Friday, March 06, 2009
We hear from other precincts
A number of big lefty blogs linked my last TigerHawk TV yesterday. The comments over on YouTube are really quite something. And to think I was catching grief from the right because I said I was willing to pay higher taxes; I just do not want to be villified by politicians for being in a position to do so. It is not even clear why these guys are angry, but boy are they.
40 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Mar 06, 07:35:00 AM:
Can't say I am surprised - the degree of profanity may vary, but the mindset expressed there seems pretty close to that espoused widely on the left, including by their politicians.
Recently there have been articles in the Washington Post, Boston Globe etc about how the economy has affected these 250K+ people and the comments sections have lit up with similar vitriol.
I voted for Obama, but demonizing people like us for no apparent purpose than cheap political points makes me regret my vote.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 08:28:00 AM:
Well, you certainly did stir up the hornets nest. Unfortunately those people will never be so industrious as your average hornet. But seriously, isn't that the usual and expected reaction from the left ? It's always okay to take anyone elses money to fund any propgram that they do not and will not contribute to themselves. Their economic and financial ignorance is always on display, along with many other misplaced loyalties and political positions. The tax payment situations of Daschle, Geithner, Rangel, et al is the most recent glaring evidence of the fraud that the left is. One wonders how many of those comment posters are gainfully employed.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 09:10:00 AM:
"Excuse me, do you have any Grey Poupon ?" TigerHawk, don't run for office. Don't think I'm picking on you ... Mitt Romney will have the same problem.
There's a lost of condescension here about Obama. Obama doesn't know or care about math or science or quantitative economics, but he's a brilliant politician. All those years of community organizing weren't wasted. He's a talent ... and hence especially dangerous.
Obama wants to frame the debate to be about the top 5% paying more. If he does, he wins. You're playing right into his hands.
But this isn't a fight about top ordinary rates going to 39% and capital gains going to 20%. There's a lot more going on than that.
The Republicans are counting on the economy to suck in 2010. I don't have a crystal ball ... but I'd bet 2010 will look better than 2009 ... it's the out years that may get horrifically bad. If 2010 is worse than 2009, then all bets are off. Obama thinks he's leading us to benighted post-modern socialism. But when democracies fail you get fascism. It can be mild ... think Rudy in New York after David Dinkins, or not.
Link
By 
TigerHawk, at
Fri Mar 06, 09:14:00 AM:
There is exactly zero risk I would run for public office. Among other considerations, I prefer to lead a productive life.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 09:19:00 AM:
It's fear and insecurity. These are people who know that a very small number of people in this country create the economic opportunity that holds everyone else up, specifically them. They worry that they'll lose their jobs. They don't control their future, and can't be sure they will be able to find another dependancy (job).
Why that realization should cause these people such angst isn't clear to me; after all, I know there are very few people capable of writing a great play or book, and that doesn't cause me to go crazy. There are few people capable of creating original value added results in any area.
It does bother these people though that they are being carried by people like you. Pay no attention to them- they are obviously useless.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 09:21:00 AM:
The comments on YouTube are despicable. The issues should be paramount, not the personalities. The politicians are showing terrible leadership because they are negative. They need the group you champion to help lead us out of the mess, and they are doing the country a disservice by demonizing them. We'll show our leadership despite the demagoguery because at our core we know what's right, we do care about other people, and we won't let any elected official drag us down (despite the fact that under Obama's tax plan, the percentage of people paying Federal income taxes may drop to 38%, which is troubling in its own right, because people don't usually appreciate their entitlements when they're free).
Standing governments are dangerous, especially when populated with people who have no idea about how to run a business and how hard it is to do so. Let's keep fighting the good fight together, trying to grow our businesses and create more jobs.
The Centrist
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 10:16:00 AM:
The lefty blogs I read aren't angry. They're laughing at you.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Mar 06, 10:25:00 AM:
"laughing"
There is definitely a lot of that, too, but the tenor in the YouTube comments is pretty nasty.
I have the satisfaction of knowing that a lot of people still have jobs because of my efforts and those of my "rich" colleagues. If building a business were the cakewalk that the left implies, we would not be in the fix we're in.
By Big Mike, at
Fri Mar 06, 10:53:00 AM:
I can't say that the responses you received were unexpected after I watched your online appeal to reason.
As I've commented elsewhere, the famous "Laffer Curve" is based on Rolle's theorem, which is guaranteed to be true. The problem is that most depictions of the Laffer Curver show a curve that is symmetric about 50%. But it doesn't have to be symmetric and I suspect it is strongly skewed to the left. I note that more tax revenues, both in per cent of total federal revenue from the income tax and in absolute dollars, were collected from what Obama calls "the rich" under the Bush rates than under the higher Clinton tax rates, suggesting to me that Bush's rates are close to a least a local maximum (if not the maximum). Move far off that rate and you will collect less tax revenue. The cold, hard equations do not lie.
I'm older than Barack Obama, and I have vivid memories of people putting their money into weird tax shelters back in the 1970s. As I was just starting out in my career I had no extra income to park, but I remember reading articles and listening to more senior people talk to each other. And I thought at the time that it was crazy for the government to incentivize people to spend their money in ways that do not create jobs or otherwise benefit society. We're headed back there because it is Barack Obama who is incurious and economically illiterate.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 10:57:00 AM:
I was trying to explain to one of my employees just yesterday the relationship between the actions of the new administration and our business. He really did not understand, until I explained that me having a higher tax obligation means that our company will have less money to spend, and that will lead to fewer sales jobs, travel, trade shows and product development. It's truly amazing, but he hadn't understood that his job (for example) could be at risk from higher taxes. I shake my head, but these sorts of people seem to not realize until too late what the implications of their actions are (he supports higher taxes to fund stimulus spending), and I worry the administration is filled with people just like my employee-- economic dummies.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 11:25:00 AM:
If building a business were the cakewalk that the left implies...
Who on Earth implied that?
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 11:33:00 AM:
If the debate is over the top 5% paying 39% / 20% ... Obama wins.
If the debate is that Obama is pissing away trillions that we'll all have to pay for some day ... maybe he loses. It doesn't help that the Republicans have a record of pissing away trillions.
****
Obama may be vulnerable on energy policy. Solar and wind are incapable of being more than a small part of the mix ... both because of cost and how the grid works. This won't change any time soon. But Obama is betting that it can, even though math and science say different.
Obama is quietly killing any hopes we have for more nuclear reactors ... our antiquated reactors currently produce 20% of our electricity. Nuclear works for the French, why not us?
Meanwhile, Obama has his hand puppet Tim Geithner saying that we should tax domestic oil production even more.
Put together, this borders on treason.
Link
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 11:59:00 AM:
The far lefties say, go ahead, all you Randians- quit! Some part of this debate will cry uncle at some point. But when that'll be I can't even speculate.
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 06, 01:40:00 PM:
The youtube comments are funny and sad. I think we should make the one from "commieatheist" come true - what do you say, you, me, The Centrist, Mindles, anyone else that cares to join us, go find a titty bar in NJ, drop a grand, and one of us tries to deduct it as a business expense so the commenter can "subsidize" us. Right.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 02:43:00 PM:
I have a lot of respect for what you've done with your life, and I'm quite sincere about that.
But some people actually prefer to chase things other than what you have chosen to chase, like say, spending a ton of time with their spouses and kids at career/money sacrifice.
And I'd be curious to hear about "where you came from," (and I apologize for not knowing, this is my first visit here) and what opportunities were yours to pursue your dreams. It helps to have opportunity, and the playing field is not exactly level there.
But mostly, all this angst over $.04 on the dollar? Surely you know what the history of top tax rates are in this country, being as brilliant and well educated as you are.
Hungry sick people aren't going to care much how hard you worked, since just gobs of them are going to think they did too, if not exactly by your rather precise definition. And if there are enough of them, you're not going to like this country as much as you do now, I would guess.
You seem like a perfectly nice, and perhaps more importantly, ethical (that missing element being a huge component of the rage out there) man. But this came off as truly overblown and a little hysterical, at least to one rapt viewer.
If you can squeeze it in, I highly recommend "Perfectly Legal," by David Kay Johnston, a nice little documentation of what happens to the tax code, in its entirety, as a result of people like yourself making tax law for long enough.
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 06, 03:09:00 PM:
Upon further reflection, the youtube comments make logical sense if the beginning assumption (as you have previously pointed out -- see 02/26/09 post "Attitude Adjustment") is that the income flowing from your productivity belongs to the government, and, since the government is us, it is up to the rest of us to determine how much of it you get to keep.
How dare you be so indignant that your marginal tax rates will go up on income greater than $357,000 (currently the point where the 35% rate kicks in, but really, who knows)! Why, we might come up with a special 69% marginal rate for ungrateful conservative bloggers.
I think an important point to remember is that we ought to always be talking about the combined effective rate of federal, state and local taxes, and the fact that after the Bush tax cuts, many states increased their rates, so that now that the federal rates are going up, the combined effect is higher than 8 years ago. The "hidden taxes" like cap & trade pass-through costs, etc., are a whole 'nother discussion.
I have recent direct knowledge of a small business in MA that turned a nice mid six figure profit for the partners in 2008. Their effective combined income tax rate for the year (federal, including the effect of a 15.3% self- employment tax on the first $102,000 of compensation, plus MA state of over 5%) is 40%. The partners do not fall into the category of "rich" or even particularly affluent. Because of the project orientation of their business and the irregular revenue streams that result, and the timing of funding this tax liability based on a rather large combined effective rate, they have a collective decision to make as to whether it is worth continuing their efforts. I guess youtube commenters would say, hey, they get to keep the other 60%. The question is really, do they get to keep their business?
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 04:13:00 PM:
The point of diminishing returns.
Supply and demand.
These are two of the most (if not only) economic principles that people need to thoroughly understand to comprehend what taxation really does, and its "unintended consequences", which are not unintended at all.
If you tax something enough, it disappears.
If you increase a tax on something, the cost of producing it (goods or services) will reach a point where the return doesn't justify the effort.
How many men and women would spend years of schooling and internship in a hospital for a minimum wage salary to be a doctor? And what kind of doctor would that sort of perverse incentive create, and would there be enough of them? That is the absurd extreme, but the is also the final logical consequence of the type of collectivist thinking so often found in the unencumbered academia, and their childish student audience.
Ultimately, no one wants to be a slave. We do own our own lives, and no man (or woman's) life should be a sacrifice so someone else can profit from it. Wars and revolutions have been started and fought over this principle.
The abysmal ignorance of the many to economics, history and principles of politics (not just R and D and left and right) lead us down a road to stupid decisions and disastrous outcomes.
But hope and change will trump all that.
Right.
Man is perfectable by politics.
Right.
-David
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 05:32:00 PM:
David, the point of diminishing returns is crossed between 35% and 39.6%? That seems a little disingenuous to me.
You know, I hope, as well as Tigerhawk does what this country's highest marginal rates have been since we had an income tax. We have had good times and bad times through all of it.
As for the doctor comment, why do other countries have doctors? You know, like the ones with *gasp* SOCIALIST health care systems! Why, some of them have come to the U.S. to learn, and gone back and practiced for almost nothing because they like helping people. Some of them go to places that don't even have basic health care!
And I know my fair share of teachers, the ones who sent us all on our way, who are increasingly busting their asses at almost Tigerhhawkian levels in larger and larger classrooms, often buying supplies out of their own pockets. The ones *I* know like teaching children, and feel they're making a difference for the good of us all.
Unfortunately, I feel the need to remind the host and most of the posters on this thread that these teachers by and large aren't bringing home the big coin.
I'm starting to think this entire discussion is being driven by the level of value one places on money, and money alone. You have every right to your own position on that value. But so does everyone else, and it isn't fair or reasonable to assume yours should be shared by all. None of the policies being put forth are going to make any poor people instantly rich.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 05:35:00 PM:
It is not even clear why these guys are angry
Wow, self- awareness really isn't your strong suit, is it?
I don't know - maybe it has something to do with the fact that you say things like this:
"Most liberal bloggers are saying, ‘Well, most small-business people don’t actually earn $250,000, and they’re right in a way. But most of those small business people don’t create any jobs, or they create a few lame jobs."
Or maybe it's because you made a ten minute video about how awesome rich people are, how you work harder than people who aren't rich, and that you're willing to begrudge Obama his 3% tax "increase" (or more accurately the expiration, in 2011, of Bush's tax cuts), but only if he condescends to kiss your ass and tell you in no uncertain terms how wonderful you are!
I have no idea why anyone of a left-of-center political persuasion would have any problem with those things at all!
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 05:36:00 PM:
“Heavily taxed” my ass, T-Man - you’d've paid a hell of a lot more tax under Eisenhower (or even bloody NIXON) than you’re going to pay under Obama - so get off the fainting-couch & get the hell over yourself. The affluent have a plethora of accountancy & investment avenues by which to pay ZERO net tax, avenues systematically denied to those most in need of their shelter - avenues of legalized theft that the helpful inbreeds at BushCo happily turned into superhighways - & now thanks to the Interwebs, the fucking jig is up. Cry the rest of us a fucking river, rich-boy, & maybe we can all pitch in on a fucking canoe to drift on it. Your sudden spasm of self-pity over finally being asked to give back some of your surplus wealth - coming as it does on the heels of the most massive marathon orgy of mindless consumption & waste in recorded history - bears the rancid stench of either deceit or dementia … & I can’t figure out for the life of me which is more loathsome.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 05:56:00 PM:
One wonders how many of those comment posters are gainfully employed.
Well, I was, for 14 years. Until January 30. When I was laid off. By a company that had actually grown during the last two recessions, But then, I guess I have Obama to blame for that, since he took office on January 20.
I think we should make the one from "commieatheist" come true - what do you say, you, me, The Centrist, Mindles, anyone else that cares to join us, go find a titty bar in NJ, drop a grand, and one of us tries to deduct it as a business expense so the commenter can "subsidize" us. Right.
Thanks for the shout-out, "Escort81." yeah, businesses never deduct entertainment expenses from their taxes. What was I thinking?
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p463/ch02.html#en_US_publink100033878
Those of you who are hoping for Obama to fail - beware. There was a time - oh, say about 80 years ago - when there was a very good chance that this country actually would become socialist, or worse. If you think people being angry on the internet is worrisome, wait until that anger starts showing up on the streets, or outside your gated community.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 06:12:00 PM:
To John O, at 5:32:
But it's not just the marginal rate difference between 35 and 39%. Higher taxes are a multiplier, they make everything more expensive.
Tell me, how did you feel when gasoline went from $3/gallon to $4/gallon last summer? I mean, it was only a dollar, right?
And unless you were driving hundreds of miles week, what difference did it really make?
But it made everything more expensive: food, commodities, everyday life.
Yes, only the "top 5%" will see their taxes go up. Along with carbon permitting and cap and trade for fossil fuel plants; won't they pass along their costs?
And everything associated with higher electrical costs, don't you think? If electical generation in this country was cut in half, what would that do to cost, supply and demand being what it is? If the half that was cut was all from coal-fired power plants, the AGW faction would be pretty happy, but would our standard of living go up or down? No guesses, there is only one answer here.
If Tigerhawk's company has to pay more in taxes, what does that do to their growth and hiring practices? When their profits decline, what then? If they start to lose money and business due to high taxes and lost productivity, do they get a federal bailout, ala GM and Chrysler?
At what point does this stop?
The point of increasing "productivity" is to make the unit cost of any good or service cheaper, which raises everyone's standard of living (believe it or not). By making productivity less efficient, or more costly, the cost of living gets higher.
What if the Obama strategy doesn't quite get the desired results? Do taxes go up again? Is there more government borrowing with bigger deficits next year?
The point about doctors was an extreme, but that is the logical end of the road. What do doctors get paid in the workers paradise of Cuba? Everybody gets socialized medicine there, and outside of Michael Moore's fairy tales, the quality of medicine is lousy because all they can really do is preventive medicine. They are ill-equipped for a lot of modern procedures, except for the top rung nomeklatura of the Party.
There are always stories (true) of people going to destitute places and nobly doing medicine on the behalf of those less fortunate. But it is not a model you can build a national health care system on. I have several friends who are physicians that practice very advanced forms of medicine on cancer patients. Strip them of the technology and the expensive resources they have to fight cancer, and they will have a lot of patients with imminent mortality and no hope.
Is that the future you are describing?
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 06:20:00 PM:
I'll say it again. This isn't about going from 35% to 39.6%.
The budget numbers didn't add up before, and Obama will make it significantly worse.
So in a couple of years expect the rates to go up, and the brackets to come way down. $100,000 will be the new $250,000.
We'll have a lot of state and municipal bankruptcies, We're likley to see high inflation.
Obama's energy plans will leave us weak and vulnerable. We'll be one oil embargo away from catastrophe.
I'm 51 but don't expect to see a dime out of Social Security / Medicare.
If you want to see our future look at California ... should be the richest state in the union. If it weren't getting Stimulus funds it would be bankrupt this year.
California voted itself into this predicament. The US is on the same path.
Link
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 06:27:00 PM:
I'm not describing the future. You're describing the future. I'm describing the present.
But, some background in the interest of full disclosure. I don't even make six figures, and I was thrilled about higher gas prices because I felt it made us better off in general. It drove a lot of positive behavior, most of that gone now that prices are back down. I also don't need the tax cut I'm going to get, because I've always lived within my means. I wouldn't have even minded paying a bit more, honestly. Of course, my job is very much at risk due to the whole economy coming down.
Which would almost certainly drive different behavior. I disagree with your notion that individual tax rates have significant multiplier effects, unless you count skipping the GPS on your S-Class as a multiplier. And this budget proposes tax CUTS for most every small business owner, so the argument just doesn't hold.
And using Cuba as an example of a health care system is silly. How about all the rest of the civilized world? No productive Canadians, French, Germans, et al? Ridiculous.
And speaking of health care, how many "conservative" parties in those reasonably developed Western nations run on a platform of making their health care systems more like ours? (None.)
I'm no Democrat, but I can see the best of my alternatives with anyone. Our propping up of banks and insurance companies is making me insane.
And I think that's the case on both sides of the aisle, which coupled with everyone, including the new Admin's refusal to tell us where the money is going, makes me VERY suspicious that we're a lot closer to the edge than we're being told.
I don't want to go over it.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 06:52:00 PM:
One of the things that drives me crazy about my large corporate workplace is all the incentives and tangible goals being very short-term in nature, along with an absolutely obsessive desire to "predict the future."
I don't hold much faith in any specific predictions of what the future holds. Too many variables. It's incalculable.
Who doesn't look around with their own eyeballs and watch things both micro and macro turn drastically on an individual and unique event, from a cancer diagnosis to 9-11?
It's a fool's game.
There are, as I said, some very broad generalizations that can be made about the future, and I'll offer one here: The powerful (and rich) are always going to seek more power and wealth, and if they're not kept an eye on, they'll sooner or later abuse it. This generalization does not apply to every individual, but it absolutely and perfectly describes the macro.
;-)
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 07:33:00 PM:
California voted itself into this predicament.
You got that right, friend. They voted for Proposition 13, which capped property taxes, and started the state on its downward slide. California has never recovered from that.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 07:41:00 PM:
Trillion Dollar Mistakes
Most of us never get a chance to make a million dollar mistake. Few people in this world make a billion dollar mistake -- a few CEOs, the occasional rogue Wall Street trader.
We now have Presidents making trillion dollar mistakes. Bush made at least a couple. Obama is setting himself up to make several.
But it's only money, some of you say.
It's opportunity cost ... and very real. A trillion dollars is 20 million man years, at $50K per year. We're poised to piss away trillions. We'll have to jack taxes to very high levels on a lot of us, or face runaway inflation or both.
Argentina was once rich, until they were seduced by Peronism. There's a lot of parallels to Obama.
I don't have a crystal ball either ... but I can say Obama is making things worse. Part of his seduction is to make many of us think someone else is footing the bill. In the end, we all will.
We're about to hear a lot about how bad unemployment is ... now that it's over 8%. It's routinely over 10% in European countries. We'll be there soon, with Obamanomics.
P.S. On California and Prop 13, It doesn't work to keep asking for more government while saying make someone else pay for it.
Link
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Mar 06, 08:04:00 PM:
"And speaking of health care, how many "conservative" parties in those reasonably developed Western nations run on a platform of making their health care systems more like ours? (None.)"
They should be. We have a fantastic healthcare system. But they're addicted to the welfare state. Who wouldn't be? It's just so *easy* to let Nanny State take care of such things.
Universal healthcare sucks. It's fucking terrible. It is inefficient and slow, with overworked and underpaid physicians who reduce their patients to numbered time slots because they are swamped. Because (surprise!) when a service like that is free, it gets abused. Ask Canadians and their 16 month wait lists.
Or ask me. I received a medical discharge from the Army last year. After the initial healing of my injury was complete, I still had extremely severe symptoms in my legs. I walked with a cane. Army medicine spent a fucking year trying to find out what the problem was before giving up. I was crushed. I loved my work.
My wife made me swear to get checked out by a private practitioner after I got out. So I did.
The very first guess by the very first specialist I saw figured out the problem; a herniated disk that healed atop a nerve cluster. 10 weeks of physical therapy and a week of medications and I made a full recovery.
All that wasted time, wasted money, and the loss of a specially skilled soldier, because the socialized medical system couldn't deliver.
Mine is not the only such story. Universal healthcare is awful. It doesn't raise everyone up to the level of competent care. It drags everyone down to the level of incompetent care.
By , at
Fri Mar 06, 09:07:00 PM:
Yeah, that's a sad story.
And it is supported by all of our Congresscritter's constant and unrelenting whining about their own socialized (and quite primo) health care plans, I believe until they die.
I know facts are inconvenient and unnecessary things, but we're not living any longer than our Western counterparts, nor is our infant mortality any better--it is much worse, in fact--and finally, anecdote simply does not equal data.
You served my country, and I bless you for that. If I had my way, you wouldn't BELIEVE how well you have it for doing so. But that would be socialism.
By Escort81, at
Sat Mar 07, 12:37:00 AM:
commieatheist - My comment was meant to disabuse anyone who read your youtube post that TH or his colleagues would try to deduct a trip to a strip joint as a business expense. I'll grant you that others may in fact try to to that kind of thing, particularly in cities where there are many such watering holes, but you made the allegation specifically with respect to him, and unless you know him and/or his colleagues, that's not a fair accusation to make.
It is still not clear to me why you think such an attempted deduction (subject to the 50% limitation that I am sure you read in your own link, which I was already aware of, thank you very much, and further subject to the "lavish or extravagant expenses" limitation also in your link, and I am guessing that $1,000 at a strip club in NJ would be high on the coin/skank ratio) put the U.S. taxpayer in the position of "subsidizing" that activitiy. It is an indirect subsidy at best, and that assumes that the entertainment is in furtherance of TH's business. If he (hypothetically) just likes going out to strip joints and doesn't care that the expense hurts his business, he's just a dumb businessman and he'll be out of business pretty quickly, and they'll be no more income to tax anyway.
I'm not hoping for Obama to fail as POTUS (nor is TH if you check the post-election archives), because that means the country as a whole will be weakened. We can disagree with particular policies, and that is part of normal debate.
I am sorry that you lost your job. If you have a solid skill set, you will find another. Even after Friday's job figures of 8.1% unemployment, there is work to do, and that figure is below previous recessions, including 1980-81. I would suggest that making implied threats of people showing up armed in affluent communities is not the best thing to add to your resume (unless you want to go work for ACORN, and I am pretty sure they are anti-gun). Just a thought.
By , at
Sat Mar 07, 01:01:00 AM:
John O: "As for the doctor comment, why do other countries have doctors? You know, like the ones with *gasp* SOCIALIST health care systems! Why, some of them have come to the U.S. to learn, and gone back and practiced for almost nothing because they like helping people. Some of them go to places that don't even have basic health care!"
I dunno about medical doctors, but I do know about scientists & engineers... When I was in grad school, I had buddies from Sweden who told me that back home, they'd make as much money teaching as the guy who came in and swept the lecture hall after class. They loved Sweden, but they just saw no reason to work their butts off and then deploy their talents where they would not be recognized and rewarded. They viewed America as The Big Time, as the place where the best and brightest went to meet & compete & test their skills -- and get commensurate rewards. In my experience, 20 years later, they were exactly right.
God bless the folks who sacrifice recognition & reward for service to their fellow man. But that is a personal virtue; it doesn't scale. You cannot build a system upon the expectation that enough folks will make that sacrifice.
By , at
Sat Mar 07, 06:41:00 AM:
I gave you five stars at youtube.
I wanted to comment that the people you are describing are a unique breed but they are not limited to the specific people you're talking about. I also understand why many people don't get what you're saying because most of us are different.
I was married to a man who was "driven" and is successful but his "career" path was not at all like those you describe.
He didn't go to college and has always had a "paying job." But in the meantime he has also owned and operated several businesses, invested in real estate, done consulting work and been involved in every type of civic and community activity you can name. Like being in the volunteer fire department for over thirty years, chief for about 20 (keeping everyone's key rate as low as possible). He even did the political thing, serving on the city council for $1 a year.
The man wore me out just being around him but I understood. I always used the wagon example for him, our daughter who is like him and our two sons who are more laid back like their mother. Dad and daughter like their wagons loaded and if they get a chance, they'll upgrade to a bigger wagon. Mom and the boys are willing to pull their wagons but prefer a reasonable load. Mom even finally reached the point where she thought it was time to ride for a while. It wasn't always easy for the two styles to co-exist in the same household. I tried hard to show the proper appreciation and respect for all that Dad and daughter did and all they accomplished while also trying to make them understand that the boys and I were just different.
But back to your point, there are those who resented my husband's financial success and even his community leadership because jealousy is a natural human failing. What I find unconscionable is for our government, our "leaders," to exploit that weakness and promote class envy, as you rightly point out, against the most productive members of society.
I love you guys, but you make me tired:)
By jim, at
Sat Mar 07, 10:49:00 PM:
Go right ahead & keep telling yourself all the hostility you've received is just jealousy. After the biggest concentration of wealth in modern times, it would be truly shocking if the beneficiaries of that trickle-UP lacked a wide array of just such comforting illusions.
The power elites that harnessed your Type-A personality for their agenda & met your immediate "needs" with a labyrinth of financial instruments that created a legalized Ponzi scheme also wrecked the world economy while doing so, because their attitude mirrors your own: maximum wealth equals maximum virtue, thus the poor are not only unworthy but downright evil ... so one need never bother worrying about their fate (or what might happen to "the best & the brightest" if enough of them clue in to having been conned).
You & all the other like-minded tycoon-wannabes will willingly burn your entire lives away to service those elites, & when they're done using you they won't even so much as pay for your headstone. Your video openly admits that your real beef with Obama is that he didn't stroke your precious ego before slightly boosting your taxes - meanwhile, the real owners of the society are more than happy to massage your ego, while they steal your money, time & energy. Guess who loses? The poor aren't the only ones getting played for suckers.
I've yet to hear Obama "demonize" anyone, by the way - not even the scum who supported Bush's legitimization of torture as official US policy, or the bipedal vermin who joyfully applauded his rape of habeas corpus in the name of "Homeland Security" - but apparently your need to feel persecuted trumps mere reality.
Next time you're tempted to share your self-righteous outrage via YouTube, try putting your ego on hold & spend the time with your family instead.
By Escort81, at
Sun Mar 08, 12:16:00 AM:
Jim -
You don't know anything about TH's company. It has nothing to do with "a labyrinth of financial instruments that created a legalized Ponzi scheme." He works for a medical device company, which actually makes stuff that saves lives.
By , at
Sun Mar 08, 04:14:00 AM:
Uh, 'Escort81'? You need to really work on your reading comprehension. Jim's point has nothing to do with your whine about Kittenquail's actual business. Kittenquail is merely a shill for shills. Read John O'Hara's From The Terrace. American capitalism hasn't changed over night, and you Randroids would be better off learning lessons from a real, pre-Goldwater Republican like O'Hara than some ass like Kittenquail here.
Meanwhile:
I am sorry that you lost your job. If you have a solid skill set, you will find another. Even after Friday's job figures of 8.1% unemployment, there is work to do, and that figure is below previous recessions, including 1980-81. I would suggest that making implied threats of people showing up armed in affluent communities is not the best thing to add to your resume (unless you want to go work for ACORN, and I am pretty sure they are anti-gun). Just a thought.
By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Mar 07, 01:01:00 AM:
When I show up armed in your gated community, I intend to eat your liver first, limpdick.
By , at
Sun Mar 08, 05:41:00 PM:
Max, clear something up for me please: are you threatening that act of violence against another commenter for simply disagreeing with you? It's "Welcome to Animal Farm" here in America these days, I guess.
By , at
Sun Mar 08, 05:52:00 PM:
Clear up another thing while you're at it. Do you think the best way to combat the idea that your friends are a bunch of emotionally incontinent, foul-mouthed bullies, is to show up here and behave like an emotionally incontinent, foul-mouthed bully?
You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?
By Escort81, at
Sun Mar 08, 07:06:00 PM:
Max - You're going all "Silence of the Lambs" on us here. But, hey, congratulations, I am pretty sure you win the prize here for being the first poster ever on this blog to express cannibilistic desires. I guess I won't respond with the expletive "Eat me," since you might take it literally.
And, thanks, we have the complete O'Hara here in the house, so I am familiar with the reference you are making. He follows in the fine tradition of American authors who examine the dark underside of capitalism, where clearly there is much rich material to mine. I think you fail to appreciate that some of the people here who recognize and defend the benefits of regulated capitalism in a mixed economy also have experienced first hand the darker side of it; we simply don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
So TH is a "shill for shills?" So because he stands up for a segment of people who work hard in American business, who try and provide meaningful products and services, you broadbrush him with the bad acts of a narrow sliver of financiers?
Finally, there is nothing wrong with my dick, it functions perfectly well, and without pharamceutical aide -- not bad considering I am close to entering my fifth decade of life.
By , at
Mon Mar 09, 12:04:00 AM:
You got that right, friend. They voted for Proposition 13, which capped property taxes, and started the state on its downward slide. California has never recovered from that.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm.
California didn't take a dime less in taxes or lay off a single person after Proposition 13 was passed, the doomsday scenarios pushed by the anti-13 crowd notwithstanding.
Tax caps on specific taxes, rather than on total tax revenue like Colorado's TABOR (since neutered), are meaningless. Every other tax California could levy went up to make up for Proposition 13.
By Doug Muder, at
Mon Mar 09, 08:25:00 AM:
Tigerhawk:
I'm one of the "lefty bloggers" (The Weekly Sift, weeklysift.blogspot.com) and I found your video piece because some other lefty blogger linked to it. I wouldn't have found your blog otherwise.
I can't figure out what's so bad about it. You don't make up any false "facts" as far as I can tell, and you even express a willingness to cooperate with the administration if they show you some respect. Good for you.
Your video caused me to look around on your blog, and I've bookmarked it. You seem like a sane person with an honest point of view different from mine. That's hard to find these days. (I occasionally check in on Free Republic to see where the other side is coming from. And to be honest -- speaking as a lefty blogger -- they don't seem like sane, honest people to me most of the time.)
So anyway, I plan to drop in from time to time and see what you're up to, just to give myself (and eventually my readers) some perspective.
