Bill Whittle is a douchebag.*

Ignore that this douchebag* spouting ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack; against the British, Michael Moore, liberals, et al.

Ignore the fact that he calls Michael Moore a hypocrite for being a millionaire who says that millionaires should pay more in taxes. (And why is that hypocritical, exactly? Shouldn't he have MORE right to talk about how much millionaires should pay, being one himself? Seriously, wtf? Is Bill Whittles idea of an un-hypocritical person a poor person defending the rights of the rich to pay nothing in taxes by sheltering their income in offshore tax havens? Clearly logic is not a big part of this guys day-to-day life.)

IGNORE ALL THAT:
The meat of the video is this: In trying to "blow a hole" in Michael Moore's "money hoarder" argument, Bill Whittle proves Moore's point for him. This video illustrates quite well, even with the narrow scope that it presents it's evidence with, that most of the money is in the hands of the super-wealthy. That we're able to make it through 2/3rds of the year on the salaries of a few thousand people alone is striking.

What he leaves out is that right now they aren't paying their fair share. And at the end of his argument, we're still one day short, so the rest of us get stuck with a whopping $40 in annual federal taxes!

Dear me! I've already had $2,000 withheld from my paycheck, and I'll be lucky to make $16,000 this year. I'd gladly pay $40 in federal taxes as opposed to what I pay now. The elephant in the room here, is that since the ultra-rich aren't paying in, the burden of taxation is falling on working people.

And he doesn't even touch the "dark market" shit on wall street- naked shortselling, derivatives trading, etc.

A Tobin tax of 1% applied to these "dark market" trades would raise 1.7 trillion annually.

I'm skeptical of the numbers he has on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eliminating these wars would reduce our spending every year after we end them from here to infinity, but they are portrayed in this video as being a one-time cost reduction-- which is a misleading error at best, and a deliberative deception at worst. No matter though, because either way, it's bullshit.

If we're spending $170 billion every year on killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our budgeted discretionary pentagon spending is $815 billion, then that leaves an additional $645 billion (that's more than half a trillion) in discretionary pentagon spending we could free up. Keep in mind, this is discretionary spending, not mandated spending for soldier's wages, VA benefits, etc.

What would his little fiscal calendar look like if we shut down all those 737 military bases we have all over the Goddamn planet?

What would it look like if we reduced our nuclear weapon stores by 50%? Between 1940 and 1996, we spent more than 5 trillion on maintaining our nuclear weapons. Just by letting them sit around and making sure that they don't explode on us. And keep in mind, we currently have enough nuclear weapons to replicate Hiroshima 150,000 times over.

The issue here isn't that we want to take everything from the rich. The issue here is that they don't pay taxes, and working people do. If you're rich enough, you can hide your money in tax shelters in the maldives and not pay a goddamn cent.

The issue here is that the richest among us got that way because our society provided them with the means to do so. If they manufactured products, everybody who paid taxes provided them with the means to do so-- electricity, water, sewage, waste disposal, etc-- and if they sold those products, everybody who paid taxes provided them with the means to do so-- we paid for the roads, bridges, and rail-beds that they shipped their products on.

It isn't uncouth to expect that since the wealthiest amongst us became wealthy because of social spending, that they should give back accordingly-- the more wealthy they become, the more they should give back to the society that allowed them to become wealthy. Also, I think we can conclude soundly and firmly, that Bill Whittle is a contemptible douchebag.*

* Not an ad hominem attack-- I've presented solid evidence that this is the case

Welfare Talking Points #1

So after my last video on how to fix the USA’s economy, I saw a lot of ignorant comments in the comments section about WELFARE.

They weren’t NEW ignorant comments, they were the SAME ignorant comments that you hear over and over. Apparently nobody out there is challenging people on their declarations, and allowing the virus of ignorance to spread.

So I wanted to make a list of facts and talking points for progressives when confronted with these conservative... well, let’s call them what they are-- they’re LIES, and stop the spread of ignorance in it’s tracks.

So let’s go down the list, and tackle them one by one, shall we?

1) Welfare spending is the reason our government is in debt.
FALSE.

If you had the choice between giving somebody a dollar and getting back either $1.50 or $0.80, which would you choose? Hold that thought.

According to USGovernmentspending.com The Federal Government is committed by law to spending 557 billion on welfare in the year 2010. Which seems like “Oh my! That’s a lot of money!” Which, for one person, yeah it is. But for our federal government, not so much.

Especially when you compare that to the $895 billion we’re committed to spend, by law on Defense spending. Which doesn’t account for the $711 billion in our discretionary spending on stuff like the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and useless cold war-era weapons that we don’t even use, and never will.

Next you have to take into account what we get for those dollars spent.
Most economists agree on the following figures, including conservative ones:
Welfare spending has a fiscal multiplier of about 1.5-- while military spending has a fiscal multiplier of 0.8.

To which you might say, “wow, you just said some numbers, but what the hell does that mean? It means that for every dollar our gov’t spends on welfare, we get one dollar and fifty cents back in the form of GDP. With military spending, for every dollar we spend, we get back $0.80.

That seems really stupid. And that’s because it is. Which is why politicians frame their arguments about or disgustingly wasteful military spending as being “patriotic” or “supporting the troops.”
How much support actually goes to our troops? You, know, like after they come back from getting shot at and having their legs blown off?

According to the White House’s own figures, we’re slated to spend $125 billion on veterans affairs. And we all know about staffing shortages and underfunding that goes on in our VA system. So clearly this isn’t about supporting our troops.
For those who don’t care about human lives, and only the hard economics, I want to ask you again: If you had the choice between giving somebody a dollar and getting back either $1.50 or $0.80, which would you choose?
Now for the humanitarians out there, if you had to choose between giving somebody a dollar to feed their family, knowing you’d get back $1.50, or give somebody $1 knowing that your next door neighbor would have his legs blown off and you’ll only get back $0.80, which would you choose?

I answer conservative talking point emails

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 2:28 AM, John Doe wrote:

Note To Democrats

You lost. You lost because the country has seen the direction your party is headed and wants no part in it. You suffered your worst losses in Congress for 60 years. The Republicans won not because of their sparkling personalities or inspired policies, but simply because they're not Democrats.

If you're gloating because two or three of the Tea Party candidates didn't win, then at least you're easily pleased, something likely to stand you in good stead in 2012.

Also, you should probably look into cutting California adrift before it drags Nevada or Oregon down with it. Probably best to just tow the entire state out to sea and scuttle it.

---

A Progressive's Response to Republicans

Hi there Kregaaron. I don't know why you sent this to me.

First, I'm not a Democrat.

Second, the reason why Democrats lost is because the direction that the Democrats are headed in is the same exact direction as the Republicans, and has been since 2006. And the Democratic Party's progressive base finally woke up.

Nancy Pelosi said she was against the war, and when she had the power to end them, she didn't. In fact, she called special emergency sessions to approve additional funding to extend the wars and occupation for years to come-- all on the back of the taxpayer's grandchildren.

When Nancy Pelosi had the power to investigate the Bush Administration for approving torture, illegal wiretapping, black sites, and other nasty and illegal shit-- she chose not to.

When the American people were clamoring for Impeachment hearings against Bush for all the illegal nasty shit he and his administration were doing, she said firmly "NO!" ...along with the rest of the Democratic leadership. And she, like the rest of the Democrats and Republicans, continued to pass bills that gave Bush exactly what he wanted; Bills that gave the Federal Government more power to spy on us, to torture us, to deny is a trial by jury, to read our email, to monitor our purchases, to silence our peaceful protests. More power to lock us up for political reasons. More infringements on freedom and liberty.

Then Obama was elected. We were told by Demcoratic Leadership that this was the sort of change that we needed. We needed 60 votes in the senate, and the House, and the Presidency to get anything done. The American people gave them 60 votes in the senate, a majority in the house, and the presidency. And they did nothing. Mostly they blamed the Republicans for obstructionism, which is absurd.

Then they cowtowed to big business, blaming the Republicans. Then they started to lose seats in the Senate. And so they blamed the Republicans. The the President and his staff attacked his own progressive base, and called them "fucking retarded" for wanting single payer healthcare. They called them "Crazy" for wanting to end the illegal, immoral, and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Demcoratic base was completely demoralized. The more power that we voted to give the Democrats-- the more they started to sound like Republicans.

And so now the Democrats in DC get exactly what they have always wanted-- to not be in power any more, so that they don't have to make up excuses for why they are cowtowing to big business, so that they can once again sit on the sidelines and promise things to their base that they have no intention of ever delivering on.

Peace,
The Punk Patriot

Ongoing fights with conservatives

So there's this anarcho-capitalist person who every few months will send me an email asking my opinion on a subject, and the responding with reasons I'm wrong.

I don't know why they do this. Maybe they're just bored. Anyways, I figured I'd share the latest conversation here, because in it, I address a lot of Free Market Fallacies, which just won't seem to die. Their text is in red. Their text quoting me is in blue. My most recent response is in black. Without further ado:

"Second, social spending such as welfare actually increases your nation's GDP as more money is available to go towards goods and services rather than paying off debts, or going to the bare necessities, which leads to jobs creation, and a higher standard of living for everybody in society."
Not exactly. The people who are being taxed more don't have as much money to pay for goods and services. And the welfare recipients themselves, have no incentive to work and produce in the economy.
The math of that statement doesn't work out in real life. While taxing people less does allow the richest people to have more money, a lot of people in the USA (40%) don't make enough to pay any federal income taxes. When you cut social spending for things that facilitate our civilization, things like the infrastructure necessary for commerce, like roads, bridges, and rail, then those costs need to be born by the private sector, and by states. This means lower wages and lower benefits, and higher prices in the private sector. This also means higher property taxes and state income taxes.
What's more the bottom 40% of people contribute quite a lot to the economy in the way of labor, as well as commerce. The bottom 60% of the population only lays claim to something like 12% of the nation's wealth, but generate the bulk of it's GDP through labor and consumption. The top 10% lay claim to 85% of the nation's wealth, and contribute nearly nothing to the GDP. The poor get a bad wrap, and it's not deserved at all.
Now, if you tax the richest people, whose money is stagnant in savings accounts, and move that money into the public sector, spending on infrastructure there creates jobs building the stuff, it facilitates the movement of goods and services throughout the economy, and it relieves the private sector of the burden of shouldering those costs individually. Wal*Mart is able to keep it's prices low on a similar model-- by aggregating purchase power into one spot, you can reduce the overall cost.
It's this very principal that allows us to have Fire Departments rather than Private Fire Departments-- which the bulk of people would not be able to afford.

"Third, there are indeed problems with "the system." The solution is certainly not to scrap it."
I'm not so sure why not? The welfare programs have utterly failed in reducing any poverty.
That's simply not true. Poverty is a complex issue. You have mental health issues involved, you have macro- and micro-economic issues involved, you have social spending issues involved, you have drug abuse issues involved, you have cyclical poverty issues. There's no one reason why poverty exists, and to simplify it into talking points may make it seem easier to understand, but that understanding will be shallow and sorely lacking of any insight.

"the Medicare spending that is being 'cut' are subsidies to private insurance that were providing a duplicate role to what medicare already offers, but charging a higher price to do it. This money is going back to paying for medical care via Medicare, but will have more bang per buck as it's not going to pay for insurance company operating costs, or CEO bonuses, as well."
But the problem with medicare is, it's bankrupting us. It's costing us in the trillions, and only providing mediocre healthcare.
HA! Medicare doesn't PROVIDE healthcare. Doctors do. Medicare is a payment program.



"That sort of spending can be eliminated and replaced with purely public systems without harm being done to the system."
Public systems always cost more, and are more ineffective.
I'm sorry, based on what? That's just flatly false. You might find that that is true of consumer goods, but inelastic goods and life necessities, that's simply not the case.

"What can be done, however, is to first, increase availability of welfare, and shift the tax burden back to what it was in the 1950s, where the richest paid 65% in taxes, and the poorest got money back. Today the richest pay 35% in taxes, or less. "
Yeah, but the rich lead the way in social development. They create our jobs, and our economic prosperity. Taxing their hard earned money makes no sense.
Hard earned? Most people in the top 10% inherited their money, doing nothing to work for it. The idea that they lead the way in social development is sadly a conservative talking point, and a myth. Nothing more. Taxing their money makes perfect sense. Money only has value when it's being spent. If they're not spending it, then after they get their first few million dollars, we should be able to spend it for them on things that actually work for society.

Can you name me any ethnic or otherwise group of individuals who've achieved a better economic status because of a "government" program? I'm betting such a group doesn't exist.
My friend XXXXXX was a drug addict. He was homeless. He saw a social worker (for free) and went to a drug clinic to sober up (for free) and then was able to get into a state college (for free). He's now a successful self-employed business owner. Impoverished people being allowed to bus from poor school districts into richer school districts HAS in fact allowed many individuals to achieve better social and economic status.
The Military is another great example. My father was a high school drop out. He joined the Air Force, trained in meteorology.
His father came from nothing. He joined the Army and became career military. He was able to afford his family a comfortable middle class life on the GI Bill, and my grandmother still receives monthly pension checks from the Government despite his passing, and her being retired. She also receives social security.
Seniors have benefited from the passage of Social Security, and would only benefit even more if we increased social spending.
Maybe you just need to get out more.