By Mark from St Paul

August 19, 2011 5:12 PM | Link to this

Links: tinyurl.com/3wjkoyq

By Mark from St Paul

August 19, 2011 10:41 AM | Link to this

So I guess what you’re saying is, “no, I don’t have any statistics to disprove yours.” I’ve been watching this transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy for over thirty years now, Raoul. I started in 1980 when a sitting U.S. Senator explained what was coming to myself and (yes) a room full of labor activists. I don’t know what you do for a living Raoul, but believe me: there will never be a shortage of Americans willing to work with their hands to make things for a living. If we priced energy properly, local cabinetmakers could compete with third worlders whose goods have to travel a long way. I believe that Americans with decent paying jobs will buy higher priced goods if they know they’re American made. Not because they have to, but because they want to. Right now, given a choice, I would rather be building tractor tires than working a phone bank, painting houses instead of selling foreign-made crap, or writing resumes for job seekers instead of marketing copy for businesses that produce nothing and provide little in the way of services. I’ve done all those jobs and the honest ones now pay less than they used to. That’s not the market speaking, that’s the destruction of the marketplace by capitalists without a conscience.

By Raoul

August 18, 2011 3:28 PM | Link to this

Interesting comments Mark, but your economic analysis seems straight out of some AFL-CIO leaflet. To put it bluntly, how does limiting the wealth one may acquire help the poor in any way? It’s not like there is only x amount of dollars to pass out amongst the citizens. The pie, for all intents and purposes IS infinite. Wealth expands and grows, just ask the Fed. Your whole premise is absurd. You make it sound as if the Right has rigged the game to benefit the wealthy few. Surely you would not expect the wealthy few to win elections, would you? And by the way, Nixon’s policies were much more Progressive than he has been given credit for. He put in wage and price controls, he created the EPA, and ended the Viet Nam war, just to name a few. Your premise also fundamentally misunderstands how capital has helped untold numbers of Americans, rich and poor alike, by keeping the cost of things down and affordable. You complain about the very thing that has made us the economic powerhouse of the world, and the wealth has been spread around. But I concede to you that the labor segment of our society is in trouble. For one thing, our youngsters don’t want to do it anymore, and even if they did, there are fewer manufacturing jobs available. On the other hand, one can still show a lot of hustle and initiative and make money by being creative (like my son is currently doing). The path to wealth is actually long and difficult in most cases, as it should be. The path to poverty is short and easy, in most cases. I have worked my entire lifetime to feed, shelter, and clothe myself and my family, with the hope that some day I will be able to subist on my own savings. I believe this is pretty close to the American dream as I see it. Had I worked a lot harder I could have been rich, but I am driven more by happiness than wealth. I think that makes me pretty much the average guy. I don’t think I will be reading anything that suggests the powerful should lead on behalf of the less powerful. In small ways, maybe. But history is strewn with Machiavellian types who started off thinking the same way. You sell all of us (the less powerful) short. We average Americans usually get it right eventually, and we are the ones that are supposed to tell the powerful what they can and cannot do.

By Mark from St Paul

August 18, 2011 11:41 AM | Link to this

I’m currently reading Jeff Sharlet’s The Family. I would recommend it to you Raoul as The Family believes the powerful should lead, and take responsibility for the less powerful. They operate behind the scenes because their beliefs are not consistent with that of a democracy where everyone gets a vote, regardless of income level. I grew up holding similar beliefs. The Republican party of my youth was very much into bootstrap capitalism. I left because Richard Nixon brought the southern Democrats into the GOP, and ever since they’ve been gaming the rules so that capital takes priority over labor and even entrepreneurism. Every economic chart shows how the wealthy have consolidated their hold on all wealth over the past thirty years (currently the top 10% control 83% of all wealth in the USA). This will destroy our economy and our nation. Without adequate pay for workers, there’s no one to buy stuff so there’s no need to make stuff and from there everything else falls apart. I have never in my conservative or liberal lives met anyone who wanted to see janitors paid the same as CEOs. That is a Fox/Rush-manufactured fantasy. The hard core lefty bottom line is that CEOs should only be paid 20x or 25x times what janitors are paid. That ratio would restore our economy overnight, and times would be booming again. Paying ALL the money to the handful at the top regardless of their contribution is fiscal folly. The bottom 40% of Americans currently control only 3/10ths of one percent of our national wealth. Obviously at least one or two people in that group deserve better. The current system is broken, the right broke it, and they are fighting those who would fix it. In my perfect world, I am still a dreadful golfer. I see no scenario in which I would be rich (or a good golfer) simply because that’s not on my to-do list. I have changed myself over the years, and I think I have improved myself. Giving up on the belief that I deserve to be rich was one of the best self-improvement steps I took. Understanding that the pie is finite, and that if one person takes most of it the rest have less led me, as one who was raised Christian, to accept that at some point taking more means insisting that others do with less. The pie does not have to be cut into equal slices, but everyone should get at least a sliver. 3/10ths of one percent of the pie is less pie than what sticks to the knife blade. That’s wrong, that’s profoundly unChristian, and that’s why I object to the way things are. There was a class war in this country, the rich won, and now it’s rude to bring any of this up. Raoul, please find me some economic data that shows I’m wrong, because I can’t find any numbers that don’t show a massive transfer of wealth from workers to owners. Please don’t insult me with accusations of socialism. I’ve conceded CEOs deserve at least 25x what janitors make. What do you think that ratio should be, and please don’t say “infinite” because the CEOs have already gone that route.

By Raoul

August 17, 2011 8:09 AM | Link to this

Thanks SG. Mark, I have thought about our differences and I think I can explain why we stand on opposite sides. I think it’s a fundamental difference of how to make our world better. I believe the best way is to start with myself as an individual to become successful, able to take care of myself and my family, and to promote the same in my children and circle of friends, etc. Only then can we truly help others. You, and the world of Progressives think the world will be better when you can exercise control over the masses through wealth re-distribution, over-reaching laws and regulations, and cradle to grave entitlements, all of which is meant to make the world fair. I reject the notion that life is, and should be, fair. It most obviously is not fair, or I would not be such a klutz, and could break par on every round, and take off from the charity stripe and reverse slam dunk over Jabbar any time I wanted to. I think my position empowers individuals and your position empowers the state at the expense of the individual. I think my position is closer to the vision of America and is supported by the Constitution, and the Forefathers were fearful of your side taking too much power. I think your side is winning the battle, evidenced by the politically correct propaganda taught at our public schools, and the loosening of moral standards, and the class warfare being bandied about by Democrat elected leaders. When I was young I wanted to change the world. As I grew older I realized we need to change ourselves first.

By Mark from St Paul

August 16, 2011 4:39 PM | Link to this

Lots of drive by comments going both ways I guess. Surprised to hear you say you’re a recovering progressive, though. I would think that a former prog wouldn’t confuse Dominionism with populism, and Bachmann and Perry are Dominionists. They believe in a strong military, which is not populist, and they’re opposed to government solutions across the board, also not at all a populist stance. I admit to being intolerant of Mormons, but I find them preferable to those who openly state they think ours should be a Christian government (Dominionists). And, because I don’t want to ignore SG, Bachmann has clearly stated that being gay is to be aligned with Satan. The closer you follow Rep. Bachmann, the more you’ll notice that she has no memory for what she’s said before, and that she contradicts herself frequently. Mostly though I hope the right doesn’t go with Rick Perry who, if anything, has a bigger hat and fewer cattle than George W. Bush. Before you pull any levers for Perry, do Google Todd Cameron Willingham. Rick Perry went well out of his way to Texecute this grieving father, and he did so by ignoring good science to instead go with good ol’ boy opinionating. As for me? I’ll be supporting any Democrat but Obama next year. The man is way, way, way too center-right for my taste, and the fact he’s a micrometer to the left of Mitt doesn’t impress me at all.

By Squirrellygirl

August 16, 2011 2:24 PM | Link to this

Raoul, I agree with most of everything you very eloquently said. But I believe Bachmann is a good candidate, and I think she would hire good people to do their jobs. Certainly, you will agree she would do a better job than Obama has. At any point, I enjoyed and agreed with most everything you said. I want to add that I like Herman Cain also. I’m afraid that Ron Paul wouldn’t protect us militarily and is too naive in that area to be our president. Romney and Huntsman are too far to the left for my taste, although I would still vote for any Republican candidate against Obama. I’m not racist, nor am I against gays, even though I don’t agree with their lifestyle. I think Bachmann very eloquently expressed the same thing, that she wouldn’t not hire somebody just because they were gay. I really think that the Democrats have succeeded in making the Republicans appear to be the haters when it is the other way around imo.

By Squirrellygirl

August 16, 2011 2:18 PM | Link to this

Mark, M. Bauchmann said that she respects people even if they are gay, and that being gay would not be something to keep her from hiring them. I don’t have to agree with your beliefs to respect you as a person. I respect everyone until they give me a reason not to, and being gay is not a good reason not to respect someone, even if I don’t agree with your views. I think it is similar to what Michelle B. thinks. You are going to find Christians more tolerant of gays than progressives and Muslims (Shariah Law) who are intolerant of gays. You might think they are on your side, but they aren’t. I don’t care if someone is Muslim, Morman, or Gay, or Black in color, or purple. I care about where their heart is. I listen to what they say, and decide whether I’ll believe them. I believe Herman Cain is a good man, who is capable of picking good people to do their jobs, and I believe he would be a wonderful president. Do I agree with everything he says? No, but I don’t think he’s another Obama, and I think our country would be in much better shape with him as president. I also think M. Bauchmann would make a fine president. She has demonstrated her ability to answer those questions that everybody thought for sure would end her candidacy for president. IMO Romney and Huntsman aren’t true Republicans, but Romney “sounds” more like a Republican than Huntsman. Mark, most Christians respect gay people, they just don’t agree with you on certain things. We aren’t your enemies. I just want you to know that.

By Raoul

August 16, 2011 1:07 PM | Link to this

I will respond to your points as follows: I like Bachmann but I too don’t think she is ready. I am tolerant of and respect all other religions, including Mormons and Muslims, but I vehemently oppose Jihadist terrorism. I prefer Fox News because all of the other media outlets cannot help themselves from slanting things towards the Democrats. I don’t take any talking points from Fox News, I just prefer the over-all balance. Having said that, I really dont’ watch cable news much anymore. I think the British have become exactly what you and your Progressives want here in America; an entitlement society held loosely together by government handouts controlled by elitists who think they know what’s best for their citizens, and a spoiled citizenry that erupts in violence when they sense that they won’t be coddled anymore. You have exposed yourself as religiously intolerant (like the Redcoats, when Irish Catholicism was pronounced illegal in Ireland) and have also revealed that you are intolerant of any ‘Populist’ candidates because they are ‘frauds’, yet I believe I recall you having once supported John Edwards, who may hold the distinction of being the biggest fraud of all time. You have confirmed your status as an Elitist (no matter how many pigs you may have slopped or rows of corn you may have planted)by continuously spouting off about how wrong or stupid others are for their beliefs because you know what is best for them. You have no idea what my hot buttons are and have not even come close to pushing them. I just like sparring with you because it is challenging and stimulating, and fun. But make no mistake, I am concerned about the power of Progressives like you because I was once one myself. That was before I pushed through the propaganda and found out what was going on behind the curtain.

By Mark from St Paul

August 15, 2011 8:58 PM | Link to this

Wow. I am always astonished when people who identify with the TEA PARTY side with the Redcoats on internal UK matters. Did you know that before the riots hundreds of blacks had died in police custody in Tottenham? Of course not — Fox doesn’t report on that stuff. Do you adore Michele Bachmann? Why would you think that lefties would “adore” Barack Obama for betraying the left and going hard center-right his first three years in office? I don’t dig up dirt on all the Republicans, just the ones mentioned here and then only when it’s apparent that some people are “adoring” folks I consider to be frauds. Herman Cain’s not a fraud, just another businessman who doesn’t understand that the USA is not a business, and that when you run it like one you pile up massive deficits like George W. Bush did. But if you like, I can slam Jon Huntsman for you. He’s not going anywhere but if you insist, I’d be glad to point out that he’s a Mormon just like Mitt, and that’s all the reason I’d ever need not to vote for him. Mormonism is a crackpot religion and if you’re a Christian, you must view these folks as heretics (unless you’re a Unitarian and then I guess you can agree to just get along). Sigh. We don’t get along Raoul because you keep assuming you know what I think just because I keep hitting your hot buttons. No, I don’t know what you think, but the more you comment, the more I do, and the more I think I know exactly where your buttons are. You are far more to the right than you let on, but to your credit you seem to be embarrassed to admit just how hard right you are.

By Raoul

August 15, 2011 2:02 PM | Link to this

Actually Mark you did not respond to any of my points about your lack of finding any dirt on Herman Cain. Perhaps I was goading you a little on the ‘Tea Party/Terrorist’ connection, but those associations were made by elected Democrats about the Tea Party. If I was on the Left I would adore Obama and I don’t understand the left’s current dissapointment with him. I guess I would chalk it up to the lack of scrutiny and failure to properly vette him in the first place. Democrats will elect anybody that caters to their intolerant narrative of opposing ‘evil Republicans’, especially if that person is a non-White. Instead of tirelessly researching all the dirt on all the conservative candidates (except the Black ones’ like HC), maybe you and your pals should do a little more digging into your own politicians. And let’s not even compare the antics of the Tea Party to those of the enraged left. The Mob Rule insanity on the left is the absolute emodiment of stupid,, unenlightened, unaware people doing stupid things. History is full of glaring examples and we are witnessing it again in the UK. The successful outcome of the Tea Party will be a smaller, more responsible, and hopefully a more responsive government. The successful outcome of leftist Mob-ism will be destoyed property, murdered people, and anarchy that serves no purpose other than destruction.

By Mark from St Paul

August 15, 2011 11:13 AM | Link to this

T*t for tatting back at you, all I did was to call Herman Cain an adult in a room full of children. You then accused me of giving Cain a pass for being black. I responded to your points and you replied by diving deeper into the Sean Hannity bag o’smears. Tea Party = terrorists? I can think of a few incidents in the NW where Tea partyers bullied other folks’ rallies, but this simply is not a meme the left is spreading (Tea partyers as immature, misinformed or radical, yes). I don’t who exactly is pushing this, but my guess would be Fox News, an outfit that prides itself on finding isolated remarks and then conflating them into cassus belli. I did point out to you that many liberals, myself included, are fed up with Obama, and that that should make for some common ground between us. Instead you spat on my outreached hand, freaked out and accuse me of ramming my gay rights down your throat. I think you’ve been watching too much of Michele Bachmann. That or spending way too much time speculating about the size of my support for gay rights.

By Raoul

August 13, 2011 7:58 AM | Link to this

Mark, you are beginning to unravel. I responded directly to your comments about Herman Cain. As far as Pawlenty and Bachmann, I would vote for either if pitted against Obama. In fact, I would vote for any of the debaters from the other night against Obama (with maybe some hesitation with respect to Ron Paul.) But while your side seems obsessed with labeling the Tea Party as ‘terrorists’ and describing tiny cuts in the INCREASE of future spending as ‘draconian’ and ramming gay marriage down our throats while ignoring a host of other Progressive ‘do-good’ disasters that have destroyed the American family, and then taking to the streets when asked to contribute just a little bit more to your own entitlements, it is clear to me and a lot of other frustrated conservatives that your side has no interest at all in solving any of our problems, so back at you. The Democrat party and it’s captive mainstream media are going to be the ruin of us all. How is that for a serious response to your pathetic post?

By Mark from St Paul

August 12, 2011 5:18 PM | Link to this

Is it really that hard to address the points I actually make, or, like Fox News, do you find it necessary to rewrite my words to fit your snark? I watched that entire debate because I wanted to know more about YOUR side’s candidates. When’s the last time you sat through one of Obama’s speeches to hear his words coming from his mouth, and not the distorted B.S. that trickles down from the Fox distortion machine? Seriously Raoul, I, like most liberals, am fed up with Obama right now. If you had a clue about politics, you’d be reaching out, not bandying insults. I can only assume you don’t want this country fixed except on your terms and, if you can’t have your terms, you want this country broken and vanquished like some Biblical harlot. Step back and give this one some more thought. I continue to be a loyal American which is why I don’t take up arms when my candidates lose. Last night I heard a stage full of Republicans compete to see who could be most intolerant of other views. Last night you got to see Bachmann and Pawlenty in action. Which one do you think more highly of now? Who on that stage stirred you to want to go out and stuff envelopes and make GOTV calls?

By Raoul

August 12, 2011 4:54 PM | Link to this

Mark, are you now uniting with the Tea Party to back Herman Cain? Does that mean you are a Terrorist? You seem to have dirt on every other (white) Republican candidate, but oddly, nothing on Herman (black) Cain. Can you explain that to us?

By Mark from St Paul

August 12, 2011 12:32 PM | Link to this

This is very, very strange. Either most of your rightwing commenters are on vacation, or they only comment in response to what I write?! I watched the Republican debate in Iowa last night, btw. I’m beginning to understand why people like Herman Cain. Compared to the immature bloviators he was on stage with, he does come across as the only adult in the room. And, after seeing Pawlenty and Bachmann go after each other, I hope Vick’s conservative readers better understand why I keep saying neither is ready for prime time.

By fastwillys

August 10, 2011 4:29 PM | Link to this

Glenn Beck is a very, very, very sick man.

By vick

August 10, 2011 9:59 AM | Link to this

I just checked the hourly book sales chart on Amazon and “The Help” is back on top. The new Evans book is #2…