew to its precepts are not really Democrats at all, but are somehow akin to race traitors.
So who knows—perhaps at the next Democratic convention, we’ll be treated to the sight of progressives throwing stuffed elephants rather than Oreos…?
Wait a minute. The liberal who lost a gubernatorial election (in California, no less) to Arnold Schwarzenegger is giving out political advice to fellow Democrats? I’m just saying, that’s not exactly a track record that lends itself to any kind of authority on the subject.
This is the dilemma of the Democratic Party. The candidates that can survive the political junkie-extremist controlled primaries cannot win the national election.
It’s been like that for several decades, the only exception being a single candidate: President Clinton who due to controlled news and a personal ability to charm and lie effectively was able to fool enough people. But even with that, had Ross Perot not run and gotten so many conservative votes, he still wouldn’t have won in 1992.
What exactly is Ms. Huffington’s claim to fame? She married a millionaire and took his ass to the cleaners when it didn’t work out? Well then, I guess I’ll look forward to Anna Nicole telling my dumb ass how I’m supposed to think and vote come 2016 or so.
You would think that those in charge of the Democratic party would stop and say-
“hmm, we keep getting trounced in elections when we run the candidates that our leftists support. Maybe we should stop pandering to them and find a candidate who might actually appeal to a majority of voters, like say that guy who got re-elected as president a few years ago.”
Then I look at who is in charge of the democratic party and think -“hmm. The republicans could nominate Bozo the Clown and he would STILL probably trounce whomever those morons will nominate.”
Sad, really.
It is but it’s sadder still that, what, 56 million people voted for a jackass like John F’n Kerry two and a half years ago.
Some folks say the Republican party needs to split off a new “Bullmoose” party. Personally, I think the Democrats need to split off a “Moonbat” party.
Oopsie! Kurtz’s slip is showing! Cut on the bias, too.
Well, of course. Failure to do so might harm sales of his new book.
You should be watching out for Manbearpig. I’m totally serial.
The fetish for authenicity certainly is a dubious thing in politics, with a dubious history, but it’s not at all clear that the analysis in terms of identity politics is to the point. Notice who’s been talking up the idea lately: there is Joe Klein’s book on authenticity, David Broder comes to mind, Chris Matthews’ recurrent moist reflections, etc. They’re thinking about several & various things, but the main underlying idea is a longing for someone who knows & says what the thinks, without calculation. The most frequently celebrated recent heroes of authenticity have been Bush, Reagan, McCain, etc. Gore & Kerry are typically held up as examples of autheniticity. Note also most recent criticism of all this has come from the liberal left: see the blogosphere.
The simple interpretation of Huffington’s comment is that she’s calling Clinton a trimmer. Kurtz certainly seemed to take that as her sense. No need to deploy “ontology,” “essentialism,” or an elaborate analysis of identity politics.
It sounds more like a cult than a ploitical faction. An emphasis on dogma, high mysteries, exact obediance, rejection of all previous allegiances. That does not sound healthy, nor politically viable, unless viability is extended to coup plotting if they don’t get their way.
Don’t piss off the Gores. Have you seen John Denver lately? Frank Zappa? Look what they did to Dee Snyder… filed his teeth down to points man! Just watch it is all.
The problem for the democrats is the disconnect between the money raising blue states (New York, California, the NE states) and the rest of the democratic party. Some democrats, I’m convinced, still want sane government, strong defense, smart fiscal policies while still maintaining their agenda of liberal social policies. The problem, as I see it, is the blue state money raising folks have taken the liberal social position and created something much more extreme, much more noticeable but not necessarily very appealing to rank and file democrats. It IS appealing to the party heads, to the Hollywood extremists and to the people who raise the money and take a piece for doing so, b/c quite frankly, crazy gets you noticed. Unfortunately for the democratic party, not every one of them has drank the Koolaid, thereby almost a assuring a lack of a consensus on policy come election time.
I’m not Huffington isnt correct about Hilary and her unelectability. My opinion on HIlary is, she’s not electable but only b/c she proved time and time again, exactly what she is and what she believes in while in the White House with bill. Additionally, her voting record is clearly going to be at odds with many of the liberal positions which have been pushed since she became a Senator- she’ll only be able to explain those away with help from the press and if the press believes, like Arianna, that Candidate Hillary will result in another 4 years of Rethuglican Facism, then I can safely say I expect them to torpedo her when the heat is on.
I might be able to explain the apparent connection with identity politics via a short anecdote:
Shortly after 9/11, I was having a discussion with my family about the likely U.S. response, and was still in the mentality many of us felt at that time, which didn’t involve a whole lot of “nuance” or pop psychology about the childhood experiences of the terrorists involved. My dad and I expressed our opinions in a rather, shall we say, direct and unvarnished manner… which elicited a fairly predictable response from my cartoonishly naive, sheltered, and sanctimonious younger sister: as the discussion went along, what eventually came out was a variation on the standard “we shouldn’t kill anyone because then we become like them / who are we to decide our lives are more valuable” theme.
At the time, this sentiment was new to me (at least to this extreme, because I had always assumed that killing in self-defense was a commonly-accepted “necessary evil), and I was more than a bit, err, “agitated” by it. What came next was even more, as Tom Hanks put it in Saving Private Ryan, “disconcerting”: my sister’s assertion was that her worldview flowed from the fact that she was “more evolved” than the rest of us (including my mother, who is quite liberal herself, but was nevertheless arguing at least partially on my side of things).
Perhaps some progressives like Ms. Huffington really do believe this, or at least act as though they do. In that case, their group would be, to them, an identity group like any other, as only members could truly “get it”. A bit of a stretch to say that the hopelessly simplistic and inexperienced worldview of a 19-year-old could possibly represent a foundational tenet of an entire political movement? Maybe. And maybe, as I suspect in many cases, all of this is just window dressing, a way to make one’s political beliefs appear more substantive than they actually are (often amounting to little more than the application of Sesame Street feel-good principles to complex global issues).
I really hate to say any of this, because it’s not all that long ago I would have considered many of these people to be on my side (more or less), and I know plenty of people who hold strongly leftward beliefs but to whom the above most definitely does not apply. Still, the way the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has treated those who stray from the flock – even a little bit – reminds me of nothing more than a 5-year-old having a tantrum because his playmates won’t play a game by his “adjusted” rules – rules which he has adjusted to allow him to win no matter what.
It’s fascinating to me that “progressivism” has essentially “evolved” into loudly shrieking “Obey your betters, you stupid, ignorant cows!”
Arianna is huffing all right. This just makes me wonder what she is huffing.
Again, the straightforward reading of Huffington’s comment isn’t that Clinton is inauthentically Democratic, but that she’s an inauthentic person. No group involved, no need for cock-a-doodle-do metaphysics of group identity.
I found it interesting that she chose the language of IP. And this bit—
—when coupled with her curious use of the ideologically loaded word, “inauthentic,” makes me less sanguine that Huffington wasn’t trying to get at something larger, whether she was aware she was doing so or not.
But it’s possible I’m giving her too much credit. Or not enough (depending on your point of view).
I have heard that one quite a bit also. I always try to point out that by no definition of evolution they can find will a sub-species that refuses to defend itself be considered “more-evolved”. Faith based politics don’t really believe in evolution either, it seems.
The Democratic Party is in the process of flushing all of it’s pro-Zionist warmongers. They can become Republicans or start a third party, whatever blows up their skirt. There will be two major parties: the War Party or Republicans and the Peace Party. Is Opus Dei ready? Peace
You can’t parody the left anymore.
I can’t understand why anyone would want to get behind Huffington or other imbeciles of her ilk. Half of America can’t be this crazy, can they?
Humorous misanthropy aside, it’s astounding to me that so many people could buy into an ideology that requires you to set aside objective reality and concern over fair minded assessment of facts in favor of ignorant bile. Deviate from the party line and you’re just another body to be stepped over on the road to a leftist utopia… A necropolis.
Kelly,
It’s not Opus Dei you need to worry about, it’s the IHM nuns. They don’t wear habits anymore and can be anywhere. Trust me on this.
Please don’t mention where you heard this or who you heard this from.
TW:became. Whatever became of him.
Yes, dammit. The coalition can’t be understood otherwise.
There are superficial differences they claim are fundamental, but the call-me-“progressive” leftoids of todayâ€â€who are actually aristocratic conservatives, definitionally (as are almost all Republicans, so…)â€â€and the Progressives of 1920 are alike enough to justify the tribute-in-name. I’ll save the rant (better left to the black preachers I first heard it from), but if you ignore the advertising and look at the results, their policies match.
As a real Darwinist, I can spot secret Galtonists, and they’re them. Just listen to them talk. Jesuslanders are their Jukes and Kallikaks. What’s The Matter With Kansas? is their What The Social Classes Owe To Each Other. Never forget 2004, what they said when election emotion got their guard down.
They meant it. All of it.
tw changes: No, it never does.
Jeff, it just really isn’t the case that Huffington chooses the language of identity politics in the passage you cite. She’s speaking the generic, atheoretical language of political people everywhere; substitute Republican referents & put it in the mouth of some Republican campaign operative & you get the same effect. She’s talking about a political party’s base, for crying out loud; every party has one, the Whigs had one, which doesn’t mean that the Whigs were besotted with identity politics.
Her use of the term “inauthentic” is also pure vanilla political talk. She uses it to characterize Clinton as an individual, not any group, & she contrasts questions of autheniticity from ideological left-right matters. This is in keeping with current political usage. I mentioned a few examples; do a Lexis-Nexis search more many, many more. Huffington was no more channeling the bastard progeny of Martin Heidegger than any of the other countless plain unpretentious political journalists, campaign workers, bloggers, etc. who talk the same way. And her usage is no more curious than theirs.
We all sometimes misread nongermane comments to bear on our preoccupations. Slow down, here you’ve got nothing.
We’ll see.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think identity politics applies to political parties. I just found it interesting that Huffington was potentially trying to connect the two. Because it does apply to progressive ideology.
Now, it’s possible I’m quite mistaken. But it was an observation I thought worth noting—probably because I have this piece on the mind.
Walker makes some good points, though I think ultimately his reach far exceeds his grasp. I had hoped to write on it today, but I’m not sure I’ll get to it. For now, let’s just say that what is right about the piece is that it points out how certain political interest groups are trying to adopt the language and tactic of identity politics.
So it’s not implausible Huffington was up to the same thing.
Sorry, but I find “inauthentic” to be highly charged. So it comes down to what we believe Huffington’s intentions were in chosing that word.
* Slow down, here you’ve got nothing.*
Huffington’s taking pot shots at the potential democratic nominee while a member of the same policy AND claiming to be more in touch with the base then Clinton (I’m paraphrasing). I think you do have something here. You are seeing the gap forming and which will probably widen in ther democratic party during the runup to the prez election, especially if the demos fall flat on their face in 2006. If they do so, to me it implies they should clean out the fever swamps but I suspect that will never happen, as the rich donors, most of them anyway, seem to also reside in the swamp (Soros’s named his estate “Swamp Castle”).
Sure, the republicans differ in opinions BUT the republican base- conservatives, Christians, middle class generally agree on the big issues (immigration, abortion, gay marriage). Unfortunately, republican politicans spend just as much time pandering to the left as the left does to the center- the foremost thing in their mind is re-election. Maybe its b/c I see the obvious disconnect over the war inherent in most liberal differences whereas republicans tend to agree on far more issues then they disagree.
What exactly is this Huffington’s claim to fame? Was she a childhood actor or something? She sounds like Zsa Zsa. Or was it Eva? Not as attractive, though.
Jeff – I’ll drop this in the hopper, not as counter spritz, but simply to add to the spectrum.
– One thing you always need to be aware of with AH; A great many of her “posts” are actually ghost writen by various behind the scenes pundits, and that goes to her personal appearences as well. I caught her looking at notes at one of her press conferences in LA during the Gov. elections, which was somewhat puzzeling because the reporters question was: “Who do you like in the 2004 presidential election?”
– Now no doubt some of that can be layed at the doorstep of her having changed parties three times in as many months leading up to the campaign. Never-the-less its a bit optimistic to assign the actual “thinking” out process of her brain pan capible of anything much more politically esoteric, than say, her candy apple strap heels, or the matching Bill Blass silk shift with open decolage.
– In short, we tended never to take her too seriously. Something like assuming shes Homer Simpson reading Einsteins Energy formula’s aloud for the circled children, while she dreams of a donut shaped universe.
…after he decided he preferred men to Arianna. Mike Huffington was a cookie cutter conservative too, IIRC, back when Arianna was also a Rethuglican.
Have you ever tried to hit a moving zeitgeist? It’s not an easy matter.
…after he decided he preferred men to Arianna.
There is a joke there somewhere right?
I met the Huffingtons a long time ago. He was a stuffed suit and she was awful.
I don’t think she’d drive me to switch teams though…
Now at least I now understand the source of her bitterness
Mmmmmm, donuts.
An endless source of energy.
SB:didnt
The TT didn’t know how to handle apostrophes.
PS – Who or what is the “imrworldwide.com” that wants to pop a window on my browser, Jeff?
Did someone not get the “no popups!” memo?
SB: five
by five
“The presumption of authenticity – the assumption that what he says, he actually believes – is John McCain’s greatest strength going into the 2008 presidential race … As much as anyone in public life, McCain has built his reputation on authenticity.â€Â
“[Jonathan Alter’s FDR book is] a portrait of authentic leadership grounded in experience and conviction rather than focus group-approved positions and soundbytes. Elements sorely missing from today’s political landscape.â€Â
Which of these passages entail an elitist, essentialist ontology of party membership? What evidence would disconfirm your judgment? Which passage was wriiten by David Broder & which by Ariana Huffington? Is this a farrago of nonsense?
Arianna the flip-flopping shrew,
changes parties faster than shoes.
She divorced her ex,
because for his sex,
it’s men that he’d rather pursue.
Gore & Hillary or Kerry & Hillary in 2008.
Gore and Kerry both came close and can claim they deserve another shot; and either Hillary becomes Pres afterwards or runs in 2012 (I don’t think she’ll be any older than Reagan, and an air of elder statesman wouldn’t hurt her, either. Besides, by 2012, Bill might be dead and Hillary gets sympathy without the embarrassment.)
Me, I’d just as soon vote for Jeb Bush as Coondi Rice – they might make a pretty decent ticket.
Cheney/Valdemort ‘08!!!!!
Arianna? Lecturing JPod and Kurtz’s viewership about inauthenticity?!?
I have to wonder if either Kurtz or JPod laughed out loud on that one, because I would have been roaring.
This is a woman who left England broken-hearted because one man would not marry her (Bernard Levin), then hooked up with Lightweight Moneybags AC/DC Huffington, deciding to use him as a Path to Power. She went from Acolyte of Newt in 1994 to “sharing a bed” with Franken in 1996, to full-on democrat standing by the recall election in 2003.
The only reason she is pissed off at HILLARY! is that HILLARY! was far better able to play the ventriloquist to the Bubba Dummy than Arianna ever could. Hell, MikeyHuff had Arianna’s manly hands up his arse so much that he decided he should try it out on his own without hearing the Greek-accented screeching 24/7.
HILLARY! drove BillyJeff into interns. Arianna drove MikeyHuff to the other side. But hey – she knows “inauthenticity” when she sees it, right?
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!
Now give me pie.
what about the anti-zionist warmongers? or the pro-zionist peacemongers? Or the anti-Zion, Illinois, fishmongers?
KH —
Huffington doesn’t use “authentic.” She uses “inauthentic,” which is far more ideologically charged.
Again, it comes down to what she intended by it. I think that word choice, coupled with what she said about the base, indicates a desire to set up a hierarchy among Dems.
YMMV.
It wasn’t too many years ago that Huffington was a rabid republican. I would heare her on the radio talking about how all these old republican farts were oh so sexy. I mean really, it sounded like she was giving them all blow jobs. That was after she was involved in that weirdo John cult. Then she becam little miss third party progressive environmentalist. blah blah blah. During her gubernetorial run it was revealed that she only paid approx.$700 in federal taxes. The woman keeps re-enventing herself hopeing she will find something that will sucker enough people into giving her the power she so desperately craves.
Faster, please. I wish you every success. The sooner the Democratic Party has to compete for meeting space with the Socialist Workers, and lose two out of three for lack of funds, the happier I’ll be.
BBH, Verc, McGehee, others: let us take up a sacred mission, assisting Imhotep and like-minded Democrats in their efforts to purge the party. Let the slogan be: No Democrat if not endorsed by Kos! Goal: the 2012 Democratic Convention should be held in Teddy’s RV.
Regards,
Ric
– Hey but you can’t faukt her authenticity when it comes to political timing. The day she announced her candicy for Gov. she had to wait three hours in a side anti-room at the Capital building for Arrrrnoullld to make his appearence before she came sassaying down the steps in her CFM 6 inch stelletto’s smiling and hip swinging for the camera’s. Perfect entrance if Cal really liked female sluts in office rather than the male slut we had, Grey.
– To complete the coup, right after she announced her kids moved out of the house. Maybe she has aquired some of the nuance you imply Jeff, but those of us who know her would tend to doubt it.
Bah. I don’t know Arianna Huffington, but based on the Post and the limited acquaintance I get from TV and the like, I too will have to take issue with your diagnosis, Jeff.
Arianna isn’t smart enough for that. She probably overheard one of her normal-IQ staffers using the term, and thought it was kewl and that dropping it in conversation would make points. $5 gets you $10 she couldn’t make the distinction between “not authentic” and “inauthentic” if there were an IRS agent waiting with a warrant to be served if she messed it up. (Not “screwed it up”, please. That she can probably do.)
Regards,
Ric
I’ve always thought that Arianna’s pieces probably sound better in the original Greek.
Jeff, I can see there’s no point to pursuing this silliness, but I’ll nevertheless note that Huffington uses both “authenticity” & “inauthenticity” in the article, “Cracking the Hillary Code,” that occasions Kurtz’s questions.
Use of the word “(in)authentic” jointly with a reference to the politics of the nomination process is no warrant for the claim that a writer (consciously or unconsciously) intends to invoke an elitist, essentialist ontology of party membership (however you might interpret that deathless formulation), which also is not the same as proposing to set up a hierarchical structure in the Democratic party, as you have it in your latest, shifting description. (I should think that the nomination process, Democratic & Republican already is obviously hierarchically structured. Recognition, approbation, or even exploitation of the extant hierarchy isn’t the same as proposing to set one up de novo, it’s just doing politics.)
Other political writers—including some you might view less negatively—have also used the word “(in)authentic,” and in the context of discussions of the (inherently hierarchical) nomination process. Do you really seriously expect anyone to believe that they’re all making the same claims—promulgating the same elitist, essentialist ontology of party membership—that you (falsely) attribute to Huffington? What’s the point of grasping at straws on something like this? It’s never going to get you what you want.
Enough.
Fine. Other political writers use the terms. But the terms are more loaded when used by progressives, who invest political capital in identity politics.
I said that I found it interesting. So I posited a possibility that I think is worth considering. I’ve mentioned on several occasions that one can believe it or not (and will or will not), depending on what they think her intentions were.
Why you are so invested in making the claim that she couldn’t possibly have been using a loaded term is beyond me.
As for this —
—the answer is no, of course not. Because not everyone is committed to identity politics. However, when a progressive uses the terms in the course of making claims that the base is the real voice of the Dem party—despite the poll numbers Podhoretz cites—I pay closer attention.
And that’s because the word is often intended to mean something very specific to progressives.
But as you say, enough. I’m tired of talking about this.
I’m not looking to convince you; and you’re not going to convince me that my observation is as absurd as you seem to think it is.
– I never said your observations were absurd. I simply pointed out that those of us that have been close enough to her to have had to endure her lavish use of faux French perfumes knows she has few political nuances in her little black party dress wardrobe, that she doesn’t get spoon fed by silent, but far more politically astute advisors.
– Shes basically a “face” Jeff, with a modicum of celeb the left cashes in on. All I was saying.
– On the other hand, it well could be someone of her staff is surrupticiously saying through her exactly what you proposed.
BBH —
My comments were addressed to KH, not you. Sorry. Should have been clearer.
The unfortunate thing about the Hillary threads is that it looks like I am defending her, so I will make it short.
Arianna and any other lefty purists, I offer you a little intellectual algebra:
f(x) = historic landslides
Where x is the democratic base and for f substitute any of the following, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, or just for giggles, Russ Feingold or outright guffaws, Howard Dean. Mr. Gore would just be sad accompanied by even sadder hand gestures and body contortions.
As well he might. Last I saw, he was trying to recruit Florida middle-school teachers to serve as interns in his traveling office.
Matt Esq: Sure, the republicans differ in opinions BUT the republican base- conservatives, Christians, middle class generally agree on the big issues (immigration, abortion, gay marriage).
“Big issues”, my ass. These are classic conservative wedge issues, but they don’t affect you in the same way that the current Republican administration policy does.
Don’t like an abortion? Don’t have one.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t be a homo.
Don’t like furrners? I didn’t see you lining up to get those awesome jobs picking strawberries or gutting chickens for a dollar an hour.
None of these issues hits you where it hurts—unless you happen to be unintentionally pregnant, gay, or a Meskin.
In the meanwhile, GW Bush and pals are screwing America six ways to Sunday, and you’re cheering him on and demonizing anyone who would suggest there’s a different way to run the country. I bet you a delicious, energy-giving donut that nobody on this board is a member of the millionaire class that’s actually benefiting in this plutocracy. But keep it up, people, righteous indignation is so much easier to summon than real answers.
It it just me? Whenever I read Arrianna Huffingpost I hear the theme song to Green Acres.
madjoey sez:
This economy is as strong as it has ever been. Home ownership is at a record high. We’re at full employment.
One need not be a millionaire to benefit from American citizenship. Nor need one be wealthy to have a say in governance. How do you think Democrats get elected?
It’s also not tremendously uncommon to be a millionaire, net worthwise. Anyone with a decent paying gig and 25+ years of working, combined with a sensible financial plan is bound to hit 7 figure net worth by the end of their earning years.
FINANCIST!!!
Thanks to this strong economy and the opportunities it provides me… I’m on my way to a million.
Of course I pay a lot of taxes so it’ll be slower getting there than I’d like… I may not pay as high a percentage bracket-wise as the liberals would have me do, but in real dollars I people like me pay over 90% of the total tax collected from individuals… to explain, my tax rate may only be in the 20% range, but people like me shoulder over 90% of the total load.
Liberals seem to want to raise that number to 100% of the load.
During John Kerry’s campaign I recall him pontificating about taxes and thought well, John when you and Theresa give away $500M of your $1B fortune I promise not to laugh at you anymore.
I do the same with Ted Kennedy (well maybe not)
SteveG: I may not pay as high a percentage bracket-wise as the liberals would have me do, but in real dollars I people like me pay over 90% of the total tax collected from individuals… to explain, my tax rate may only be in the 20% range, but people like me shoulder over 90% of the total load.
Your sentences don’t make sense, grammar-wise, but you’re making a much bigger mistake:
Liberals seem to want to raise that number to 100% of the load.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Liberals want to make your tax burden—you, Steve G Public, regular middle-class guy—lower. We want to shift it back to the upper class—to Teresa Heinz Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Ken Lay and the rest of the millionaires and billionaires, lefties and righties, all of them. And we want to shift the burden back onto corporations, many of which also don’t pay a penny in federal taxes. Liberals think that’s fucked up—don’t you?
Listen: Trickle-down economics doesn’t work. Cutting taxes on the rich doesn’t improve the economy. GHWBush was right when he called trickle-down “voodoo economics”; unfortunately, his son has perfected this retarded policy by listening to the same assholes who came with the idea under Reagan, and if you’re too committed to ideology to see that, then shame on you as a parent, because your descendants will be paying for this foolishness for a long, long time.
During John Kerry’s campaign I recall him pontificating about taxes and thought well, John when you and Theresa give away $500M of your $1B fortune I promise not to laugh at you anymore.
Huh? What does this mean, only conservatives can be rich? That certainly fits in with stereotype, but you sure sound like a leftie when you say you’ll be satisfied when a rich person gives away half his money…
I do the same with Ted Kennedy (well maybe not)
And what is it with the right’s obsession with Ted Kennedy? Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, Chappaquiddick was, what, 40 years ago? Or do we file this under “Hypocrisy, Leftie”, along with Byrd’s KKK activity, to be trotted out at every opportunity?
You conservatives, you’re strange…
Nah… I just don’t like rich people telling me to pay even more.
Trickle down does work. I see it every day.
I’m in very high end $10M plus homes. People will spend over a million on landscaping alone. Seems like a waste, but I make an honest living practicing my trade at a very high level. Guys get jobs, wholesalers sell supplies… and after a few years the owners get tired of it and remodel. The rich spend money when they have it. I’d much rather have them drop that 10-15 million back into the economy without the government eating it up.
Why? Because rich people are evil and less than rich people should get a free ride? Because they use more services and therefore should pay for them? Because if you promise to do that you get votes in the ghetto?
Back? How is it back And what corporation pays no taxes? What stockholders pay no taxes on profits made through corporate ownership?
Then why is the economy in such fabulous shape, despite us being involved in a war? Hint: Tax cuts. And it’s hard to cut taxes on the poor because they don’t pay them.
Tax revenues are at an all time high. The economy has something like 16 straight quarters of growth. How do you explain that?
Just a question: When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?
I myself have never been hired by a poor person, but then I’ve never run for office.
There is also something you are forgetting about corporations. Public corporations are owned by stockholders. People like me who have 401k’s and IRAs and maybe a mutual fund or 529 for the kids. I also work for a corporation, and I always have. A lot of people do. A lot of people who work for these corporations actually own stock in the corporation that they work for. I do.
So look at it this way, the less money a corporation pays in overhead, the better it’s stock does. The corporation pays it’s employees (me) just enough to kep me from quitting, but I own stock, so I’m making money on my own misfortune. Depending on how I own that stock, I might get a dividend, which might go a little ways to off-set my puny salary or, if it’s in my 401k, when I finally have the life sucked out of me and retire, I have something to fall back on and don’t need to rely on public assistance. That saves you money, because my old ass can buy my own dog food, your taxes are lower. And coincidentally the less money old people suck out of the tax system, the larger state lottery jackpots should become, right?
Another good thing about Public companies is that if you don’t like the way a company is run, you can do something about it. Really. You don’t like the way Wal-Mart works, buy some of Wal-Mart, today it’s at about $46. If all the people who hate Wal-Mart bought one share of stock instead of two cases of imported beer, or four tubes of black eyeliner, or one pair of girl-pants, or an Abercrombie shirt, or a Northface backpack, or that cool “vintage” concert shirt…etc, they would be able to ruin a good business model and lose some money.
50 some million people voted for John Kerry, Fidelity owns 112 million shares of Wal-Mart. Ben Affleck might have to spot some of them, but if each of them bought 2 or more shares…you see where this is going.
Once you get say, 113 million shares owned by your group, go to the annual meeting, vote. The next day, you’ll be able to buy a LOT more stock at fire-sale prices. And you know all those people who work for Wal-Mart stocking shelves who pay into their ESOP every two weeks, they deserve to lose that money, the rich bastards.
SteveG, what do you think “the government” does with the tax revenue it collects? It spends it on stuff: defense, war, entitlement programs, cheese logs for welfare queens, dune buggies the President gets to ride around in. If you’re going to say you don’t want the tax revenue for rich folk going to the gummint, at least have the intellectual honesty to say what spending you really find objectionable. I defend your right to say it!
Pablo, honey: Learn something about the shifting of tax burdens over the past 50 years. In 1952, 32% of the US Govt’s revenue came from corporations; in 2003, it was 7%. In 1952, payroll taxes accounted for 10% of revenues; in 2003, 40%. Source for my figures: link. I’m talking about reversing this trend and shifting the tax structure back to the days of yore. (And I’m not talking about capital gains taxes on individuals, so I don’t even know why you brought that up.)
LMK, I’ve never been employed by a poor person. I’ve been employed by corporations for all of my adult life, and for a lot of those years, the stock price in my ESPP went up year over year. But to think this is a given—that stock prices always go up, and that your employer’s stock will always go up—is foolish, and weakens your argument. Hell, all three of my employers’ stock is down compared to where they were 5 years ago; what do you say to employees whose ESPP holdings are declining in value, even though no big bad Leftie policy is devaluing their shares?
As for your notion that shareholder revolt can cause change in companies: Rrrrrrright… As an anti-corporatist, I’m embarrassed to admit that shareholder revolt has few successes to point to, and I have about as much chance to pull together 113 million shareholders as I do of successfully deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. Hey! Maybe that would be a worthwhile use of Govt expenses?
madjoey,
This is from your link:
Now between the 50’s and today, what do you think our GDP looks like? My guess, a lot bigger. That 7% is a lot more money than it was in 1952 even granting inflation.
When a public corporation makes money it’s not supposed to keep it, it’s supposed to distribute it to the owners and the people who work there. Unless you work for a company that keeps a war chest of say 60 billion dollars (talking to you Bill Gates) Corporations typically don’t bring in much at the end of the day, they distribute it and it gets taxed on our end. Too much, in my opinion.
I think we get taxed too much and this enables the govenment to spend too much. I think Congress should go through that book that this jackass puts out and cut most of it. Then go back and cut everything else. Keep the Armed Forces.
As for this:
I say buy low, sell high. It’s not my job to teach people how to manage their money. But they have to manage it. The era of the pension and marking time for 20 years is over. Manage your money as if it was your full-time job, because it is, and you’ll come out ahead if you do. You may have a job at a company, but you work for yourself.
I think we agree on all of that. Sorry I was pretty sarcastic with the shareholder revolt thing. They don’t work because people are making money. People who are making money tend to like it. I think everyone deserves the chance to make as much money as the market can bear. That’s why I think the creation of a perpetual underclass of illegal aliens is a disaster. Send them back home.