The richest 1 percent
December 19, 2002 6:39 AM Subscribe
Are the Republicans the party of the wealthy? According to http://www.opensecrets.org that may not be the case.
So, uber-rich dems who stand to gain the most from Bush’s tax cuts are still compassionate enough to fight against them? Cool.
posted by jalexei at 6:52 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by jalexei at 6:52 AM on December 19, 2002
The article is a big fat troll, possibly of the cave or mountain variety. I mean, come on! The democrats are given money by fat cats and big wigs, while the GOP gets its dough from hard-working Joe America? Pish tosh. Both get money from a broad economic base, and jbou pretty much hits the big money on the head.
posted by The Michael The at 6:56 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by The Michael The at 6:56 AM on December 19, 2002
If the GOP is the party of the rich, then the Wash Post ought not carp: they are the paper of the friggin moonies, onwed by super rich felon (served time in Danbury), Rev. Moon, who owns and picks up tab on that paper, along with Insight mag and lord knows how many other ventures, including ballet compnay in DC.
posted by Postroad at 7:03 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by Postroad at 7:03 AM on December 19, 2002
I'll just take this thread as an excuse to post this hot new Tom the Dancing Bug. I think I'll animate this into a Flash Cartoon.
posted by dgaicun at 7:08 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by dgaicun at 7:08 AM on December 19, 2002
willful ignorance is the phrase that pops into my head.
Are corporate donations included in any of that? It looked like just individual contributions. Intuitively, it makes sense that "uber-rich" actors, directors, hollywood-types would make larger contributions to the dems than the republicans because, more often than not, they came from modest backgrounds. Universal healthcare, livable wage, better schools, environmental protections - these are the things I hear being called for by the "limo liberals". Tax cuts, faith-based initiatives, abstinance, missle defense, invade iraq - these are the things I hear being called for by the "compassionate conservatives". Of course, the article doesn't mention policy. Anyone think that was deliberate?
posted by chris0495 at 7:09 AM on December 19, 2002
Are corporate donations included in any of that? It looked like just individual contributions. Intuitively, it makes sense that "uber-rich" actors, directors, hollywood-types would make larger contributions to the dems than the republicans because, more often than not, they came from modest backgrounds. Universal healthcare, livable wage, better schools, environmental protections - these are the things I hear being called for by the "limo liberals". Tax cuts, faith-based initiatives, abstinance, missle defense, invade iraq - these are the things I hear being called for by the "compassionate conservatives". Of course, the article doesn't mention policy. Anyone think that was deliberate?
posted by chris0495 at 7:09 AM on December 19, 2002
the Wash Post ought not carp: they are the paper of the friggin moonies, onwed by super rich felon (served time in Danbury), Rev. Moon, who owns and picks up tab on that paper, along with Insight mag and lord knows how many other ventures, including ballet compnay in DC.
This article is from the Washington Times.
posted by skyline at 7:11 AM on December 19, 2002
This article is from the Washington Times.
posted by skyline at 7:11 AM on December 19, 2002
Honestly, I don't think you can believe anything said in a Moonie Times editorial.
posted by McBain at 7:12 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by McBain at 7:12 AM on December 19, 2002
Postroad: this article is from the Wash Times (moonies), not the Wash Post (a decent paper).
posted by IshmaelGraves at 7:14 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by IshmaelGraves at 7:14 AM on December 19, 2002
adressing the troll, the GOp is full of supporters liing in Trailer parks, frinstance. One need only listen to some of the callers phoning into Limgaugh's show.
A more accurate statement would be that the GOP is supported by people from all demographic strata, but they serve the interestes primarilly of those in the upper-most strata.
Everyone in a society can't be rich afterall, and no party can get anything done if their constituency is a clear-cut minority sliver of the population, as rich folk will always be... hence the GOP propaganda about them helping everyone.
posted by BentPenguin at 7:31 AM on December 19, 2002
A more accurate statement would be that the GOP is supported by people from all demographic strata, but they serve the interestes primarilly of those in the upper-most strata.
Everyone in a society can't be rich afterall, and no party can get anything done if their constituency is a clear-cut minority sliver of the population, as rich folk will always be... hence the GOP propaganda about them helping everyone.
posted by BentPenguin at 7:31 AM on December 19, 2002
I don't trust anything printed in the Moonie Times. Gah. opensecrets has their data online, so you can draw your own conclusions. The contributions-by-industry charts are very interesting, especailly the trends--the disparity between contributions to each party seems to be growing as the amount of money grows.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:33 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:33 AM on December 19, 2002
I wish the obscene loot corporations give to political parties to pervert policy for them could be given to a nobler (well, noble) cause.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:38 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by mcsweetie at 7:38 AM on December 19, 2002
Rev. Moon, who owns and picks up tab on that paper, along with Insight mag and lord knows how many other ventures</I.
Let's not forget the University of Bridgeport in my home of Connecticut.
posted by archimago at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2002
Let's not forget the University of Bridgeport in my home of Connecticut.
posted by archimago at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2002
Rev. Moon, who owns and picks up tab on that paper, along with Insight mag and lord knows how many other ventures.
Let's not forget the University of Bridgeport in my home of Connecticut.
posted by archimago at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2002
Let's not forget the University of Bridgeport in my home of Connecticut.
posted by archimago at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2002
Rev. Moon, who owns and picks up tab on that paper, along with Insight mag and lord knows how many other ventures.
Let's not forget the University of Bridgeport in my home of Connecticut.
posted by archimago at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2002
Let's not forget the University of Bridgeport in my home of Connecticut.
posted by archimago at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2002
adressing the troll, the GOp is full of supporters liing in Trailer parks, frinstance. One need only listen to some of the callers phoning into Limgaugh's show.
At least trailer park Republicans are smart enough to read a Florida ballot card. Oh by the way, you might want to use the small yellow button that says Spell Check, before you post any more comments that attack the intelligence of Republican voters.
posted by Beholder at 7:45 AM on December 19, 2002
At least trailer park Republicans are smart enough to read a Florida ballot card. Oh by the way, you might want to use the small yellow button that says Spell Check, before you post any more comments that attack the intelligence of Republican voters.
posted by Beholder at 7:45 AM on December 19, 2002
Wasn't there a gallop poll that favored Republicans over Democrats amongst educated voters? I'm a liberal but not the far left wacky progressive types, so I wonder where that puts me? hmm..
posted by ZupanGOD at 7:57 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by ZupanGOD at 7:57 AM on December 19, 2002
Contribution data are not very helpful in determining what segment of the population comprises a party. You'd really have to look at data about the affiliations of different income groups. For example, you could look here.
It's not a perfect analysis since it tracks votes in the 2000 presidential election rather than straight party affiliation, but given the very high correlation the same poll found between party affiliation and vote, it's certainly a reasonable assumption that wealthier Americans are more likely to be Republican.
Poor people and lower middle class people generally can't afford to make political donations. Relatively (but not immensely) wealthy individuals are the most likely to make what the editorial describes as smaller donations, and there are more republicans in that class.
Also, the idea that a person can be so wealthy that he doesn't care about taxes (and thus supports the Dems stance through contributions) is largely poppycock. As a CPA, I have clients from all income strata, and the wealthier they are, the more they care about taxes. If you look at the Republican donors, you're mainly dealing with people who were in the higher tax brackets and who benefit most from the Bush tax cuts.
posted by anapestic at 8:02 AM on December 19, 2002
It's not a perfect analysis since it tracks votes in the 2000 presidential election rather than straight party affiliation, but given the very high correlation the same poll found between party affiliation and vote, it's certainly a reasonable assumption that wealthier Americans are more likely to be Republican.
Poor people and lower middle class people generally can't afford to make political donations. Relatively (but not immensely) wealthy individuals are the most likely to make what the editorial describes as smaller donations, and there are more republicans in that class.
Also, the idea that a person can be so wealthy that he doesn't care about taxes (and thus supports the Dems stance through contributions) is largely poppycock. As a CPA, I have clients from all income strata, and the wealthier they are, the more they care about taxes. If you look at the Republican donors, you're mainly dealing with people who were in the higher tax brackets and who benefit most from the Bush tax cuts.
posted by anapestic at 8:02 AM on December 19, 2002
For the record, most of the people that I know that live in trailer parks vote left of democrat. Nice cheap shot about the November 2K clusterfuck in FLA, though.
I'm a liberal but not the far left wacky progressive types, so I wonder where that puts me?
"Compassionate conservative."
posted by mikrophon at 8:04 AM on December 19, 2002
I'm a liberal but not the far left wacky progressive types, so I wonder where that puts me?
"Compassionate conservative."
posted by mikrophon at 8:04 AM on December 19, 2002
You get a completely different picture of the political leanings of wealthy Americans, depending on whether you look at corporate contributions versus individual contributions. This article (pdf file) by sociologist Val Burris illustrates the point very well. Individual contributions tend to reflect the demographic background and idiosyncrasies of the donor, while corporate contributions are more clearly directed by economic self-interest. You have to look at both kinds of contributions to get an accurate picture.
When individuals make political donations, their choice of party is often not motivated by strictly economic concerns. First, the Democratic and Republican parties have sharply contrasting positions on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and other social issues. Wealthy people do not have homogeneous views on these issues and they donate money to whatever party they feel represents them best on these issues. Second, the GOP is generally a much more socially homogeneous party than the Democrats. Jews, African-Americans, gays, lesbians, Latinos, women executives, and other social "outgroups" may donate to the Democrats, regardless of how wealthy they are, because they (rightly or wrongly) feel uncomfortable in the GOP. In other words, large donations to the GOP may be less due to "limousine liberalism" than due to donations from the Oprah Winfreys and David Geffens of the world.
posted by jonp72 at 8:11 AM on December 19, 2002
When individuals make political donations, their choice of party is often not motivated by strictly economic concerns. First, the Democratic and Republican parties have sharply contrasting positions on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and other social issues. Wealthy people do not have homogeneous views on these issues and they donate money to whatever party they feel represents them best on these issues. Second, the GOP is generally a much more socially homogeneous party than the Democrats. Jews, African-Americans, gays, lesbians, Latinos, women executives, and other social "outgroups" may donate to the Democrats, regardless of how wealthy they are, because they (rightly or wrongly) feel uncomfortable in the GOP. In other words, large donations to the GOP may be less due to "limousine liberalism" than due to donations from the Oprah Winfreys and David Geffens of the world.
posted by jonp72 at 8:11 AM on December 19, 2002
Ok, they aren't a party of the rich. Just a party for the rich.
posted by callmejay at 8:17 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by callmejay at 8:17 AM on December 19, 2002
I'm a liberal but not the far left wacky progressive types, so I wonder where that puts me?
Not on Metafilter, that's for sure.
posted by owillis at 8:23 AM on December 19, 2002
Not on Metafilter, that's for sure.
posted by owillis at 8:23 AM on December 19, 2002
At least trailer park Republicans are smart enough to read a Florida ballot card.
A bit OT, but can we please put this bit of fiction to rest. The ballot was not simply confusing to all and somehow repubs "figured it out". Click here and scroll down a bit to see the ballot. The Republican option, listed first, is clear - the ones below are not. Had the democrats been listed first, we'd be making jokes about how democrat "trailer trash" was at least smart enough to figure out a ballot.
posted by jalexei at 8:36 AM on December 19, 2002
A bit OT, but can we please put this bit of fiction to rest. The ballot was not simply confusing to all and somehow repubs "figured it out". Click here and scroll down a bit to see the ballot. The Republican option, listed first, is clear - the ones below are not. Had the democrats been listed first, we'd be making jokes about how democrat "trailer trash" was at least smart enough to figure out a ballot.
posted by jalexei at 8:36 AM on December 19, 2002
can anyone describe the three or four most important policy positions of the far left? wacky variety, please.
posted by chris0495 at 8:43 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by chris0495 at 8:43 AM on December 19, 2002
Is it so insane for corporations to spend money in their own self-interest? It's not obscene loot, it's the cost fo doing business, same as paying off local bureaucrats and dealing with unions.
When politicians need corporate money to fund increasingly expensive reelection campaigns, and corporations need politicians to not enact laws that will drive them out of business, who's the crook?
There's more pantload than pragmatism about lately.
posted by UncleFes at 8:44 AM on December 19, 2002
When politicians need corporate money to fund increasingly expensive reelection campaigns, and corporations need politicians to not enact laws that will drive them out of business, who's the crook?
There's more pantload than pragmatism about lately.
posted by UncleFes at 8:44 AM on December 19, 2002
Oh, almost forgot: my group of uncaring moneyhungry fatuous powermongering scumbags is better than your group of uncaring moneyhungry fatuous powermongering scumbags. Nyah.
posted by UncleFes at 8:46 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by UncleFes at 8:46 AM on December 19, 2002
"compassionate conservative"? BLECH.....
That makes me think of parents who consider themselves progressive because their children read Maya Angelou, but call the principal if their children are found reading Erica Jong.
posted by valval22 at 9:05 AM on December 19, 2002
That makes me think of parents who consider themselves progressive because their children read Maya Angelou, but call the principal if their children are found reading Erica Jong.
posted by valval22 at 9:05 AM on December 19, 2002
Isn't the Washington Times on the "banned links" list yet?
posted by Dirjy at 10:17 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by Dirjy at 10:17 AM on December 19, 2002
When politicians need corporate money to fund increasingly expensive reelection campaigns, and corporations need politicians to not enact laws that will drive them out of business, who's the crook?
they both are. laws are enacted to enrich/protect the lives of the citizens, and if a business can simply cut a politician a check to influence the process, then that constitutes a profound betrayal of democracy.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:24 AM on December 19, 2002
they both are. laws are enacted to enrich/protect the lives of the citizens, and if a business can simply cut a politician a check to influence the process, then that constitutes a profound betrayal of democracy.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:24 AM on December 19, 2002
I was talking to someone the other day and they kept bad-mouthing the Republicans: "You must be insane - they're just a party for the rich people! Democrats have the best interests of the working man at heart!"
I just told him, "I wouldn't exactly qualify the Republicans as the party of the rich people. So what? Even if it were true, I'd LIKE to be rich someday."
posted by insulglass at 10:59 AM on December 19, 2002
I just told him, "I wouldn't exactly qualify the Republicans as the party of the rich people. So what? Even if it were true, I'd LIKE to be rich someday."
posted by insulglass at 10:59 AM on December 19, 2002
I thought it was a good post in that it challenged a ideological convention. The article was a bit so-so, but the link and discussion from data at open secrets is very provoking.
posted by rudyfink at 11:14 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by rudyfink at 11:14 AM on December 19, 2002
The article's author has his biases, but no more than any of the people who responded to it. I think the point is a fairly valid one. Nothing you do in promotion of your soft socialist ideals would be within the grasp of someone without a substantial income. Boycotting large chain stores means paying several times as much at local stores. You wouldn't have the opportunity to use public transit and have your variety of shopping options if you didn't live where you did, on the East or West coasts, in apartments that cost five times what they would for people living in more modest areas of the country. Just because you may support the same party as some of the union workers doesn't mean that you understand their lives any more than the Ayn Rand atheist industrialist understands the Falwell fundamentalist.
posted by dagnyscott at 11:57 AM on December 19, 2002
posted by dagnyscott at 11:57 AM on December 19, 2002
It seems really ridiculous to debate which is the party of the rich. They both receive their money (=power) from different entrenched interests groups (i.e. corporations, trial lawyers, unions, etc.), and cannot be said to represent the interests of the people at all. The only issues that either party has discussed in the last two years that effect most americans are "the economy" (a nebulous and untouchable abstraction that few people understand and that even fewer can deliberately direct) and social security (which the republicans want to use to bolster business by putting it into the stock market). Maybe if at least one party were seriously talking about programs like universal health care and more money for education we could have a credible debate about which party is of the rich and which of the rest. Both parties are about keeping the status quo; they have no imagination save of the universal present. They stand constantly in awe of their own banality. Until there is a real opportunity I will try to live on the interest of the 300 dollar taxcut I got from dubya.
posted by mokujin at 1:03 PM on December 19, 2002
posted by mokujin at 1:03 PM on December 19, 2002
"compassionate conservative"? BLECH.....
That was kind of my point. I think that the definition of "Liberal" should be wacky far left. As for four platforms of the wacky left, just pick any four that put the welfare of the American people ahead of the interests of corporations and the religious right.
the 300 dollar taxcut I got from dubya
You mean the $300 advance you got from W. That came out of the next year's return. Merry Xmas!
posted by mikrophon at 1:45 PM on December 19, 2002
That was kind of my point. I think that the definition of "Liberal" should be wacky far left. As for four platforms of the wacky left, just pick any four that put the welfare of the American people ahead of the interests of corporations and the religious right.
the 300 dollar taxcut I got from dubya
You mean the $300 advance you got from W. That came out of the next year's return. Merry Xmas!
posted by mikrophon at 1:45 PM on December 19, 2002
You mean the $300 advance you got from W. That came out of the next year's return. Merry Xmas!
heh, it was a tax cut with part of it returned to the tax payers ahead of time so that people would have some extra money to spend.
and even with the $300 taken out of the next years return, no one will get less of a return next year than they did last year.
sheesh.
posted by wrffr at 2:21 PM on December 19, 2002
heh, it was a tax cut with part of it returned to the tax payers ahead of time so that people would have some extra money to spend.
and even with the $300 taken out of the next years return, no one will get less of a return next year than they did last year.
sheesh.
posted by wrffr at 2:21 PM on December 19, 2002
just pick any four that put the welfare of the American people ahead of the interests of corporations and the religious right
Or any policy that insists on throwing money into a sinkhole, consistently insisting on taxing "them" - then when asked who "them" is, receive an accusing look.
This is as bad as the far right's "cut taxes for the rich, because they'll spend more". Nutty logic all around.
posted by owillis at 2:43 PM on December 19, 2002
Or any policy that insists on throwing money into a sinkhole, consistently insisting on taxing "them" - then when asked who "them" is, receive an accusing look.
This is as bad as the far right's "cut taxes for the rich, because they'll spend more". Nutty logic all around.
posted by owillis at 2:43 PM on December 19, 2002
Dgaicun - Thanks for the "Lucky-Ducky" (Rueben Bolling) link!!
posted by troutfishing at 10:31 PM on December 19, 2002
posted by troutfishing at 10:31 PM on December 19, 2002
"Nothing you do in promotion of your soft socialist ideals would be within the grasp of someone without a substantial income" - maybe......but at the same time, governments in the developing word have accomplished amazing goals with only the tax revenues from fractional amounts (per person) of the US average yearly income.
posted by troutfishing at 10:46 PM on December 19, 2002
posted by troutfishing at 10:46 PM on December 19, 2002
no one will get less of a return next year than they did last year
Because they took $300 out of the last one. Did you not notice that? I sure as hell did.
Nutty logic all around.
It was a simplistic answer to a simplistic question. While I agree that "throwing money" at a problem is not a solution by itself, neither is taking money away.
posted by mikrophon at 6:07 AM on December 20, 2002
Because they took $300 out of the last one. Did you not notice that? I sure as hell did.
Nutty logic all around.
It was a simplistic answer to a simplistic question. While I agree that "throwing money" at a problem is not a solution by itself, neither is taking money away.
posted by mikrophon at 6:07 AM on December 20, 2002
By the way, the 'Gini' index measures the equality - or inequality - in the distribution of national wealth, on a scale of 1 to 100. 1=complete even wealth distribution, 100=Bill Gates has all the money, and everyone else is penniless.
It turns out that the US compares quite favorable, at around 40 or so, with Ethiopia The high marks (around 25 or so) go to Finland, Austria, Belarus (?), Sweden - mostly to the usual 'soft-socialism' suspects who think concentraton of wealth is bad for society (by the way, the World Bank thinks so, too)
The Gini index measure of US family income distribution has been changing steadily since 1968-72 (period of the most equal income distributionin the US, I believe, in the 20th century [Chart, from US Census Bureau]
MrMoonPie - Nice link to that pharmacuetical industry chart.
ZupanGod - if you notice, from your OpenSecrets/Lawyer contribution chart, the ratio of legal profession $ going to Dems. vs. Repubs. has not changed significantly in the last decade - it's stayed at roughly 2 to 1, whereas the ratio of Pharmacuetical industry $ going to Repubs vs. Dems has shifted DRAMATICALLY - from 56% to 44%, respectively, in '92 to 77% to 22%, respectively, in 2002! Big Pharm is, overwhelmingly, banking on the GOP.
Isulglass - "I just told him, "I wouldn't exactly qualify the Republicans as the party of the rich people. So what? Even if it were true, I'd LIKE to be rich someday." Yeah, there's a little economic mobility in the US but guess what? Recent studies have shown that economic mobility in the US is declining rapidly. Meaning: increasingly, most of the rich in the US are BORN rich.
By the way, try inputting "the L Curve" into Google as a search term, for a neat graphic of wealth distribution in the US - in terms of stacks of $100 dollar bills laid out along a football field.
"I'm a liberal but not the far left wacky progressive types, so I wonder where that puts me?" - So who would those 'wacky progressive types' be, anyway? - Maybe they would be people who advocate for national wealth distribution a little more equitable than, say Ethiopia? Or those wacky types who take the US National Academy of Science seriously in it's recommendation that the USA gov. take Global Warming seriously? Am I getting close?
Maybe they would also be among the ranks of folks - including Dick Armey, Bob Barr, members of the Religious Right and NRA members who are taking out memberships in the ACLU?
By the way, Phil Ochs had a neat song about liberals.
NEWSFLASH - "As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers." [By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer , Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A03]
Meanwhile (from Krugman world) "...House Republicans recently refused to extend unemployment insurance. Their inaction means that later this month more than 800,000 workers will receive Merry Christmas letters from the government, telling them that their benefits have been cut off... At a time when the administration says we need further tax cuts to stimulate demand, slashing the incomes of the very households most likely to cut their spending sounds like a lose-lose proposition. But once you realize that pain is good because it makes citizens hate their government, it all makes sense.... An even better example is the failure of Congress to provide adequate funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program...according to Office of Management and Budget estimates, 900,000 children will lose health insurance over the next three years...We are, of course, now living in what George W. Bush has called the "era of personal responsibility": if a child chooses to have parents who can't afford health care, that child will have to accept the consequences." Ouch.
posted by troutfishing at 8:03 AM on December 20, 2002
It turns out that the US compares quite favorable, at around 40 or so, with Ethiopia The high marks (around 25 or so) go to Finland, Austria, Belarus (?), Sweden - mostly to the usual 'soft-socialism' suspects who think concentraton of wealth is bad for society (by the way, the World Bank thinks so, too)
The Gini index measure of US family income distribution has been changing steadily since 1968-72 (period of the most equal income distributionin the US, I believe, in the 20th century [Chart, from US Census Bureau]
MrMoonPie - Nice link to that pharmacuetical industry chart.
ZupanGod - if you notice, from your OpenSecrets/Lawyer contribution chart, the ratio of legal profession $ going to Dems. vs. Repubs. has not changed significantly in the last decade - it's stayed at roughly 2 to 1, whereas the ratio of Pharmacuetical industry $ going to Repubs vs. Dems has shifted DRAMATICALLY - from 56% to 44%, respectively, in '92 to 77% to 22%, respectively, in 2002! Big Pharm is, overwhelmingly, banking on the GOP.
Isulglass - "I just told him, "I wouldn't exactly qualify the Republicans as the party of the rich people. So what? Even if it were true, I'd LIKE to be rich someday." Yeah, there's a little economic mobility in the US but guess what? Recent studies have shown that economic mobility in the US is declining rapidly. Meaning: increasingly, most of the rich in the US are BORN rich.
By the way, try inputting "the L Curve" into Google as a search term, for a neat graphic of wealth distribution in the US - in terms of stacks of $100 dollar bills laid out along a football field.
"I'm a liberal but not the far left wacky progressive types, so I wonder where that puts me?" - So who would those 'wacky progressive types' be, anyway? - Maybe they would be people who advocate for national wealth distribution a little more equitable than, say Ethiopia? Or those wacky types who take the US National Academy of Science seriously in it's recommendation that the USA gov. take Global Warming seriously? Am I getting close?
Maybe they would also be among the ranks of folks - including Dick Armey, Bob Barr, members of the Religious Right and NRA members who are taking out memberships in the ACLU?
By the way, Phil Ochs had a neat song about liberals.
NEWSFLASH - "As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers." [By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer , Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A03]
Meanwhile (from Krugman world) "...House Republicans recently refused to extend unemployment insurance. Their inaction means that later this month more than 800,000 workers will receive Merry Christmas letters from the government, telling them that their benefits have been cut off... At a time when the administration says we need further tax cuts to stimulate demand, slashing the incomes of the very households most likely to cut their spending sounds like a lose-lose proposition. But once you realize that pain is good because it makes citizens hate their government, it all makes sense.... An even better example is the failure of Congress to provide adequate funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program...according to Office of Management and Budget estimates, 900,000 children will lose health insurance over the next three years...We are, of course, now living in what George W. Bush has called the "era of personal responsibility": if a child chooses to have parents who can't afford health care, that child will have to accept the consequences." Ouch.
posted by troutfishing at 8:03 AM on December 20, 2002
« Older Mass arrests of Muslims in LA | Euro Diffusion Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jbou at 6:48 AM on December 19, 2002