Dead Presidents
Posted: February 5, 2011 Filed under: Surreality, the blogosphere, The Media SUCKS, the villagers, U.S. Politics, Voter Ignorance | Tags: Rewriting History, Ronald Reagan 19 CommentsIt’s only fitting that some one who completely mangles American history, world geography, and the English language gets to deliver yet another eulogy on Reagan. We come not to bury Caesar, but to completely reinvent the guy into something we want him to be because we have no better narrative. Many liberal sites are rightly pointing out that we knew Ronald Reagan and he was not the Ronald Reagan we’re hearing about now. Here’s a good list of ‘10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want you to now about Ronald Reagan’. I’ll hit the top four because,well, I’m an economist and these four things resonate with me the most.
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
So, in the real world, Ronald Reagan was the archetype for the Republican much hated “tax and spend Keynesian” if there ever was one. Reagan’s former Budget Director David Stockman has said as much. His former economic adviser Bruce Bartlett has changed his tiger stripes too. Now, compare that to this tripe in a speech completely missing the facts and the history. Oh, and it’s kind’ve stolen from the Gipper yet heavily revised to meet today’s modern propaganda needs.
“He saw our nation at a critical turning point. We could choose one direction or the other. Socialism or freedom and free markets. Collectivism or individualism. In his words, we can choose ‘the swamp’ or ‘the stars.'”
Take a quick look at the source of the cribbed statement and notice the difference. It seems that not one of our political spokesmodels can originate thoughts these days. We have a rip-it-off-then-mangle-it pol culture these days.
“We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening,” Reagan said.
The most dangerous enemy we have ever faced is ignorance. The face of ignorance is the modern day Know Nothing Wing of the Republican Party. The old Known Nothing party was rooted in nativism and anti-Catholicism. This one is rooted in similar phobias and bigotry. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote: “All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography”.
CNN’s Extremist Shill
Posted: January 24, 2011 Filed under: The Media SUCKS, the villagers, Women's Rights | Tags: CNN: FIRE ERICKSON, Erik Erickson advocates violence, extemists in the media, RedState extremism 22 CommentsFor some reason, the media has decided to respond to right wing outrage for perceived ‘liberal’ biases by allowing access to any one with a half truth to tell or some radical right viewpoint. It’s one thing to air the views of a politician holding a public office–like Michelle Bachmann–whose grasp of reality, history, and science is demonstrably lacking, it’s completely another thing to hire and continually promote some one with extremist views and agendas. This is especially true when it is for no other reason than to air a given view point in some perceived act of fairness when no equally extreme voice on the left exists any where on the network. In fact, no equally extreme leftist voice exists in any media outlet.
Again, I say perceived fairness because there is never a real left wing equivalent out there equal to the likes of Red State’s Erick Erickson. If so, they’d have also hired at least some equivalent of Noam Chomsky or some one who is honestly liberal and honestly left wing. The continued employment of Erick Erickson goes beyond even the lowest standards set by the likes of the Buchanans. He’s about one hyperbole short of Pat Robertson; but just barely. The deal is that this guy is no Bob Novak or George Will conservative. He’s an extremist and radical because he constantly advocates violence and uses revolutionary rhetoric.
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
Size or physical location? WTF kind of demented language is that? This man just made a call for women to be dehumanized into incubators, to have their liberty and privacy removed, and to have their personal religious viewpoints usurped by his own. How can CNN justify maintaining the likes of Erickson without–minimally–giving air time to a Marxist which would be a leftie equivalent. Bet yet, they need to fire him.
Nearly every one who has cracked a legitimate history book and read documents written by the founders knows that the basic ‘state’s rights’ vs. federal government’s rights was about slave ownership. The constitution was crafted carefully so that slave owning states could find enough leeway in the ‘state’s right provision’ to allow slavery. That was the purpose of the entire deal in a nutshell. The 13th amendment was required to close that particular loophole. The descendant’s of those folks that scream state’s rights now and limited constitutional authority support similar devious schemes that prevent key individuals from fully exercising their constitutional rights. They used it for Jim Crow Laws until specific laws and SCOTUS findings closed the loophole. They’ve extended its use to women’s bodies and medical treatment and relationship status for GLBT. Erickson’s terminology of judicial usurpation is justification for involuntary servitude and seeks to deprive certain classes of people of their liberty. That is radical. How can CNN provide a safe harbor for a radical?
Any one who invokes the term ‘state’s right’s’ invariably is evoking the use of state laws to abridge some one else’s liberties and freedoms. Putting Erickson and his arguments on TV is like handing the public airways over to slave owners and folks that rationalized Jim Crow Laws. He’s absolutely no different. His outrageous positions are far out of the mainstream . My guess is that CNN would never hire Noam Chomsky or socialist Brian Patrick Moore a seat for one segment, let alone an ongoing salaried position. But Erickson not only uses radical language, he uses revolutionary language. This makes him an extremist.
Gaslighting America
Posted: January 22, 2011 Filed under: The Media SUCKS, the villagers, Violence against women | Tags: Fox News, Francis Pivens, Glenn Beck and the Becksters 63 CommentsSome people really do live in alternative realities. A good deal of them are not confined to obscure blogs or city street
blocks screaming things that people frankly know aren’t true. However, if you manage to get yourself a show on Fox News and you get to repeat the lies day in and day out, people think some one may actually fact check you. Critical masses of people can mistakenly believe the lies. Glenn Beck just keeps gaslighting America and a good number of people appear to be stupid enough to believe him.
I frankly can’t watch him. He’s so obviously got issues that you wonder how he has managed to escape treatment for mental health problems. I guess if you’re a gravy train, people will ride you no matter what. What really bothers me is that he actually does have an impact on some people.
Just ask an obscure 78 year old professor retired from CUNY, Frances Piven, who is receiving death threats because Beck’s decided that something she wrote 45 years ago has brought the “United States to its knees”. It’s amazing to me what a really disturbed mind can self create. Facts are abused out of necessity. Beck seems to think if you just keep writing the same things and saying the same things over and over you can gaslight enough of the people enough of the time. He manages to make a living and stay within the disturbed little bubble he’s created to rationalize his own failures. He’s empowered by delusions and denial and paid very well for them. Every thing that happens to Frances Piven as a result of his words is just one more symptom of poor little Beck. It’s all about his suffering, his problems, his brilliance, and his deluded truth.










Recent Comments