I Hunker for the Bunker

Holy crap, this is hilarious.

When Stephen Colbert spun himself off of "The Daily Show", I was dubious. The show seemed unnecessary. And difficult to pull off. Jon Stewart can smirk at the news for a half-hour because he's Jon Stewart. But Colbert was playing a character. One who presumably does not believe the same things the "real" Stephen Colbert does.

It was a shaky start. I was unimpressed for the first few weeks, in which I often hung around only out of inertia after enjoying TDS. But after a month or so, they figured this thing out. The show is, in some ways, even better than its predecessor. My hat is now way off to Mr. Colbert, who may be this country's best political satirist.

Here's a great bit that he did recently lampooning Fox News wackadoo Glenn Beck. (It was also linked on Salon's War Room, which is the place from whence I nicked it.) I had a difficult time stifling my laughter while watching this at work.

The second one is the really funny one, but you need to watch the first one to get the context. Unless you're a fan of Glenn Beck. In which case, what the hell are you doing here?

(I was trying to embed these, but I was getting some errors, so you'll have to follow the links. Or just go to Salon and watch them.)

The First One

The Second One

Dumb Letters: And Yet More Bad Economics from Scary McStupid

Geez, they're really pushing this one. Here's one from the Boston Globe, responding to a columnist's suggestion that Massachusetts, which has a flat income tax, might try >gasp< progressive taxation.

TOM COSGROVE advocates changing our state constitution so that those who make at least $250,000 could be taxed a little more in tough times. He writes, "The constitution currently mandates that the state tax all citizens, regardless of income, at the same rate," and argues that progressive taxation is "the fairest way to distribute the tax burden." Since the wealthiest are a quiet minority, they are being discriminated against. We can call it wealth redistribution, or proclaim it is fair, but at its core it is discrimination. What would happen if we proposed a higher tax for women, or blacks, or gays? The outcry would be enormous. Just because someone makes more money doesn't mean they should pay more than those who don't. Do they drive more on the roads or use the educational system more?

The wealthy minority who are being targeted by President Obama's proposed budget are being treated unfairly. There will be a backlash. Charitable spending, entrepreneurialism, and small-business hiring will be affected.

Call these moves that Cosgrove wants for the state and the president wants to implement for the country what they are: discrimination in its purest form.

Kevin A. Richardson II
Beverly

This has more holes in it than Dunkin' Donuts at 6AM. I almost don't even want to say anything and just let this one stew in its own stupidity without comment. Alas, I cannot. I do it for you, dear reader. And for me. I need to vent.

"What would happen if we proposed a higher tax for women, or blacks, or gays?" How mind-boggling is it that this jerk is comparing progressive taxation to a civil rights violation? Oh no! The poor rich! Who are...A MINORITY! Woe unto them and the horrible unfair burden of paying a bit more to keep their state functioning at a barely acceptable level for those lousy free-loaders.

"Just because someone makes more money doesn't mean they should pay more than those who don't." Um, yes it does. Blood from a stone and all that. "Do they drive more on the roads or use the educational system more?" By this logic, even a flat tax is unfair. Everyone should pay the same amount in total, rather than a percentage of their income. Is that what this meathead is arguing? Everyone drop your $50 in the bucket and we'll call it a year.

"There will be a backlash." Ah, yes. Just like in yesterday's letter. The rich will rise up and take their country back. By not hiring people. Listen, nobody hires anyone out of altruism. They do it to make more money. Except maybe the person who wrote yesterday's letter, who seems to have some other issues. If you have a need, you will hire someone. Your tax burden has virtually no effect on that. And the charitable giving that you won't be doing? Unnecessary if we just give it straight to those people in the first place. So go ahead and shoot that hostage.

"Call these moves that Cosgrove wants for the state and the president wants to implement for the country what they are: discrimination in its purest form." Maybe not its purest form, but it is discrimination of a sort. The good kind. Discrimination isn't always a bad word. "Hey, why are only criminals being put into jail? That's discrimination!" "Why are only really talented people allowed to play left field for the Red Sox? That's discrimination!" "Why am I not allowed to have sex with Kevin A. Richardson II's wife and daughter(s)? That's discrimination!"

Ha! How fanciful my hyberbolic examples are. In reality, I would never have sex with anyone who would marry a creep like this.

Dumb Letters: Reaganomics Redux

Here's a pre-translation of the following letter from the LA Times: "I'm a selfish fucking bastard."

I'll take this one piecemeal.

I have employed about 50 people during the last 20 years, and my
family's taxable income is about $300,000. In order to avoid paying a higher percentage of taxes on all of my income, I will decrease output, lay off some staff and still end up keeping the same amount.

Wait a minute. If you're keeping the same amount either way, why on earth would you lay people off? You're saying that if it's all the same to you financially that you'd rather see someone else lose their job than to have more money go to the government in the form of taxes? This may be the most offensive thing I've heard in quite some time.

This person should not be employing anybody. She's like a child who grabs a toy that she doesn't want just to keep another child from having it. And then hits the other child in the head with it. I hope the person who gets laid off robs their former employer's house. And the cops don't come because they had no tax funding.

I have no incentive to hire people or expand my business, because the more I make, the more President Obama will take to expand government. This discourages expansion of the private sector. It will backfire with disastrous consequences for all.

Really? No incentive? None? This is one of the most tired arguments I've ever heard. It is a rare person caught between two tax brackets that will actually lose money by making a bit more money. If you're one of those people, then you do have an incentive to make more money: make more money. If you currently make (and I'm just making numbers up here, for the sake of argument) $300,000 and are taxed at x% but will be taxed at x+(x*0.10)% if you make $350,000, then your incentive is to make $400,000. And don't you want to make $500,000? More really is more, in almost all cases. The idea that higher taxation discourages expansion of the private sector is plain and utter bullshit. Yes, the more you make, the more you will pay in tax. But the more you make, the more you keep for yourself as well.

Oh, and I love how it's about Obama "taking" her money to "expand government". Everyone already gets taxed. The only question is how much. This is nothing new. The supposedly "disastrous" consequences of progressive taxation have never materialized. Ever.

It is repulsive that Obama is being allowed to take this country backward by pickpocketing the very people who run the private sector through their energy, money and creativity.

Kay Santos
Diamond Bar

It is repulsive that a cheap, manipulative dirtbag like yourself is in a position of power over anybody. If there were a tax on being an asshole, you'd be flat broke right now.

The whole idea that people like this are somehow being stolen from is laughable. This person admitted upfront that she would take a job away from someone out of spite, even if she gained no financial benefit from it. And we're supposed to feel bad for her? Fuck you.

Obama is indeed taking us backward. And not nearly fast enough. To a time when Reaganite prevarications like the letter writer's were routinely discredited. To a time when progressive taxation was the norm and we had a pretty robust economy, thank you very much. If this person doesn't like it I won't lose any sleep over it. But at least the person who gets fired by her will have better unemployment benefits.

Tomayto Tomahto

So, have we all noticed that what was yesterday called a "bailout" is now a "rescue"? And this is in every media source I've seen, read and heard. I mean, everybody. Hmm.

We're at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

PYSBRIoM: Harold Meyerson

The Wall Street bailout currently being discussed in (i.e. ramrodded through) congress is unbelievably gross. The biggest red flag, discounting (if such a thing is possible) the $700 billion price tag, is the proposed provision that no decisions made by the Treasury Secretary would be reviewable by any court or agency. This is about as blatantly unconstitutional as it gets. Which hasn't stopped it from being inserted into other sham laws like the Military Commissions Act. ("Hey, dad! Can I have the keys to the car? And, uh, $700 billion?" "What are you going to do with it?" "None of your business." "Oh, okay." "Yoink!")

But another gigantic problem with the proposal is the idea that we should be forking over gazillions of dollars to the people who screwed up in the first place but that we should not have any stake in any profits once (if) the market's strength returns.

Which brings me to American Prospect executive editor and Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson. He's smart and cogent and he's top notch on economic issues. His piece today in the W-Post runs through exactly why this is such a bad idea and questions why we should be socializing Wall Street's debts but explicitly not socializing its profits.