Absense of Malice

I think we’ve seen this movie before. Jackass proposes some focused group tested phrases, calls it a bill, makes his minions in Congress actually write the legislation then demands it be passed without the benefit of reading it or scoring it for cost. The amazing part is that some Democrats never seem to tire of the same sequel over and over.

These people and their willing allies in the media are under the presumption that the Republican Party would rather Obama lose than the economy recover. Part of it comes from the disturbing belief that you can’t “hope he fails” because Obama is the president, protected by something between the divine right of kings and Papal infallibility with a little Big Brother thrown in. A president can be wrong and can fail when he is.

Democrats also seem to think that not only are Republicans wrong on the issues, they know they are wrong on the issues and choose to thwart the clearly superior ideas of the other side for the sake of power and general evil, even when those superior ideas are contradictory within the Democratic Party itself.

There’s a lady out in the public who is ridiculed by the Democrats and dismissed by the Republicans. She talks about something called crony capitalism. It’s what happens when the government (a few hundred or thousand individuals) has the power to extract billions and even a trillion dollars from large businesses and wealthy individuals. These people have the money and they use a surprisingly small amount to keep a very large amount away from the government.

Here’s an example. If someone had to pay 70% of their income in taxes, would they look for a way to make less of that money taxable? Even if you believe in the personal morality of rich people to pay their taxes, what would happen if that rate were 93%? If someone were taxed on 100% of their income, would they work anymore? If you think a 99% tax rate would bring in more revenue that 100% tax, welcome to the Laffer Curve. Nobody knows what the ideal tax rate is, but it’s not 100%. Republicans think it’s 10%, Democrats thinks it’s about 40%. Is 30% the difference between good and evil?

Of course, this happens on the other side. It’s possible that Republicans think Obama is going to create a police state and FEMA work camps because they are racists, but there are some Democrats who think he’s creating a police state too. Republicans may think that the Clintons murdered people and took bribes in the form of investments out of hatred for political geniuses, or it might have just been a few fringe people overblown by the media and not the rank and file of the party.

Any political party can have bad ideas. They can have wrong ideas. They can also in some cases have evil ideas. Some differences can be negotiated. Others need to be compromised. Some need to be stopped as much as possible. For over two years now, the fights have been over very few fundamental differences in values, but over where revenue comes from and where it goes. This kind of thing goes back to the founding of the country. Difference of opinion does not call for demonization. Unpopular policies are not always the result of an ill-informed public. Not every rich person hates the poor, or vice-versa. There is evil in this world, but it rarely wears a campaign button.

About 1539days

I'm like a word a day calendar for executive disasters.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Absense of Malice

  1. votermom says:

    Speaking of eviiil, guess which former VP is dissing Palin’s political future?
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/02/cheney-dubious-on-palins-political-prospects/#ixzz1X6kIf1fF

    • 1539days says:

      Guys like that make the Republicans look evil.

      Of course, Cheney doesn’t understand that being $700,000 in debt from ethics charges filed after the 2008 campaign by Democrats with an ax to grind might make it impossible to stay in office. That’s pocket change to millionaire Cheney.

      People who are smart know this. Some people might only need to hear about this. But if Palin had to explain it to an MSM assassin, she would be accused of “whining” about it constantly.

      • DeniseVB says:

        They took advantage of those ethics charges because I think Gov. Palin created the law? It was to give the people more power to hold elected officials accountable, but her critics found a loophole and abused it. The DNC and the GOP she busted or beat were behind it. I think they closed that hole now to include if you lose, you pay the court costs.

        The ratholes were not only bankrupting the Palins, but forcing her away from her job then accusing her of neglecting the people of AK’s best interests.

        • That’s the way I heard it too. The law was new (Sarah had worked for it herself?) so there hadn’t been time for the loopholes to show up.

          I hate it when people criticize someone’s action at length without even mentioning what the occasion was. Sarah tried to get a trooper fired FOR TASERING A KID. Wikileaks released unredacted cables — because they had ALREADY BEEN RELEASED TO THE BAD GUYS by a Guardian reporter.

      • ralphb says:

        Even worse than $700K being pocket change, Cheney had to power of the federal government to protect him from being sued or having to defend himself. Somehow I imagine he would understand if he’d been charged with war crimes after leaving office.

        • Mary says:

          True, but Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi helped avoid all that, cuz they knew that if facts mattered, the American people would know the two of them approved most of what Cheney did, and never intended to allow anyone to investigate at all.

          Besides, if they had, then Obama couldn’t have continued all the same policies.

    • DeniseVB says:

      The same Cheney who thought Hillary should primary challenge Obama because she had better people and negotiating skills ? Heh.

  2. yttik says:

    Well done, Days.

    “Democrats also seem to think that not only are Republicans wrong on the issues, they know they are wrong on the issues and choose to thwart the clearly superior ideas of the other side for the sake of power and general evil…”

    If you’re a thinking person, after a while you just have to question the narrative. Besides simply wallowing around in their “general evil” for the fun of it, isn’t it possible Republicans also have other motivations behind their ideas? As a Dem I didn’t used to think so. I think it’s heresy or a crime against humanity or something to ever listen to Republicans or to view them as human.

  3. ralphb says:

    Flight 93 Memorial Speech, September 10, 2011

  4. HELENK says:

    here is an example of a democrat and a republican working together.
    Clinton and Boehner work together to raise money to complete flight 93 memorial.

    http://nationaljournal.com/911-anniversary/clinton-boehner-to-host-bipartisan-fundraiser-for-flight-93-memorial-20110910

    unemployment needs to start in DC asap

    • Memorial? How about donating the money to the NY responders’ medical needs?

      • DeniseVB says:

        ….or the Texas wildfires, the flooding in the Northeast. Tornadoes in the Midwest, South Atlantic, and where are the Hollywooders (..Hanks..cough..Spielberg…cough…) ??? 10 million would help them too.

        • votermom says:

          I know – help the living before the dead – but there is absolutely nothing wrong with fund-raising to create a memorial for a planeload of innocent civilians who, in one instant, turned themselves from victims into heroes by not letting the terrorists use them as a weapon to kill other innocents. Don’t begrudge their families this.

        • A well over $10m this? How about building a local hospital right there for their families to use?

          It could be named “Flight 93 Hospital”. It could have the passengers’ portraits and other stuff displayed in it.

          Would you rather have a memorial to your father or a hospital that could save your child’s life?

        • votermom says:

          Get a grip. How far do you think $10 million goes in construction? I seriously doubt one could found a hospital with it. Does Shanksville want or need a hospital there? They too probably prefer a memorial that will attract visitors.

          Besides, the idea is to get rich people to pump their money back into the economy. High profile donations have always been a good way to do it. Specially when they don’t want to invest.

          I may be wrong, but as far as I know, the NY responders have awareness and groups who champion their needs. It’s been 10 years and the Flight 93 passengers are always the afterthoughts.

          We, as a nation, have always built memorials to great tragedies. Have you seen Gettysburg? I really don’t understand the scrooginess about it. Next thing I expect to see protestors picketing the crash site.

        • Do you think $10m is so little, when it’s cut from some family planning or educational project?

          The total cost of this giant memorial is more like $72 million according to some sources. It’s not clear whether this is in addition to the money already spent on the land and on design. (The design is now being reworked to look less like an Islamic crescent symbol.)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_93_National_Memorial
          The cost of the permanent memorial is estimated at $60 million. As of March 2011, $20 million in private donations had been raised, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was providing $18.5 million, and Congress had appropriated $10 million.[21] In March 2011, the families of the victims of Flight 93 urged Congress to appropriate $3.7 million more in the fiscal year 2012 budget.[21]

          [ Here are some of the corporations profiting already. ]

          The temporary memorial, for years on land leased for the memorial by Svonavec, Inc. (a coal company based in Somerset, Pennsylvania), was moved in 2008 because Svonavec refused to renew the lease.[5] It was moved across the road, on land that is part of about 900 acres (360 ha) that the Families of Flight 93 foundation bought in 2008.[5] Svonavec had leased the land as it negotiated with the NPS over the purchase of the 273 acres (110 ha) it owned, land that includes most of the “sacred ground” where Flight 93 crashed; Svonavec’s treasurer, Michael Svonavec, had told the family group he thought the land was “worth $50 million, but you can have it for $10 million”.[5] The NPS had offered Svonavec $250,000 for the 273 acres (1.10 km2), an offer repeatedly rejected;[5] in August 2009, it was announced that Svonavec agreed to sell the land based on a price determined by the courts.[6]
          [….]
          It will be about 2,200 acres (890 ha), of which about 1,000 acres (400 ha) will be privately held, but protected through partnership agreements. The memorial itself would be a 400-acre (160 ha) bowl-shaped area, with 1,800 acres (730 ha) surrounding as a buffer.[7]
          [….]
          PBS Coals Inc. sold 900 acres (360 ha) to the families’ organization in March 2008.[10]

        • “the NY responders have awareness and groups who champion their needs.”

          Took them about ten years to get some federal aid for the medical costs of the damage they received as first responders. And that was in a lame duck session after one defeat last summer.

        • ” They too probably prefer a memorial that will attract visitors.”

          I don’t think wanting a tourist attraction for that town is a very good argument, though it might explain some of the support. Really useful things like health or school facilities don’t make money — they NEED donations like this.

        • Apparently the 72 or 60 million is just for construction, not for the cost of the 2,200 acres. But going with the lowest figure, 60 million:

          60,000,000 divided by 40 passengers = 1.5 million EACH passenger. If you were one of those passengers, would you want the 1.5 million to go to your family — or to this building project?

        • 1539days says:

          They’d probably rather be alive.

          People can donate to or seek donations for anything they want. Plenty of hospitals seek donations. Building the hospital isn’t the problem, it’s the costs year after year. Building a 9/11 memorial hospital sounds like “I want to build a hospital, but I’ll slap ‘9/11’ on the front just to pacify the people who want a memorial.”

          All Helen was saying is that it was a sign of Democrats and Republicans working together, not that it was the most worthy use of bipartisanship.

        • Fine. Pacify them with some worthwhile use of the money. Whether it’s responders’ medical care or a hospital or some other practical need that people already wanted for its own sake.

        • As for responders’ health care, they finally got something this year — which has paid out $1 million. 1/60th of the cost of construction of this useless tourist attraction — and that doesn’t count the cost of the land.

          See
          http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/02/news/economy/911_health_insurance/index.htm

        • Here’s some more detail about acquisition of the land. Both tax money and government pressure were used.
          http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7703/pub_detail.asp
          Note: I don’t agree with the author’s slant or what he says about the families.

        • 1539days says:

          See? We can all get along when a liberal uses a libertarian site for source material.

          But that just means Bill Clinton and John Boehner made a bad bipartisan decision.

        • votermom says:

          Do you think $10m is so little, when it’s cut from some family planning or educational project?

          What are you talking about? They are talking about doing fundraisers for it, not raiding the federal budget. It will probably cut into Romney and Perry’s campaign funds, if anything. Not from Obama’s campaign though – that’s obviously safe, since the obots seems eager to blame forget anything to do with 9/11.

        • DeniseVB says:

          HOLY MOLY……reading the responses in email looks like everyone’s pissed at me …. oh I know it’s the threading thing 😀

  5. Great post Days. No one pays 70% tax on their income. Even the current top marginal rate of 35% is only paid on the highest portion of high incomes. Not directed to you Days, but I’ve noticed the right sometimes uses this accounting trope when they talk about how the rich are being robbed by high tax rates.

    • yttik says:

      If you take all taxes into consideration, not just fed taxes, poor people are actually paying about 25% of their income in taxes. We have sales tax, gas taxes, car tab taxes, property taxes, FCC tax, utilities tax, and on and on it goes. In my state it came to about 25% for low income people.

    • 1539days says:

      I think the Republicans are getting better on this issue now that they see how Obama’s cronies are benefiting from favorable tax policy. No one may be paying 35%, some are paying more than others. Getting rid of loopholes is more important than changing the rate.

Comments are closed.