Vote breakdown by income (from Ezra Klein), in the 2010 midterms.
Real Murkins make over 200K a year, as you can see. It’s those elitist young bucks making under 50K that hate America.
Reader Interactions
235Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
[…] We all talk a lot about frustration with those who “vote against their economic interests,” but apparently (and this is from the 2010 Republican/Tea Party wave) folks do seem to get it, as seen in this chart from Balloon Juice: […]
williamc
Why wouldn’t you overwhelmingly vote for the charlatans that always want to give you tax cuts, no matter what, and will fellate you and your Gaultian genius at every turn?
Elvis Elvisberg
Amazing how skewed our low turnout makes things– that the top about 2% of earners make up 8% of the electorate.
stuckinred
It’s good to see I am out of step with my peers!
Halteclere
Off the cuff I think this indicates that people who have had the system fail them, or who have experienced financial, medical, educational, etc. events outside of their control – those who are closer to the need for a societal safety net – vote Democratic.
Those who believe that luck, connections, background, etc. had little impact on their “self-made” success vote Republican.
Comrade Mary
Huh. I’m intrigued by the u-curve on education:
No High School (3%) Dem: 57% Rep: 36% Other/No answer: 7%
H.S. Graduate (17%) Dem: 46% Rep: 52% Other/No answer: 2%
Some College (28%) Dem: 43% Rep: 53% Other/No answer: 4%
College Graduate (30%) Dem: 40% Rep: 58% Other/No answer: 2%
Postgraduate (21%) Dem: 53% Rep: 45% Other/No answer: 2%
Yutsano
@Halteclere: Having used the social safety net, I’m damn glad it was there. Now that I no longer need it, I feel almost protective of ensuring that it stays for the future.
David Fud
Wealthy folks have forgotten their part of the social contract: It is a lot less expensive to maintain some social programs and social stability than to rebuild your burned-down mansions and replace your stolen silver.
Wonder what it might take to remind these Galtian jackoffs that there is value in keeping the vast underclass from starving/freezing to death.
harokin
You have to credit the Republicans for actually being responsive to their demographic. The wealthy know exactly what they’re getting when they pull the lever.
Fargus
@Comrade Mary: Is there a racial component to this? That is, racial minorities tend to vote Democratic, but be less educated on average. Perhaps this is part of what’s showing up in the No High School part of the data, but I’m just spitballing.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
Seems to me that “swing voter” should be defined as “makes between 50 and 75K a year.”
Caz
Here’s a thought (not necessarily my opinion, but more of a devil’s advocate type argument):
Perhaps voting is not a result of income, but that voting and income are results of some third factor: intelligence, common sense, being well informed, understanding how gov’t works and what our gov’t is doing/not doing, etc.
I think more factors should be incorporated into this chart to get a better idea of why people vote the way they do.
Clearly, there is no direct correllation between income and voting. There must be at least one additional factor linking the two, because income and voting are separate things that are not connected in any way absent a third “connector” factor. What that factor(s) is, I’ll leave to each individual to contemplate.
But a really intelligent dude might end up getting a Ph.D. and making $500,000/year. His intelligence may help him understand the issues better, leading to him voting the “right” way. While an uneducated, high-school dropout of low intelligence who makes $20,000/year might not be smart enough to understand what’s going on, and may be more susceptible to propaganda, and therefore votes “wrong.”
On the other hand, perhaps the conservatives pander to rich folks, and that’s why the higher income people vote conservative. But this chart doesn’t prove that assertion either.
Although I understand that you juicetards think the immediate above paragraph explains the discrepancy.
Keep in mind, also, that all of what I’ve written is with the assumption that the chart is factually accurate, which I have no basis to believe it is or is not factually accurate. For purposes of the comments I made above, I’m ASSUMING it’s accurate.
Troll out!
Bob Loblaw
Um, yeah.
Democrats win the lower class. Republicans win the upper-middle and upper classes. And whoever wins the middle class wins it all. The whiter this all gets, the more likely a Republican win. The browner, Democratic.
Which part of this was supposed to be surprising? Turn out your fucking voters, or shut up. And if voters aren’t willing to put in fifteen minutes of work, once every two years (at minimum), then they get exactly what they have coming.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I’m curious what will happen to the voting patterns when Republican policies make more and more people poor.
PeakVT
@Comrade Mary: Proof that a little bit of education is a dangerous thing?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Caz: Interesting comment. Why did you waste it by inserting “juicetards” into it?
MattR
@Comrade Mary: Not all that surprising. Isn’t the steroetype that Democrats are the uneducated poor and the intellectual elite?
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Because the troll is not interested in engaging in any interesting conversation.
Halteclere
Yutsano:
I feel the same. During the middle of the ’70’s my parents were on food stamps because my mom didn’t make enough as a teacher, and my dad was just starting his construction business. Even though I was quite young I can remember when my parents could actually afford to stop using powdered milk.
Since then my father has grown his company to where it does over $1M in business each year in my small home town, my mother worked her way to assistant principle, and both my brother and I have multiple college degrees. But if my family hadn’t been able to get started all those years ago things probably would not have turned out near as well.
Mark S.
It just keeps getting better, for the super-rich:
evinfuilt
Well rich people are obviously Galtian geniuses, so we must all vote lockstep with them; for only in their interests is there actual prosperity.
Please ignore all the rich democrats who earned their money instead of getting it via daddy, they don’t know what it’s really like to be really rich. Damn new money always screwing up like that.
Social Outcast
Hey, getting 40% of under $30k voters – people you will be spending the next two years screwing over – is a neat political trick.
shortstop
And to take a little liberty with the lyrics, the 40% of the under-$30Ks who vote Republican are born without eyesight/born without sense.
Elizabelle
The Republicans have long been known as the party of aspiration.
Which is why you see a lot of support among entrepreneurial Asians, Cubans, corporate types.
Key to Democrats, I would think, is reframing just what one’s aspirations are (clearly, the GOP has the Galt vote).
Also better, simple but not simplistic messaging directed to male voters, especially working class/tradesman white?? Because it’s like they’ve been ceded to the Fox/Limbaugh demographic, and a lot of them pay more attention than you think. (Albeit, they’re likely to vote “culturally” and stick with the Confederate party.)
I would love to see some direct advertisements geared to small businessmen. Who do worry about payroll and healthcare.
About how much more the Democrats support their efforts than the GOP.
Yes, the GOP is business friendly.
Big, corporatist, multinational, bankster, armies of lobbyists-hiring friendly.
It’s not a friend to small or midsized business at all.
PS: Small to midsized depends on well educated workers.
Big business can outsource and import them.
Democrats are the party of main street.
But too much of our voting public doesn’t or won’t get that.
EconWatcher
I’m actually kind of suprised by this–where are the limousine liberals?
I would also think more of the rich would be smart enough to see that Obama saved their hides more than anyone’s by averting an economic collapse.
BFR
@Brian S (formerly Incertus):
There’s some serious stupid in the $50k to $75k segment. If you’re pulling in less than $75k and voting republican (which most of ’em are) then you deserve all the shafting you’re gonna get from the GOP and then some.
Yutsano
@MattR: And once again we get a pile of flaming poo on the back porch. I’mma gonna get on you kids for leaving the back gate unlocked.
@Halteclere: I literally hit as rock bottom as you could go after a prolonged illness, and the bennies I got barely kept me afloat. But they did. I now have more income than at any time in my life and stability for decades, but without that buoyancy Allah only know where I’d be.
And on that note, it’s time to go earn a living. Y’all have fun.
shortstop
@Yutsano: Don’t be silly! You should take a page from Craig T. Nelson.
Chad N Freude
@Caz:
The chart doesn’t PROVE anything. It shows a possible correlation (a word that you actually used in your comment). I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at here. Is it “We have a chart of unknown accuracy that is the product of a biased or unbiased attempt to find or show a correlation”?
ETA: I couldn’t find a source cite in Klein’s post.
Bob Loblaw
@Mark S.:
Can you imagine how much worse it would be if we didn’t have a tyrannical soshulist monster as President standing in their way?
shortstop
@EconWatcher: Most of them are still firmly denying that there would have been a collapse. They seriously cannot look six seconds down the road if it means delaying one single financial gratification.
Brachiator
@Halteclere:
You can’t necessarily determine this by the exit poll results. For example, younger people tended to vote Democratic Party, and younger people typically are at the beginning of their careers. On the other hand, a lot of the older voters are deep into their version of the safety net, social security, Medicare, maybe government pensions.
The other thing that is significant is the change from the 2008 elections. Then, 51% of those making between $75,000 and $100,000 voted for Obama; and 52% of those making more than $200,000 voted for Obama.
There has been a shift here which cannot be explained just by looking at income numbers.
Fargus
@Brachiator: Part of it is called turnout.
Mnemosyne
@Caz:
Based on Comrade Mary’s statistics, that guy is more likely to vote for a Democrat, not a Republican. So, yes, I would agree that he probably understands the issues better and can see past the end of his own nose.
Paul in KY
@David Fud: Burning down some mansions & swiping their silverware (for a start).
Roger Moore
@Yutsano:
Which just goes to show that you don’t have what it takes to be a Galtian overlord. If you did, you’d say IGMFY and demand that the programs be dismantled now that you’re the one doing the paying.
Under the Aurora Freeway
@Caz: Boring troll is boring.
lacp
Damn. As a third-party guy I find this quite depressing. You’d think with the economy in the tank and a clear set of villains we could have rounded up more than 3-4% of voters who wanted to hang hedge-fund managers from lampposts. Guess I’ll have to get off my lazy ass next time instead of just voting and coughing up a few bucks.
beltane
@Comrade Mary: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?
Chris
@evinfuilt:
I wonder if there’s actually a voting difference between old money and new money. Anybody know if there’s been a study on this?
Chris
@Elizabelle:
I thought for Cubans and Asians, it was primarily bad memories from communism. They came to America to escape communist rule, remember how bad it was, and thus gravitate to the party that shreiks loudest against the communist bogeyman.
(I’ve read somewhere that Democrats still had a majority in the overall Asian vote, but that the Vietnamese vote specifically, for example, still went to Republicans).
stuckinred
@Chris: Choi Duc!
EconWatcher
Chris:
Isn’t the stereotype that old money is more liberal (“noblesse oblige”) and new money is more conservative or libertarian (“I made it on my own; why can’t you?”)
Purely anecdotal, but in my own experience the stereotype roughly holds up as true.
PurpleGirl
@Chris:
Anecdote: At the non-profit where I used to work I slightly knew a number of people with old money and a bunch of new money people. The old money people were Democrats and the new money, although I think they saw themselves as Democrats, sounded much more Republican in outlook.
Halteclere
Brachiator:
Good point. Younger people, even if they don’t go to college, are just getting started and typically have not yet moved much beyond entry-level jobs.
Concerning the 2008 elections, most everyone was in the middle of experiencing the crashing of the economy on George Bush and the Republican’s watch. Now those memories are distant and more difficult to correctly recall when looking through the purposefully generated false fog of information that has blanketed everything since then.
Litlebritdifrnt
@beltane:
Except these people are self reporting. How many people do you know that will admit, to a casual questioner, that they never finished High School?
stuckinred
@Litlebritdifrnt: I will I will! (Well, I did get a GED)
Chris
@EconWatcher:
Sure, but the opposing stereotype is new money people remembering what it’s like being poor and so having compassion, while old money people are so immersed in their privileges they neither know nor care. I was wondering if anyone had ever studied the stereotypes and seen which was true.
(I only know two really rich people, neither of them self-made, one Democrat and one Republican, so my own experience doesn’t cover much).
jwest
Halteclere,
Just out of curiosity, how did your parents vote before and how do they vote now?
Brachiator
@Fargus:
Which makes any definitive conclusions about what the numbers “mean” even more ridiculous.
@Chris:
Define “old money?” Especially in the US, this is a very loosey goosey term.
And bonus points for those who can name one of the very few families who have had continuously long wealth in America.
@Elizabelle:
This is the new mythology of the Republican Party. The GOP has more been known as the asses who would choke off the aspirations of others. Democrats made their bones being in favor of the fair break for the common man.
BFR
Interesting other segments:
White women favored the GOP by almost 20 points. Uh, whoops?
Whites with incomes less than $50k favored the GOP by 12 points – seems like our educational sysstem needs to work on basic math skills…
White voters with a college degree were less likely to favor the GOP than white voters without a college degree. What’s interesting here is the fact that the inverse is true for non-whites – as I’d expect, a higher educational attainment level (and thus income potential) drives a larger percentage of non-whites to favor the GOP.
Turgidson
I can at least understand the motivations of those making $200k+ in voting for the teatards and corporatists. Everyone below that is a blithering idiot if they think those twats have their interests at heart.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@Elizabelle:
if it were that easy, we could make inroads into the military.
i mean, who loves the troops more when it comes to paying them and taking care of their actual needs?
but the military culture is decidedly pro-conservative. despite the fact the military is only friendly to defense contractors and those ranking high enough to be well-paid by them eventually.
real, actual small business people are a paranoid lot, they believe everyone and everything is trying to screw them ans theirs over at every turn. they respond to the rhetoric, not the reality. the reality is that the gop’s idea of being pro business, is pro the kind of business that would and can turn out their lights if given the need/chance.
i think its easier work to get people who don’t vote to switch to dem voting, than to switch gop voters who are voting for less apparent reasons than pure economic self interest, to deprogram the gop message, then take up the dem message.
Chris
@Brachiator:
Inherited money. If your parents or anyone before them are the ones who brought the family into wealth, “old money.” If you did it yourself, “new money.” That’s how I was picturing it when I asked the question, at least.
Back to you: define “continuously”? The only three I can think of are the Rockefellers (rich since the Gilded Age), the Kennedys (rich since Prohibition), and the Bushes (don’t know when they started, but Prescott Bush was a rich man during World War Two so at least that long).
Yep. And I’d argue that even if it’s presented itself as the party of small business recently, the truth is that it’s always (or at least since the Gilded Age) been Wall Street’s PAC above anything else. Including during the New Deal years and the postwar era.
PurpleGirl
@Chris: See, the old money people I knew were the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the industrialist who made the money. Some of these people were “poor” compared to the new money board members but they felt much more keenly the fissures in society and wanted to help society much more. Many of the new money people were much more conspicuous in their consumption and shows of their wealth and when they spoke about politics were much more Republican sounding. (Sorry, but I can’t name names; my job was in fundraising and I had confidential knowledge about everyone.)
ETA: I use old money to describe wealth made in the late 1800s and early 1900s; new money is contemporary. Also, these people from old money did not inherit so much that they did not have to work now, they still had to generate their own current income. For many it was family wealth.
Maude
@stuckinred:
#44
You had what I would call an interesting earlier life.
Brachiator
@Chris:
Two generations? I don’t know. Seems too soon.
But here’s a quick thing. Forbes recently came out with their annual Richest List. Top 10: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg, the Koch Brothers and members of the Walton family. The only ones who inherited the bulk of their pile are the Waltons and the Koch boys. The Koch brothers, pretty much the definition of evil, not so sure about the Waltons yet. But this is all pretty much 20th century money. Not very old.
RE: And bonus points for those who can name one of the very few families who have had continuously long wealth in America.
I will keep this one going for a while, for anyone interested. But the Kennedys are kinda recent, I would think.
JGabriel
Jeepers. Where did all the morons in the 50-100k range who think Republicans are on their side come from?
.
Halteclere
jwest:
My parents have always been midwestern Democrats.
Chris
@Brachiator:
Well, I was just thinking of how being raised normal or poor and then building yourself up to great wealth would affect your judgement, as opposed to having been raised in great wealth from the day you were born.
PurpleGirl
@Chris: Prescott Bush probably would have been complaining about not being really rich — he worked for Brown Brothers Harriman (an investment bank). Now those were the guys who were really rich.
PurpleGirl
@JGabriel: These are the asses who think that tomorrow they are magically going to be RICH.
stuckinred
@Maude: Hell yes!
JGabriel
@harokin:
Apparently not. Markets and the economy do better under Democratic administrations. If the rich, as a class, knew what they were getting and voted to increase their profits, they’d vote Democratic.
.
Roger Moore
@EconWatcher:
I think there’s no general connection between how new the money is and the owner’s political outlook. You can also argue that new money knows what it’s like to be middle class, so they’re more likely to know how the other half lives, while heirs living on inherited wealth favor conservative policies that help them preserve their inherited wealth.
jwest
For general consumption:
The meme that conservatives lack “compassion” is false. The difference is our approach to problems. When a liberal sees someone who is so poor they can’t afford basic food, shelter and necessities, they tend to take a simplistic approach.
“Hey, there is a rich person over there! He has more than he needs, so let’s take some of his money and give it to the poor person. Problem solved!”
Although this does solve the immediate problem, it creates more in its wake. First of which is the danger that you run out of rich people to take from before you run out of poor people to give to. Next, and more importantly, you destroy the dignity and sense of self worth in the person you are trying to help.
Conservatives wouldn’t let anyone go without the basic necessities, as proven by their record of charitable giving. However, our approach is to incentivize and encourage self-sufficiency so that the help someone is receiving is temporary. By doing this, we try to avoid generational dependency and instill a sense of independence.
Fantasizing about being morally superior to greedy capitalists does have a certain appeal, but if you actually stop and think about it, whose approach seems like the right one for the long run?
Davis X. Machina
Two words — constituent service.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Caz:
A rhetorical tell that says, “What follows is piffle.”
QED.
ETA: Further, it appears you are muddling correlation and cause.
Davis X. Machina
“Basic necessities” in this case being college education and classical music, as much as food, clothing, and shelter. And it’s tax-advantaged.
Roger Moore
@Brachiator:
How long does it have to be? The Rockefellers have been rich since the late 19th Century; is that long enough to count? If it is, you could also include some similarly old families like the Coors and Busch families. If you want money older than that, the only ones I can think of are the DuPonts and Astors.
Turgidson
@Chris:
Having known some people of both persuasions, it is hard to predict. Some “new wealth” people I know have almost no trouble forgetting what it was like before they were rich, and act like entitled fuckwits. And some “old money” people who have never been in need of anything and probably never will have considerable empathy for the less well-off.
But that’s just my own anecdotal observation. There are probably trends.
James E Powell
@Brachiator:
In American culture, it doesn’t take very long to be regarded as “old” or “traditional.” Quite often, it only takes two generations to be regarded as American aristocrats.
For the bonus points, I would nominate the DuPonts.
The real old money stays out of the news, for the most part. If you want to know the old money in your city, look at who endows the art museums and the orchestras.
Sly
@Brachiator:
Mythology, however artificial, is still the most powerful force in politics. Republican’s have grafted themselves onto the aspirational mythology because that is pretty much the quintessential American mythology, going all the way back to the independent yeoman farmer who never really existed at all.
Yeah, it’s all bullshit in a factual sense. There was never any Golden Age for anyone. Hell, Conservative Golden Age worship is so plainly ridiculous that it actually comes in distinct 30 year periods, with every new generation acting as the harbingers of the halcyon days. But people believe it, because you have to believe it in order to be an American.
evinfuilt
@EconWatcher:
Since I started with my silly remarks. I think it’s pretty much a wash, what it comes down to is the values instilled on the money. You can get your money handed to you, along with responsibility (thinking early 20th century), or you can get money handed to you and you’re going to do everything you can to keep it (Koch
suckersbrothers.)Bill Gates is an interesting person, because he did come from money, but made so much more that it was like coming from absolute poverty to the stage he’s at. Still, he must have learned a lot from his family seeing how strong the generosity streak is in him.
Mnemosyne
@jwest:
The funny thing to me is that you actually think that’s what progressive taxation is.
Talk about “simplistic approaches.” Kettle, meet pot.
Comrade Mary
@jwest:
1. Drives jwest to Lake Ontario.
2. Gives jwest a teaspoon and tells him to empty the lake.
3. Plans to check back in after the ants have overcome the square-cube law, grown ginormous, and taken over the world. May bring jwest a bigger spoon.
Halteclere
Brachiator
I read somewhere once that, typically, wealth in America only lasts about three generations. The first generation who accumulated the wealth typically put their noses to the grindstone and didn’t have extravagant tastes. The second generation grew up in wealth and were given the finer things, but were close enough to the 1st generation to get some of the work effort. The third generation was too far removed from the first generation for the nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic to be passed on, and therefore tended to squander the wealth. Plus by then the first generation’s wealth had would have been divided by several heirs.
Chris
@JGabriel:
Sure, but they’re not in it for markets and the economy, they’re in it for themselves. If you can make an obscene amount of profit and then bail out with a golden parachute, who cares what happens to “the markets?” All that matters is that you get to keep as much of the money for yourself and your family as possible (hence the obsession with income tax and inheritance tax).
jwest
As to the argument over old versus new money and how each falls on the ideological scale, I believe you would find the majority of new money (self-made) voters to be conservatives. Old money (inherited) tends to come with a modicum of guilt that lends itself to liberal leanings.
FlipYrWhig
@jwest:
See, when conservatives give people money, it works, because it’s conservative. But when liberals give people money, it doesn’t work, because it’s liberal. Very enlightening.
evinfuilt
@Turgidson:
The $200k are also idiots, they’re just the future middle class that the real rich will spit and crap on. On Colbert this week he was told he maybe rich, but he’s Redstones bitch in the end. It’s the truth, someone is always out to take yours and push you down. A truly progressive tax system (with matching estate taxes) is the only way to keep multi-generational wealth from turning into monarch like power.
Brachiator
@PurpleGirl:
Good point. But some of these people maintained their social position even though their wealth no longer measured up compared to the newcomers.
At lot of these people were filled with resentment at their loss of real influence.
@Chris:
I’ve known some people who have made a pile and immediately began telling their children that they are “superior” or more worthy than other people. It’s sad and strange to watch this happening.
On the other hand a friend in college had a grandfather who made a big pile. His father married the daughter of a wealthy rancher. My friend’s generation was fairly liberal, but lazy, and joked that the wealth was being spread out so that his own grandkids would probably have to get jobs.
Roger Moore
@James E Powell:
Only works in a city that has actual old money. I don’t think J. Paul Getty, Norton Simon, Eli Broad, Walt Disney, or even Dorothy Chandler would count.
jwest
FlipYrWhig,
When conservatives give money, it’s theirs. When liberals give money, it came from someone else.
Mnemosyne
@Turgidson:
It also depends on how the person was raised, frankly. Remember that line from The Great Gatsby:
If, on the other hand, you’re raised to think you’re a little prince or princess (*cough*ParisHilton*cough*), you’re going to regard less wealthy people in a very different way. Some people are able to break away from their upbringing, but it’s a pretty hard thing to do.
IIRC, Bill Gates has said that he will do the same thing his father is doing — leave his kids a reasonable inheritance and donate the rest — because having too much money will just ruin the kids. So the Gates heirs will probably turn out okay.
jrg
@jwest: Do you have any evidence for that, or did that come from your ass?
FWIW, I do pretty well for myself, and I’ve never inherited any money. I vote Dem because I’d rather feed hungry people than pour trillions into a desert halfway around the world… And because I don’t think there is any way we can function in the 21st century with xenophobic, anti-science leadership… And because I’m aware of the fact that NPR does not make up 20% of the federal budget.
Edit:
“When liberals give money, it came from someone else.”
You’re such a fucking liar. I donated over 5k to charity last year. How much did you give?
Failure, Inc.
This was pretty self-evident. I’d be far more interested to see a breakdown of who doesn’t vote at all, based on income.
evinfuilt
@jwest:
Good news everyone, we don’t have a shortage on rich people. In fact they’re so over the top rich, they won’t even feel it.
Mind you, the Republican method of cutting taxes on the rich and increasing payroll taxes so that the poor don’t even notice their taxes going up (except in stagnation), that works out swell don’t you think?
FlipYrWhig
@jwest: Conservatives have money and are good people, while liberals take money and are bad people. Got it. Also, the Red Sox are a better team than the Yankees, because the Yankees suck, whereas the Red Sox do not. QED.
Turgidson
@evinfuilt:
Oh I agree. I can just see their short-term motivation since the GOP was so strident in their defense of Bush’s tax cut fiasco. You need to be an order of magnitude richer than making 200k/year to really be one of the people the GOP is looking out for. No question about that.
stuckinred
@jwest: You are so fucking full of shit. . .
jwest
Jrg,
Talk about pulling things out of your ass…
Wealth is proportional. What you consider a great deal of money may be what someone else spends on lunch.
Chris
“Charity has always eased the rich man’s conscience long before easing the poor man’s stomach.”
French proverb.
Cris
HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha haah gasp ha ha ha hah aha haha
Hey jwest, there’s a movie coming out this month I bet you’ll like, it has trains in it
Mnemosyne
jwest’s definition of stealing money from the rich and distributing it to poor people:
roads
bridges
schools
fire protection
police protection
employment services
child care
Head Start
Tell ya what, jwest. When you figure out how to run your business without using public roads, public bridges, and other little amenities of civilization that we have all paid for, then you can whine about your taxes. Until then, you’re just a moocher who doesn’t want to pay his fair share to keep things running and expects other people to foot the bill on his behalf.
Huh, sounds just like what conservatives are always accusing poor people of, doesn’t it? There’s a reason I say that projection is behind every Republican meme. If conservatives are against it, you can be guaranteed that they’re secretly doing that thing themselves.
Either go live in a unabomber shack with absolutely no help from the government — and that would include giving up the internet, BTW, developed by the government — or stop whining like a three-year-old and pay your fair share.
JGabriel
I wrote this ten days ago:
Why is anyone still responding to this troll?
.
JGabriel
Link for the above referenced post.
.
Chad N Freude
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel): I got there first.@Chad N Freude. I win.
Paul in KY
@Brachiator: The Clark family also (of course, the youngest and surviving member is 105).
latts
@Comrade Mary:
Bachelor’s degrees are as likely to be mere credentials as anything resembling real education. Since we’ve commodified education and come to use it as a screening process for middle-class employment, a significant number of college students are only there to get their tickets for the future-earnings train punched. And for the parties, of course.
Sam
Don’t join me out on this limb here, but I’m going to guess jwest is a guy. And white. And Christian. And probably puts on a faux southern accent around Teatards so they won’t think he’s one of the gays or something.
Turgidson
@Mnemosyne:
agreed.
Which is one of many reasons why I’d be in full-throated support of a progressive estate tax that doesn’t kick in for a while, but escalates until it eventually confiscates nearly all of estates once they reach, say, the tens of millions.
Too bad there’s a better chance I’ll learn to fly than something like this would ever be considered, much less passed. It would probably take another World War (and we’d probably have to be at risk of invasion), which I’d prefer to avoid.
jo6pac
Old right wing money.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/pew.html
Halteclere
jwest:
Conservatives GET their money from everyone else (as do liberals for that matter). Conservatives think that they have full rights to the portion of the evaporation/rain cycle that passes through their bank accounts, not caring where the water originated as long as they collect as much in their lakes as possible.
Without people having the money to buy things, manufactures of things will not be able to sell their goods and make money. Money, like H20, constantly is changing from evaporation (expenses) to rainfall (income). Conservatives want to siphon off all the river of commerce that they can without regards for anyone else who is farther downstream.
Brachiator
@James E Powell:
@Roger Moore:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
The Dupont wealth dates from around 1803. The Astors have been prominent since the founding of the country, but fell from great prominence when John Jacob Astor IV was killed on the Titanic.
And John E. du Pont was found guilty but mentally ill in the 1996 slaying of Olympic wrestler David Schultz. Old, perverted money, in this case.
Often true, for the most part, especially after the days of the conspicuous ostentation of the Gilded Age and stuff like the Bradley Martin Ball.
Those were the days.
Calouste
@Roger Moore:
The Vanderbilts go back to the early 1800’s. (Fun fact: Anderson Cooper is descended from the Vanderbilts). There are probably a few families whose wealth goes back to Dutch colonial days. I don’t know if the van Rensselears are still around, but they would be a good candidate.
Of course this all kind of pales compared to England, where a significant portion of the land is still owned by descendents of the barons who came over with William the Conquerer. Now that is oooooollldddd money.
Chris
@JGabriel:
Ahhh, now I remember. The multiculturalism debate. How Europe was somehow going to dissolve multiculturalism and yet maintain a trilingual setup in Switzerland, a protected status for Basque culture, a four-nations-in-one setup in Britain, but those things didn’t count as multiculturalism because shut up that’s why…
I thought the name was familiar.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@Chris:
everyone gets the same amount of ice, the rich get it in the summer, and the poor get it in the winter.
Cris
This is like a duck pond, where the fattest, pushiest geese get the most bread crumbs.
Paul in KY
@evinfuilt: I don’t think giving stuff to your own charity is really generosity. I would like to see him & his wife give the money to charities they have no control over (like I do). That is charity (IMO).
Mnemosyne
Anderson Cooper is a Vanderbilt (his mother is Gloria Vanderbilt). That might be the winner in the Oldest American Money sweepstakes since Cornelius made a lot of his money prior to the Civil War.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Elizabelle:
I agree, EXCEPT in the area of taxation and S-corps. If Democrats would really push to reform income tax so that S-corps are treated differently than wage earners for the purposes of income tax, then the GOP wouldn’t have the ‘EVIL liberals want to destroy your small business with high income taxes’ plank to beat us over the head with.
Sly
@Chris:
Even if they were for personal growth, they’d vote Democratic. What they’re for is a sense of managerial control; control that they would have to give up for market stability and actual growth.
This, along with the profound myopia that comes with the territory, is why business interests tend toward conservativism.
@jwest: Case in point: This is conservative charity. It is a charity wholly dependent on appeasing the ego of the giver, and not ameliorating the need of the receiver.
Chad N Freude
@jwest:
. . . and as proven by their support of poorhouses in Victorian England, and by their charitable giving to various worthy causes that, unfortunately, don’t do much to alleviate the immediate problems of people who don’t have money.
There is a tradition of wealthy individuals and families who made their fortunes through ruthless Galtian money-grabbing and who subsequently put part of their money to good works (that didn’t do much to alleviate the immediate problems of people who don’t have money): see, e.g., Carnegie, Andrew; Rockefeller, John D; and Gates, Bill. But not all of them: see, e.g., Hilton, Paris et al.
Redshift
@jwest:
Wow, could you fit a few more buzzwords and straw men in there?
It’s be nice if that were the case, but in fact what conservatives do is try to ensure that the help people receive is temporary regardless of whether their need is, and declare that it’s an “incentive” to make it look less heartless.
The classic example is welfare before conservatives “reformed” it. People got stuck on welfare because you could survive on it and getting a job meant your benefits went to zero. The jobs that many people on welfare could reasonably get (when there were any) meant your income fell off a cliff, and chances of getting back above that were iffy. The rational behavior if you want to survive and support a family was to stay on welfare.
An actual incentive would have been to make welfare a sliding scale, so that people can transition off welfare without a serious risk of ending up on the street or their family going hungry. But it’s much easier to assume that they just need to be told they won’t be getting a handout any more, and claim success for “reducing welfare rolls” while having such confidence in your approach that you refuse to fund any followup to find out what happens to those people. “Generational dependency” sounds much nicer than blaming poverty on the character flaws of those people, but it amounts to the same thing.
Yeah, conservative solutions aren’t “simplistic” at all…
Suffern ACE
Gee, the middle class is conservative and lower income people don’t have much presence in discourse. Yet liberals tend to take any idea they don’t like and put it in the mouths of working class people, the ignorant and uneducated. So liberals try to be shocked that people with well-paying jobs and college degrees in 2010 voted against Democrats. (Pretty much all of the ideas in the country are created by upper middle class professionals, but let’s pretend that Tom the Truck Driver is an influencer so that we can bash the stupid ideas that float around in this country). For most of the elections in my adult life, those people vote against Democrats.
Paul in KY
@Sly: Maybe some of what you write. I think they’re in it for the tax benis & getting rid of inheritance taxes, etc.
They are going to take their obscene salaries whether the economy is good or bad or they will be collecting interest on their loot. The differences (between Republican rates & Democratic rates), once you get to the real big money, can be a ‘significant amount’.
It is greeeeeed.
Chris
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:
Good one.
@Sly:
Ever here those preacher-types lecturing people about how if it’s tax money then it’s not really charity because it’s not voluntary, so it’s somehow worthless and doesn’t count?
Yeah, that. What the fuck do they think the point of charity is? Is it for rich people to score goodness points to get into heaven or get a good name in “polite society?” Or might the priority actually be helping the poor?
NonyNony
@EconWatcher:
Who do you think makes up that 34%? Class-traitor limousine liberals, that’s who.
1/3 of them apparently think so. That’s about what I expect. Actually, that’s bigger than I’d expect given that there are no Communist revolutionaries pushing to eat the rich these days.
Mnemosyne
@Paul in KY:
I think that what Gates does is more properly called philanthropy: he’s founding multiple charities with his own money. I know that can often be a scam (like creating a family “foundation” to protect the family’s wealth rather than actually doing anything), but I don’t think it is in Gates’ case, given that he’s donating to global health organizations and traveling to developing countries to see what’s going on for himself.
Brachiator
@Halteclere:
Varies with the family and circumstance. The Dodge Brothers made a huge pile working with Henry Ford. Their wives and children almost immediately fought over the spoils.
Andrew Carnegie gave tons of his money away and his daughter, Margaret Carnegie Miller, was also noted for her philanthropy.
@Roger Moore:
Good examples. And it is funny how some of the Southern California WASP semi-old money did not consider Dorothy Chandler to be really one of the team because she was willing to include “new money” (Hollywood, etc) in her philanthropic endeavors.
Roger Moore
@Chad N Freude:
The Hiltons are actually an interesting case*. Conrad Hilton tried to give away most of his money in his will, but his son Baron successfully contested it and kept the business for himself. Now that Baron is getting old, he’s trying to give away most of the money so his good-for-nothing grandchildren don’t get it all. One more argument for giving away your money while you’re still alive and around to defend the gift from your grasping descendents.
*I happen to know and care about the Hiltons largely because Conrad Hilton was the name donor for the building where I work. Sadly, the younger generation hasn’t stopped by to see their great grandfather’s good works.
Redshift
@JGabriel:
Um, practice? Because, unlike some of the other pathetic trolls, he actually puts forth things to respond to, so even if he’ll never be convinced of how wrongheaded they are, we end up learning some useful things to use with people who can be.
Paul in KY
@Mnemosyne: Well, OK, since you think so & I like the cut of your jib, etc.
I will remove Mr & Mrs Gates from my re-education camp list.
Mnemosyne
@NonyNony:
Yep. All of the people screaming, “Where’s our New Deal?” don’t seem to understand that rich people in the 1930s had a very credible fear of being killed and having all of their stuff taken by Communists. The Russian Revolution was barely 15 years prior. There was a good chance that if things dissolved into chaos, they could end up like the aristocracy in Russia.
Now that the rich don’t have to fear Communism anymore, they’re going for broke because, really, what’s going to stop them?
Roger Moore
@Chris:
I certainly know what that DFH Jesus had to say about it. He said that you should donate anonymously (Matthew 6:1-4). Of course he also said you shouldn’t worry about building up treasure on earth, so you can understand why Conservatives don’t want to listen to anything he said.
PurpleGirl
@Roger Moore: Warren Buffet is another one who is giving away his money before he dies. He’s arranged with Bill Gates to manage his philanthropy and he’s given each of his children an amount of money for their own philanthropy. He doesn’t believe in leaving his children a fortune; they are adults now and each has their own work/careers. (Source: articles in the Chronicle of Philanthropy 4-5 years ago.)
OzoneR
@Chris: Vietnamese still lean Republican, as do Koreans, but Dems have such an advantage with Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Filipino, Thai and other Asian ethnicities (I think even Indians count), that it cancels them out and then some.
Chris
@Mnemosyne:
And yet they do fear communism and the masses revolting and all that. It’s just that they’re actually stupid enough to think Obama is part of that. All that crying about “class warfare?” That’s not window dressing for the rubes (who historically haven’t cared much whether the rich are warred upon): plenty of them actually believe they’re being victimized.
It’s incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid and a case in point of how insular and entitled rich conservatives have become, but no less sincere for all that.
jwest
“Bill Gates has said that he will do the same thing his father is doing—leave his kids a reasonable inheritance and donate the rest—because having too much money will just ruin the kids. So the Gates heirs will probably turn out okay.”
Bill Gates is abrogating his obligations as a wealthy individual. Regardless of how much he and Melinda want to be seen as generous philanthropists, the money they leave to their foundation will be used primarily to perpetuate the foundation.
Great wealth comes with great responsibility. It is incumbent upon those who make large fortunes to do great things with proceeds, and to raise their children to understand their roll in continuing the vision. Build a city. Build a high-speed rail tunnel to Europe. Do something that has a beginning, middle and a definable end. Make a visible, measurable difference.
Otherwise, piss away billions with brain addled foundation managers who lacked the vision to make a dime in the private sector, chasing nebulous bullshit like “bringing peace through understanding”.
beltane
@OzoneR: I recently read somewhere that Indians’ voting patterns are much the same as those for Jews.
Paul in KY
@Roger Moore: That’s why I think it is good strategy to always point out how these Godly rich people (the evangelical christian ones) are basically acting like the biblical pharisees & flouting most all of Jesus’ teachings.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe it, they say they believe it, so start practicing what you preach.
I’m stumped on what to do about the non-Christian ones.
Paul in KY
@PurpleGirl: I think he gave them somwhere around 1 million dollars. That’s not chump change.
cs
@jwest:
If you think of taxes as stealing, then can you tell me why Republicans wanted to steal my money to give to Halliburton? Why did so much of my money get stolen to pay Blackwater? Why does your party want to keep stealing my money and giving it to already insanely-rich oil companies in the form of subsidies? Why are you so happy to steal my money to start wars we don’t need? Or to maintain a military far larger than any potential threat? Why do you want to steal my money to torture people and provide new ways to violate the civil rights of Americans?
When your side had full power, you were thrilled to steal my money for all of the above and more that I haven’t mentioned. Why is paying for bombs so much more worthwhile than paying for someone’s healthcare? Why do the oil companies deserve more and the poor deserve less?
And if taxes are theft and a particularly evil form of theft, how are we going to pay for the wars and the guns that your side absolutely adores?
Paul in KY
@OzoneR: I think the Indians have been mostly Republican in the past, but they’re not stupid & they are becoming more & more Democratic every day.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: And, to make the same point from a different perspective, the Eisenhower-era Republicans maintained a social-welfare state with an American face in order to show the world that Communism wasn’t the only path to egalitarianism. The Cold War was a boon to the “liberal consensus” on both class and race. Once Communism collapsed, powerful elites could finally shake off the sense that the common good was worth seeking and just plunder and pillage at will.
Elia Isquire
I think the reason that this isn’t common knowledge–besides rich people dominating our society and flooding it with misinformation and propaganda ;)–is because there’s a talking point that’s floated around out there for a long time about how the wealthiest states are Blue while the poorest states are Red.
OzoneR
@Chris:
They fear it, yes, but if they can exploit the common person’s fear of it, they can win.
The difference is in the 1930s, it was already happening. Now they just fear it happening at all.
PurpleGirl
@Paul in KY: No, not chump change but not his billions.
Maude
@Mnemosyne:
The Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation.
I am biased against Bill Gates, so take that into account.
Why is he not helping here in the US as he is in Africa? I see this with others and I am confused by it.
It was in the US that Gates got his start and benefited from being a citizen.
He also laughed at the group that was trying to get crank style laptops to people with no money so they could use a computer. The laptop can be used where there’s no electrical power.
FlipYrWhig
@jwest: What if rich people banded together to give a small percentage of their fortunes in order to provide for and defend the common good? It would be great. You know, maybe we could all pitch in, in our own little way. But it’s hard to know the worthiest projects, so we could designate a group of people to represent us and vet them, kind of like The United Way does. If we didn’t like what they were doing, we could fire them. It would be called THE UNITED STATES MOTHERFUCKING GOVERNMENT.
jwest
Cs,
“And if taxes are theft and a particularly evil form of theft, how are we going to pay for the wars and the guns that your side absolutely adores?”
No one has ever argued that taxes were unnecessary, the difference between conservatives and liberals is that we believe the money is ours to begin with and you believe the money belongs to the government.
I would be happy if we could get the concept through to those on the left that corporations don’t pay taxes. No business ever pays taxes. Every dime that a company gives to the government is simply passed through to consumers – there is no magic pot of money where it comes from.
If we could get people to understand this one point, tax policy would be easy.
Roger Moore
@Brachiator:
It’s far more challenging to think of a major LA area cultural institution that was founded by old money than one that was founded by new money. I could have easily added such new money benefactors as David Geffen, Griffith J. Griffith, Mark Taper, Armand Hammer, and Gene Autry. The closest thing I can think of to a real old-money cultural institution is the Gamble House.
Paul in KY
@PurpleGirl: Agreed. But I see him spinning it as they are going out all on their own. Man, if I had 1 million in the bank, I could try just about anything as a career.
No need to worry about failure & being destitute.
I just wish he’d explicitly say that I have left my children more comfortable than just about any other children on earth (which is his right to do, could leave them the whole shebang).
FlipYrWhig
@Maude: Gates’s priority in the US is education. He’s pumped millions into “education reform.” A lot of people are skeptical about his objectives, including Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler among others. But you can’t say he is “not helping here in the US as he is in Africa.”
NonyNony
@FlipYrWhig:
This actually started before the actual collapse. Look at Reagan’s rise to power – that was well before things actually started to fail.
But it certainly accelerated after the collapse of Communism – the Clinton era pols dismantled things faster than Reagan would have ever hoped to have been able to. And of course the activities of the W era are well documented.
MikeJ
@Maude: B&MGF spend billions in the US.
Sly
@Chris:
Neither. The desire, whether conscious or unconscious, is control. They are the paternalist; other people are helped when they decide to help them, and they will be the judge of who is deserving and who is not.
This is rationalized after the fact as independence, the quintessential virtue of American political mythology.
matryoshka
The Carnegies would count as old money, I think. They actually did some good. And here in Chicago, maybe the Pritzkers. Oprah would be in the new money category.
RE: Mnemosyne: “If conservatives are against it, you can be guaranteed that they’re secretly doing that thing themselves.” –Can you imagine all the future leaders they are aborting?
And is it just me, or is jwest very tedious?
NonyNony
This is a lie, troll.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals believe that pooling our money together to do good things with it is a worthwhile endeavor and conservatives believe that collectivism is shit unless it involves blowing people up.
Liberals know that the money isn’t “the government’s money” – we just believe that if you want to live in a first world country and have nice things you have to fucking pay for them. Conservatives think that you can live in a first world country by paying for the biggest military and the largest prison system and not worrying about things like education or roads.
We also tend to believe in a little thing called “democracy” – where ideally there isn’t a separation between the government and the people because the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Unfortunately we have to share the country with a whole swath of people who don’t believe in democracy and use democratic institutions to subvert it and try to turn us back to monarchy. Like you, troll.
Your troll-fu is weak. Try again.
jwest
FlipYrWhig,
For some reason, you seem to believe conservatives don’t want any government. You (of course) are wrong.
Conservatives are very pro-government, but we are pro-effective government as opposed to the bloated, ill-managed, rudderless mess you have in Washington.
You’re a big MSNBC fan, aren’t you?
FlipYrWhig
@NonyNony: Good point. I also think that the hyperactive growth of finance capitalism is killing America. Those old industrial capitalists could be bastards, but they could say that they had made a fortune running an enterprise that did useful things (digging coal, pumping oil, laying railroad track, etc.). What do investment bankers make? Money for the sake of money. It offends me, on a conceptual level.
PurpleGirl
@Paul in KY: IIRC, he gave his kids the money specifically for philanthropy not as their personal support/income.
Poopyman
@Comrade Mary: The only time in my life I was on food stamps (knock on wood) was during graduate school.
geg6
@Paul in KY:
Yeah, gotta say that they don’t belong there. I have had several students come through college just at my small campus of a major university with Gates Scholarships. All students from the lowest income levels. All students who managed to succeed academically despite their circumstances (and for some of them, it was horrible). All students who would never have been able to attend most colleges, let alone one of the most expensive public universities in the nation, because the cost is so prohibitive to people of their SES. The Gates Scholarship gave them each over $16,000 a year for all four years. And they do this for thousands of kids every year.
I have been in student aid for almost 22 years. I have not seen another scholarship program as generous and that is specifically aimed to the poorest of students. Too many scholarships are aimed strictly at academic merit only and don’t take financial need into account. I can tell that the vast majority of outside scholarships go to students from stable, upper middle and upper class families and went to good, high performing mostly suburban high schools. Bill and Melinda Gates made sure that financial need and academic merit are equally important in the scholarship criteria and then made sure that students from the lowest performing, poorest high schools got preference.
If that isn’t worthy of praise, I don’t know what is.
Chris
@NonyNony:
I was just going to say that.
Yes, the original message we tried to send during the Cold War was “see, egalitarianism can happen without communism” (hence the support for welfare states forming in Europe, and the pressure for decolonization elsewhere). But there was always a powerful right-wing undercurrent going “fuck that, egalitarianism’s for pussies. And communists.”
That movement finally won out when Reagan came to power. But in a lot of ways it was already winning as early as the 1950s – look at the democratic governments we overthrew in the third world basically just for wanting their own New Deal.
FlipYrWhig
@jwest: Were you, or are you, one of those 10-year-old kids who becomes a Republican media celebrity? Because you’re the most vanilla, conventional, by-the-numbers conservative troll I have seen since the days of “eternal September” on Usenet.
stuckinred
@geg6: Remember the old BEOG?
Church Lady
@Halteclere: Everyone gets their money from someone else. Unless, of course, you have a printing press in your basement and are pounding out $100s.
When it comes to income inequality, what I want to know is why has it increased. And no, I don’t think it has a whole lot to do with tax rates. Income inequality was increasing long before George Bush came into office and cut taxes and it was occurring while Bill Clinton was in office and raising taxes.
Looking at the poor and figuring out why they are poor is uncomfortable for many, because while there are external causes that are beyond control of the poor, there are an awful lot of bad choices made on a personal level that correspond with their inability to climb up. But, doing anything other than blaming the “rich” for the plight of the poor, or even the lower middle class, seems to take a little air out of the liberal argument on the causes of income inequality.
NonyNony
@Chris:
And that right-wing got empowered by the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
That’s actually what I trace it back to – it needed to be done and it was the right thing to do and given the situation it would need to be done again. But it was the thing that let the right crawl its way back to power earlier than they should have in this country. White resentment over having to treat blacks like people finally gave the Birchers the critical mass of sympathizers to start to be a real political force. And they’ve been taking over the Republican party in the US ever since.
geg6
@jwest:
You really are ignorant as to how endowments work, aren’t you?
FlipYrWhig
@Chris: True. Those pro-autocratic counterrevolutions and coups (like against Mossadegh and Arbenz) are IMHO a rather dark mark on American policy. But I was mostly thinking about domestic policy as a tool of foreign policy rather than the other way around.
Chyron HR
@jwest:
I continue to be in awe of the amazing psychic power Republicans possess that allows them to determine what other people–even people with whom they claim to share no personality traits whatsoever–“believe”.
jwest
FlipYrWhig,
I thought it best to keep things on a level you could understand.
Mnemosyne
I can’t help wondering how this is going to change those statistics:
Cops, firefighters turn on GOP in labor fight
I really doubt these guys are going to forget by 2012 that the GOP tried to bust their unions. I don’t know if Republicans didn’t realize how many of these guys voted for them or if they just didn’t care, but it’s gonna be interesting.
geg6
@Maude:
Please see my comment #154 for your answer to that question about why the Gates don’t help in America. Funnily enough, it seems they do.
JGabriel
jwest @ 64:
Yeah, that generational dependency is … Wait, did you have something to add?
jwest @ 129:
Oh.
Hmmm.
.
Chris
@jwest:
And that’s why I see you guys protesting the Pentagon’s budget all the time.
Svensker
@cs:
Amen.
FlipYrWhig
I have an old cat who still gets excited about the _idea_ of playing with a piece of string but gets bored quickly after taking a couple of swipes. Then she gets all languid. I think I just had that experience.
Chris
@Church Lady:
If I had to guess: union-busting, and the government’s abrogation of its job as a guarantor of labor rights. (That would be the Reagan years, I believe).
Back when unions actually had a strong voice in their parent companies, there was more pressure upon the rich for their money to actually “trickle down” to their employees. Without the unions, there’s no brake on their power anymore, which means less and less money for the employees and more and more for their Ponzi schemes, tax havens, and country club membership dues.
Mnemosyne
@jwest:
Actually, all money does come from the government. Take a dollar bill out of your pocket and look at it. See where it says “Secretary of the Treasury” rather than “CEO of Mobil”? That means it came from the government.
The only thing that makes that piece of paper worth anything at all is the government. If you guys get your wish and collapse the government, you’re going to have to use your precious $100 bills as toilet paper because they’re not going to be worth anything more than the paper they’re printed on without a government to back them up.
geg6
@jwest:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Funniest fucking thing I’ve read in weeks. And that includes everything that comes of Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann’s mouth.
Dude, I hate to break it to you but that mess in DC? It’s on you and yours, asshole. Go talk to your buddies W and Darth Cheney if you don’t like it.
Sly
@jwest:
This has been the siren song of conservatives since the inception of the Union: Government is best when its small and limited.
And, yet, no other institution has been more effective at driving social change than the “bloated and rudderless” Federal government, at every single stage in this country’s development. Period. We are entirely the product of massive and penetrative state intervention at all levels. If you don’t respect that power, you will never be able to use it effectively. Which is why conservatives never do.
polyorchnid octopunch
@jwest: The experience of the rest of the Western world puts the lie to your words.
jwest
Chris,
You should join the Tea Party. Defense cuts are part of the program.
Mark
@jwest: The irony is that this jwest character ain’t shit. Because if you were important, you wouldn’t be commenting 93 times on a blog on a Friday afternoon, you’d be out generating revenue for some ridiculously important business.
polyorchnid octopunch
@evinfuilt: ding ding ding!
Svensker
@jwest:
Really? Every dime that a corporation pays in taxes gets passed on to the consumer? Maybe I’m just a small business person, and therefore very different from those cagey corporate types. I tried raising our prices to cover our taxes and nobody wanted to buy our stuff anymore. Guess I’m doing it rong.
Chris
@Mnemosyne:
And bless their hearts for it.
The dog-eat-dog ethic’s grown so freaking big in this country that when I heard Walker had exempted police and firefighter unions from his assault, I quite seriously thought it might work (especially given the conservative attitudes of a lot of policemen). Thank God, looks like it hasn’t. There’s something really moving about their having stood together, turned down the boss’ thirty pieces of silver, and told him “not this time, asshole.”
By the way, America backs unions. Look it up (http://www.gallup.com/poll/146921/Americans-Back-Unions-Governors-State-Disputes.aspx).
Brachiator
@jwest:
Thank you for the laugh. This is one of the funniest things I’ve read on Balloon Juice in quite a while.
You really are quite uninformed about how foundations work, and also what people of wealth do with their money.
There is an old Anglo-American tradition of the wealthy squandering their money. It got so bad in England during the 19th century, that faded aristocrats had to reach across the pond, where they found that wealthy Americans were willing to pimp their daughters for a dukedom.
polyorchnid octopunch
@jwest: Well, you’re clearly a troll. I’m with Mark… you should go get a real job.
Svensker
@jwest:
Like the Dubya administration? Fail!
Chris
@jwest:
Sure. You’ve got to have something in there that you’d be willing to bargain away. Defense cuts are it.
Mnemosyne
It’s weird how conservatives want to end “generational dependency” among the poor, but want to actually increase it for the rich by eliminating the estate tax and ensuring that Paris Hilton will be able to burn through her inheritance with no problem.
I guess rich kids just aren’t worth caring about.
jwest
Svensker
“Guess I’m doing it rong.”
I believe you’re on to something.
polyorchnid octopunch
@jwest: Underlining the stoopidity of inherited wealth.
Elia Isquire
@Church Lady: It absolutely has a lot to do with tax rates. The diversion started in the late 70s, but totally skyrocketed after Reagan’s first tax cuts–which were enormous–and had a similar lift-off after Bush’s. It was happening under Clinton, yes, but more slowly, and the trajectory in that case was predetermined by Reagan’s policies.
But it also has a lot to do with the financial industry creating silly things like derivatives–and Reagan, again, gutting the taxes on financial transactions–to gobble up huge amounts of wealth. And the fact that the gov’t was not keeping up with them vis-a-vis regulation because of the conservative movement and regulatory capture, etc.
And to some degree the rest of the world catching up to the US in terms of production capacity certainly was going to slow wage growth in the US compared to what was experienced in the generation prior; but the real heart of the story is one of political/class power.
singfoom
Bad troll is bad. Don’t feed it. Even if you did happen to refute one of it’s arguments, it will pivot and talk about something else.
Don’t waste your time, our time, any time talking to this know nothing. It increases the noise ratio quite a bit.
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@geg6:
From a November, 2008, piece at the American Institute for Economic Research:
Conservatives are only against big government when it helps people who actually need help.
jwest
Brachiator,
“You really are quite uninformed about how foundations work, and also what people of wealth do with their money.”
Part of being a conservative is keeping an open mind and always being willing to learn new things. Perhaps you could explain how foundations work and what people of wealth do with their money to me. I’m certain it would be enlightening.
Chris
@Brachiator:
And nowadays, rich royal families from the Persian Gulf travel west looking for the sex they’re not allowed to have at home. The more things change…
Elia Isquire
@jwest: Do you have a newsletter? Your ideas intrigue me.
Turgidson
@jwest:
LOL!!!!! Diet Coke came out the nose with that one. Well done, buddy. Very well done.
Turgidson
@jwest:
BAHAHA. Diet Coke out the nose AGAIN. Twice in less than five minutes! Have you considered a career in stand-up comedy?
jwest
Singfoom,
“Bad troll is bad. Don’t feed it. Even if you did happen to refute one of it’s arguments, it will pivot and talk about something else.”
Don’t be afraid of me or new ideas, I won’t hurt you. I know sometimes you’re head may feel funny like something is going on inside, but that’s only because I’m making you think for a change.
David Fud
@jwest: Ha ha. jwest told a funny. Good thing we all remember it is April Fools Day or someone might have fallen for this steaming pile of foolishness.
Brachiator
@jwest:
Hahahahaha! More made up crap.
Where do you get this stuff from? Is there a book somewhere, Dumbass conservatism for dummies? So, let’s see. GE paid zero tax. Does this mean that their products were free the last few years?
I would love it if this person would make a valid point, offer a reasonable argument.
Failure, Inc.
@Cris: win +1
jwest
Elia,
No newsletter as yet.
I’m waiting for John Cole to offer a guest blogging spot on the basis of driving the comments up.
jayjaybear
@David Fud:
You misspelled “than to have your heirs smuggle your headless body out of the pit grave with the other aristocrats and give you a proper burial in secret.”
Studly Pantload, Vibrant Trollbot for Obama
@jwest:
“Part of being a conservative is keeping an open mind and always being willing to learn new things.”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Mandramas
US electoral system is really akward. It is a stealth weighted voting. For start, why election days ocurrs on Tuesday? Also, compulsory voting should be nice, since voting should be a duty, not only a right.
FlipYrWhig
@Brachiator: The Simpsons, “Bart Gets an Elephant.”
MattR
@Studly Pantload, Vibrant Trollbot for Obama: Can you clarify please? There are several words in that sentence that jwest could be misusing.
FlipYrWhig
Fuckin’ blockquote, how does it work? I’m underscoring my little fingers off and, bupkes. Oh well, point made.
Calouste
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM:
As someone said, when conservatives talk about small government, they mean scope, not size.
FlipYrWhig
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM:
They have it all worked out. See, they’re not opposed to having the government help people who _actually_ need help, they’re just opposed to having it help people who don’t _really_ need help. And if the person in question is, like, themselves, or someone they like, then he actually needs it, because it’s not like it’s going to be a “culture of dependency” or anything like that. But if it’s not themselves or someone they like, well, then, tough shit, you don’t really need it, by definition.
WaterGirl
@FlipYrWhig: Try using “…” on the otherwise empty line between paragraphs. Without the quotation marks, of course.
jwest
Mandramas,
Compulsary voting? In a free society? I suppose you need to be liberal in order to understand that.
Voting is a right and a privilege. Voters have a duty to educate themselves as to the issues and candidates, then to exercise their right to vote. If they don’t believe they are well versed enough to make an informed decision, it is their duty not to vote.
Xenos
@Paul in KY:
Libtard. First you steal the silver, then you burn the mansion.
Timing is everything in life.
FlipYrWhig
@WaterGirl: Hmm. It used to be “__” but now it’s “…”? I’ll try it.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Chad N Freude: Gah! Chad N Freude! Always one step ahead. Bites knuckle.
Well played, Freude. Well played.
FlipYrWhig
Meh, I’ll try again later.
FlipYrWhig
@jwest: ITYM it is their duty to vote Republican.
Jules
wow…211.
I just went over to Ezra’s to read the post and scan to comments. Lovely Galatian musing like this:
“ScienceTim, why does eating have value? Why is bad to be poor? What is a decent life? ”
Because yeah, liberty and autonomy are way more important then eating.
Brachiator
@jwest:
You began with an uninformed statement about foundations. A couple of other posters have already responded to you. Google search is your friend. If you have an open mind, do some research before you spout off.
So far, you have offered cant, but absolutely nothing to support your positions. You want to talk about how corps don’t pay taxes? Tell me something about NOLs and tax credits, bonus depreciation. Talk to me about how corps, with the connivance of Republicans, actually write tax legislation. I’ll even throw in some examples of Democratic Party weasels.
Otherwise, you are just wasting people’s time.
Mandramas
@jwest: Well, that is the main argument defending qualified voting. Why don’t you forget about the notion of democracy and just use the old aristocratic voting system and choose the Emperor of the Holy American Empire?
licensed to kill time
@FlipYrWhig:
Redshift
@jwest:
Every dime that I “give” to the government comes from my employer — hey, I guess I don’t pay taxes either!
I’d have more respect for these people who believe that the “free market” can solve all our problems if they displayed any understanding of how markets actually work.
Brachiator
@jwest:
You do realize that you contradict yourself in a single sentence.
singfoom
PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. It is only interested raising the noise over the signal. It will not respond logically. It will not add anything to the conversation. It only exists to shit all over our threads.
Ridnik Chrome
cs @ 133: Word. Up. From your keyboard to Obama’s ear…
AkaDad
Now I know he’s just fucking with everyone.
fasteddie9318
@Church Lady: Hack troll is back to hack some more, I see.
Wait, I’m peering into the distant past…why, my goodness, it appears there was a “Ronald Reagan” elected in 1980 who slashed the top tax rate from 74% to 28% by the time he left office, while passing regressive payroll and lower income bracket tax increases to [try to] make up [part of] the shortfall. That couldn’t have anything to do with it, could it? No, no, it must be all those young bucks blowing their welfare checks on t-bones and crack. You’re right.
Roger Moore
@Maude:
Because I didn’t see anybody else correct it, that’s the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Just Some Fuckhead
If you extrapolate the percentages across the actual number of voting age persons in each income bracket, Democrats have the other side outnumbered something like 2 to 1. (I’m too lazy to do the math.)
So think about the next time we lose and the time after that and the time after that.. personally, I’m getting a little tired of carrying these losers who won’t suit up for the game when I’m firmly ensconced in the Republican demographic six different ways. Sometimes, it seems like the only thing that keeps me going is the unbridled hatred and disgust I have for people like me.
evinfuilt
@Roger Moore:
You don’t happen to work in Houston do you?
evinfuilt
@jwest:
Yeah, damn Gates’ vision of eradicating Malaria in Africa. If only those poor people used their boot straps properly the mosquito’s would stop killing them.
Roger Moore
@evinfuilt:
Nope. I work in Duarte, California at the City of Hope. The Hilton Foundation has been very good to us.
James E Powell
@Roger Moore:
The Huntington, maybe?
Roger Moore
@James E Powell:
Nope. Huntington acted like old money, but his uncle was the first family member with money. Second generation hardly counts as old money. The Gamble House was my best example of real old money, since it appears to have been donated by the fourth or fifth generation.
Halteclere
Church Lady, fasteddie9318 et al:
While I think that tax policies and the weakening of unions did contribute to the pay inequality, I think that other events factor in. For example the rise of off-shore manufacturing, automation and streamlining of American buisnesses, etc. slowed (and maybe even shrank) the growth of wages for blue-collar jobs.
I also think that during the ’40’s and 50’s much of Europe was still digging out of the rubble from WWII and the US was the manufacturing, farming, industrial operation of the world. In the ’60’s other countries finally fully matured their industries which put pressure on ours.
I wonder about how much responsibility is due to mega stores and big-box stores that are the product of over 100 years of goods and services consolidation. Now instead of many small middle-class business owners providing a special service, there is a giant store offering an array of services being ran by a couple middle-class managers, several lower-paid assistant managers, and many low-paid “associates”.
I read an article somewhere about a reporter taking a trip across West Texas, and going through these small towns that were dying. One thing he noticed was that many of these towns had chain stores – Sonics, Dairy Queens, O’reilly auto parts, Wal-Mart, etc. – where the store proffits were sent to the company’s headquarters somewhere else in the nation instead of that money remaining in the community. I wonder if the prolifieration of chain stores for everythign also contribute to this inequality where the proffits are awarded only to those at the top. Everyone else who is not at the top is squeezed to maximize “leaness” so that maximu proffit is realized.
I consider these items to be structural in nature and not easily changed if they do indeed contribute to the income equalities that currently exist.
Yutsano
@Calouste:
Without revealing too much, the answer is yes. I know one.
Paul in KY
@geg6: Glad to hear they are doing good work & helping out the most needy. I have scrubbed their names :-)
Paul in KY
@Xenos: Oh shit, you’re right. Dammit, no wonder I can never find any silverware in the debris.
Note to self: Steal silverware and then burn.