More Mendacious Lefty BullSputum

The same kind of lame crap we’ve been getting in Democrat rhetoric for decades is served up fresh by John Kerry:

“I can’t find anything in any religion anywhere, I certainly cannot find anything in the three-year ministry of Jesus Christ, that says you ought to take health care away from poor children or money away from the poorest people in the country to give it to the wealthiest people in the nation.”

Kerry made the statement to a Democrat women’s group in Iowa.

What I would love is for any of the lefty-lurkers at Reform Club (well-loved, of course) to defend Kerry’s statement. Exactly how does this transfer take place? What program takes health care and money from the poor and shovels it into the accounts of the wealthy? I haven’t heard of it or seen it debated on Capitol Hill. It must have been covered extensively. I mean, it sounds so terrible.

Is this just willful mendacity?

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “More Mendacious Lefty BullSputum

  1. Well, I could take a shot at what I think he meant, but it’s poorly worded and thought-out rhetoric nonetheless.

    My guess would be that he is referring to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, resulting deficits, and then, in order to pay for massive expenditures (say, a needless war in Iraq and a bungled hurricane response in New Orleans), the proposed dismantling/stark reduction of programs like food stamps.

    OR he could be speaking of massive governmental subsidies to hugely profitable businesses (like the energy industry) and gargantuan pork-barrel, campaign-donor-pocket-lining in spending bills that also slash programs for the needy.

    Viewed like that, it’s a fairly rational statement.

    Of course, worded like it was, it’s rather convoluted and designed merely to inflame. But then, rationality gets in the way of firing up the base.

    DEATH TO THE PIGS OF CAPITALISM!! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!

    That tends to work much better.

  2. I like your version better, at least then we can be honest with each other.

    I’d like to know what programs for the needy have been CUT recently. Not a decrease in the rate of increase. I mean a real, honest to goodness cut without anything new replacing the old program.

  3. What James Elliot said.

    I immediately thought tax cuts and corporate welfare. I think the numbers indicate that wealth has been transferred from the poor to the rich under this Administration, (for whatever reason). IOW the rich are richer and the poor are poorer than they were when Clinton left office.

    Then again you have the seeming lack of concern (no rush to help) for the poor of New Orleans immediately after the disaster.

  4. Oh, BTW, we would all communicate better if we we would quit with the us/them antagonism, particularly when we are trying to dialogue.

    It’s a lot easier to answer a question when it’s not phrased in the context of “lefty bullsputum”.

    I’m not saying this is the exclusive province of my conservative friends. But personally I think we have a pluralist society that benefits by having conservatives and liberals. When we treat everything the “other side” says as crap from the enemy then we become more like those less enlightened nations that degenerate true dialogue.

    That is the point of The Reform Club – no? Classic American liberalism supports the ideals of enlightened dialogue I believe. There are plenty of blogs out there where people either all pat themselves on the back about how smart and right they are and what evil doofuses the other side is or do nothing more than shout back and forth.

  5. we would all communicate better if we we would quit with the us/them antagonism, particularly when we are trying to dialogue.

    Although I am by nature irascible, I have made a conscious effort in the past four or five years to moderate my reflexive separation of the world into protagonist and antagonist. However, I must draw the line at people who use dialogue as a verb. Such remain forever “them.”

  6. Quite true, Connie. Bullsputum is provocative, but I feel strongly about the falsity of what Kerry is saying. There is no transfer of wealth. It is impossible to show that money is being taken away from the poor and given to the rich. It simply does not occur and progressive taxation ensures the reverse is occurring daily.

  7. It is impossible to show that money is being taken away from the poor and given to the rich.

    Here I must disagree with you Hunter; there is one tax system in the US that does precisely this. It is called Social Security, and people like John Kerry are among the biggest political obstacle to reforming it.

  8. Kathy, I see how Social Security represents a transfer of wealth from young to old, but not necessarily from poor to rich. You could just as easily say it transfer money from working poor to retired poor. There’s no direct correlation, but I think I take your point.

  9. I’d like to know what programs for the needy have been CUT recently. Not a decrease in the rate of increase. I mean a real, honest to goodness cut without anything new replacing the old program.

    It’s a complex manner of defunding such programs. For example, Workability, a vocational education program for adult education and special needs high schoolers used to be funded at an 80% level by the Feds. One of Bush’s first budget actions was to cut all federal support for Workability, effectively funding it at 20% of its initial capacity. This leads to massive state-defunding. This has been a trend in education and other welfare fields.

    Another example might be the disastrous Medicaid prescription bill. The day after the president announced the bill that would give seniors a discount on medication of 15-20%, the average price of the medications most-used by seniors rose 25%. The elderly are most likely to live in poverty or near-poverty (though children are approaching knocking them off their top spot). This is clearly an example of government-sanctioned taking advantage of needy folks to the benefit of America’s most profitable industry.

  10. The last example looks like a good argument for not making government a consumer of medical services.

  11. Only if you’re monumentally dumb and don’t look at the whole case. Really, it would have been a fine example of the good government could do. They sat down with the pharmaceutical companies, negotiated a discount for seniors, and drafted the legislation. Once the legislation passed, Big Pharma raised its prices. It’s an example of corporate avarice.

  12. Mr. Elliott, I think your last speaks to your philosophy of economics.

    You think capital is a dog, to be ordered about. But it’s a cat.

  13. Quite true, Connie. Bullsputum is provocative, but I feel strongly about the falsity of what Kerry is saying. There is no transfer of wealth. It is impossible to show that money is being taken away from the poor and given to the rich. It simply does not occur and progressive taxation ensures the reverse is occurring daily.

    Sorry, if I wasn’t clear. What I meant is not a direct transfer, but rather that the highest percent of wealthy have higher percentages of wealth and lower percentages of wealth have even lower percentages of wealth in this country than they did when Bush took office.

    That is what my friends who study this kind of thing tell me. I don’t get involved in policy things any more, so I don’t really keep up with those issues.

  14. You think capital is a dog, to be ordered about. But it’s a cat.

    So, what you’re saying is that a company agreeing to provide a set discount to needy seniors, and then raising their prices by a percentage greater than the discount, so the seniors actually pay MORE than they were before is merely good economics? That’s disgusting, not to mention dishonest and cold-hearted. And you wonder why I hold free-market boosterism in such contempt.

  15. What capital really is — is water. It flows to the point of least restriction. And if you try to hold it in one place, it either stagnates or evaporates. This why very equitable nations tend to be very poor ones.

  16. What capital really is — is water. It flows to the point of least restriction. And if you try to hold it in one place, it either stagnates or evaporates. This why very equitable nations tend to be very poor ones.

    How do you feel about all the outsourcing of jobs from the U.S. That’s certainly an example of capital flowing out, but it’s not really government restriction as much as cheap labor (though I can see you might equate the two).

    I get tired of trying to get computer technical assistance from people who barely speak English.

    On a related matter, I’ve become increasingly bothered by the vanishing small business in America. Where I live we built an arena with a minor league hockey team – suddenly that area is built up with Target, Petco, SuperWalmart, and a jillion chain restaurants.

    Local hardware stores, restaurants, gas stations, corner groceries, are going out of business. I’m to blame, because I shop the cheaper places, but it’s homogenizing America. I can’t tell the difference between Medford, Oregon and Reading, Pennsylvania freeway exits as they are all loaded with the identical stores and restaurants.

    How do the Republicans feel about the loss of small businesses, is it seen as a bad thing or are you purely corporate?

  17. I get tired of trying to get computer technical assistance from people who barely speak English.

    My ISP is Hughes satellite broadband (Direcway — oh, and BTW, do not fall for the commercials Direcway runs on DirecTV and cable. Satellite broadband is marginally faster than dialup, but considerably more unreliable. Every time a bleepin’ cloud crosses the path of the sun my connection goes down.) Being a Hughes customer, I spend a lot of time on the phone with customer support, who I must say are unfailingly polite and almost always able to walk me through a problem fix. When I get a support person with an obvious foreign accent, I always ask where they’re located, just because I’m curious about the whole IT outsourcing thing. Up until last month, they were always in either Delhi or Bombay. Last call, I got a guy in Glasgow. No kidding — Hughes is outsourcing IT support to Scotland.

    The Indians were easier to understand. It wasn’t even close.

  18. I can’t tell the difference between Medford, Oregon and Reading, Pennsylvania freeway exits as they are all loaded with the identical stores and restaurants.

    You’ve hit on the key here, perhaps without realizing it. America is becoming homogenized along high-traffic corridors, I think any of us can tell that without an SBA white paper. But the SBA figures do not support the conclusion that small business is disappearing in the US. Not even small retail. It’s just located in places that fewer people see. I happen to live in fairly rural area, and being a curious person I spent a lot of time when I was new here driving around on back roads finding out-of-the-way stuff. Now I can direct you to the local free-range turkey farmer, the best place to get your tools sharpened, cabinetmakers, finish carpenters, the handmade tack shop, several greenhouses, fishing and crabbing paraphernalia…..but I’ll bet people who’ve lived here four or five times as long as I have, but who never stray off of the four lane highways, have no idea these places exist.

  19. I think the GOP notion would be go with free trade. We’ll some jobs because it is more efficient to do so and our dynamic economy will create new opportunities in other areas. That has happened consistently for many, many years now and is the only reason we keep the unemployment rate at acceptably low levels.

  20. But the SBA figures do not support the conclusion that small business is disappearing in the US. Not even small retail. It’s just located in places that fewer people see.

    Well, I live in a rural area, my address is an RR, which drives the large corporations crazy. When I tried to get cable TV, which was located in Florida, they couldn’t figure out where I was. The Pole number, Lakeside Drive drove them even crazier. AAA keeps insisting on the nearest cross street when I need my car towed from my home, there are none.

    Perhaps maybe the face of small business is changing. I’m a small consulting business (me and hubby). But where I live, lots of small retail businesses have had to close because they can’t financially compete with large chains. Maybe it’s not bad, but it is changing from ownership to worker.

    Personally, I’d love to see more Republican support for small businesses.

  21. James Elliott said…
    ……….
    “My guess would be that he is referring to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, resulting deficits,…….”

    Except that REVENUES to the federal government grew to record levels. Thus the tax cuts were not the cause of increasing Nominal deficits. As always, unrestrained SPENDING by the legislative branch, supported by the executive branch, is the cause of deficits.

    Federal spending on domestic give-away programs has literally doubled under GWB’s watch. NOTHING has been cut!!

    But of course, the vote-buying dem/libs will neer admit this, and vote-buying repub/”cons” are very unskilled at getting this message out.

  22. Federal spending on domestic give-away programs has literally doubled under GWB’s watch. NOTHING has been cut!!

    But of course, the vote-buying dem/libs will neer admit this, and vote-buying repub/”cons” are very unskilled at getting this message out.

    repub/cons want to get out the message that give away federal spending on domestic programs has doubled under Bush’s watch?

    I highly doubt that. I’ve always considered that the Reps dirty little secret.

  23. connie deady said…

    repub/cons want to get out the message that give away federal spending on domestic programs has doubled under Bush’s watch?

    I highly doubt that. I’ve always considered that the Reps dirty little secret. “

    Agreed 100%! It is certainly a Catch-22 for supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans. Yet to this very day, the Bush administration and the congressional Republican free spenders are still accused of “cutting” social programs drastically, making the poor poorer, and all the rest of the hogwash perpetrated on us by the libs and their sycophants in the mainstream media.

    The truth is that, in general, the Dems have been far better than the Reps at propagandizing and at demonizing the opponent. Conservatives just as much as liberals want a cleaner environment, want to eradicate poverty, for instance. But in today’s societal dialogue, conservatives constantly have to get over this initial hump to convince the opposition that they really are not greedy, evil, cold hearted, etc. Libs, on the other hand, are insufferably smug and sanctimonious about their supposed moral superiority, their “compassion”, their feelings. (It should be a supreme insult to every conservative to have to use the term “compassionate conservative”.) Yet, so many times, “compassionate liberal” social programs do more harm than good; witness, for instance, the destruction of the black family as a result of the $30 trillion Great Society program.

    Luckily, in the past quarter century or so, voters have understood and rejected liberal spin on a national level. Despite the dem/libs’ superior propaganda abilities, the truth does win out over the bankruptcy and corruption of liberal ideas that have occurred over the same time frame. However, if the Republican weenies and cowards in Congress are unwilling to fight for their ideas and in fact try to become dem/libs, their days will be numbered, since after all the Democrats are better at being Democrats than Republicans can ever be! 😀

  24. tbmbuzz – I find it impossible to converse with anyone who says that one side speaks propaganda and the other the truth.

  25. connie deady said…
    tbmbuzz – I find it impossible to converse with anyone who says that one side speaks propaganda and the other the truth. < < And where exactly did I state this? DIdn’t I say that the dems were better than the reps at propagandizing?? And furthermore that the American voter seems to have a knack of gleaning the truth anyway? My opinion, to be sure, is that for the past quarter century, liberals have been bigger liars than conservatives, but don’t put words in my mouth, Ma’am.

  26. liberals have been bigger liars than conservatives

    As I said, where do we dialogue from here? It’s just an “i’m right, you’re wrong” statement.

    This is a bit of james elliot’s point about opinions about opinions. Truth v. lies depends on your opinions. How do we know what the truth is, when so much involves our definitions of good and bad and right and wrong. For example:

    the truth does win out over the bankruptcy and corruption of liberal ideas that have occurred over the same time frame. is more bullsputum that started this blogspeak. Bankruptcy and corruption clearly is an “in your opinion” point of view.

  27. connie deady said… ……..
    This is a bit of james elliot’s point about opinions about opinions. Truth v. lies depends on your opinions. How do we know what the truth is, when so much involves our definitions of good and bad and right and wrong. For example:

    the truth does win out over the bankruptcy and corruption of liberal ideas that have occurred over the same time frame. is more bullsputum that started this blogspeak. Bankruptcy and corruption clearly is an “in your opinion” point of view.
    < << Except I was using the American voting patterns over the past quarter century (beginning with Reagan’s election) – which have Tended toward “conservative” – as a kind of “truth meter” to make my point. What cannot be denied as a general philosophical statement is that all movements ebb and flow, peak and deteriorate. Neither liberalism nor conservatism (however they’re defined) are immune from this. It seems quite clear that American liberalism over the past generation has lost its direction and is merely clinging to its old ways and ideas, many now largely discredited, whereas conservatism has been the spawning chamber of new ideas and methods. Of course, the pendulum will turn the other way sooner or later. Many times a complete collapse and destruction of a movement is necessary for it to be freshly reborn. In the meantime the dying movement goes to perverse extremes in its death throes, and *IMO* we are witnessing this clearly right now about American liberalism. Frankly I doubt that the Howard Deans, moveon.orgs, Barbara Boxers and Streisands, and Ted Kennedys of the liberal movement – the Leaders of this movement, in fact – are harbingers of new ideas, rather they are the spokesmen for the enervating old ways. (It seems to me that conservatism these days has begun sputtering too, for that matter). Debating the specifics comes down to opinion vs opinion. I have no disgreement with that. I’m perfectly willing to defend mine.

  28. tbm, I can’t disagree with what you wrote at all. I too see things as a pendulum. At this point the liberals are having difficulty defining themselves and what they stand for, because the “old liberalism” is flawed – as is conservatism – as nothing is perfect. Liberalism was right for its times then, but times change.

    Me – I’m a smal is beautiful, anti-big government, pro-environment democrat. My roots are with Jerry Brown in California, whom I worked for for 4 years. It’s a different liberalism from Ted Kennedy. I’d like to see a populist, diversity, encourage individuality and creativity at the local level kind of liberalism.

    I did my Master’s Thesis on Nixon’s revenue sharing program. A great idea that got lost. I was never sure why.

Comments are closed.