My wife came across this and forwarded it to me with the comment: "I dunno what you're going to think of this one, but I'm curious. Not sure if you'll resent it, or come up with a good counterargument, or what." Yes, my wife and I are on different sides of the middle.
So, I thought I'd take a moment and talk about what is wrong with this post.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/thom-hartmann-day-life-joe-middle-class-re
I am fully prepared to acknowledge that there are some awfully nice things that came from liberal minds, and would ask for the same consideration for conservatives.
First point is that liberals are taking credit for an awful lot of stuff. The second point is that anything he disagrees with is automatically conservative. He might as well say that everything that he likes is good and vice-versa. Let's hear it for straw men! Thirdly, he doesn't make clear what is conservative and what is liberal. So, for the sake of this rebuttal, I'll take Republicans and business owners/CEOs as meaning "conservative" and allow Democrats and activists to mean "Liberal."
Would it be too easy to bring up slavery as a liberal/conservative argument?
The next thing is that he's co-opted everyone who ever agreed with him into his liberal point of view while ignoring other factors. For example "public" transportation was not a liberal position when it was created--it has only recently become one...sort of. Public transport is as much a tool for the "conservatives" as it is for liberals, and go back more than 50-60 years and you'll have both sides fighting for it.
Meanwhile he talks about taking his daily medication which is safe...wait, wait, where did his medication come from? Who researched it? Who funded the research for it? For that matter, where did he get the coffee that he didn't pay $20.00 for? Just a couple of examples
Employers paying for health insurance is not a liberal position at all. It is as a result of WWII when there was a major fear of inflation, and corporations just couldn't (legally) increase wages. Just to make that part clear, FDR's administration forbad wage increases. To compensate, companies offered benefits to attract employees. Somewhere in the 50's, in a Republican (Eisenhower) administration, it became encoded into law that corporate sponsored health care would be an untaxed benefit. Therefore companies could pay $x for insurance, while delivering $1.2x (or whatever the multiplier was) in value to the employee.
Other things:
Yes meat is regulated...he doesn't point out the cost of regulation. For example, look at Michael Polen's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma and you'll see how that regulation has made meat safer (arguably) while at the same time, making it impossible for small farmers to compete.
With regard to Fannie Mae...obviously this was written pre 2008. Still want to take credit for that liberals? Furthermore, we see that his dad is retired and still living on a farm collecting Social Security and a union pension. So...which was he, a farmer or a union laborer? (Please note, I am not aware of farm owners being part of a union. If there is such a union, I welcome the education!) Furthermore, if he is retired, who is working the farm? It's all well and good that he should be able to keep the farm, but if it's not being worked, then why does he still need it? Shouldn't he sell it to someone who can actually oh, I don't know...farm it? Does he think those crops are going to plant themselves?
And while we're talking about Social Security he could do as well or better if he just kept his money in the bank. Playing with Social Security calculators, I found that the best he could do was about 3.44%, and then, only if he had an average annual lifetime income of about $25,000. This is, of course, assuming he lives the expected lifespan of a US male. Of course, if he lives longer, his investment becomes better. But if he dies...all the money he paid into the system goes to the government.
And speaking of death...what happens to his house after his long and good life? If liberals were to have their way, depending on its value, it would be taxed! Because clearly he didn't pay enough taxes on it when he was alive. Now he has to "give something back." Didn't he give enough when he was alive? (If I refuse to pay the death tax, does that mean I can't die?)
When he turns on the radio that night, and hears Limbaughs complaining about how bad liberals are and how good conservatives are, I also hope he'll turn them off. They're clearly blow-hards who enjoy throwing bombs and not coming up with alternatives. Just like I hope he'll turn off our good Thom Hartman, who wrote the original piece.
So, I thought I'd take a moment and talk about what is wrong with this post.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/thom-hartmann-day-life-joe-middle-class-re
I am fully prepared to acknowledge that there are some awfully nice things that came from liberal minds, and would ask for the same consideration for conservatives.
First point is that liberals are taking credit for an awful lot of stuff. The second point is that anything he disagrees with is automatically conservative. He might as well say that everything that he likes is good and vice-versa. Let's hear it for straw men! Thirdly, he doesn't make clear what is conservative and what is liberal. So, for the sake of this rebuttal, I'll take Republicans and business owners/CEOs as meaning "conservative" and allow Democrats and activists to mean "Liberal."
Would it be too easy to bring up slavery as a liberal/conservative argument?
The next thing is that he's co-opted everyone who ever agreed with him into his liberal point of view while ignoring other factors. For example "public" transportation was not a liberal position when it was created--it has only recently become one...sort of. Public transport is as much a tool for the "conservatives" as it is for liberals, and go back more than 50-60 years and you'll have both sides fighting for it.
Meanwhile he talks about taking his daily medication which is safe...wait, wait, where did his medication come from? Who researched it? Who funded the research for it? For that matter, where did he get the coffee that he didn't pay $20.00 for? Just a couple of examples
Employers paying for health insurance is not a liberal position at all. It is as a result of WWII when there was a major fear of inflation, and corporations just couldn't (legally) increase wages. Just to make that part clear, FDR's administration forbad wage increases. To compensate, companies offered benefits to attract employees. Somewhere in the 50's, in a Republican (Eisenhower) administration, it became encoded into law that corporate sponsored health care would be an untaxed benefit. Therefore companies could pay $x for insurance, while delivering $1.2x (or whatever the multiplier was) in value to the employee.
Other things:
Yes meat is regulated...he doesn't point out the cost of regulation. For example, look at Michael Polen's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma and you'll see how that regulation has made meat safer (arguably) while at the same time, making it impossible for small farmers to compete.
With regard to Fannie Mae...obviously this was written pre 2008. Still want to take credit for that liberals? Furthermore, we see that his dad is retired and still living on a farm collecting Social Security and a union pension. So...which was he, a farmer or a union laborer? (Please note, I am not aware of farm owners being part of a union. If there is such a union, I welcome the education!) Furthermore, if he is retired, who is working the farm? It's all well and good that he should be able to keep the farm, but if it's not being worked, then why does he still need it? Shouldn't he sell it to someone who can actually oh, I don't know...farm it? Does he think those crops are going to plant themselves?
And while we're talking about Social Security he could do as well or better if he just kept his money in the bank. Playing with Social Security calculators, I found that the best he could do was about 3.44%, and then, only if he had an average annual lifetime income of about $25,000. This is, of course, assuming he lives the expected lifespan of a US male. Of course, if he lives longer, his investment becomes better. But if he dies...all the money he paid into the system goes to the government.
And speaking of death...what happens to his house after his long and good life? If liberals were to have their way, depending on its value, it would be taxed! Because clearly he didn't pay enough taxes on it when he was alive. Now he has to "give something back." Didn't he give enough when he was alive? (If I refuse to pay the death tax, does that mean I can't die?)
When he turns on the radio that night, and hears Limbaughs complaining about how bad liberals are and how good conservatives are, I also hope he'll turn them off. They're clearly blow-hards who enjoy throwing bombs and not coming up with alternatives. Just like I hope he'll turn off our good Thom Hartman, who wrote the original piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hey, what do you think? Am I completely crazy? Go ahead and say so!
Add a comment today.